Iraqi people "want war!"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iraqi people "want war!"
Apparently they do.
Remember the group who went to Iraq to act as human shields? Wonder why they came home? Well the Mail on Sunday has an article by one of them, Ken Joseph.
His article declares that when he arrived in Baghdad the people he had come to "save" did not want him and told him to go home.
Westerners were misguided and naive. One man with tears in his eyes: 'No matter how bad it is, we will not all die. We have hoped for some other way of change but nothing has worked. We cannot wait any more. We want the war and we want it now."
"Ordinary Iraquis told me they would rather commit suicide than survive under Saddam. They were willing to to see their homes demolished, livlihoods destroyed and even loved ones killed for freedom.
At a 'celebration' to welcome the human shields an old man told him "there is something you should know. We didn't want to be here tonight. We don't want peace. We want the war to come."
He says that wherever he went the story was the same. "Life here is hell. We have no hope but that everything will be OK once the war is over."
He finally states. On my final day in Baghdad, just two weeks ago, an elderly woman shook her head when asked if she were frightened about Allied bombs. "We are not afraid of them. They will not purposefully target the people. The war is the only way we can escape our hell. Please tell them to hurry."
He says he left Iraq deeply disillusioned. "Neither Saddam's government nor the anti-war movement speaks for ordionary Iraquis. But when they feel secure enough to speak out they will welcome this war."
Don't know about you but that has given me much food for thought. Especially on a day when the wimp, Robin Cook, tells TB to bring home the UK troops. How they can bring politics into this at a time like this is beyond my understanding. The guys and gals do not need it.
Tam Dalyell goes one step further and says that TB shows "signs of madness." How's that for stupidity.
Still, I doubt that we could pull them out now. They probably wouldn't come out anyway!!!!!
I hope I have done justice to the article. It has given me a new perspective.
Remember the group who went to Iraq to act as human shields? Wonder why they came home? Well the Mail on Sunday has an article by one of them, Ken Joseph.
His article declares that when he arrived in Baghdad the people he had come to "save" did not want him and told him to go home.
Westerners were misguided and naive. One man with tears in his eyes: 'No matter how bad it is, we will not all die. We have hoped for some other way of change but nothing has worked. We cannot wait any more. We want the war and we want it now."
"Ordinary Iraquis told me they would rather commit suicide than survive under Saddam. They were willing to to see their homes demolished, livlihoods destroyed and even loved ones killed for freedom.
At a 'celebration' to welcome the human shields an old man told him "there is something you should know. We didn't want to be here tonight. We don't want peace. We want the war to come."
He says that wherever he went the story was the same. "Life here is hell. We have no hope but that everything will be OK once the war is over."
He finally states. On my final day in Baghdad, just two weeks ago, an elderly woman shook her head when asked if she were frightened about Allied bombs. "We are not afraid of them. They will not purposefully target the people. The war is the only way we can escape our hell. Please tell them to hurry."
He says he left Iraq deeply disillusioned. "Neither Saddam's government nor the anti-war movement speaks for ordionary Iraquis. But when they feel secure enough to speak out they will welcome this war."
Don't know about you but that has given me much food for thought. Especially on a day when the wimp, Robin Cook, tells TB to bring home the UK troops. How they can bring politics into this at a time like this is beyond my understanding. The guys and gals do not need it.
Tam Dalyell goes one step further and says that TB shows "signs of madness." How's that for stupidity.
Still, I doubt that we could pull them out now. They probably wouldn't come out anyway!!!!!
I hope I have done justice to the article. It has given me a new perspective.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: A Travelling Man
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are being a bit harsh there Solotk - amongst the exiled Iraqis who can actually say what they think, it is a very common theme, even had their own street demo down here, didn't get a whole lot of publicity as totally ignorant school kids who don't even know where Iraq is got the front page, followed by 'rent-a-crowd' and the Socialist Worker bunch.
Iraqis in Iraq still don't know who they can trust, they have been intimidated for a very long time and one false word could mean a noose when the cameras go, (happened to a women in Basra this week end, she waved a white flag).
The embedded fadayeen are nearly as lethal as the embedded press!
Iraqis in Iraq still don't know who they can trust, they have been intimidated for a very long time and one false word could mean a noose when the cameras go, (happened to a women in Basra this week end, she waved a white flag).
The embedded fadayeen are nearly as lethal as the embedded press!
Guest
Posts: n/a
You're right Barry.
My Regiment is currently operating around Basra, and without breaching OPSEC, we're running our own game plan, on the assumption, that ALL the locals are hostile, until proved otherwise.
We're not fighting just Feyadaheen and Ba'athist fanatics here. We're fighting regular Iraqi forces, reservists and militia. A fact which the Pentagon briefings seem unwilling to concede.
I made these comments and predictions, prior to the start of hostilities, mostly on JetBlast, where they were repeatedly pooh-poohed and contradicted.
Feyadaheen, ba'ath paramilitaries and camp followers, do not have co-ordinated fire plans. I made the point, that Saddam would tell his army to go home , rather than get bombed out of existence in static formations. The US command, is saying that we are killing his command and control structures. It's incredible. He's using his forces in a manner, that the US should recognise. They're being used like minutemen. He has told them to go home, and wait for orders to fight. Think about it, if your command and control is cut to ribbons, how do you communicate with your troops? By mobile phone and despatch riders, as the previously discounted and unpalatable to Rumsfeld war game result predicted.
The benefits of this strategy are multiple
1. Your troops have gone home, to fight in an area they know intimately, removing the stigma of dying for some empty piece of desert somewhere.
2. Your troops are now fighting for their homes and familes and neighbours, ask yourself, in that scenario, how would you fight?
I think Danny might agree, that the Arabs invariably put up a reasonable show, when they're fighting in front of their family and friends
3. Each town is now a fortified garrison, with the defenders very very motivated, to defend against the percieved threat of American "invasion and culture impostion" especially in the religous centres, witness the ferocity of the fighting around Najaf
Personally I think Saddam is dead,as evidenced by the relaxed attitude of ministers and Military staff in briefings, certainly in the last 7 days. The Iraqis now running this war , the possibly(?)Western trained Generals, are coming to the fore, and are fighting uncommon well. They're making effective use of ground, effective use of low-level communications, and , as evidenced, by the images of three out of action Abrams in Nasiyria last night, effective use of armour killing weapons.
Without wishing to blow the "Rah-Rah Britfor" trumpets, the US command should take a closer look at how we are prosecuting the war thus far. We are taking lessons learned in the streets of Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Kosovo, and adapting them to this scenario, with some notable successes, that even Fox and Cnn can't ignore
My Regiment is currently operating around Basra, and without breaching OPSEC, we're running our own game plan, on the assumption, that ALL the locals are hostile, until proved otherwise.
