Political gain from military action
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Political gain from military action
I'm just really annoyed that Bliar is making political gain from an existing military situation that guys are working damn hard to support.....
Telegraph website:
Blair to ask Nato to train Iraqi army
(Filed: 08/02/2005)
Tony Blair has told MPs that he will press for Nato to help train Iraq's fledgling security forces when he meets the alliance's leaders at a summit later this month.
The Prime Minister said he was hopeful that the plans would gain support from alliance members, such as France and Germany, who opposed the war to topple Saddam Hussein.
Nato involvement in Iraq was first suggested by Mr Blair and President George W Bush at the G8 summit in Georgia last July.
Mr Blair told the Commons liaison committee, made up of all select committee chairman, that further discussions would be held at the Nato summit in Brussels on Feb 22, which Mr Bush will attend.
He told MPs: "I think you may find, at the Nato meeting at the end of February, we get agreement on help for training Iraqi security forces.
"I hope that will see some of the countries that haven't been involved either in the conflict or its aftermath involved in that."
Today is the sixth time Mr Blair has faced the liaison committee and the MPs began the two-and-a-half-hour session by focusing their questions on Iraq.
Defending the actions of the coalition, Mr Blair admitted that he was disappointed that more countries had not joined the United States and Britain in attacking Saddam.
But he rejected claims that Washington and London had failed diplomatically by not persuading more countries to remain in Iraq after the war or join the project to rebuild the country.
He said the countries which had declared plans to quit the coalition, such as Hungary and Ukraine, had been bound by parliamentary resolutions to remove their troops "after a certain time".
"It's not that they have changed their mind, they are withdrawing in accordance with a stipulated pre-condition," Mr Blair said.
The Prime Minister also defended last November's attack on the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, which had become a stronghold of insurgents.
Although there had never been "any illusions at all that removing them was going to be difficult and bloody", the offensive had been justified because it had been "absolutely necessary" to uphold the authority of Iraqi forces.
Mr Blair said a combination of military and political pressure had been used to "weed out and destroy" the rebels - despite violence continuing across Iraq and the focus of the insurgency shifting to the northern city of Mosul.
"There are not probably that many [insurgents], and probably without much support even locally, but they are well armed and well financed and they are prepared to kill anybody," Mr Blair said.
Mr Blair is expected to face further questions on public expenditure, the economy and Britain's chairmanship of the G8 group.
NATO Website:
NATO is helping Iraq provide for its own security by training Iraqi personnel and supporting the development of the country’s security institutions.
In response to a request by the Iraqi Interim Government, NATO has established a Training Mission in Iraq and will support the establishment of a training centre for senior security and defence officials.
What is the aim of the operation?
NATO is involved in training, equipping, and technical assistance - not combat. The aim of the Training Mission is to help Iraq build the capability of its Government to address the security needs of the Iraqi people.
What does this mean in practice?
NATO is training and mentoring middle and senior level personnel from the Iraqi security forces in Iraq and helping to identify Iraqi personnel for training outside of Iraq. The Alliance also plays a role in co-ordinating offers of equipment and training from individual NATO and partner countries.
Hmmmm - NATO Training in Iraq been running for some time now. Wonder how that slipped under the govt radar. Grrrrrr.
Telegraph website:
Blair to ask Nato to train Iraqi army
(Filed: 08/02/2005)
Tony Blair has told MPs that he will press for Nato to help train Iraq's fledgling security forces when he meets the alliance's leaders at a summit later this month.
The Prime Minister said he was hopeful that the plans would gain support from alliance members, such as France and Germany, who opposed the war to topple Saddam Hussein.
Nato involvement in Iraq was first suggested by Mr Blair and President George W Bush at the G8 summit in Georgia last July.
Mr Blair told the Commons liaison committee, made up of all select committee chairman, that further discussions would be held at the Nato summit in Brussels on Feb 22, which Mr Bush will attend.
