Order, re-order, disorder

#1
I have looked but have not seen any reference to what follows. If I'm wrong, tell me to sit among the mongs.

Britain came in for strong criticism at the commission on Friday when a leading US neocon said that the 'softly, softly' approach of British forces was undermining attempts to fight militias. Dr Fred Kagan, of the American Enterprise Institute, who was influential in persuading the White House to embark on a 'troop surge', told the commission: 'I do regret it [the British approach]. With all due respect to the sacrifices Britain has made, unfortunately the situation in the south has been allowed to develop.
'The reluctance of British armed forces to patrol more aggressively, to patrol outside the wire, has permitted that situation to develop. It would be better if UK armed forces could work more actively to re-establish security in Basra.'

Anyone who knows, care to enlighten us

In the same article we have

British forces in Iraq should mostly be confined to their bases to avoid becoming dragged into feuds between rival political militias, Britain's former representative in Baghdad has warned.

Can someone who cares, advise just what they do bloo*y well want?
 
#2
Is this not just an attempt to deflect crititism of their own tactics which are failing miserably? And I don't say that as a reflection of the troops on the ground who I dare say are doing a professional job in harrowing circumstances but more the decision and policy makers
 
#3
'The reluctance of British armed forces to patrol more aggressively, to patrol outside the wire, has permitted that situation to develop. It would be better if UK armed forces could work more actively to re-establish security in Basra.'
Last summer, we didn't walk about shouting and pointing weapons at civilians, but whenever we did come under contact, we followed up immediately, aggressively and decisively.

Yes, we carried out "softly, softly" hearts & minds patrols; But we also conducted fighting patrols and strike ops. Almost every night in fact.

Oh, I forgot to add: What a c0ck for saying something like that.
 
#4
OldRedCap said:
I have looked but have not seen any reference to what follows. If I'm wrong, tell me to sit among the mongs.

Britain came in for strong criticism at the commission on Friday when a leading US neocon said that the 'softly, softly' approach of British forces was undermining attempts to fight militias. Dr Fred Kagan, of the American Enterprise Institute, who was influential in persuading the White House to embark on a 'troop surge', told the commission: 'I do regret it [the British approach]. With all due respect to the sacrifices Britain has made, unfortunately the situation in the south has been allowed to develop.
'The reluctance of British armed forces to patrol more aggressively, to patrol outside the wire, has permitted that situation to develop. It would be better if UK armed forces could work more actively to re-establish security in Basra.'

Anyone who knows, care to enlighten us

In the same article we have

British forces in Iraq should mostly be confined to their bases to avoid becoming dragged into feuds between rival political militias, Britain's former representative in Baghdad has warned.

Can someone who cares, advise just what they do bloo*y well want?
I'd simply love to enlighten you Mr OldRedCap.

I sometimes can't stop laughing about these clowns. Suffice it to say if The Goons were alive today they could write a whole new radio series on just these clowns alone. I really must start a thread about the neo cons. They are so absurd I almost love them. I trust you are acquainted with the 'we are an empire now...we are history's actors' quote?

Where to start? How shall I put this? Fred Kagan is one of the elders of the mad koolaid drinking neo cons whose thoughts and ideas got us all in the s'hit that we are in today. And it is to them therefore we owe a great debt of gratitude for making our dull lives a great deal more interesting than they otherwise would be.
Fred Kagan like John Bolton (him with the joke shop moustache remember?) think nothing of using the public media to issue direct instructions to British troops in theatre.

They therefore not only bypass policy makers and military commanders in America but also the same figures in Britain. The beauty for them is that it saves time. And while our many enemies are busily listening in and trying to decode military communications Kagan & Bolton are merrily issuing orders through open public media the enemy would not think to study.
One can only say their madness is their genius.

It is a great tragedy for all of us that coming as they do from America, we are alledgely on the same side.
For were they actually recognised as our enemies, as they should be, with our strong tendency to take the p'iss out of pomp and pretension, Britain would be now be beginning a new Golden Era of Comedy.

Whilst I dwell on the concept of a thread perhaps entitled 'The Bumper Book of Bushitte Bollox', may I suggest you have a look at their house journal, 'The Weekly Standard' published I believe by the Broadmoor Hospital Press.
 
#5
OldRedCap, you'll like this one.
This is what the loons do when they create a 'War on Terror' to spook the pop.

FBI Terror Watch List 'Out of Control'June 13, 2007 8:55 AM

Justin Rood Reports:

A terrorist watch list compiled by the FBI has apparently swelled to include more than half a million names.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates say the list is growing uncontrollably, threatening its usefulness in the war on terror.

The bureau says the number of names on its terrorist watch list is classified.

A portion of the FBI's unclassified 2008 budget request posted to the Department of Justice Web site, however, refers to "the entire watch list of 509,000 names," which is utilized by its Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force.

A spokesman for the interagency National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which maintains the government's list of all suspected terrorists with links to international organizations, said they had 465,000 names covering 350,000 individuals. Many names are different versions of the same identity -- "Usama bin Laden" and "Osama bin Laden" for the al Qaeda chief, for example.

In addition to the NCTC list, the FBI keeps a list of U.S. persons who are believed to be domestic terrorists -- abortion clinic bombers, for example, or firebombing environmental extremists, who have no known tie to an international terrorist group.

Combined, the NCTC and FBI compendia comprise the watch list used by federal security screening personnel on the lookout for terrorists.

While the NCTC has made no secret of its terrorist tally, the FBI has consistently declined to tell the public how many names are on its list. Because the number is classified, an FBI spokesman told the Blotter on ABCNews.com, he was unable to comment for this story.

"It grows seemingly without control or limitation," said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani of the terrorism watch list. Sparapani called the 509,000 figure "stunning."

"If we have 509,000 names on that list, the watch list is virtually useless," he told ABC News. "You'll be capturing innocent individuals with no connection to crime or terror."

U.S. lawmakers and their spouses have been detained because their names were on the watch list.
Reporters who have reviewed versions of the list found it included the names of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, at the time he was alive but in custody in Iraq; imprisoned al Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui; and 14 of the 19 Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers, all of whom perished in the attacks.

"There's a reason the FBI has a '10 Most Wanted' list, right? We need to focus the government's efforts on the greatest threats. When the watch list grows to this level, it's useless as an anti-terror tool," Sparapani said.
 
#7
Dr Fred Kagan, of the American Enterprise Institute, who was influential in persuading the White House to embark on a 'troop surge' ... said that the 'softly, softly' approach of British forces was undermining attempts to fight militias ..."
... seem obvious to me - Brit troops weren't doing enough to aggressively promote American enterprise ... :crazy:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top