We're not fighting just Feyadaheen and Ba'athist fanatics here. We're fighting regular Iraqi forces, reservists and militia. A fact which the Pentagon briefings seem unwilling to concede.
I made these comments and predictions, prior to the start of hostilities, mostly on JetBlast, where they were repeatedly pooh-poohed and contradicted.
Feyadaheen, ba'ath paramilitaries and camp followers, do not have co-ordinated fire plans. I made the point, that Saddam would tell his army to go home , rather than get bombed out of existence in static formations. The US command, is saying that we are killing his command and control structures. It's incredible. He's using his forces in a manner, that the US should recognise. They're being used like minutemen. He has told them to go home, and wait for orders to fight. Think about it, if your command and control is cut to ribbons, how do you communicate with your troops? By mobile phone and despatch riders, as the previously discounted and unpalatable to Rumsfeld war game result predicted.
The benefits of this strategy are multiple
1. Your troops have gone home, to fight in an area they know intimately, removing the stigma of dying for some empty piece of desert somewhere.
2. Your troops are now fighting for their homes and familes and neighbours, ask yourself, in that scenario, how would you fight?
I think Danny might agree, that the Arabs invariably put up a reasonable show, when they're fighting in front of their family and friends
3. Each town is now a fortified garrison, with the defenders very very motivated, to defend against the percieved threat of American "invasion and culture impostion" especially in the religous centres, witness the ferocity of the fighting around Najaf
Personally I think Saddam is dead,as evidenced by the relaxed attitude of ministers and Military staff in briefings, certainly in the last 7 days. The Iraqis now running this war , the possibly(?)Western trained Generals, are coming to the fore, and are fighting uncommon well. They're making effective use of ground, effective use of low-level communications, and , as evidenced, by the images of three out of action Abrams in Nasiyria last night, effective use of armour killing weapons.
Without wishing to blow the "Rah-Rah Britfor" trumpets, the US command should take a closer look at how we are prosecuting the war thus far. We are taking lessons learned in the streets of Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Kosovo, and adapting them to this scenario, with some notable successes, that even Fox and Cnn can't ignore
Solotk....
Old boy...you are still in Northern Ireland....still in Basra....and you dear chappie must be in Blighty....while the balance of the Regiment is in Iraq. If you are in Iraq....then you must not be too damn busy fighting this successful fight of yours if you can continue to provide us with your fantasy war fighting methods.
Just once....I would like to hear from you that the American military had successfully fought against an enemy....even if just a mere squad engagement. For the rest of the PPrune family.....I am not holding my breath while I wait on that!
Old boy...you are still in Northern Ireland....still in Basra....and you dear chappie must be in Blighty....while the balance of the Regiment is in Iraq. If you are in Iraq....then you must not be too damn busy fighting this successful fight of yours if you can continue to provide us with your fantasy war fighting methods.
Just once....I would like to hear from you that the American military had successfully fought against an enemy....even if just a mere squad engagement. For the rest of the PPrune family.....I am not holding my breath while I wait on that!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The balance of the Regiment is not in Iraq ,Sasless, but certainly one of our Battalions is there as part of a battlegroup.
And my unit is on notice to go,either to the current theatre or another one, so I maintain a keen interest in what is going on, as things are going, it is more than likely we will deploy so the point of your nasty little cheap shot was what?
Fantasy war fighting methods? Errrrrr which part?
Everythng I stated in my last post, either has happened, is happening, or has been predicted to happen.
I pointed out, that Britfor were applying their considerable experience of in town fighting and operations, to this scenario. I think, with the exception of the IDF, we are the most experienced army in the world at this type of operation, and certainly , the most experienced in combining Miltary operations with hearts and minds doctrine. What do you find so disagrreable about this scenario?
I would be more than happy to praise a successful American engagement. I have worked with US troops in the past, and have found them to be a dedicated, mostly professional group. If you can seperate all the CNN/FOX bullsh1t m from the truth, in there you will find actions, to reinforce the justifiable pride the majority iof the American public have in their armed forces.
Nowhere have I said that American forces are useless, or not capable etc. American troops have been fighting and dying in some very nasty fighting. Their sterling efforts, are diminished (In my eyes) by the doublespeak, rhetoric, denials and sometimes outright lies of Rumsfeld and his coterie.They are further hampered, by the commands of mediawhore PR officers, who seem to put looking good for the cameras, before the military objective.
It does not help their case, when the Embeds or Inbreds report victories or objectives completed, when none had in fact happened.
Media exaggerations and untruths, do not help the allied cause at all.
And my unit is on notice to go,either to the current theatre or another one, so I maintain a keen interest in what is going on, as things are going, it is more than likely we will deploy so the point of your nasty little cheap shot was what?
Fantasy war fighting methods? Errrrrr which part?
Everythng I stated in my last post, either has happened, is happening, or has been predicted to happen.
I pointed out, that Britfor were applying their considerable experience of in town fighting and operations, to this scenario. I think, with the exception of the IDF, we are the most experienced army in the world at this type of operation, and certainly , the most experienced in combining Miltary operations with hearts and minds doctrine. What do you find so disagrreable about this scenario?
I would be more than happy to praise a successful American engagement. I have worked with US troops in the past, and have found them to be a dedicated, mostly professional group. If you can seperate all the CNN/FOX bullsh1t m from the truth, in there you will find actions, to reinforce the justifiable pride the majority iof the American public have in their armed forces.
Nowhere have I said that American forces are useless, or not capable etc. American troops have been fighting and dying in some very nasty fighting. Their sterling efforts, are diminished (In my eyes) by the doublespeak, rhetoric, denials and sometimes outright lies of Rumsfeld and his coterie.They are further hampered, by the commands of mediawhore PR officers, who seem to put looking good for the cameras, before the military objective.
It does not help their case, when the Embeds or Inbreds report victories or objectives completed, when none had in fact happened.
Media exaggerations and untruths, do not help the allied cause at all.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I nearly cried the other day when I saw on TV British field arty firing into Basra. Are we going to do a Leningrad or are we going to do a Stalingrad as that seems to be are choices now that the Iraqi's didnt surrender.
How did it ever come to this?
Thx to the hackers for liberating me from my Schrodinger cat box
How did it ever come to this?