He told MPs: "I think you may find, at the Nato meeting at the end of February, we get agreement on help for training Iraqi security forces.
"I hope that will see some of the countries that haven't been involved either in the conflict or its aftermath involved in that."
Today is the sixth time Mr Blair has faced the liaison committee and the MPs began the two-and-a-half-hour session by focusing their questions on Iraq.
Defending the actions of the coalition, Mr Blair admitted that he was disappointed that more countries had not joined the United States and Britain in attacking Saddam.
But he rejected claims that Washington and London had failed diplomatically by not persuading more countries to remain in Iraq after the war or join the project to rebuild the country.
He said the countries which had declared plans to quit the coalition, such as Hungary and Ukraine, had been bound by parliamentary resolutions to remove their troops "after a certain time".
"It's not that they have changed their mind, they are withdrawing in accordance with a stipulated pre-condition," Mr Blair said.
The Prime Minister also defended last November's attack on the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, which had become a stronghold of insurgents.
Although there had never been "any illusions at all that removing them was going to be difficult and bloody", the offensive had been justified because it had been "absolutely necessary" to uphold the authority of Iraqi forces.
Mr Blair said a combination of military and political pressure had been used to "weed out and destroy" the rebels - despite violence continuing across Iraq and the focus of the insurgency shifting to the northern city of Mosul.
"There are not probably that many [insurgents], and probably without much support even locally, but they are well armed and well financed and they are prepared to kill anybody," Mr Blair said.
Mr Blair is expected to face further questions on public expenditure, the economy and Britain's chairmanship of the G8 group.
NATO Website:
NATO is helping Iraq provide for its own security by training Iraqi personnel and supporting the development of the country’s security institutions.
In response to a request by the Iraqi Interim Government, NATO has established a Training Mission in Iraq and will support the establishment of a training centre for senior security and defence officials.
What is the aim of the operation?
NATO is involved in training, equipping, and technical assistance - not combat. The aim of the Training Mission is to help Iraq build the capability of its Government to address the security needs of the Iraqi people.
What does this mean in practice?
NATO is training and mentoring middle and senior level personnel from the Iraqi security forces in Iraq and helping to identify Iraqi personnel for training outside of Iraq. The Alliance also plays a role in co-ordinating offers of equipment and training from individual NATO and partner countries.
Hmmmm - NATO Training in Iraq been running for some time now. Wonder how that slipped under the govt radar. Grrrrrr.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At the end of the day the Armed Forces are a tool used by governments to allow political gain. Thats what we do. We do exactly what the government want us to do, regardless of what the people want us to do. So, consequently, what is the problem with the Government using the AF's for political gain?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trainign anyone? Anyone?
Mr C Hinecap - good to see you back.
There was a very recent and informal NATO foreign ministers' lunch where I understand that the issue was 'reinvigorated' by the Sec Gen. He address the Cantab Union here last week and the Iraq mission came up and he was at pains to stress that this was a UNSC endorsed mission. Oh really?
I would not be surprised to find that this is a coordinated programme designed to raise the profile of an otherwise low-publicity mission.
However, Mr C-H, you must know that the liberal peace that the British and American governments which to impose in Iraq is neither peaceful or liberal. A Pew Research Foundation survey found that 50% of Iraqi who voted last week thought that they were voting, inter alia, to expell Coalition Forces (which they didn't); 70% thought they were voting for a permanent President, which they were not.
Both countries realise the sticky situation (as does Denmark and the Netherlands) cannot guarantee a democratic west-leaning government with the mandate and legitimacy in the eyes of the Sh'ia; the more (western) institutional hooks that are sunk into the flesh of the emaciated Iraqis (eg NATO involvment), the better in order to maintain western hegemony. Clearly the time spent in training selected Iraqis in the British Military machine up until the mid 1980s iluustrated the (non) efficacious nature of such folly.
