Civilian workers in Iraq.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Sep 22, 2004.

?
  1. Yes , and we will protect your right to do so

    17.4%
  2. No you Muppet ,don't you read the bloody papers?

    82.6%

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. http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3529015
    Jennifer Sym

    The Question....

    If my only reason to travel to Iraq, (knowing the FCO have informed me that I am doing so against the sound advice of those personnel situated within the area), is for financial gain , should the Armed Forces be called upon to protect and support my right to do so?
     
  2. This is too big a topic. One of my Neighboues Just PVR'd ( MP Sgt) and now gone back to Iraq to continue doing his trade, close protection. he already served six month for queen and country & now its for himself . Same job just five times more money. Who protects him? Us , you , or he protecting others or even soilders. what if , what if is always in your mind weather you are serving or not
     
  3. I know Malinkey.

    I deliberately left it large ,to encourage a variety of viewpoints.

    There are 2 sides of the coin here ,but the question really revolves around should we be counted on ,or indeed tasked to provide protection to Freelance entities contributing to the rebuilding program?
     
  4. I think HMG has a duty at some level to it's people wherever they are.

    Why not, thats exactly why lying tosser Blair put the troops in and if it's good enough for him and his disgusting party it's good enoughfor joe bloggs.
     
  5. These blokes may well be going out there for financial gain, but their skills are still needed nonetheless. Whether Iraq has enough builders, engineers, truck drivers or whatever is a moot point; the point is, that the governments of the UK and USA have made a point of tendering reconstruction projects to international competition, and as such are responsible for providing a secure enviroment in which reconstruction can take place. It is not as if all these people are going out there to become lounge singers, hairdressers and aromatherapists, they are vital towards getting the country back on it's feet.
     
  6. PTP
    When our government commited to regiem change it was for the long term. Protecting restructure specialists is a task we should undertake to achieve the long term aim. Civillian firms are now taking on this role also. In the future more protection will be supplied by 'civvies' . The wheel will turn but slowly. If civilians are not the ones to compleat restructure it will fall upon millitary pers, who still need protecting. Money is a major factor to pers putting themselves in harms way. I was offerd a job with the afore mentioned monkey. I did not take up this offer due to family restraints. But if deployed i dont get this luxury. :cry:
     
  7. You could go round in circles on this one. Yes, it is reasonable to expect contractors, journalists etc to follow advice, and take the best security precautions available to them. But its nonsense to blame contractors etc merely for being there. US/UK objectives in Iraq have NO CHANCE AT ALL without civilians working on reconstruction, and those working directly for the coalition.

    On a separate point, it's good to see The Scotsman being quoted increasingly in this sort of forum. They've always had good coverage of defence/international affairs, even better now in my opinion, and it used to irritate me that Whitehall-centric MOD media people seemed to take little interest in the Scottish quality papers except for 'local boy stories'.
     
  8.  
  9. I sent this lastnight......

    I stand by the laws that Purdah imposes; however, and at the risk of making myself extremely unpopular, no one seems to have stated another obvious point.
    The care and protection of these people falls to you as the Armed Forces.
    Do you feel these people should be there?
    Aid workers are a separate issue.
    The Army would be doing their job, in fact it usually works the other way around, you do the job then the agencies come along when the situation is secure, am I not correct?
    As to the rebuilding of Iraq, the basic services are being addressed by the FCO, who are NOT employing independent contractors but are bowing to the MOD's opinion that the situation is to volatile and the danger to persons to grave at present to facilitate this work.
    Businesses in Iraq are employing these men and they are not there to provide basic humanitarian aid, rather to re-establish an industrial infrastructure, which while necessary for economic re-growth is not an immediate priority worth dying for.
     
  10. Ooooops thanks Claymore

    Typing up one thing whilst reading another :oops:

    BBC ,thanks for posting in full. Unfortunately,your initial post wasn't quite as defined as your latest one ,but you have made it clearer now.

    Regards

    PTP
     
  11. The kind of workers risking their lives in Iraq to repair and restore its infrastructure deserve any reasonable protection which can be afforded by the forces available.

    But there are problems of their own making in many cases. A large number of firms employing expats do not register their employees with the FCO, so government has no way of knowing exactly how many or the identities of those there.

    Secondly, a number of the workers themselves choose to live outside any zone of protection which can be offered. In that case, they or their employers must surely be responsible for security. There is, after all, no shortage of ex-forces freelancers looking for work as escorts and bodyguards. The Brit and two unfortunate Americans at the centre of the current hostage crisis were living in an unwise area and using Iraqi guards who promptly thinned out.