Thx to the hackers for liberating me from my Schrodinger cat box
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read an interesting article in The Independant yesterday. Aparantly (according to the statements made by either US commanders and politicians and Geoff Hoon, the Sec of State for Defence in the UK) we have taken Umm Qasr 9 times in the past week. We have also been poised to move into Baghdad 4 times, each time we are "poised" we are slightly more poised than the last time we are poised, it seems. It makes you think doesn't it? The media issue is a bit chicken and egg in that each network wants to report something new as a scoop, and the government want to present this campaign as an overwhelming success. They may do so to their eventual cost however, and given that many of them have some considerable political experience, I am suprised at how easily both US and British politicians are falling into the elephant trap of spinning the war.
The two things that Bush and Rumsfled got wrong was selling the expectation that the war would be over and done with in short order. The expectation is that it should last no more than 2 or 3 weeks and with hardly any loss of life. As and when the OBUA does begin the casualties will be comparatively high, I would expect public support to diminish. The second thing they got wrong was ignoring Powell's advice that more than 250k troops were needed. Conventional wisdom states that a ratio of 3 to 1 troops are required to win a fight on open ground, and 11 or 12 to 1 for OBUA. That is not assuming you are up against irregular troops and militias.
Hoon's greates gaff is jumping on every report coming out of Iraq as gospel truth and spinning it to make it seem like everything is better than could have been expected, only to be proved wrong when the facts are out. It is an interesting contrats to see his "outbursts" with the more cautious and measured responses of Adm Boyce and Gen Jackson.
Solotk:
I disagree, i think Saddam is alive. His command and control infrastructure has always been poor, except where the scuds are concerned. There has been much less scud activity than last time round, and that may be due to a more effective denegration of his comms assets, or as I suspect, he is going to use the for FPF when the troops get into the cities. As he is not concerned with the lives of the Iraqi people he will have no qualms about using them in this way, and possibly with chemical munitions. I also suspect that he may attempt to pass off the use of Scuds as American munitions targetted at the civilian population as propganda.
From the outset he delegated the decision to use chemical munitions to local commanders, prbably because the command infrastructure was too poor to enable this to take place later on. He is presenting his generals to show that he is still in charge, rather than as a consequence of his death. I suspect that if he was dead, someone would have siezed power by now.
The American's don't have a NI to provide the experience of the British army, and they learned from Mogadishu that there is a difference between "combat" and peace-keeping operations. To what end they have applied those lesson I don't know, but I think it is fair to assume that they have developped some tactics to approach the problem. I note with interest that the US have asked for advice from the Israelis on how to deal with OBUA operations, as the Israeli objectives in fighting this kind of secnario are different to the ones the US wants to employ in the overall secondary objective of Iraq, namely stabilisation and popular support. While certainly effective, the Israeli MO is much less concerned with limited action than the British approach.
The two things that Bush and Rumsfled got wrong was selling the expectation that the war would be over and done with in short order. The expectation is that it should last no more than 2 or 3 weeks and with hardly any loss of life. As and when the OBUA does begin the casualties will be comparatively high, I would expect public support to diminish. The second thing they got wrong was ignoring Powell's advice that more than 250k troops were needed. Conventional wisdom states that a ratio of 3 to 1 troops are required to win a fight on open ground, and 11 or 12 to 1 for OBUA. That is not assuming you are up against irregular troops and militias.
Hoon's greates gaff is jumping on every report coming out of Iraq as gospel truth and spinning it to make it seem like everything is better than could have been expected, only to be proved wrong when the facts are out. It is an interesting contrats to see his "outbursts" with the more cautious and measured responses of Adm Boyce and Gen Jackson.
Solotk:
I disagree, i think Saddam is alive. His command and control infrastructure has always been poor, except where the scuds are concerned. There has been much less scud activity than last time round, and that may be due to a more effective denegration of his comms assets, or as I suspect, he is going to use the for FPF when the troops get into the cities. As he is not concerned with the lives of the Iraqi people he will have no qualms about using them in this way, and possibly with chemical munitions. I also suspect that he may attempt to pass off the use of Scuds as American munitions targetted at the civilian population as propganda.
From the outset he delegated the decision to use chemical munitions to local commanders, prbably because the command infrastructure was too poor to enable this to take place later on. He is presenting his generals to show that he is still in charge, rather than as a consequence of his death. I suspect that if he was dead, someone would have siezed power by now.
The American's don't have a NI to provide the experience of the British army, and they learned from Mogadishu that there is a difference between "combat" and peace-keeping operations. To what end they have applied those lesson I don't know, but I think it is fair to assume that they have developped some tactics to approach the problem. I note with interest that the US have asked for advice from the Israelis on how to deal with OBUA operations, as the Israeli objectives in fighting this kind of secnario are different to the ones the US wants to employ in the overall secondary objective of Iraq, namely stabilisation and popular support. While certainly effective, the Israeli MO is much less concerned with limited action than the British approach.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
solotk
You might as well be an embedded reporter for all the use your information is.
Did you intend that your opening remarks would be mis-leading? Obviously they are - 'cos you ain't there are you. Ok some of your regiment is but that is not the same thing.
However, be that as it may. The facts appear to be that the Iraqis want this war. As per the article I quote in my original post. Why would you ASSUME that article to be wrong? I had NOT assumed that your opening remarks were until we found out differently???????
The problem is that there are far too many reporters as I understand it (some 2000 I seem to recall). A certain recipe for disasterous reporting. Flower the ingredients, add a little spice, a little more sugar or lemon and you are on a winner.
I think I will stick will Al Lockwood and Central Command. Much much less ambuguity.
You might as well be an embedded reporter for all the use your information is.
Did you intend that your opening remarks would be mis-leading? Obviously they are - 'cos you ain't there are you. Ok some of your regiment is but that is not the same thing.
However, be that as it may. The facts appear to be that the Iraqis want this war. As per the article I quote in my original post. Why would you ASSUME that article to be wrong? I had NOT assumed that your opening remarks were until we found out differently???????
The problem is that there are far too many reporters as I understand it (some 2000 I seem to recall). A certain recipe for disasterous reporting. Flower the ingredients, add a little spice, a little more sugar or lemon and you are on a winner.
I think I will stick will Al Lockwood and Central Command. Much much less ambuguity.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Interesting point of view from John Simpson in the Telegraph:
""An explosion of joy will greet our soldiers," said the deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz. There has been nothing joyful about the explosions which have greeted the British and American forces in Iraq this past week.
Why? All my experience in Saddam's Iraq assured me that people longed to be free of him. The analogy, I felt, was with Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania; when people saw that his power was collapsing, they came out to claim their freedom. Only the Securitate, the hated secret police who had no future without him, resisted.
The trouble is, Saddam's power isn't collapsing. Everyone knows he is still in charge, and that his elaborate, consciously Stalinist system of control, which operates right to the level of the workplace and the home, remains fully intact. No sane person is going to rise up against him under these circumstances.........