By the way, when questioned about the ongoing attrocities in Darfur, the Sec Gen explained that this wasn't a matter for Europe and NATO to get involved without the invitation of the African Union; perhaps rightly, but I understand that this is a matter that is being discussed in Brussels as we speak. Cringingly, after given honorary membership of the Union by the president (a honour bestowed on very few), the Sec Gen presented the Union President with a ... NATO tie. Even a NATO plaque would have been better.
CC..watch out on the Cam!
There was a very recent and informal NATO foreign ministers' lunch where I understand that the issue was 'reinvigorated' by the Sec Gen. He address the Cantab Union here last week and the Iraq mission came up and he was at pains to stress that this was a UNSC endorsed mission. Oh really?
I would not be surprised to find that this is a coordinated programme designed to raise the profile of an otherwise low-publicity mission.
However, Mr C-H, you must know that the liberal peace that the British and American governments which to impose in Iraq is neither peaceful or liberal. A Pew Research Foundation survey found that 50% of Iraqi who voted last week thought that they were voting, inter alia, to expell Coalition Forces (which they didn't); 70% thought they were voting for a permanent President, which they were not.
Both countries realise the sticky situation (as does Denmark and the Netherlands) cannot guarantee a democratic west-leaning government with the mandate and legitimacy in the eyes of the Sh'ia; the more (western) institutional hooks that are sunk into the flesh of the emaciated Iraqis (eg NATO involvment), the better in order to maintain western hegemony. Clearly the time spent in training selected Iraqis in the British Military machine up until the mid 1980s iluustrated the (non) efficacious nature of such folly.
By the way, when questioned about the ongoing attrocities in Darfur, the Sec Gen explained that this wasn't a matter for Europe and NATO to get involved without the invitation of the African Union; perhaps rightly, but I understand that this is a matter that is being discussed in Brussels as we speak. Cringingly, after given honorary membership of the Union by the president (a honour bestowed on very few), the Sec Gen presented the Union President with a ... NATO tie. Even a NATO plaque would have been better.
CC..watch out on the Cam!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crossbow,
You've turned up here now and (with your I'm Tony Bliar's lovechild hairshirt on) you have once again got the wrong end of the stick. Of course you are right that:
(I would use achieve rather than allow but there you go)
But that is not the point that I think Mr C H was making. The point is that Bliar is using it as a pre-election ploy to suggest that it is (or will be) his initiative after the 22 Feb meeting. Whereas the truth as quoted from the NATO website is that it is already happening:
Just another ploy by the liar and his double dealing mates to steal other peoples' ideas and claim them for their own. Something that they started with New Labour and sadly the gullible British public have failed to pick up on for the last 2 elections.
Finally, a bit of personal advice since you refuse to reappear on your very own thread and answer the charges against you.
My late father had a very appropriate expression for people like you:
"He just opens his mouth and lets his belly rumble"
Start talking sense for God's sake, man!
You've turned up here now and (with your I'm Tony Bliar's lovechild hairshirt on) you have once again got the wrong end of the stick. Of course you are right that:
Armed Forces are a tool used by governments to allow political gain
But that is not the point that I think Mr C H was making. The point is that Bliar is using it as a pre-election ploy to suggest that it is (or will be) his initiative after the 22 Feb meeting. Whereas the truth as quoted from the NATO website is that it is already happening:
NATO is helping Iraq provide for its own security by training Iraqi personnel and supporting the development of the country’s security institutions.
Finally, a bit of personal advice since you refuse to reappear on your very own thread and answer the charges against you.
My late father had a very appropriate expression for people like you:
"He just opens his mouth and lets his belly rumble"
Start talking sense for God's sake, man!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossbow certainly seems to have his foot permanently in his mouth. He obviously joined a different Royal Air Force to the one I joined, as I gave my allegiance to the Head of State, HM the Queen, not to any politican!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thats probably on the same level of military training we gave to the SLA in Sierra Leone. Basic military craft. Cleaning your kit. Getting up in the morning, that sort of thing.
