The Iraq thread 4

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]wasnt combat operations announced to be finished back in 2003?

Quote[/b] ]Balschoiw, remember this is his opinion and how he feels - you have no right to tell the man his opinion and feelings are wrong, whatever your own are, nor do you have the right to tell him where he should be, how to raise his children or if he does it for the money or not.

But you have the right to tell me my opinions ?

It´s not like you join the garden of eden if you voluntarily go to Iraq. Everyone knows that. It´s one thing to go to Iraq for whatever reasons you may list, but going to Iraq to "make this world a better place for his children" is a bit naiv, don´t you think ? Apart from that I think he has the possibility to answer himself. I don´t think that he needs a PR agent.

In the end it´s all about money. That´s my opinion. You can find 1000 different reasons but at the end of the day it´s always money who brings CC´s to warzones.

The legal situation itself makes the CC´s in Iraq a debatable issue. They act outside any legal frame. They cannot be punished by anyone, read anyone for any actions they cause. This is a really dark area of the Iraq war and I doubt that this is the solution to Iraq´s problems.

I do understand that you build yourself justifications for what you are doing. That´s just natural. But from a different perspective the extensive use of CC´s in Iraq is counterproductive for all parties involved and yes it undermines basic and fundamental international rules and treaties. That´s why it´s being discussed that much. Basically they are private men operating outside any legal framework. Think of a company that would do the same in Great Britain. Would you go ok with that ?

[wrighty 0]

Balschoiw, i was fully aware Iraq wasnt the garden of eden. I thought long and hard before i deployed. As to money being a factor. Well of course it is, tell me you havent changed jobs because you were offered a better salary? Making Iraq a better place, well considering i provide security to my clients who are involved in the reconstruction of power stations, schools, roads, sewage treatment plants, and other basic amenities yes i am helping because without that security they could not function. But im sure your doing a lot more to help sat in front of your computer. You talk about private contractors as if Iraq is the only place they work in. What about Afghan, Africa, former Yugoslavia etc. The list is endless. Who do the UN call when they need a stretch of land demined in Africa? And other NGO's who need security to function in a world hotspot. Iraq may have the vast majority but its by no means a new fad. I suppose they are all blood thirsty mercs as well? The security industry is huge, jobs as diverse as providing security to oil fields in Saudi Arabia to diplomatic protection in Europe to burning the cocaine plantations in Columbia. Yes Iraq is at one end of the scale and at the other you may have unarmed static security in the UK etc. Its all the same, no one company can operate anywhere on this planet without security. Thats the line of work im in, i might do high risk for a few years then push into a low threat job back home. As for operating outside any legal framework, youve been taking the press at face value again. As i said before, in Iraq were contracted to the US department of defence therefore we fall under their jurisdiction. Every chef clerk and soldier comes under this umbrella as do we.

You have your opinion as do i, discussions would be boring without a difference of opinion. However opinions are like assholes, and you seem to have the biggest opinion around here.

[Messiah 2]

Quote[/b] ]wasnt combat operations announced to be finished back in 2003?

Quote[/b] ]Balschoiw, remember this is his opinion and how he feels - you have no right to tell the man his opinion and feelings are wrong, whatever your own are, nor do you have the right to tell him where he should be, how to raise his children or if he does it for the money or not.

But you have the right to tell me my opinions ?

It´s not like you join the garden of eden if you voluntarily go to Iraq. Everyone knows that. It´s one thing to go to Iraq for whatever reasons you may list, but going to Iraq to "make this world a better place for his children" is a bit naiv, don´t you think ? Apart from that I think he has the possibility to answer himself. I don´t think that he needs a PR agent.

In the end it´s all about money. That´s my opinion. You can find 1000 different reasons but at the end of the day it´s always money who brings CC´s to warzones.

The legal situation itself makes the CC´s in Iraq a debatable issue. They act outside any legal frame. They cannot be punished by anyone, read anyone for any actions they cause. This is a really dark area of the Iraq war and I doubt that this is the solution to Iraq´s problems.