So what do the soldiers we see scurrying around on the Iraqi front line opposite us think, as they dig their foxholes and prepare their defences? According to intelligence reports, and to the deserters who come across to the Kurdish side, it is something which has probably never occurred to the Americans: they seem to believe that Washington doesn't really want to get rid of Saddam at all, but merely to weaken him and keep him in place, just as happened in 1991.
You and I know this isn't true, but it is a view which is becoming widespread within the territory which Saddam still controls. Iraqis share the assessment of American power which Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have: that the US can do anything. If the Americans haven't destroyed Saddam's power structure, it's because they don't want to.
The origins of this, like so much else, go back to the last Gulf war. The decision which the administration of George Bush Senior took in March 1991 to withhold coalition help from the Kurds, the Shi'ites and the Sunni Muslims who rose up against Saddam after Mr Bush himself had called on them to rebel is something no one here has forgotten.
If, Iraqis reason, the father decided that he wanted, on balance, to keep Saddam in power 12 years ago, maybe the son will want the same thing. Whatever he may say now."
""An explosion of joy will greet our soldiers," said the deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz. There has been nothing joyful about the explosions which have greeted the British and American forces in Iraq this past week.
Why? All my experience in Saddam's Iraq assured me that people longed to be free of him. The analogy, I felt, was with Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania; when people saw that his power was collapsing, they came out to claim their freedom. Only the Securitate, the hated secret police who had no future without him, resisted.
The trouble is, Saddam's power isn't collapsing. Everyone knows he is still in charge, and that his elaborate, consciously Stalinist system of control, which operates right to the level of the workplace and the home, remains fully intact. No sane person is going to rise up against him under these circumstances.........
So what do the soldiers we see scurrying around on the Iraqi front line opposite us think, as they dig their foxholes and prepare their defences? According to intelligence reports, and to the deserters who come across to the Kurdish side, it is something which has probably never occurred to the Americans: they seem to believe that Washington doesn't really want to get rid of Saddam at all, but merely to weaken him and keep him in place, just as happened in 1991.
You and I know this isn't true, but it is a view which is becoming widespread within the territory which Saddam still controls. Iraqis share the assessment of American power which Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have: that the US can do anything. If the Americans haven't destroyed Saddam's power structure, it's because they don't want to.
The origins of this, like so much else, go back to the last Gulf war. The decision which the administration of George Bush Senior took in March 1991 to withhold coalition help from the Kurds, the Shi'ites and the Sunni Muslims who rose up against Saddam after Mr Bush himself had called on them to rebel is something no one here has forgotten.
If, Iraqis reason, the father decided that he wanted, on balance, to keep Saddam in power 12 years ago, maybe the son will want the same thing. Whatever he may say now."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Captain Filosan
Thank you for your comments. I find the article hard to believe, as we don't currently own a substantial part of Iraq, and because people are still resisting.
What would make you think I was posting from Iraq?Have I said "I am currently in Iraq with my Regiment" There are other Ppruners, who know me, and my Regiment. I don't think a statement like that, would have flown very far. Do you think that the guys in the Gulf are sitting on top of internet access at all hours of the day and night?
The Regiment, in the British Army, is a family. You go through agonies watching friends, colleagues,people who you have trained and had beers with, people whose families you know well, in action. I can't think of any Soldier, when talking about his Regiment or unit,worldwide not using "we" . That is where your heart is, especially in these times.
Edit - Good post ORAC , and a very plausible explanation for why we haven't seen lines of refugees.
Thank you for your comments. I find the article hard to believe, as we don't currently own a substantial part of Iraq, and because people are still resisting.
What would make you think I was posting from Iraq?Have I said "I am currently in Iraq with my Regiment" There are other Ppruners, who know me, and my Regiment. I don't think a statement like that, would have flown very far. Do you think that the guys in the Gulf are sitting on top of internet access at all hours of the day and night?
The Regiment, in the British Army, is a family. You go through agonies watching friends, colleagues,people who you have trained and had beers with, people whose families you know well, in action. I can't think of any Soldier, when talking about his Regiment or unit,worldwide not using "we" . That is where your heart is, especially in these times.
Edit - Good post ORAC , and a very plausible explanation for why we haven't seen lines of refugees.
Solokt..
There was an attempt by civilians to flee Basra....I watched the video this morning during which Britfor troops and civilians were machinegunned by Iraqi military forces as they attempted to leave Basra (the civilians). That tactic plus the reports of death squads operating within Basra and other areas might have some effect upon the "desire" to leave Iraqi control and enter Coalition controlled areas. If one is going to be murdered for attempting the move....or will be murdered if thought about to flee...then certainly you can accept that might deter people from that desired action.
I certainly hope your comrades in arms....and fellow Regiment officers and other ranks are not reading your posts. I dare say the after dinner port might become bitter to the taste. Your senior commanders have issued the orders to engage the enemy. My belief is when told to go fight.....a serving officer packs his kit, cleans his weapon, stands tall, salutes and goes to fight. You might stand around in the mess years later and suggest the matter although not the right fight was a grand chapter in the Regiment's history. Crap's sake....the British military have fought plenty of needless battles in the past....at least they put on a good face about it.
I would suggest this is the time for the Regiment to show what it is made of.....brave men with a dedication to the honor of the regiment. Brothers at arms are supposed to stand shoulder to shoulder I thought. I continue to counsel young soldiers to serve in a manner to honor those that have served before...and set an example for those yet to serve.
That is what tradition is all about in my book.
There was an attempt by civilians to flee Basra....I watched the video this morning during which Britfor troops and civilians were machinegunned by Iraqi military forces as they attempted to leave Basra (the civilians). That tactic plus the reports of death squads operating within Basra and other areas might have some effect upon the "desire" to leave Iraqi control and enter Coalition controlled areas. If one is going to be murdered for attempting the move....or will be murdered if thought about to flee...then certainly you can accept that might deter people from that desired action.
I certainly hope your comrades in arms....and fellow Regiment officers and other ranks are not reading your posts. I dare say the after dinner port might become bitter to the taste. Your senior commanders have issued the orders to engage the enemy. My belief is when told to go fight.....a serving officer packs his kit, cleans his weapon, stands tall, salutes and goes to fight. You might stand around in the mess years later and suggest the matter although not the right fight was a grand chapter in the Regiment's history. Crap's sake....the British military have fought plenty of needless battles in the past....at least they put on a good face about it.
I would suggest this is the time for the Regiment to show what it is made of.....brave men with a dedication to the honor of the regiment. Brothers at arms are supposed to stand shoulder to shoulder I thought. I continue to counsel young soldiers to serve in a manner to honor those that have served before...and set an example for those yet to serve.
