Ah, no offence. You were only voicing the word on the street. But that word, or the way you put it, suggested that the Basra area was a more cushy option for the Brits and that the US troops resent that, rather than are envious of the result.

I don't know all the facts but the one that the media keep presenting us is the less gung-ho, trigger-happy attitude of the Brits, who tend less to go barging into people's houses in the dead of night, etc. Their patrolling in berets and bush hats, rather than helmets, is also billed as less provocative to the locals.

So maybe the area is less of a hot-bed than the north but is that by chance or as a consequence?

OTOH I guess the British army has had a long tradition of counter-insurgency and patrolling occupied area, both in Ireland and in futilely trying to keep the colonies (albeit the older experience being a lot more high-handed - but maybe having learned from those experiences).

You know, it was interesting, during the actual official war, to observe the actions/reactions of the two forces. For instance, interviewed returning US pilots would be all "whooo-eeh!" and "didn't we kick butt!" and high-5s (an attitude portrayed in the recent, infamous blue-on-blue cockpit recording - until they realised the inormity of what had happend) while the RAF guys would be like "That was a trifle scary"

BTW, has anyone considered the possiblity that the current US troop build-up in Iraq just might be a convenient and sneaky way of getting them in position for crossing the border into Iran?

>I apologize, I didn't mean to imply anything negative. Only that the Brits did such a good job that the area is not currently considered as dangerous as other areas so other soldiers are envious. Once again I fail to express myself.
>
>
>
>>A bit unfair that. There have been about the same no. of fatalities, per capita (i.e. proportion), as the in the US section.
>>
>>BTW Tracy, they are British soldiers, not English; even not allowing for Scottish regiments there may well be English, Welsh, Scottish and NI troops in any British group.
>>
>>We're not yet devolved, but if the Scottish Nationalist (cf Quebecois) get their way then one day you guys may be right. Even then it's unlikely the British Army will become the English Army.
>>
>>>Actually, word of mouth in the troops is that England got the locations in the south where the Iraqi troops are better trained, organized, and capable of taking over. Less strife among clicks. It was somewhat of a 'contention' with U.S. soldiers in the really hot areas. That is not to say that it was safe - far from it. It was just as dangerous as other locations. But realistically, it is somewhat like the difference between the B section and C section of Fulton prison in California. Your odds are better in C than B (or is it the reverse?). Yet both are so dangerous that you really are not expected to survive. The Iraqi troops in that area have notified the authorities that they are ready to assume control.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>According to the BBC Tony Blair is expected to announce on Wednesday that the last British troops in Iraq will be phased out. 1500 of the remaining 7000 UK troops in Iraq will be called home soon and the rest on a schedule to be defined.
>>>>
>>>>It never really was an international coalition like the first Gulf War. IMO this seals it that the U.S. is going this alone. We're the last to figure out what a bad idea this was.
>>>>
>>>>Tony Blair can't be announcing this for political reasons because his career has already been wrecked by his steadfastness with the U.S. in Iraq. He is an even lamer duck than President Bush. In the end he is doing what he thinks is right. Good for him.