Ok I was just talking to myself (or rather my grommet :twisted: ), about Iraq, so I thought I would ARRSEK a rhetorical question, that being why was the handover to Iraqis done as soon as was possible? I will now qualify my rhetorical question. I watched the early days after the invasion, and it appeared to me that the staff on the ground quickly established liason with 'elders'. I remember reports of how such liason was considered of high importance given that the Baathist infrastructure had been dismantled. So, everything was in place, imo, for a quick transition of power, tho obviously not for a western model of democracy. Thoughts of the 'Shura'/Jirga in Afganistan spring to mind. So I must ask why oh why oh why was this not facilitated. It seems to me that the people on the ground had enough local knowledge to understand the role of clerics/elders? I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the insurgency took rather a long time to emerge? I guess what I'm asking of anyone who was on the ground (or was party to such conversations) is whether there was a political judgement from in GB and the Bliar's political masters beyond the ocean that this was not the way to proceed? It seems to me that (and I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist) that realistically things could have been done far quicker in the short term, and I can only think that the reason it did not play out that way was because of a lack of political will with the 'alliance of the willing'?


Book Reviewer
It won't count unless they've polished the undersides of the springs on the bed, then counted all the cutlery, and then persuaded the bloke signing for it all that it's all in the book.....
You raise some very interesting points Nehustan. However, be mindful that although the insurgency has taken a while to emerge, it has become very technically capable and efficient with breathtaking speed. I heard a pundit on BFBS today stating that the insurgents have achieved more in 3 years in Iraq than the IRA managed in 35 years.
I also seem to recall tales of a US general at the time of the liberation asking "why expend so much energy trying to identify and destroy terrorist cells all over the world? Why not just sit in one place and let them come to you?"
Exit stage right said general, never to appear on our screens again. I admit that this is hearsay evidence from a reliable source; but it sure does make you think, don't it?
I seem to recall a piece in the Spectator in late 03/ early 04 (probably by Mark Stein) saying something similar, in a very gung-ho "Bring it on " fashion... along the lines of "If they attack us in Iraq, we can kill them there, rather than wait for them to drive another plane into a skyscraper".

It's a point of view.


I actually said something very similar to my wife. I think that it may be easier (or at least that's what the politicians may have thought) to fight on the savannah/desert of Iraq than the hills of the 'stan? Would explain why the information from the ground in Iraq may have been ignored by the politicians and/or American generals?

New Posts

Latest Threads