I do understand that you build yourself justifications for what you are doing. That´s just natural. But from a different perspective the extensive use of CC´s in Iraq is counterproductive for all parties involved and yes it undermines basic and fundamental international rules and treaties. That´s why it´s being discussed that much. Basically they are private men operating outside any legal framework. Think of a company that would do the same in Great Britain. Would you go ok with that ?

but do they work outside legal restraints? As far as i can remember the new iraq government said they would prosecute CP's acting unlawfully... although it could have been a manifesto promise/sketchy info im working off, so appologies if so.

and yes, i should have written 'meant to have ended 2003' - you still know what i mean - im not acting as an PR agent, im just a little conerned that you feel such statements are welcome, or wise? God forbid we'd make a comment about your personal life, as im sure we'd never hear the end of it.

[hellfish6 7]

At ease with the hostile tones, gentlemen.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I continue to hold the best people for convoy protection are Iraqis or failing that or where it is coalition logistics the official coalition army.

Five or so billion of the money set aside for rebuilding Iraq has been needlesly fritered away on security contractors.

I do not say needlessy fritered away because of the contractors; I say it because it was result of bad planning by TBA in particular. TBA was told by the sacked generals that there were not enough troops in the TBA plan to ensure a succesful exit strategy. It was even part of the reason Colin Powell resigned. We are now reaping the rewards of that failure of political will and planning.

Heck even I said they needed five times as many troops to hold Iraq as to invade it, and I aint no army staff officer. Check back in earlier versions of this thread, it is there for all to see.

As to the competance of Security Contractors (SC) as I explained many UK officers and even the SAS themselves are saying while there are many profesional contractors who follow the rules among the 20,000 plus contractors but there are also too many idiot cowboys who are causing more trouble than the whole contracting body is worth.

Giving examples of profesional SCs does not remove from the fact that what was once a small business employing a few hundred very profesional deminers and bodyguards has suddenly become the second largest army in the coalition employing 20,000. It does not deal with the lack profesional training or selection among so many of the contracting bodies. It does not deal with the lack of a proper unified chain of command or all the support and backup that a real army has.

Nor is such a mercenary army a properly legal body covered and protected by the treaties, conventions and artcles of war. There is nothing to stop a future Iraqi government declairing all the SC imunities null and void and suing and locking up any SC they want to. This is something that has happened to many SC in the past. Africa's prisons are littered with them.

We also have the fact that the budget for SCs has been removed by TBA. So all but a few hundred SCs will be unemployed at the end of that budget.

We also have the problem that Iraqi's themselves are outraged that 5 billion of the money set aside for rebuilding Iraqi power, water, sewage, roads and other infrastucture has actualy gone to foreign SC's.

Instead of spending five billion on security contractors that money had been better spent on more coalition soldiers that were better equiped in the first place. In the long run that would have been better for Iraq.

Kind Regards Walker

[wrighty 0]

Hi walker,

some good points. I agree with the majority. Convoy protection is best suited to Iraqis with regards to non coalition equipment etc. What you are seeing at the moment are convoys where western contractors are in command of the gun trucks but crewed by Iraqis, eventually this will change and Iraqis will have full control but not until they are completely confident. Early 2004 was where most private companies picked up contracts everywhere in Iraq. This tapered out towards the end of the year and steadily declined through 2005. What you are left with now are essential contracts ie US state department and so on, these cannot get any smaller. As to the funding, well this will inevitably dry up publicly but will just find another hidden channel to flow through. Eaten up in the "reconstruction" budgets etc. The problem is no company involved in reconstructing in Iraq can afford to do so without security in some shape or form. Although the perfect scenario would be to use coalition troops, they are vastly overstretched in man power and equipment. The only alternative is for Iraqi security forces which are also still under manned, or civilian contractors generally incorporating Iraqi civilians as well. I agree with the cash being spent on the army as it rightfully should however you cant buy soldiers, you can buy civilian contractors. Hence why specialised units are losing so many quality people to work for private security companies. Contractors have always been around in some shape or form throughout the years its just Iraq takes the biscuit. The small professional outfits that have been operating for decades increased dramatically to fulfill contracts and also some "cowboy" units sprung up to take advantage of the money being thrown around for security. These cowboy units have gone down in size if not collapsed completely and what will remain in future will be the same professional companies just decreasing in manpower.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] What about Afghan, Africa, former Yugoslavia etc. The list is endless. Who do the UN call when they need a stretch of land demined in Africa?

