blair iraq... the flip side.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by easy-wan-kenobi, Feb 20, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. with the increasing hostilities on arrse towards big tone and his cronies about the iraq war i thought id give you all a thought.

    what if we had said NO
    no we didnt want to go to iraq with america and all the other contingents.

    no tours in the sand... no casualties.

    what would your feelings be then??

    would you be angry that we didnt participate?

    would you feel cowardly?

    its only a thought but just imagine if it had been the other way around

    floors open.

  2. Cow

    Cow LE

    Humm, interesting. I'd expect retention would still be an issue as everyone would be bored with moving back and forth to 'stan. Would our commitment there be higher? Not much else going on with so wasn't that bad a deal another war coming along.

    We have a battle proven Army. Most of the Infantry and other arms now have combat experience, can't be a bad thing? late 80's there wasn't much going on (correct me if I'm wrong) and most people were static or on exercies after exercise. Now there's less of a need for a fire power demo when CAS and other capabilities have been used for real.

    Investment in the forces, while not at a required level has increased and new technology has been brought in. Would this have happened if we weren't making sand castles? War while never nice is usefull.
  3. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    A couple of things I have thought

    Our combat arms are getting plenty of operational experiance which must be a good thing

    We have lost 132 soldiers in 4 years in Iraq

    How does that compare with accidents etc back in BAOR and other large scale formations duing the 70's and 80's (including RTA's)

    Is there much of a differance?
  4. I think a huge sigh of relief would have come over the Govt. once the US had declared there were no weapons of mass destruction. Blair would have been forgiven for many of his failings too and seen in a better light. I also think 7/7 bombings would not have happened.
  5. Well look at it now, we are still there and yet more defence cuts, hardly any changed a thing.
  6. I don't think the two can be compared TBS. There is much of a difference, a huge difference mate. One is war, one is accidents/bad luck. Both are set by fate but that's where the similarities stop IMHO.
  7. would any other political party have done any different?

    i suppose the thing im really after is would you be wanting to go. before everyones first tour of iraq i havent found anyone to be unwilling to go... quite the opposite infact

  8. Cow

    Cow LE

    No, they all require US support to carry out their wishs. Better to be on the band wagon than left behind.

    I wanted to go, it's the only time I get to do my job and the garages suck.
    A few snco crabs that were with my unit were gripping about it but apart from that we were getting phone calls from the UK asking if we could up the manning so people could get out there.
  9. Agreed, an interesting thought.

    There was considerable pressure for GB to become involved in the Vietnam fiasco.

    There cannot be many who regret the decision to stay out of Vietnam. At the time we (GB) were 'confronting' the third largest army (Indonesian) in the world. This conflict was successful in contrast to the US eventual defeat in Indo-China. Had Indonesia, a giant of a country, won this struggle, it is likely that the world would be a different place today.

    Confrontation was a just and legal action against an unprovoked aggressor whose aim was domination of neighbouring countries.

    My conclusion is that we would not regret having stood back and not joined America in the ill-starred and dubious adventure into Iraq.

    It may interest some to know that the general who commanded in Confrontation as Director of Operations was awarded a DSO for his efforts. He already had two DSOs ! He had fallen out with his political masters (Labour of course - SoS for Defence: D Healy once a card carrying Communist) and paid the price for speaking out.
  10. ouble post - again! Sorry.
  11. Some very good points , be interesting to know the comparison between casualties in conflict and those in RTA's . Remember in my time we lost quite a lot , mainly in motorcycle accidents.
    This thread has only been comparing our casualties though. How many Iraqis have died both during the war and since compared with a similar time span under Saddam? Is life for them really any better ??
  12. Despite what Stonker says, the Brookings Report gives an interesting view of how Iraqis view their situation
  13. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator


    This report says nothing at all about how the Iraqi's view their situation.

    It is an report based on US DoD data which suggests an upward trend in violence and insurgent numbers.

    Depressing reading in its own right though.
  14. Isn't it true that better body armour etc has reduced casualties?

    The low number of fatalities masks a high number of injured with serious wounds to their arms/legs who would have died in previous conflicts.
  15. Lots of good points. A few from me:

    Combat experience is good experience and no matter what the public understands about the Armed Forces, it does now understand the sacrifices that (sadly) some of our brethren have made.

    It has made the public realise how the Govt has underinvested in our Forces.

    It has continued (and enhanced) our relationship with the US, who really and truly believe that we have stood beside them. That does not make Bliar's decision right and I take the point that we were right to stay out of Vietnam.

    The carnage in Iraq would still be happening even if we had not joined the Coalition. We are an influence within the Coalition and that gives us more chance to have a beneficial effect.

    I also take the point that 7/7 may not have happened, but given our involvement in Afghanistan it may well have done anyway.

    On balance, given the intelligence that there was (even though it may have been wrong in some areas but not all), I reckon that we were right to go in.

    I just wish we had more troops. Cutting Inf Bns whilst increasing commitments? Barking! Not to mention an antiquated strategic lift fleet, not enough in various specialist trades throughout the various Corps etc etc. The Tories need to make Defence a Vote winner rather than hugging hoodies.