More Iraq Speculation

[Compressorstall]

In today's Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2368539.ece

Yet more speculation on a possible withdrawal from Iraq. Is it just me, or is the rush to do so, and thus call a snap election, unseemly? Whilst retired Generals are criticising US policy, haven't we created a big mess that has cost a lot of lives and now we're rushing to leave. The big danger is that we will be forever blamed for making a mess of Southern Iraq, whilst GB just claims it was nothing to do with him and it was all TB.

[VinRouge]

Lets pull out and leave them to it. That filthy hole isnt worth a drop of British blood. Perhaps when we pull out they will regret mortaring IED'ing and rocketing us into oblivion whilst their neighbour wants to slaughter them for religious grounds.

Lets face it, we can get most of the oil from Kuwait, so why bother staying in the country?

[coolblackcat]

That is a bit mean, Vin, but I must admit that this is getting very messy.

The US army isn't doing a very good job, and the number of british victims is getting higher and higher... (73 deaths is it?)

But we can't just leave Iraq and forget about the whole issue, and if we did so, Britain wouldn't be in a very popular position...

As I said; this is getting very messy.

[MightyGem]

Announced on Radio 4 news at 6, that we've pulled out of Basra, apart from a handful at Basra Palace. Hmmm...Assualt on Precint 13 sprinds to mind.

[Compressorstall]

We may have pulled out, but we risk leaving a vacuum that will rapidly be filled by the people we have been seeking to deny for the past few years. It's all too convenient that the retired generals are criticising US policy now when GB is remaining stoically quiet about his plans to withdraw. He may not like the US, but they have been pretty helpful to us. If we had a coherent policy and enough troops in the first place, perhaps we wouldn't be in this position now. I just don't want to see us having to fight our way back in there in a few years' time. If GB wants to win an election, perhaps he should look at something other than a quick win for some popularity.

[serf]

Think it might be the other way round MG - pulled the few remaining at the palace to the airport.

[Modern Elmo]

The US army isn't doing a very good job,

Can you state any specific details, instances, or ways in which the AUSA's performance fails to please you?

Specifics, please, not just editorializing.

[nigegilb]

ME, don't bother. Thanks to some top level slagging, from Generals, on both sides, who should know better, we are in danger of opening up a rift with our closest ally.

This is nonsensical. Our enemies around the world must be rubbing their hands.

Fact, due to political failure we no longer have enough troops, equipment, aircraft, helos, to fight on 2 fronts. Call it mission accomplished, whatever, UK Armed Forces have been driven into the sand by underfunding and reductions in manpower and are achieving little in Iraq. Time to leave.

There is no point in picking a fight with our closest ally. We do not want to be driven into the arms of our European "allies."

[Compressorstall]

Nige

It just seems that at a time when we actually need to all sit down and ask how we can fix things so we can disengage without having to go wading back in, we're all trying to justify GB's unspoken aspiration to extract. He may not like the Armed Forces, but he should be damned proud that so many young me are still ready to answer the call. The war may or may not have been right, but those in uniform have unstintingly answered the call and done the best they can with the limited resources they have been given. If we withdraw now and leave the mess behind - what have we achieved? It is all just so our Government can distance themselves from the mess they created. We have set things up, but until we can staunch the flow of the Shia malitias and the support they receive from over the border, can we really claim 'mission accomplished'?

[nigegilb]

CS, I couldn't agree more. Pulling out of Basra Palace is understandable. But notice, the pull out was achieved at night, under curfew after doing a deal with Sadr and agreeing to hand back some of his murderers.

If we pull out of Basra Air, with the surge in full flow, I doubt the Americans will ever get involved in anything other than an International situation that directly affects them. We will be leaving them in the mire if we pull out by Christmas. Rightly or wrongly we are in it together. Gordon Brown will gain in the short term but we will all lose in the long term if we open up a rift with the US.

If anyone thinks we don't need the Americans, then think back to the Balkans, then think back to the Falklands War. No direct interest to them but they answered the call.

I am ashamed by what successive Govts have done to our Armed Forces. For some reason our Top Brass think Afg is more winnable. Well, Canada has served notice, so have the Dutch. We will probably be in a similar position in Afg in a couple of years time. Hanging in there in the South without achieving very much in the way of development.

As for those who have died, if we leave the Iraqis to it, it will all have been for nothing. We should not pull-out until they are ready.

[Two's in]

Specifics, please, not just editorializing.