S'funny that the US should be shiffting target right. I remember in my early RN days when we trained the Iranian Navy. Strange how things turn out
S'funny that the US should be shiffting target right. I remember in my early RN days when we trained the Iranian Navy. Strange how things turn out
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarchial Rhetoric
Web Pilot: Yeah, sure - your allegiance rests with an outdated, indeed feudal, system of heredity privalege rather than the democratically elected head of a capitalist country. Last time I checked UK defence diplomacy doctrine, one of the aims was to spread democratic control of armed forces to transitional states.
One only needs to cite the arch Imperialist von Clauswitz to see that the use of military force is an extension of Foreign Policy; the whole charade of the war in Iraq is nothing but an ill-conceived capitalist adventure - and no, I am not criticising the stupendous and frequently heroic efforts of Coalition personnel. The invasion was just WRONG in all respects. There was no erga omnes requiring the intervention - nor could it be condoned under Art 51 inherent right of self-defence (preventative intervention? - I think not!)
CC
One only needs to cite the arch Imperialist von Clauswitz to see that the use of military force is an extension of Foreign Policy; the whole charade of the war in Iraq is nothing but an ill-conceived capitalist adventure - and no, I am not criticising the stupendous and frequently heroic efforts of Coalition personnel. The invasion was just WRONG in all respects. There was no erga omnes requiring the intervention - nor could it be condoned under Art 51 inherent right of self-defence (preventative intervention? - I think not!)
CC
Last edited by Cambridge Crash; 8th Feb 2005 at 16:18.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CC - what a complete load of tripe.
We are here to defend democracy, not practice it.
So what!. Who cares. We are here to carry out the demands and wishes of our head of state. We do as we are told, whether we think it is right or not. That is why we were in Iraq, promoting democracy.
We are here to defend democracy, not practice it.
the whole charade of the war in Iraq is nothing but an ill-conceived capitalist adventure
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xbow - thanks for your incisive addition. Crash - thanks for demonstrating the value of a (belated) university education 
I don't expect too much other than spin from the current 'leaders' of our country. I do object to friends and colleagues (who are currently very much in harm's way and have been for quite some time) being 'stooged' for something. They have been establishing and developing exactly what Bliar is talking about in the worst of areas in Iraq.
Whether I raise the profile of this valuable work to a few or to many, I believe our brothers in arms are worth more than being rabbits in a political hat. I feel better that at least the readers of pprune (some of whom I even respect - hurumph) might be more aware than they were.
Steps off soap box and retires for a large malt.
I don't expect too much other than spin from the current 'leaders' of our country. I do object to friends and colleagues (who are currently very much in harm's way and have been for quite some time) being 'stooged' for something. They have been establishing and developing exactly what Bliar is talking about in the worst of areas in Iraq.
Whether I raise the profile of this valuable work to a few or to many, I believe our brothers in arms are worth more than being rabbits in a political hat. I feel better that at least the readers of pprune (some of whom I even respect - hurumph) might be more aware than they were.
Steps off soap box and retires for a large malt.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC - You'll note I was careful not to make any comments about policy or doctrine, simply to /whom/ allegience had been sworn.
Crossbow - getting a bit mixed up here - before you were talking about the AF doing what the government wants, now it's what the Head of State wants. Bliar isn't head of state yet, you know, however much he wants to be.
I didn't think the schools had broken up yet.....
Crossbow - getting a bit mixed up here - before you were talking about the AF doing what the government wants, now it's what the Head of State wants. Bliar isn't head of state yet, you know, however much he wants to be.
I didn't think the schools had broken up yet.....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what point does one question?
I accept the need for obedience and loyalty in the defence forces, however at what point would you - and I am thinking of CROSSBOW - question the legality of an order? What if what you have been directed to do is against peremptory norms of nation-state behaviour? This is particularly apposite in respect of participation in capitalist conflicts of choice.