That is what tradition is all about in my book.
My girlfriend
I can't help it.
I can't help it.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hiding from the ugly folk
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sasless
The British Military is overflowing with tradition and history, all of which we are very proud of. I think you should reread Solotks post and instead of trying to discredit him and humilate him, as Danny did with Kbf1. Why not try a counter argument or join in the debate as opposed to trying to drive a wedge between himself and his colleagues already fighting.
It is very easy for us armchair generals to sit here spouting about the rights and wrongs of war, I personally find Solotks posts to be closer to the truth than alot of us would like to admit.
Please don't go down the road of trying to discredit me, I will lay my cards on the table now I was there in GW1 and also later in Bosnia and Kosova as part of a lynx crew.
Going to war and taking part in a fire fight doesn't make you a better man, lets hope most people never have to go through that. I can't help but feel that this is a war that will never end, how long before the fighting is on our doorsteps in the form of suicide bombers and terror attacks. All of which was needless
There are buses of Iraqis in Jordan who are now returning to thier homeland to take part in the fighting, is this the action of a nation who are crying out to be liberated. There was an Iraqi officer who blew himself up for what he believed yesterday.
I have viewed this site for months and months now and haven't joined in but your constant futile attacks on productive posters is out of order. If you are the big man you alledge to be in your posts then its perhaps time to act like it, instead of a playground bully with nothing to say, saying it far too loudly
The British Military is overflowing with tradition and history, all of which we are very proud of. I think you should reread Solotks post and instead of trying to discredit him and humilate him, as Danny did with Kbf1. Why not try a counter argument or join in the debate as opposed to trying to drive a wedge between himself and his colleagues already fighting.
It is very easy for us armchair generals to sit here spouting about the rights and wrongs of war, I personally find Solotks posts to be closer to the truth than alot of us would like to admit.
Please don't go down the road of trying to discredit me, I will lay my cards on the table now I was there in GW1 and also later in Bosnia and Kosova as part of a lynx crew.
Going to war and taking part in a fire fight doesn't make you a better man, lets hope most people never have to go through that. I can't help but feel that this is a war that will never end, how long before the fighting is on our doorsteps in the form of suicide bombers and terror attacks. All of which was needless
There are buses of Iraqis in Jordan who are now returning to thier homeland to take part in the fighting, is this the action of a nation who are crying out to be liberated. There was an Iraqi officer who blew himself up for what he believed yesterday.
I have viewed this site for months and months now and haven't joined in but your constant futile attacks on productive posters is out of order. If you are the big man you alledge to be in your posts then its perhaps time to act like it, instead of a playground bully with nothing to say, saying it far too loudly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
My sentiments exactly.
solotk
OK, the band of brothers bit had not escaped me. I still do it myself on occasions. Indeed, although being much too old to participate I do know that 'my' regiment is in the thick of it, and I look to see what engagements they have had. Of late some pretty sensational ones I must say.
As far as the article is concerned, I cannot confirm or deny that the article is factual. I was merely offering what I thought to be, or might be, a true reflection of the way the Iraquis are thinking. In saying that I assume you have read the whole article.
In any event it is up to everyone to make up there own minds about anything they are told happens in Iraq.
My sentiments exactly.
solotk
OK, the band of brothers bit had not escaped me. I still do it myself on occasions. Indeed, although being much too old to participate I do know that 'my' regiment is in the thick of it, and I look to see what engagements they have had. Of late some pretty sensational ones I must say.
As far as the article is concerned, I cannot confirm or deny that the article is factual. I was merely offering what I thought to be, or might be, a true reflection of the way the Iraquis are thinking. In saying that I assume you have read the whole article.
In any event it is up to everyone to make up there own minds about anything they are told happens in Iraq.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sasless,
I do accept , certainly in part, your explanation regarding the lack of refugees seeking safety. ORAC's post, re. John Simpson, certainly underlines the point, made by a credible journalist.
I am certainly not criticising my Regiment. Where have I said, now we are engaged with the enemy, that we shouldn't prosecute the battle till finally won? There is not much point to soldiering, if you don't.
I am involved in the training of young soldiers, Regimental pride is all. My family, have had the honour of serving in my Regiment since the Crimean campaign. I do not see, nor will I ever seek to besmirch or insult the honour and ability, of the serving soldier, British OR American.
I will however, continue to criticse politicians, who don't know squat, about military operations, and override, and over rule those that do. If Tommy Franks had been given what he wanted and requested, and the necessary support to do the job, progress so far, I believe , would be more marked. However, when he got very vocal about it , newspapers ran a "leaked" story, that the commander of US forces in the Gulf, had had his wife at sensitive briefings, and there were "Discrepancies" over his expenses. That really helps now doesn't it?
I want the control of this war given back to the military, with the politicians taking a back seat. It's what is needed.
I
I do accept , certainly in part, your explanation regarding the lack of refugees seeking safety. ORAC's post, re. John Simpson, certainly underlines the point, made by a credible journalist.
I am certainly not criticising my Regiment. Where have I said, now we are engaged with the enemy, that we shouldn't prosecute the battle till finally won? There is not much point to soldiering, if you don't.
I am involved in the training of young soldiers, Regimental pride is all. My family, have had the honour of serving in my Regiment since the Crimean campaign. I do not see, nor will I ever seek to besmirch or insult the honour and ability, of the serving soldier, British OR American.
I will however, continue to criticse politicians, who don't know squat, about military operations, and override, and over rule those that do. If Tommy Franks had been given what he wanted and requested, and the necessary support to do the job, progress so far, I believe , would be more marked. However, when he got very vocal about it , newspapers ran a "leaked" story, that the commander of US forces in the Gulf, had had his wife at sensitive briefings, and there were "Discrepancies" over his expenses. That really helps now doesn't it?
I want the control of this war given back to the military, with the politicians taking a back seat. It's what is needed.
I
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These comments are backed up by anything other than my gut feel:
I don't think that the issue is as clear cut as we would wish it to be. Alligned with overwhelming fear of what may happen should the US either fail to support an uprising as they did in 1991, or fail to achieve the objective, is the very real prospect that what comes after saddam may in fact be worse.
If we take the fall of the former Soviet empire as a benchmark, the loss of a controlling power a vacuum of authority is created. Even with the most effective policing in the world, there will still be those whose vested interests are trading in the secrets of others, and like it or not it will take generations to weed out Saddam's influence. Arabs have longer memories than the west, and there will always be fear amongst the people.
I also suspect that while the average Iraqi wants rid of Saddam, they want the problem dealt with by other Arabs, and not by the west. I suspect that in months and years to come any feeling of relief will be shortlived and replaced by feelings of resentment towards the west which, as northernmonkey has stated, could come back to haunt us for a long time yet.