They certainly don´t call Aegis. Demining in Africa for example was handled by South african troops, indian troops, pakistani troops, PAE, ICI in Sierra Leone,troops from europe, civillian demining companies with no right to bear arms.

Mr Spicer was involved in some really debatable action with his former Sandline International company.

The government of Papua, New Guinea hired Sandline in 1997 to quell a nine-year rebellion on the island of Bougainville and to secure one of the world’s largest copper mines. The plan backfired after local military leaders learned of the deal and staged a coup. (Spicer’s contract for $36 million dollars—more than the country’s annual budget—included providing two Soviet-made attack helicopters, several assault helicopters, six rocket launchers and grenade launchers, according to research by Brookings Institute military expert Peter Singer.)

Riots broke out, Prime Minister Julian Chan stepped down, and the government imploded. Soldiers apprehended Spicer at gunpoint, jailed him on a weapons charge, and then booted him out of the country amidst a fog of allegations that public officials had been bribed.

Despite botching the operation, Sandline demanded and collected an outstanding $18 million balance from new government in Papua New Guinea.

Sandline next appeared in Sierra Leone in 1998 as part of an effort to restore the government of ousted President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah. Spicer was accused of violating a United Nations and United Kingdom embargo on arms smuggling – punishable by up to seven years in prison. Prior to receiving the $10 million contract, Spicer is reported to have accepted $70,000 businessman Rakesh Saxena to bankroll a Sandline expedition to recapture Saxena’s Siera Leonan diamond and bauxite mining interests. At the time, the Indian-born Thai national was awaiting extradition to Thailand to face charges of embezzlement from a bank in Thailand and traveling on the passport of a dead Serb.

Sandline’s shipment of 30 tons of arms to Sierra Leone ignited a news storm in Britain after Spicer disclosed that British and U.S. officials had secretly encouraged him. The “Arms-to-Africa Affair,†as it came to be known, rocked Tony Blair’s government, triggered a high-profile British House of Commons investigation, forced the resignation of former British high commissioner in Sierra Leone, Peter Penfold, and elicited unsuccessful calls for Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to step down.

Tim Spicer is now head of Aegis, so the name has changed but it looks like not everyone is happy about his companies performance as well as they object to others:

Quote[/b] ]In April 2004, around the time that Aegis received its mammoth security contract in Iraq, Sandline officially shut down. A notice on its website explained that the company was going out of business because of waning government support for peacekeeping missions. “Without such support, the ability of Sandline to make a positive difference in countries where there is widespread brutality and genocidal behavior is materially diminished.â€

Both the Iraqi and U.S. governments have complained about the training and behavior of private contractors in Iraq. In an April performance review, SIGIR faulted Aegis’s compliance in five areas of its contract, including inadequate employee background checks and slack verification of qualifications and training. After sampling records of 20 of Aegis’s 125 Iraqi employees, the review concluded that the company conducted no police checks on 18 and failed to interview six; there were no records at all for two of the men.

“There is no assurance that Aegis is providing the best possible safety and security for government and reconstruction contractor personnel and facilities,†concluded the audit, which recommended stricter enforcement of the contract.

The Iraqi Ministry of Interior has repeatedly complained about reckless gunplay by the private security convoys that barrel through densely populated cities with weapons waving out the windows to clear the streets.

Even U.S. military officials have chaffed that the increasing reports of indiscriminate shootings and other war crimes endangers their own troops. However, under an order issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority before the U.S. government officially departed Iraq in June 2004, all private military contractors are immune from prosecution in Iraq.

“They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place,†Marine Brigadier General Karl R. Horst told The Washington Post in a September 10th story. “These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There’s no authority over them, so you can’t come down on them hard when they escalate force.â€

Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is responsible for security in and around Baghdad, said that between May and July, he tracked at least a dozen shootings of civilians by contractors.

Some private contractors argue that the dangers of a war zone necessitate shooting at, and possibly killing, people who turn out to be civilians. Since the violent resistance in Iraq makes little distinction between them and enlisted personnel, they say, contractors must act aggressively for their own protection.