The US Army is doing exactly what it was told to do by the Pentagon planners (oxymoron) in 2003. Unfortunately since then the threat has changed, the mission has changed, and the political aims have changed. Anyone who ever considered "Shock and Awe" to be a catchy little slogan for the most intense counter-insurgency operation ever mounted, obviously spent a little too much time near to the Potomac and not enough time getting his forces "killed" at the NTC. The recent "surge" has actually been relatively successful in military terms, it's just a crying shame for over 3,000 of our colleagues that any military advantage was rendered impossible way back in 2003 when the so-called planners of this debacle forgot to include the post invasion actions as part of the mission. No, the Army is doing largely what the Army always does, it's just in the wrong place at the wrong time again because we choose not to understand history.

Withdrawal from Basra by the British is a step in the right direction of letting this unholy mess begin to resolve itself. At least now they will concentrate more on killing each other, instead of the poor sorry bastards who are there simply because George and Tony want to play Willy Waving games.

[coolblackcat]

No, I'm not against the USofA at all; they may be overweight, they may talk in very annoying accents (learnt from work experience), and they may be constantly criticized by the world basically because of the amount of power (both military and propaganda power) they have, but they have certainly helped us out in many occasions, and we will certainly help them out in many future occasions. When the WWIII goes "pop", we will certainly be on the US's side.

The US have gotten into a sticky position, and the UK have followed them right into the pie (...or peanut butter, or whatever). But we also have to think about Iraq...

In my opinion, we should retreat only when the Iraq forces think they can handle it by themselves.

[harrogate]

The tribal couldron in Iraq could only ever be effectively controlled by a brutal, ruthless leader like Saddam. The various factions in Iraq have no intention whatsoever of co-existing within their country's own boundaries or beyond.

We've removed the gatekeeper and lifted the lid off.

Head for the hills...

[TOPBUNKER]

Let us remember that when they Spams decided to run away bravely from Kurdistan/Northern Iraq last time around (post Op Safe-Haven) they very nearly left our guys deeply in the brown stuff! RM Commandos from 42 if my befuddled by time memory serves....

Have they ever joined us and created a democratic government in their wake - yes I know it's all been said before but one cannot forget the inglorious withdrawals from Saigon and Mogadishu for instance.

P.S. Grenada anyone - ANYONE?

P.P.S Oh and Op "Just Cause" comes to mind too.

[brickhistory]

withdrawals from Saigon and Mogadishu for instance.

P.S. Grenada anyone - ANYONE?

P.P.S Oh and Op "Just Cause" comes to mind too.

?Que?

Saigon, you're right. We lost.

Mogadishu? We did get our ass handed to us, but I don't recall setting up a democratic government as the mission. Thought we tried to protect the folks trying to hand out food.

Grenada? Lost me there. Are you saying we lost? Umm, we got our civilians and I believe restored the elected governor, but I'll wait to be corrected on the outcome. But a loss?

"Just Cause?" Or as we termed it, "Just Because," how'd we loss that one? Noriega is sitting in prison, Panama has their own elected government. How do you score this one as a loss?

[TOPBUNKER]

Also here's a little Wikipedia quote ...
The U.S. government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) actually acknowledged that Grenada had offered it "an opportunity to evacuate American citizens," and that "U.S. students in Grenada were, for the most part, unwilling to leave or be evacuated."

From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada)

[brickhistory]

One made the leap from "inglorious withdrawal from Saigon and Mogadishu" to your following lines. Seemed a logical jump to make from your post.

As for "Imperial," endangered American citizens in Grenada and murdered ones in Panama was enough of a reason.

[TOPBUNKER]

Oops time delay across pond - see above

[TOPBUNKER]

Oh, and my actual point was ...
"Let us remember that when they Spams decided to run away bravely from Kurdistan/Northern Iraq last time around (post Op Safe-Haven) they very nearly left our guys deeply in the brown stuff! RM Commandos from 42 if my befuddled by time memory serves...."

Of which you made no comment!

[brickhistory]

Yep, that Monroe Doctrine's a bear to swallow, ain't it?! :}



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re northern Iraq/Kurdistan; I can't comment as I am unfamiliar with the near split to which you refer. I am familiar with Provide Comfort, not the ending to which you refer. Please enlighten.


And I do note you wrote "almost." So it didn't happen then, did it?

[TOPBUNKER]

Safe Haven and Provide Comfort (Gag!) rolled together really.
My point is that the Brits entered into an op with an American military support umbrella but then had the rug tugged from under the feet when a rapid withdrawal (on the ground) occurred nearly leaving us left behind as that promised umbrella was, without sufficient notice, taken away. It's a matter of trust ...and long memories!