Saddam is seen as a demi-god in the eyes of many of his people. In spite of the brutality of the system he is seen by many as the liberator of the country and its protector. To those that know no different way of life he is good, benevolent, and powerful. Unless and/or until the majority of his people see freedom and prosperity as one in the same, they will not know that there is another way of life than oppression. For many, like in Russia, they will not know how to use new-found freedom and may come to resent the lack of state "protection" that freedom takes away, and in fear of the unknown may want the old regime back.
Religiously we are also intruding on sacred land. There is little love lost between Sunni and Shia'a Moslems (a division of the faith akin to a tribal divison rarther than a purely doctrinal one as in the reformation of Luther to Christinity, born of a disagreement as to the true lineage of Mohammad's successors), but they would find a marriage of convenience if it were percieved that the infidel was invading the land to embark on another crusade. There are many Imams in the UK (and no-doubt in Iraq) who irrespective of their personal loathing of Saddam see him as the lesser of 2 evils when the purity of the faith is in question (though surprisingly no-one has raised the issue of the Egyptian Christian, Tariq Aziz, who is Saddam's right-hand man and how this sits with the devout Muslim Saddam??)
All of these factors in isolation or combined may be what is preventing a popular uprising. Maybe it's none of them, but that's my £0.02.
I don't think that the issue is as clear cut as we would wish it to be. Alligned with overwhelming fear of what may happen should the US either fail to support an uprising as they did in 1991, or fail to achieve the objective, is the very real prospect that what comes after saddam may in fact be worse.
If we take the fall of the former Soviet empire as a benchmark, the loss of a controlling power a vacuum of authority is created. Even with the most effective policing in the world, there will still be those whose vested interests are trading in the secrets of others, and like it or not it will take generations to weed out Saddam's influence. Arabs have longer memories than the west, and there will always be fear amongst the people.
I also suspect that while the average Iraqi wants rid of Saddam, they want the problem dealt with by other Arabs, and not by the west. I suspect that in months and years to come any feeling of relief will be shortlived and replaced by feelings of resentment towards the west which, as northernmonkey has stated, could come back to haunt us for a long time yet.
Saddam is seen as a demi-god in the eyes of many of his people. In spite of the brutality of the system he is seen by many as the liberator of the country and its protector. To those that know no different way of life he is good, benevolent, and powerful. Unless and/or until the majority of his people see freedom and prosperity as one in the same, they will not know that there is another way of life than oppression. For many, like in Russia, they will not know how to use new-found freedom and may come to resent the lack of state "protection" that freedom takes away, and in fear of the unknown may want the old regime back.
Religiously we are also intruding on sacred land. There is little love lost between Sunni and Shia'a Moslems (a division of the faith akin to a tribal divison rarther than a purely doctrinal one as in the reformation of Luther to Christinity, born of a disagreement as to the true lineage of Mohammad's successors), but they would find a marriage of convenience if it were percieved that the infidel was invading the land to embark on another crusade. There are many Imams in the UK (and no-doubt in Iraq) who irrespective of their personal loathing of Saddam see him as the lesser of 2 evils when the purity of the faith is in question (though surprisingly no-one has raised the issue of the Egyptian Christian, Tariq Aziz, who is Saddam's right-hand man and how this sits with the devout Muslim Saddam??)
All of these factors in isolation or combined may be what is preventing a popular uprising. Maybe it's none of them, but that's my £0.02.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Now this is interesting, particularly about the Russians.
New York Times: "NATO's New Front" By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In this time of war, I find it helpful to step back a little. So I went last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels, and, I must say, the view from there was illuminating. What I think I saw were some huge tectonic plates of history moving. Here's how I would describe it: 9/11 was the start of World War III, à la Pearl Harbor; the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the initial response, à la the North Africa campaign; the invasion of Iraq was akin to D-Day (I hope it ends as well); and now we are present at the creation of some kind of new global power structure.
At this new historical pivot point, we're still dealing with a bipolar world, only the divide this time is no longer East versus West, but the World of Order versus the World of Disorder. But here's the surprise: the key instrument through which the World of Order will try to deal with threats from the World of Disorder will still be NATO. Only in this new, expanded NATO, Russia will gradually replace France, and the region where the new NATO will direct its peacekeeping energies will shift from the East to the South. Yes, NATO will continue to be based in Europe, but its primary theaters of operation will be the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly the Arab-Israel frontier.
No, I haven't lost my marbles. Here's what's going on: Ever since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, individual countries — first Britain, then Turkey, then the Netherlands and Germany — have taken responsibility for providing the 5,700-man peacekeeping force in Kabul. It is a very expensive job for one country and it is very inefficient to be changing brigades every six months, but that was how the Bush team wanted it. It didn't want NATO getting in the way of its combat troops or nation-building.
But in February, President Bush quietly told NATO's chief, Lord Robertson, that beginning in August, when the current Dutch-German force is supposed to leave Afghanistan, the U.S. would like to see NATO permanently take over peacekeeping duties there and work alongside U.S. combat troops. If this is approved by NATO, for the first time the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be operating outside Europe, in the heart of the Muslim world.
France is fighting this idea, because it wants to see NATO, the anchor of America's military presence in Europe, wither away. But many key NATO members favor the idea, and what's really interesting is that the Russians have said they would consider sending a platoon as well, under the NATO-Russia partnership. Even the Chinese have winked their approval. Both of these big powers feel threatened by the disorder coming from parts of Central Asia and the Middle East. If France stands in the way, NATO officials say they will just work around it.
What the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan is "internationalizing" the nation-building process there, because we found we simply could not pull it off alone. Eventually, we will have to do the same in Iraq. That is what Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain came over to tell President Bush this past week. The Bush team keeps arguing that this silly alliance it cobbled together to fight the war in Iraq is multilateral and therefore the moral equivalent of the U.N. Nonsense. Other than Britain, we bought this alliance. Almost every government in it is operating without the support of its people. Fighting this war without international legitimacy is hard enough, but trying to do nation-building without it could be even harder.
Yet, the Bush team is right about one thing. Nation-building in Iraq can't be done by the U.N. It can't be done by a committee. So what we will eventually need in Iraq is a credible peacekeeping force that is multilateral, legitimate and still led by the U.S. That will bring us back to NATO, possibly in partnership with some Arab and Muslim armies. This is not your grandfather's NATO anymore. That NATO patrolled the German-Soviet frontier. This one will be patrolling Kabul and Baghdad.