The military itself has given mixed signal to private contractors in Iraq. In a major incident in May 2005, 19 security contractors working for Zapata Engineering were detained for allegedly shooting recklessly in the streets of Fallujah and nearly hitting U.S. forces. Later Marines searched, roughed up members of the convoy, and jailed them for three days without charges.

The Zapata contractors were released, but complained that the U.S. military had blacklisted and banished from working in the security business in Iraq—although none ever was charged with a crime.

Another U.S. Army investigation last spring was based on an anonymous four-page letter detailing allegations of wrongdoing by the contractor USIS, according to a recent story in The Los Angeles Times. The letter writer accused USIS of deliberately reducing the number of trainers to increase its profit margin and detailed two incidents in which USIS contractors allegedly had witnessed or participated in the killing of Iraqis during the assault on Fallujah a year ago. (Private security contractors are not allowed to conduct offensive operations.)

The letter also claims that a USIS employee saw Iraqi police trainees kill two innocent Iraqi civilians, then covered it up. A USIS manager “did not want it reported because he thought it would put his contract at risk,†according to the letter.

The head of the probe, Army Colonel Ted Westhusing, reported the allegations to his superiors, but told them that he believed USIS was complying with the terms of its contract. U.S. officials investigated and found “no contractual violations,†and “these allegations to be unfounded, according to The Los Angeles Times. (Westhusing subsequently committed suicide, distraught over his experiences in Iraq)

On the video footage:

The video was originally posted on

Aegis Iraq PSD Teams

a private page of Aegis members.

So it has not been altered by any peaceloving commies. The trunkmonkey who fired the shots is Danny Heydenreycher, a south african employee of Aegis at Camp Victory, Iraq.

Aegis holds several sweeping Pentagon contracts in Iraq worth over $430 million. In published news reports, Tim Spicer, the head of Aegis, insists that an internal investigation of the matter is ongoing and notes that there is no evidence that the video involved Aegis.

Edit: Specifically on the legal issue

Even if you are under US command there is no legal process that can be applied if civillian contractors are conducting illegal acts.

You cannot be punished by US authorities, neither civillian ones, nor military ones. The Iraqui government has no legal tools to punish you also. They can of course take you prisoner but they have to hand you over to US authorities. The US authorities have no legal tools to punish you though. The only thing you can get is a ticket back home an a letter from your employer who can fire you. That´s it. Unless you run around in the UK and accuse yourself of illegal actions there is noone on the planet who can sue you for any wrongdoings.

Accompanied by the problems CC´s seem to have with alcohol and drugs in Iraq this creates a dangerous mix.

Why for instance are there no drug tests conducted among Iraq´s CC´s ?

This is why I prefer military units to private companies taking over official tasks. There are instruments to regulate misbehaviour. If such instruments are not there the risk of unlawful action grows.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think we realy ought to be looking for an exit strategy accordingly I bring you these words of wisdom from George:

Quote[/b] ]Exit Strategy

How to leave Iraq in three simple steps.

It is clear we are at a crossroads in Iraq. Naysayers are claiming the situation there is chaotic and confusing. Nonsense. It is not confusing. It is quite simple.

Allow me to explain.

There are, at present, two major constituencies in Iraq: those who want to kill us, and those who do not. Success will require minimizing membership in the former group. Complications along this path may include the following:

1) In the process of killing the ones who want to kill us, we sometimes kill some who are not trying to kill us. This has been observed to cause a sudden increase in the number who want to kill us, which means a longer stay for us, since we then must kill, not only the ones who originally wanted to kill us, but also the ones who just started wanting to kill us.

2) In order to identify the ones who want to kill us, it is necessary, once we have caught someone who wants to kill us, to encourage him/her to help us identify others who want to kill us. Sometimes we mistake ones who don't want to kill us for ones who do, and catch them, and encourage them. Upon their release, there occurs a sudden increase in the number of those who want to kill us.

3) Given the large number of us over there, it should come as no surprise that some of us are bad. Certain abuses have occurred. However, it is only fair to note that many more abuses were occurring before we arrived. Plus, if our abusers are abusing over there, they are not abusing over here. So really, it is a win/win: The Iraqis have fewer abuses than they were having, and we have fewer abuses than we would have had had our abusers stayed at home. Everyone is happy, except, it has been observed, those who were abused and those who hear of the abuse and suddenly join the group of those wanting to kill us.