Edited to say that I feel that this time - regardless of other reasons - it may be wise for the Brits to get out first, because with inadequate AT assets available, history may just repeat itself. And this time it WOULD be a blood bath.

[West Coast]

Oh how different life would be if things nearly happened but didn't

A heck of a salient argument so far. Something that nearly happened or nearly didn't happen.

[Desert Diner]

The US army isn't doing a very good job,

Can you state any specific details, instances, or ways in which the AUSA's performance fails to please you?

Specifics, please, not just editorializing.




they may be overweight, they may talk in very annoying accents


So you are saying that all Americans are lazy good for nothing slack jawed yocals with big guns? I guess you won't be looking for an exchange Officers tour in the States then if you ever get in.

Chill out guys and check out little matt's profile. He is nothing more than a teenage BS artist, who's parents may take away his computer priveleges if the find out he is trying to stir the s:mad: with members of the military.

Let it go matt, you have absoulutely no idea what is happening in the middle east.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Westie,

Ever considered a career in government as you have a pretty impressive line in "spin"

What TB is trying to say is a situation was narrowly avoided by sheer good fortune and not from a position of trust, but I am sure you will have some slick politico riposte for that :rolleyes:

[VinRouge]

:ugh:With the Americans about to enter a deep recession, I wouldnt mind betting the importance in the "special relationship" is about to dissapear. Especially as its likely they will drag us down with it.

As for Bush, a political dead duck. Just watch and see what happens in the run-up to the election. Republicans will drop him like a stone (possible impeachment?) IMO, the man is a war criminal.

As for the Petraeus report, to be taken with a pinch of salt, as I bet the politicos and corporate comms people at the WH will have had their filthy paws over writing it. Petraeus is hardly going to admit defeat is he?

[brickhistory]

With the Americans about to enter a deep recession, I wouldnt mind betting the importance in the "special relationship" is about to dissapear. Especially as its likely they will drag us down with it.

Hmmm, 4.5% unemployment, the best ever; 4% growth last quarter and sustained growth for how many consecutive years now? Damn, you are Nostra-freakin'-damus.............

And if a melt down from us is the sole reason your economy rolls belly up, then I'd say that is definitely a 'special relationship.'

As for Bush, a political dead duck. Just watch and see what happens in the run-up to the election. Republicans will drop him like a stone (possible impeachment?) IMO, the man is a war criminal.

I agree that President Bush is largely a 'lame duck,' not a 'dead one.' Do keep up, sir. Most Republicans will distance themselves from him as well. War criminal? 1) I guess I'm glad you're not a citizen and 2) since a majority of Republicans and Democrats authorized him to proceed militarily, the odds of a basis for impeachment are nearly zero. Those saying, "I made a mistake," well, sorry, dear, it doesn't work that way.....

As for the Petraeus report, to be taken with a pinch of salt, as I bet the politicos and corporate comms people at the WH will have had their filthy paws over writing it. Petraeus is hardly going to admit defeat is he?

So much for an open mind. If he paints a bleak picture, then you can crow, "See I was right all along." If he says there's hope, you have already put it down to nefarious shenanigans. Very conveniant.

Mods, perhaps this has gone to Jet Blast level by now?

[Compressorstall]

Ooops! All this has escalated a bit when all I wanted to say was that despite GB's public condemnation of spin, there seems to be an awful lot of people coming forward saying how wrong the US approach to post-Saddam Iraq was in a veiled way of justifying our disengagement. Meanwhile, the US has committed to an almighty surge to try and create the conditions that the Iraqis might have a fighting chance at running their own country - they might not have been right in the first place, but they could well be doing right now. I simply feel we are trying to pull out so our Government doesn't have the Iraq issue any more at a time when GB blatantly wants to ensure he can be re-elected. Wouldn't he look a more sturdy PM if he states we need to ensure that all the loss of life and superhuman effort will be in vain unless he hands over Basra in a stable state to the satisfaction of the Iraqi Govt and the US and Coalition partners - then we don't look like we're just legging it claiming we wanted to play in Afghanistan all along. Also it might show that GB values the effort our guys have put in - leadership isn't a popularity contest.

[Sunray Minor]

I think we'd be struggling to hand over Basra in a stable state in 10 years time, let alone now.

The unfortunate reality is the militias, most like Moqtada al Sadr's people primarily, are the holders of power (possibly rightly so) and no doubt the majority of the Shia population would rather live under them than the UK, US or any of our cronies. We are flogging a dead horse in trying to install "our kind" of government and unless we are willing to work with the likes of Sadr, we might as well not be there.