C Hinecap - take the chance to enjoy academia - Jump in - the water's cleaner than Pozzuoli! It has been 20 years has lapsed since I was a post-graduate, and the mental freedom I am now expereince on my return to the ivory towers is just grrreeaaatttt!You can also recognise self-deprecation when you see it!
Mine's a limoncella..
CC
C Hinecap - take the chance to enjoy academia - Jump in - the water's cleaner than Pozzuoli! It has been 20 years has lapsed since I was a post-graduate, and the mental freedom I am now expereince on my return to the ivory towers is just grrreeaaatttt!You can also recognise self-deprecation when you see it!
Mine's a limoncella..
CC
Guest
Posts: n/a
At what point would I question the legality of an order? After I had carried it out.
The whole ethos of military discipline is that we carry out the order. Now, just because you might not agree with the order doesn't give you a right to disobey it.
As for youre comment regarding the Nation, well I think that we will discover on May 5th what the Nation think of this government.
The whole ethos of military discipline is that we carry out the order. Now, just because you might not agree with the order doesn't give you a right to disobey it.
As for youre comment regarding the Nation, well I think that we will discover on May 5th what the Nation think of this government.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC,
You are obviously driven by class / political hatred and bigotry, since every one of your posts seeks to denigate the 'capitalist pigs'. Try making a valid point instead of trumpeting the kind of politics that have been an abject failure everywhere they have been tried.
Your remarks are just what I would expect from a student activist - you must be a living, breathing stereotype.
You may be interested to know that I used to be a lefty - before I got to see some of the REAL world - and grew up.
16B
You are obviously driven by class / political hatred and bigotry, since every one of your posts seeks to denigate the 'capitalist pigs'. Try making a valid point instead of trumpeting the kind of politics that have been an abject failure everywhere they have been tried.
Your remarks are just what I would expect from a student activist - you must be a living, breathing stereotype.
You may be interested to know that I used to be a lefty - before I got to see some of the REAL world - and grew up.
16B
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 - you're on a hiding to nothing taunting Crash like that. Trust me, he has seen far more than you can believe - given less than half a chance he'll damn well tell you!
Crash - I can only hope that they stop letting you read stuff and think without bounds if this is what we're getting! Damn - it is trying my brain just wondering what we could do with you after all this - I'd not believe this would have made you so bad. I'll be pointing others at this thread to prove a point.
Gents - all that this urinating contest is doing is giving us wet shoes. We're in the military. We do what we're told to, within legal/moral bounds. If we do what we're told without morals or question, then we get torture and abuse. Xbow - I hope you're not in charge of anyone!
Crash - I can only hope that they stop letting you read stuff and think without bounds if this is what we're getting! Damn - it is trying my brain just wondering what we could do with you after all this - I'd not believe this would have made you so bad. I'll be pointing others at this thread to prove a point.
Gents - all that this urinating contest is doing is giving us wet shoes. We're in the military. We do what we're told to, within legal/moral bounds. If we do what we're told without morals or question, then we get torture and abuse. Xbow - I hope you're not in charge of anyone!
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....then maybe CC can explain what his problem with Capitalism is, and explain how he would do it differently, and make it work, bearing in mind the unavoidable fact of human nature.....
16B
16B
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossbow, your last post demonstrates such a breathtaking ignorance of military discipline and national politics, it gives the lie to all of your past claims.
1. "At what point would I question the legality of an order? After I had carried it out."
If an order is illegal, then you are duty bound to decline to obey it. This is enshrined in QR and if you do not understand that, then you have clearly never been either a commissioned officer or an OR in the RAF or any other military service.
2. I very much doubt if we will "find out what the nation thinks of this government". Current Mori Polls indicate a likely turnout of roughly 36% of the electorate. Even though Labour will most likely poll a majority vote, it will certainly not reflect a popular mandate for them or their policies.