Since it is clear that we cannot leave until they stop killing us, and equally clear that they will not stop killing us until we leave, I propose the following exit strategy:

1) Kill all the ones who are trying to kill us, in such a way that none of those who presently do not want to kill us suddenly start wanting to kill us.

2) At the moment of the death of the last person who wanted to kill us, race quickly out of the country before some additional person suddenly decides he/she wants to kill us, thus necessitating our continued presence in Iraq, in order to kill him/her.

3) Having left Iraq quickly, do not look back, so as not to witness individuals claiming they would have liked to kill us, which would then necessitate a return to Iraq, in order to etc., etc. (See No. 2, above.)

To implement this exit strategy, we will have to practice running quickly. It is further recommended that, while running, the eyes be cast down, to avoid witnessing any last-minute people trying to kill us. We will have to establish excellent communications so that the moment that final person begins dying, we can all begin running quickly at the same time, eyes cast down, quickly, to our vehicles, to get to the airport and get out of the country.

This exit strategy will demand a high level of coordination, dedication, and planning.

But our leaders have already shown the way by showing that, if one has a vision, and refuses to betray that vision by modifying it, or becoming distracted by small details, such as, for example, the confusing data emanating from the non-theoretical world, filled with actual people, pets, clothes on clotheslines, nuanced loyalties, etc., mountains can be moved, nations can be changed, great things can be accomplished.

It is clear that the fate of Iraq now rests in the hands of Iraqis.

People of Iraq, I say to you:

Stop trying to kill us, so we can leave. But also, do not fear. We are in it for the long haul, although we cannot stay with you indefinitely. No, as soon as you stop trying to kill us, believe us, you will never see us again. Therefore, trust us, people of Iraq, have faith, we assure you: As long as you continue trying to kill us, we will never abandon you.

By George Saunders

Posted Monday, May 24, 2004, at 8:29 AM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2100933/

Follow the above link for even more of George's wisdom

Kind Regards Walker

[Jinef 2]

Why submit yourself to the psychological trauma of warfare willingly?

'Making a better life for your children'

Maybe spending time with them, making model aeroplanes, going to the park and buying some ice cream would be a good way to start.

Not missing Christmas and risk getting fucking beheaded on TV for them to see in later life ...

In order to truly help Iraq the west needs to stay the fuck away. If they want they can avoid empowering psychopathic dictators who we hold such aversion to when it suits us.

It is truly sick how people can happily justify human suffering based on national 'pride' or 'loyalty'. Has this modern age of communication not yielded some empathy in mankind? Isn't it truly funny how people are so utterly brainwashed and naive?

How can someone bring themselves to saw off the head of fellow man? What trauma and suffering the executioner will go through I can only imagine.

Yet the Jews still fucking moan about the holocaust.

The Yankees still fucking moan about how many they lost in wars.

The Brits still moan fucking moan about how they lost a cruel and tyrannical empire, how it was good back then.

Strangely after all this complaining and vast experience in the tragedy of warfare/genocide we seem completely apathetic when it comes to preventing violence in this world. We are all pro war just to save ourselves and not thinking about the consequences for later generations.

Find it strange that when the congo erupted in violence, the people who moan about how they were systematically killed did not immediately start advocating prevention and peace, they simply did not give a fuck.

Who is going to have trouble sleeping at night?

The US marine who shot 3 children, 4 women and 11 men.

The Iraqi who sawed the head off a contractor.

The Platoon leader who sent 7 guys to death.

Mr Bush?

Armchair Generals like ourselves?

The Pentagon Staff?

Mr Blair?

They may find it slightly stressful, but in 5 years, they will forget and live happily ever after. Motherfuckers.

THE STUPIDITY OF THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN PEOPLE ASTOUNDS ME AGAIN AND AGAIN.

[Warden 0]

Stupitidy of British people? How exactly the fast majority of the British poublic are against the war yet we support our troops. what do you expect us to do?

we know the war against iraq was illegal, so does the UN, yet they do nothing ! what are we supposed to do about it?

demonstrate?

we do that, and guess what we get nothing from it, maybe you should write to your UN representitive and demand action because so far we got nowt from ours or anybody else's, why? because the US is the largest contributor to the UN peace keepping forces. (IMHO)

[Jinef 2]

Good points Warden.