Happy to get out. All we ever were was a convenient condom for GWB to enter the country with in the first place, an illusion of a coalition, and another party to be dragged into the molasses. Why wait another 10 years and a ten-fold increase in casualties to find ourselves in the same position we are now? Would that make the present war dead any more justified?

As for Bush's comparisons with Vietnam and Cambodia regarding an early withdrawal, don't get me started. If that is the level of historical understanding and perspective in the US then I am truly horrified and not at all surprised this debacle occurred in the first place :yuk:

[nigegilb]

Disagree with Sunray Minor. He states the majority of the Shia in the South would rather live under Sadr and his mob. Anyone asked the women?

So, a professional section of the population going about their business freely under Saddam's rule now have to wear the veil for their own safety? And we are happy to handover control to people who want to send the Iraqis back to the 12th Century? So much for selling the idea of democracy to the Iraqis.

Today's Guardian;

In 2004, the first signs of what would become inevitable became apparent.
On the hospital and university campuses these same armed groups were moving in, attempting to take over hospital wards and departments, and, when they succeeded, imposing their own religious and political views. In doing so they imposed a curiously Iraqi version of Iran's revolution back in the 1970s - religiously conservative but also violently anarchic.
What began with threatening posters, warning women what classes and clothes were appropriate for their status, has taken over the campuses. These days no one needs to tell the female students what behaviour is expected.
Professional women, professors and doctors would describe how their lives had become ever more grim. Those who had never worn a headscarf in their careers were now going veiled in the street, women students were being bullied and intimidated. All this in a city that was considered a relatively cosmopolitan outpost in Saddam's Iraq.
Other outspoken members of civil society learned to shut up or flee or risk the bullet - local journalists and judges, the heads of local NGOs. Where there was resistance to the creeping influence of the militia, hospital directors, administrators and staff were killed.
Although the British viewed what was happening as a messy little sideshow, something that would disappear as their attempts to impose democracy continued, it was the real and enduring story of Basra that only became more entrenched as the years went on.
With Shia resistance to the occupation gaining pace across Iraq, the political parties and their armed enforcers, starting in the holy cities of Kerbala and Najaf, engaged in a Shia political turf war which gradually transformed the city's politics. As the parties fought, and fractured, the fight for Basra and the south came to resemble a gangland war.
And in that war - as British generals acknowledged last year - British soldiers were caught in a crossfire where killing British troops was the quickest way for a faction to establish its militant credentials as anti-occupation and therefore deserving of political respect and authority. Soldiers based within Basra Palace, or employees of NGOs based nearby, would describe the constant barrage of mortars and rockets into the British positions.
What was at stake was not simply power, but cash. And not only cash derived from control of businesses by the militias, including petrol stations, car imports, cigarette smuggling, mobile phone shops and protection rackets. Also at stake was access to the suitcases of money being brought in across the Shatt al-Arab waterway from Iran to support the groups which had found sanctuary there in Saddam's time.
In the end it does not really matter what the British army and government say. Whether they say it was a victory or a defeat. What matters is how the militias perceive it. After today they will say that they chased the British out of Basra.

[Compressorstall]

And all those times I heard people stating they were creating a stable, secure environment...

At least GWB made an appearance to be seen supporting his troops...

[Sunray Minor]

nigegilb,

That's not exactly my point. The likes of Sadr have filled a power vacuum and are most certainly not happy to be sidelined by the occupation force. The occupying armies likewise are not wanted.

You have a choice then. Either work with and co-opt to a certain degree the likes of Sadr, or battle against them. The later in my mind if hopeless as we are not only foreign, but have less less legitimacy through our cultural otherness (how many of us are Shia?), not to mention our history of two invasions. Inclusion of enemies has shown time and time again that, through the ballot box, hard arses moderate their stance over time.

Iraq is a classic case. In absence of a state or the environment for civil society, the most basic forms of social cohesion outside of the family will be all that is left. This will could be clan or tribe structures, or in the case of Iraq sectarian or ethnic affiliations. It is no surprise that Islamicism became the basic building block of civil society after the war as this was all there could be. A heavy handed decision to stamp that out and install our own form of society will not be well received.

The more we dig in our heals the more likely it is that a harder edged Islamic ideology will come to the fore in Southern Iraq. The tragedy is all this could have been avoided without the invasion, or with a real plan for the post invasion. Now the situation is as it is, you can't just turf out a bloody but popular leader; Sadr being seen as the lesser of two evils in the choice between an occupying army, or just another autocrat....at least a Shia one at that.