And while NATO is changing, it may just go all the way. NATO's chief, Lord Robertson, is retiring this year (a real loss). A favorite to succeed him is the Norwegian defense minister, Kristin Krohn Devold, a woman. So get ready for this CNN headline: "The NATO alliance, for the first time led by a woman and including a Russian platoon, took over peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan today, as a prelude to taking over peacekeeping in Iraq. France refused to participate."
Yes, we may be present at the creation of a very new world, and no, I have not lost my marbles.
New York Times: "NATO's New Front" By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In this time of war, I find it helpful to step back a little. So I went last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels, and, I must say, the view from there was illuminating. What I think I saw were some huge tectonic plates of history moving. Here's how I would describe it: 9/11 was the start of World War III, à la Pearl Harbor; the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the initial response, à la the North Africa campaign; the invasion of Iraq was akin to D-Day (I hope it ends as well); and now we are present at the creation of some kind of new global power structure.
At this new historical pivot point, we're still dealing with a bipolar world, only the divide this time is no longer East versus West, but the World of Order versus the World of Disorder. But here's the surprise: the key instrument through which the World of Order will try to deal with threats from the World of Disorder will still be NATO. Only in this new, expanded NATO, Russia will gradually replace France, and the region where the new NATO will direct its peacekeeping energies will shift from the East to the South. Yes, NATO will continue to be based in Europe, but its primary theaters of operation will be the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly the Arab-Israel frontier.
No, I haven't lost my marbles. Here's what's going on: Ever since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, individual countries — first Britain, then Turkey, then the Netherlands and Germany — have taken responsibility for providing the 5,700-man peacekeeping force in Kabul. It is a very expensive job for one country and it is very inefficient to be changing brigades every six months, but that was how the Bush team wanted it. It didn't want NATO getting in the way of its combat troops or nation-building.
But in February, President Bush quietly told NATO's chief, Lord Robertson, that beginning in August, when the current Dutch-German force is supposed to leave Afghanistan, the U.S. would like to see NATO permanently take over peacekeeping duties there and work alongside U.S. combat troops. If this is approved by NATO, for the first time the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be operating outside Europe, in the heart of the Muslim world.
France is fighting this idea, because it wants to see NATO, the anchor of America's military presence in Europe, wither away. But many key NATO members favor the idea, and what's really interesting is that the Russians have said they would consider sending a platoon as well, under the NATO-Russia partnership. Even the Chinese have winked their approval. Both of these big powers feel threatened by the disorder coming from parts of Central Asia and the Middle East. If France stands in the way, NATO officials say they will just work around it.
What the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan is "internationalizing" the nation-building process there, because we found we simply could not pull it off alone. Eventually, we will have to do the same in Iraq. That is what Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain came over to tell President Bush this past week. The Bush team keeps arguing that this silly alliance it cobbled together to fight the war in Iraq is multilateral and therefore the moral equivalent of the U.N. Nonsense. Other than Britain, we bought this alliance. Almost every government in it is operating without the support of its people. Fighting this war without international legitimacy is hard enough, but trying to do nation-building without it could be even harder.
Yet, the Bush team is right about one thing. Nation-building in Iraq can't be done by the U.N. It can't be done by a committee. So what we will eventually need in Iraq is a credible peacekeeping force that is multilateral, legitimate and still led by the U.S. That will bring us back to NATO, possibly in partnership with some Arab and Muslim armies. This is not your grandfather's NATO anymore. That NATO patrolled the German-Soviet frontier. This one will be patrolling Kabul and Baghdad.
And while NATO is changing, it may just go all the way. NATO's chief, Lord Robertson, is retiring this year (a real loss). A favorite to succeed him is the Norwegian defense minister, Kristin Krohn Devold, a woman. So get ready for this CNN headline: "The NATO alliance, for the first time led by a woman and including a Russian platoon, took over peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan today, as a prelude to taking over peacekeeping in Iraq. France refused to participate."
Yes, we may be present at the creation of a very new world, and no, I have not lost my marbles.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All valid points because in any conflict like this we are force fed 24/7 the media views on what the pundits think, what the politicians think, and what the reporters think for God's sake. Do you remember the bleak doom and gloom put out by well meaning but totally incompetent old buffers like Tam (Belgrano) Dalyell, Robin (moral high ground personified) Cook, Wedgie (I'm not an aristocrat) Benn, Clare (I resign) Short and all the dinosaur left wing media before, during and after The Falklands, all through NI and GW1 ? Why are they always so wrong, and why does some of the media regard them as the font of all knowledge ?
We're in it now and any vacillating should be left to politicians who think TB's on a loser and are now pitching for his job on the off chance. As for the reporting, well, just read the gaffes thread and look at the age and "experience" of the pundits.
Most of the Arabs here are totally behind us and can't understand why we are holding back from a total onslaught which is the only language that Saddam, Tariq Aziz, "Chemical Ali" and all the other venal acolytes of this regime understand.
Every suspect report of faltering support for the coalition campaign is siezed upon by a very hostile or speculative media and used in Baghdad to bolster the regime's chances of survival for a few more weeks. This is why we're here now - because those ineffectual, self serving, weak, politically expedient, horse trading t*&&^% at the UN didn't do their stuff in the first place.
We're in it now and any vacillating should be left to politicians who think TB's on a loser and are now pitching for his job on the off chance. As for the reporting, well, just read the gaffes thread and look at the age and "experience" of the pundits.
Most of the Arabs here are totally behind us and can't understand why we are holding back from a total onslaught which is the only language that Saddam, Tariq Aziz, "Chemical Ali" and all the other venal acolytes of this regime understand.
Every suspect report of faltering support for the coalition campaign is siezed upon by a very hostile or speculative media and used in Baghdad to bolster the regime's chances of survival for a few more weeks. This is why we're here now - because those ineffectual, self serving, weak, politically expedient, horse trading t*&&^% at the UN didn't do their stuff in the first place.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The NATO alliance, for the first time led by a woman and including a Russian platoon, took over peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan today, as a prelude to taking over peacekeeping in Iraq. France refused to participate. "
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The New York Times newsreport is BS the war on terrorism collation which died last year when Russia threatened to make its incursions into Georgia permanent and the lack of repicipical support shown by western states for Russia's anti-terrorism war in chechyna. Countries like Malaysia which were very pro-American after 11/9 are now very anti-American due to its war on Iraq
How many NATO countries out there would be willing to fight for Bush after he showed that he has no interest in NATO, there opinions on iraq or the old Europe countires which just happens to contain the war fighting capability he wants. It just aint going to happen
This is looking to far ahead anyway. With both Syria and Iran actively helping out Saddam and attempting to tie down American troops in Iraq for as long as possible before they turn on them means that this war is going to be going on for years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2901689.stm
Troops 'could be replaced'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2900829.stm
There are 45,000 UK service personnel in the Gulf
A long conflict in Iraq would lead to UK forces in the region being replaced, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said.