I admit I find it encouraging how the troops are supported despite the lack of faith in the British government. I read in disgust how the Vietnam veterans were treated after their war.

Well, I am not educated in the ways of government, however is there not safeguards to stop governments doing irrational things.

In the US there is impeachment (Something that happened to Clinton for getting a blowjob, not killing 30,000 people).

In the UK the Queen has the power to dissolve Parliament and control the military. (Like that would ever happen )

If people were passionate about stopping the war, they would organise mass days of protest when nobody works. Imagine the millions of profit lost from a national strike? That would majorly fuck off people in high places However noone cares enough to do that, everyone wants their own little bit of money, they are too selfish, it would not work.

Also, noone has the leadership or organisational capability to do that ... people who could do it are silenced by the powers.

The UN has a history of venality and impotence. Mainly because that is where the US wants it.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]because the US is the largest contributor to the UN peace keepping forces. (IMHO)

Cough, cough...

The US are number 31 of the troop contributing countries.

Here´s the top ten:

1. Bangladesh

2. Pakistan

3. India

4. Jordan

5. Nepal

6. Ethiopia

7. Nigeria

8. Ghana

9. Uruguay

10. South Africa

Doesn´t read like the who-is-who of western forces.

Even France and Austria outnumber the US troop contributions.

UN troop contributions in numbers

[harley 3 1185 0]

It's all very nice  that the British people support their troops well, but when the number of servicemen keeps on falling because of that s*** Blair repeatedly slashing the defense budget, stretching forces to the limit and letting the MoD fritter money away like nothing else, what's the point?  If the people had truly desired to support the troops, they would have voted Blair and his duplicitous Labour Party out of power at the General Election.

[Messiah 2]

Quote[/b] ]In the UK the Queen has the power to dissolve Parliament and control the military. (Like that would ever happen )

only by name and tradition - the british military fight for 'queen and country' by their conception, something that stems back through centuries of british history and politics.

even if the queen decided one day she was sick if little Tony and wanted to return britain to a monarchy proper, i'd have a fair bet that she'd find it difficult to do so, there could always be another cromwell sitting in the wings who'd beg to differ - the british monarchy is nothing more than a symbol, a tourist attraction - that nice little ornament we keep on the mantlepiece... the Queen fills in the pomp and majesty of events, she carries out those annoying little throwbacks we have in tradition, yet she's quite utterly useless and uneeded in modern day britain - but as i type i realise how horribly off topic i am... appologies there.

Quote[/b] ]because of that s*** Blair repeatedly slashing the defense budget, stretching forces to the limit and letting the MoD fritter money away like nothing else, what's the point?

you'll find its Dr John Reid, and his numerous predecesors, you should be blaiming for defence cut backs, stretching forces and frittering away money. Granted blair gives a nod to those decisions.

Quote[/b] ]If the people had truly desired to support the troops, they would have voted Blair and his duplicitous Labour Party out of power at the General Election.

and voted for who? the only reason the british labour party survive in this day and age, and with the current tendancy to piss the general public off, is because we have the choice between them, a party that was led, till today, by an alcoholic, a party who are still struggling to come out from under the thumb of lady thatcher and her ideals and also struggling to keep a leader of the party for more than 30 seconds, and the other rather mediocre parties, who range from racists, fundamentalists, mentalists, tree huggers and an assortment of british public garbage including george galloway and good old kilroy...

its simple, there's no one who can currently better labour, however poor they are in anyones eyes - the two leading partys are in disaray and have been for years - blair will continue till he retires, labour will stay in office for another election, and we will see the fundamental awful decisions that party has made way into the next war in the middle east, in whichever country bush's dart lands in.

rant over - i dont care for politics, because there's nothing in british politics to get excited about... we vote in the better of a bad bunch at every election, and i fear in the years i live and vote in this country, i'll continue to be the silent majority who clench their teeth when wondering why they bother.

[Jinef 2]

Well said Messiah. Personally I think labour was doing alright, until Iraq.

To be honest I doubt anyone else could do much better.

We look at the decision to go to Iraq and think ... why?