[nigegilb]

SM we are not a million miles away. There was a real plan for the South. The all knowing British softly softly approach. Stirrup said just the other week that the plan/mission is nearly accomplished. That mission is to handover control to the Iraqis who will turn the South into a fundamentalist state not unlike Iran. We are signing this deal off. We are happy to commit thousands of women to the dark ages all so that we can slink off and pretend our duty is done.

The US wanted to kill Sadr the Brits said no. The mistake here is not to have established rule of law on day one. Without security any plan will fail no matter how well thought out.

It is a tragedy for all those killed, injured and displaced. As a direct result of our action the life of the average Iraqi has been destroyed. No sense blaming the US we happily and enthusuastically took part in the Invasion.

An Inquiry is now long overdue. We should not have invaded in the first place.

Edited to add Iraq was a secular country before the invasion and the global terror threat is based on muslim fundamentalism. Good idea to invade?

[Sunray Minor]

Agreed.

But at least it is their Islamic fundamentalist state and despite how we
see it and despite its relative bleakness to our own, I see it as the only way.

I'd happily see the UK invaded by Sweden tomorrow, our government overthrown and our social system turned upside down, but I doubt most English would agree with me and I think the same goes for Iraqis; our way may be outwardly better but I don't think they want it imposed by outsiders, prefer systems they are familiar with and no doubt would rather be led by Iraqis who speak English with an Arab accent than an American one.

Maybe it will build in to something else over time, but to force anything else would be to knock a square peg in to a round hole. Let an Islamic state establish and work from there, get on speaking terms with the winner and do what we can to influence them.

At least, judging by our movements in Basra, we know when move on so can take that as one of the small victories in what is a complete political disaster.

[nigegilb]

Yea, I don't doubt you are right about self-determination. My beef all along was that this was a strategic error. I now consider that view to be fully vindicated. We had to go now, if only to maintain some sort of shape to our armed forces. What worries me, is that if lessons aren't learned fast, the Chiefs will send thousands more troops to Helmand, with no clear mission and fewer and fewer countries prepared to shoulder the burden.

Furthermore the strategic shift in balance in the Middle east is yet to play out. Who knows where this will end up.

[Compressorstall]

Nige

You are right about a strategic error, but since then there have been so many changes of direction whilst those who knew about COIn theory could only look skywards. If all the politicians and combat tourists has resisted the urge to get there and have their picture taken in the first instance, perhaps the right work would have been done. The US isn't doing so badly - look at how they have got Ramadi under control.

[nigegilb]

CS, agree again. Everyone keeps blaming the Americans. Sure they screwed up with the invasion and the initial occupation. But I genuinely believe the American Military have not given up with Iraq. They still think they can make it work. The Sunnis appear to have turned against ALQ. The Americans have now discovered how to make it work but it involves putting thousands of troops on the ground and involves taking heavy casualties.

And what is our response? To pull out our troops..

So many Americans have been killed in the surge, the way the Brit pull-out has been portrayed in the US I believe lasting damage is being done to UK/US relations. Esp if the US have to reinforce the South. Rome wasn't built in a day, but we don't have enough troops to establish security and I seriously question the British "softly softly" approach. Brit Mil is way too small and under-resourced. It is a political failure in every sense and I see little alternative but to pull out our troops.

The article about modern, professional Iraqi women having to cower behind the veil summed the whole rotten thing up for me. They voted for democracy but got thuggery and Islamofascism instead.

[Whossat Forrus]

Not wishing to speculate or start rumours that might suggest the rehearsal for the pull out is happening but it aint half busy round Wilts at the moment. 2ships in trail, helos going everywhere and Norfolk Sharks stooging round with more ordnance hanging on than I've ever noticed. Only spent the afternoon at a mates for a barbie and counted no end of types rattling round. Even the old VC-10s kept putting in an appearance.

[TOPBUNKER]

Re the SW activity, the boys and girls are merely preparing to support the new Falklands campaign!

[PingDit]

Thread drift? I belive the thread of this was 'More Iraq speculation'.

1. We'll always be mates with the USA.
2. We went in to tackle WMD. Whether they were there or not, that bit's complete.
3. So why are we still there?

Pull out now. We've enough dead. If need be, we could bring back their volunteers to the UK & USA for training in order for them to be able to return home with a chance of survival. Time to let them organise themselves. QED.

[eagle 86]

Waste the whole flippin' area, wait a little while then go back and take the oil!
GAGS
E86