He said once the conflict moved into a different phase, the 45,000-strong deployment in the region would be reviewed.
But he insisted again that significant progress was being made in Iraq and said defeat was "not possible".
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World this Weekend, Mr Hoon said coalition forces faced a "difficult, demanding and dangerous" war.
He said: "We should not believe the observations of armchair generals, commentators, who were suggesting that this was a short campaign.
"I said clearly this was going to be difficult, it was going to take time."
We should not believe the observations of armchair generals, commentators, who were suggesting that this was a short campaign
Geoff Hoon
And he insisted: "I am absolutely confident in the military strategy and indeed in the very significant military success that has already been achieved.
"Within a few days we have coalition forces less than 60 miles away from Baghdad.
"Large parts of the country are now out of the control of Saddam Hussein. We have operations being conducted right across Iraq, operations that are proceeding extremely successfully."
Mr Hoon said troops could stay in the Gulf for months, adding: "I made clear (to the House of Commons) that that was a flexible force, it was designed to achieve certain objectives in a military sense.
"But clearly, ultimately, they would have to be replaced if that was such a long conflict.
"It's always been the case that these kinds of conflicts require certain kinds of armed forces in the initial phase.
"Obviously once we move to a different kind of conflict we can then look at whether we have the right kinds of forces."
'Proxies'
The defence secretary said the UK service personnel already in the Gulf region were sufficient to deal with the conflict, the delivery of humanitarian aid and stabilising the area after the war.
I can't think of anything worse in the present situation than convincing the neighbours of Iraq that they might be the next on the list
Robin Cook
He said reports that his US opposite number, Donald Rumsfeld, had tried to bring Iran and Syria into the conflict were wrong.
Mr Rumsfeld has said armed Iranian "proxies" inside Iraq would be regarded as combatants if they interfered with US forces.
And he said the US government had intelligence that military equipment was being shipped to Iraq from Syria.
Mr Hoon said: "He indicated his concern that particular supplies were apparently crossing the border from Syria into Iraq.
'Alarmed'
"He expressed his concern about the use they might be put to in threatening coalition forces."
But former cabinet minister Robin Cook said he was "deeply alarmed" by Mr Rumsfeld's comments.
He told the same programme: "Donald Rumsfeld has imposed his own neoconservative dogma over generals who were urging him this would not work.
"I was deeply alarmed a couple of days ago when he issued a powerful threat to two of the neighbours of Iraq, Syria and Iran.
"I can't think of anything worse in the present situation than convincing the neighbours of Iraq that they might be the next on the list."
He said the UK should be clear with the US that it would not join any military action against Syria or Iran.
This whole war is messed up. 20,000 British squadies trying to take a city the size of Manchester. I mean WTF is that. I admit that I was one of those who thought it would be over in a week. Now where looking at a month simply to get the supplies together before they try and get to the outskirts Baghdad. Does any think that Blair will still be PM within 3 months if this war carries on?
How many NATO countries out there would be willing to fight for Bush after he showed that he has no interest in NATO, there opinions on iraq or the old Europe countires which just happens to contain the war fighting capability he wants. It just aint going to happen
This is looking to far ahead anyway. With both Syria and Iran actively helping out Saddam and attempting to tie down American troops in Iraq for as long as possible before they turn on them means that this war is going to be going on for years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2901689.stm
Troops 'could be replaced'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2900829.stm
There are 45,000 UK service personnel in the Gulf
A long conflict in Iraq would lead to UK forces in the region being replaced, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said.
He said once the conflict moved into a different phase, the 45,000-strong deployment in the region would be reviewed.
But he insisted again that significant progress was being made in Iraq and said defeat was "not possible".
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World this Weekend, Mr Hoon said coalition forces faced a "difficult, demanding and dangerous" war.
He said: "We should not believe the observations of armchair generals, commentators, who were suggesting that this was a short campaign.
"I said clearly this was going to be difficult, it was going to take time."
We should not believe the observations of armchair generals, commentators, who were suggesting that this was a short campaign
Geoff Hoon
And he insisted: "I am absolutely confident in the military strategy and indeed in the very significant military success that has already been achieved.
"Within a few days we have coalition forces less than 60 miles away from Baghdad.
"Large parts of the country are now out of the control of Saddam Hussein. We have operations being conducted right across Iraq, operations that are proceeding extremely successfully."
Mr Hoon said troops could stay in the Gulf for months, adding: "I made clear (to the House of Commons) that that was a flexible force, it was designed to achieve certain objectives in a military sense.
"But clearly, ultimately, they would have to be replaced if that was such a long conflict.
"It's always been the case that these kinds of conflicts require certain kinds of armed forces in the initial phase.
"Obviously once we move to a different kind of conflict we can then look at whether we have the right kinds of forces."
'Proxies'
The defence secretary said the UK service personnel already in the Gulf region were sufficient to deal with the conflict, the delivery of humanitarian aid and stabilising the area after the war.
I can't think of anything worse in the present situation than convincing the neighbours of Iraq that they might be the next on the list
Robin Cook
He said reports that his US opposite number, Donald Rumsfeld, had tried to bring Iran and Syria into the conflict were wrong.
Mr Rumsfeld has said armed Iranian "proxies" inside Iraq would be regarded as combatants if they interfered with US forces.
And he said the US government had intelligence that military equipment was being shipped to Iraq from Syria.
Mr Hoon said: "He indicated his concern that particular supplies were apparently crossing the border from Syria into Iraq.
'Alarmed'
"He expressed his concern about the use they might be put to in threatening coalition forces."
But former cabinet minister Robin Cook said he was "deeply alarmed" by Mr Rumsfeld's comments.
He told the same programme: "Donald Rumsfeld has imposed his own neoconservative dogma over generals who were urging him this would not work.
"I was deeply alarmed a couple of days ago when he issued a powerful threat to two of the neighbours of Iraq, Syria and Iran.
"I can't think of anything worse in the present situation than convincing the neighbours of Iraq that they might be the next on the list."
He said the UK should be clear with the US that it would not join any military action against Syria or Iran.
This whole war is messed up. 20,000 British squadies trying to take a city the size of Manchester. I mean WTF is that. I admit that I was one of those who thought it would be over in a week. Now where looking at a month simply to get the supplies together before they try and get to the outskirts Baghdad. Does any think that Blair will still be PM within 3 months if this war carries on?
Last edited by A Civilian; 31st Mar 2003 at 18:43.