We look at the decision to not go to the congo and think ... why?

In hindsight it is easy to see Iraq was a bad decision for the British. Yet at the time it seemed a'ight to a lot of Britons.

It is so easy in hindsight, to see the Congo was a genuine problem and that so much more could be done to prevent real genocide.

What was Tony Blair thinking when he was hearing the estimated casualty figures, the daily cost of deployment and looking at a '45 Minute Strike Capability'. Was he really convinced or is he a little money-grabber putting on a smile.

I have no clue. The fact is we are in Iraq, 30,000-50,000 people are dead because of it and we are doing it for what... To prevent somebody blowing up a London underground station or a nightclub in Bali? Great bloody plan Sherlock!

Did people miss the lessons learnt in Northern Ireland ... that troops on the ground offer little but targets, the real battle is in the shady world of 'intelligence' (Which is a complete fallacy as I see very little intelligence, only small amounts of knowledge).

Troops on the ground simply offer a way to control movement and keep order, with an acceptable amount of troop deaths.

Unfortunately the US military took 2 years to actually start controlling movement in Iraq, even then only in certain areas. About 6 months ago they released 'an amazing new idea' about issuing ID cards, and forcing everyone to stop at checkpoints in order to catch any shady movements .... pretty simple concept eh? The Germans set it up in a matter of weeks when invading their countries .... creating a lot of difficulty for resistance fighters. However unfortunately the US lacks the combat infantry manpower and training to do this, the US military prefers to fill out it's ranks with support personnel and simply roll around in big armoured vehicles (Very scary and impressive for us westerners who ain't used to 100 years of violence; but for the Iraqis .... "you have a tank huh .... wow ..."). How about this, 500,000 combat personel, with checkpoints on every street, with complete border control and ID cards for everyone ..... with estimated casualties of 10,000 over a period of 15 years.

Oh what's that? The US public wants a bish bang boom, 2 weeks and back home for beer and girls?

[Messiah 2]

hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing. I've always fully support the troops from my two respective homelands (England and Denmark) and what they're doing in Iraq, because I know their choice is limited - they're doing their Job, whether they agree with the war there or not. As per usual, its all about politics

[Balschoiw 0]

And sometimes even those who are the ones to act according to coward policy stand up and speak fact:

Call to impeach Blair over Iraq war

Quote[/b] ]Monday January 9, 2006 11:24 AM

Tony Blair should be impeached over the Iraq war, a former senior soldier said.

General Sir Michael Rose, former UN commander in Bosnia, said the Prime Minister had to be held to account.

"Certainly from a soldier's perspective there can't be any more serious decision taken by a prime minister than declaring war," he said.

"And then to go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something that no one should be allowed to walk away from."

General Sir Michael told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Mr Blair's actions were "somewhere in between" getting the politics wrong and actually acting illegally.

"The politics was wrong, that he rarely declared what his ultimate aims were, as far as we can see, in terms of harping continually on weapons of mass destruction when actually he probably had some other strategy in mind.

"And secondly, the consequences of that war have been quite disastrous both for the people of Iraq and also for the west in terms of our wider interests in the war against global terror."

The general accepted Parliament had endorsed the war, but he said that was because the Prime Minister had stressed the weapons of mass destruction argument.

In my opinion, he´s damn right.

And for the UK citizens. It´s about time to get the union jacks from the shelve and have them ready to greet the troops:

British withdrawal from Iraq to start within months - Straw

Quote[/b] ]Visiting Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said it was hoped Britain's 8,000 troops would start to withdraw from Iraq in a matter of months.

"In practice, what we hope to see is a gradual phased draw-down of British troops starting, not with Basra, but with one or two of the other provinces in our area," Straw told AFP.

The phased withdrawal will start "as and when the Iraqis are satisfied that their own forces can cope completely with the responsibility," he added following talks with Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari and President Jalal Talabani.

"It's going to be a matter of months," he added Saturday.

British forces control four of Iraq's southern provinces -- Basra, Nasiriyah, Samawah and Amara.

"We're here to liberate Iraq. We did not come to colonize it," Straw also said, noting that "we are here as long as the Iraqi government wants us here."

Speaking of the formation of a new government in Iraq following the December 15 general elections, Straw also insisted that it be as inclusive as possible.