1. "At what point would I question the legality of an order? After I had carried it out."
If an order is illegal, then you are duty bound to decline to obey it. This is enshrined in QR and if you do not understand that, then you have clearly never been either a commissioned officer or an OR in the RAF or any other military service.
2. I very much doubt if we will "find out what the nation thinks of this government". Current Mori Polls indicate a likely turnout of roughly 36% of the electorate. Even though Labour will most likely poll a majority vote, it will certainly not reflect a popular mandate for them or their policies.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though Labour will most likely poll a majority vote, it will certainly not reflect a popular mandate for them or their policies.
My money is on a majority of 20, enough to unseat Bliar and to put a firm expiry date on the New Liabour "brand".
So, Liabour will take a pounding as the result of a low Liabour turnout, a steady Tory vote and an impressive Lib Dem performance. I predict a Liabour majority of perhaps 20-40 seats, enough of a failure to dispatch Bliar.
Not convinced? Try this site:
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a 4% unwind of tactical swing by Liberal Democrat supporters who voted Labour in 2001, Labour will lose 23 extra seats and have a majority of 70.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you enter in the tactical voting change of minus/plus 4% for Labour/Lib Dems using the latest YouGov poll of 34%/31%/25% then the Liabour majority is a mere 16 seats. I doubt this worst case scenario will happen, but the low Liabour turnout will compound whatever effect the lack of pro-Liabour tactical voting will have!
Not convinced? Try this site:
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a 4% unwind of tactical swing by Liberal Democrat supporters who voted Labour in 2001, Labour will lose 23 extra seats and have a majority of 70.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you enter in the tactical voting change of minus/plus 4% for Labour/Lib Dems using the latest YouGov poll of 34%/31%/25% then the Liabour majority is a mere 16 seats. I doubt this worst case scenario will happen, but the low Liabour turnout will compound whatever effect the lack of pro-Liabour tactical voting will have!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused of Whitehall
Now either TB has got it wrong (impossible I hear you all shout) or the Telegraph has got it all wrong (surely not) or perhaps they're both wrong (plausible I'd suggest).
TB was at the NATO Summit in Istanbul in June 2004 when NATO's heads of state and governments collectively decided to launch a mission to train and equip the Iraqi armed forces. The coalition were (and still are) doing much of this and NATO has taken on a role training mainly staff officers in a facility near Baghdad but also training all sorts of other folk in facilities from Stavanger, through Rome to Jordan and Qatar. So he is wrong to suggest that he hopes the NATO leaders will decide to do this in their next meeting at the end of Feb.
The Telegraph is wrong to say this first came up at the G8 summit last year. It had already been agreed at the NATO summit a month earlier.
When I read inaccurate reports in the media about things I know the truth about I'm left wondering how accurate are the reports on subjects I am in the dark about.
Journalists - check your facts - report facts don't trade in opinion, comment and speculation unless you clearly mark it as such.
Now either TB has got it wrong (impossible I hear you all shout) or the Telegraph has got it all wrong (surely not) or perhaps they're both wrong (plausible I'd suggest).
TB was at the NATO Summit in Istanbul in June 2004 when NATO's heads of state and governments collectively decided to launch a mission to train and equip the Iraqi armed forces. The coalition were (and still are) doing much of this and NATO has taken on a role training mainly staff officers in a facility near Baghdad but also training all sorts of other folk in facilities from Stavanger, through Rome to Jordan and Qatar. So he is wrong to suggest that he hopes the NATO leaders will decide to do this in their next meeting at the end of Feb.
The Telegraph is wrong to say this first came up at the G8 summit last year. It had already been agreed at the NATO summit a month earlier.
When I read inaccurate reports in the media about things I know the truth about I'm left wondering how accurate are the reports on subjects I am in the dark about.
Journalists - check your facts - report facts don't trade in opinion, comment and speculation unless you clearly mark it as such.