"It's of fundamental importance that they get the formation of this government right, and that not only means that they declare, as the leaders are now, that there has to be a government of national unity, but they get the details right.

"They have got to work out how a broad consensus-based government will work, how decisions are taken. Because if all that happens is that the cabinet reflects the divisions that are there in the wider community, then it won't operate effectively," he said.

Iraq is still awaiting the final results of the election for the first permanent parliament since Saddam Hussein was ousted by US-led forces in April 2003.

Early results suggest that the Shiite-based religious parties and the Kurdish alliance will win a majority of the votes, but Sunni Arab and other secular parties have disputed early results, alleging electoral fraud.

London and Washington are looking to the formation of a stable government of "national unity" in a bid to undermine Sunni-backed insurgents.

Straw said he would be meeting here Saturday with "representatives of a wide cross-section of Iraqi society, including leaders who have criticized the results of the elections", a reference to Sunni Arab parties.

Jaafari told a news conference that the next government would be enlarged to include "all the major parties" in parliament.

Talabani, for his part, said all sides agreed on the need "to have a government of national unity" but he acknowledged that "the devil is in the details."

Bring them home !

[pogingwapo 0]

Quote[/b] ]UK officer slams US Iraq tactics

By Matthew Davis

BBC News, Washington

A senior British Army officer has sparked indignation in the US with a scathing article criticising the US Army's performance in Iraq.

Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster said US tactics early in the occupation had alienated Iraqis and exacerbated problems for the coalition.

Officers displayed cultural ignorance, self-righteousness, over-optimism and unproductive management, he said.

The article, in Military Review, has drawn US criticism but also approval.

'Stiflingly hierarchical'

In it Brig Aylwin-Foster says American officers displayed such cultural insensitivities that it "arguably amounted to institutional racism" and may have helped spur the insurgency.

Sometimes good articles do make you angry

Col Kevin Benson

School of Advanced Military Studies

While the army is "indisputably the master of conventional war fighting, it is notably less proficient in... what the US defence community often calls Operations Other Than War," the officer wrote.

Operations to win the peace in Iraq were "weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head on", he added.

The British officer - who was commander of a programme to train the Iraqi military - says he wrote the article with the intent to "be helpful to an institution I greatly respect".

Yet the initial response from many US military officers was hostile.

'It made me upset'

Col Kevin Benson, commander of the US Army's elite School of Advanced Military Studies, said his first reaction was that Brig Aylwin-Foster was "an insufferable British snob".

"Some of this is pretty powerful stuff and it made me a little upset," the colonel told the BBC.

Col Benson, one of the lead planners for the 3rd US Army's early post-invasion operations, is writing a rebuttal to the Military Review piece.

"We paid a great deal of attention to the tribal interactions within Iraq and on making commanders in the field aware of the sensitivities," he said.

"And I certainly don't recognise what he says about the de-professionalisation of the US Army.

"But sometimes good articles do make you angry. We should publish articles like this. We are in a war and we must always be thinking of how we can improve the way we operate."

Earlier this month President George W Bush said US troop levels in Iraq would be reduced to several thousand below the pre-election baseline of 138,000 by Spring 2006.

Those cuts would come in addition to the decrease of 20,000 troops who were in the country largely to provide security during the December elections.

[Warden 0]

This Guy Survived an IED, amazing viewing

No Gore.

[xawery 0]

Hmm, Pogingwapo beat me to the punch. Here is a direct link to the full report.

[Messiah 2]

amazing story, nice find

[xawery 0]

It was quite easy really, the story was plastered all over the papers here in the Netherlands. Including the direct link

[walker 0]

Hi all

This link produces an animated Iraq map of attacks on the coalition over time.

http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html

It is an interesting way of showing the Data as it gives graphic representation of how bad the insugency has been over the last few years on a day by day basis.

Kind Regards Walker

[Messiah 2]

jesus... listening to the clicker made it rather creepy... alos, if you unselect the US casulties its a scary change in the number of dots

[harley 3 1185 0]

Makes you wonder why we even bothered - moral support doesn't really cut it when you compare U.S. troop levels and casualties to those of the Coalition.

Thanks for that, Walker.