• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

The Timetable

British withdrawal should be

  • this year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • next year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • in 2008

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • before parliamentary elections

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • after parliamentary elections

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • in Iraq forever!!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • it is not my business

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#2
I was going to post this separately but, well, I guess this is an appropriate thread:

Source:http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E4474710E4B49A/
Following on from his recent trip to Iraq and the formation of a new Iraqi Government, Defence Secretary Des Browne gave his first major speech to the Royal United Services Institute, London on Wednesday 24 May 2006. Entitled 'Iraq: Government and Security - the Evolving Challenge' Mr Browne outlined the challenges that face us in Iraq.



"The last few weeks have seen important events in Iraq. The Iraqi people now have a new government of national unity. But at the same time the recent upsurge of violence is continuing, including in the south, and British troops have suffered setbacks.

"Clearly this is a complex picture and it can be difficult to reconcile conflicting images, of progress one day, and setbacks the next.

"What I would like to do today is first to give you my view of the situation in Iraq – based on my visit last week with the Chief of Defence Staff, and in particular my conversations with our troops on the ground; and second, to set out what this situation means for our long-term strategy of supporting Iraq in its journey towards democratic self-governance.

"For the rest of my life I will remember one moment in particular from my visit, and that is when I stood on the tarmac at Basra airport for the ceremony of repatriation for those who died in the Lynx helicopter crash.

"This brought home to me starkly the bravery and commitment which all our service men and women quietly display every day, in Iraq but also across the world.

"Today, in front of a distinguished gathering of military officers, particularly from the Air Forces of our coalition, I pay tribute to the way in which they shoulder the responsibility we give to them and continue to carry out their duties with the utmost professionalism in the most challenging of circumstances.

"Our Air Force is making a vital contribution across the spectrum of conflict but, in particular, its ability to deliver intelligence-gathering, complex and swift logistical support and truly integrated air-land operations.

"The Army is providing framework security on the ground, and training and mentoring the 10th Division of the Iraqi Army.

"The Royal Navy for its part is providing significant support to the Coalition Task Force in the Northern Gulf, overseeing the security of the oil platforms – crucial to generating the revenue which will drive Iraq’s regeneration.

"All three services are involved in the crucial task of training the Iraqi security forces.

"I can assure you today from my conversations last week with members of all three services that morale remains high. They, and we, remain committed to seeing the job through.

"In Iraq, that job is not to try to run the country for the Iraqis; nor to try to impose on them our ideal model of democracy - which inevitably reflects our traditions and our history, not theirs.

"Instead, our job – our responsibility under UN resolution 1637 – is to support the emerging Iraqi democracy as it moves towards self-government and faces down the various elements inside the country who are bent on resisting progress.

"As the Prime Minister made clear in Baghdad on Monday, we want Iraq to take full responsibility for its own security. Of course we – and they – want to get to this point as fast as possible. But we cannot go too fast, if we want the progress we are making to be sustainable in the long term.

"Recent events reinforce this point. The upsurge in violence is evidence that all sides realise that this is a decisive period. Some elements within Iraq have a lot to lose from progress towards secure and stable government and the rule of law. It is not surprising, therefore, if they respond to any encouraging signs with redoubled violence. But it is important also to recognise that the situation is different in different areas. 14 out of the 18 provinces of Iraq remain relatively calm. Equally important, we need to understand that the violence is of different kinds – interweaving and feeding off each other, but with different underlying causes.

"First, terrorism fuelled by religious extremism. The ideological struggle within Islam has generated a small minority of violent extremists – both international groups and Iraqi converts – who are prepared to kill anyone , including themselves , in order to impose their beliefs on others. This bloody extremism is aimed not just at the West and anyone associated with it, but also increasingly at ordinary Iraqis. It is a grim challenge, but it is perpetrated by a small minority – though one which will not disappear in the near future.

"Second, sectarian violence, driven by the struggle for power and wealth, reinforced by a vicious circle of recrimination and revenge. In the long run this is the most dangerous kind of violence for the new Iraqi state. But the rivalries underlying the current sectarian struggles – between Shia and Sunni, or Shia and Shia, or Arab and Kurd, or Persian and Arab – were not created by the West nor by our involvement in Iraq.

"Third, nationalist resentment against foreign forces on Iraqi soil. Current polling reflects the complexity of Iraqi public opinion, and the difficulty of assessing the level of consent for our continued presence. There are plenty who would wish to see an end to coalition presence in Iraq but at the same time acknowledge that we are needed as a key component of security. For example, some Sunnis, who were among the strongest opponents of coalition patrols, are beginning to recognise that multinational forces are a vital support in protecting them against sectarian attacks.

"My experience last week reflected these conflicting signals. I witnessed plenty of scenes of co-operative and friendly reactions from the local population – including knots of youths cheering and waving as we travelled by boat down the Shatt al Arab waterway.

"But these are individual snapshots and it would be wrong to generalise from this and conclude that the situation is universally positive. The frustration of three years of slow reconstruction and sectarian violence has created deep currents of resentment.

"People will have seen for themselves on television the ugly scenes which followed the helicopter crash in Basra. But just as I do not intend to generalise from the positive individual scenes I witnessed, so too, people should not generalise too quickly from negative individual scenes – especially as all the recent cases of crowd disturbance have flared up in reaction to individual incidents, rather than forming part of a wider groundswell.

"From the evidence of my own eyes and from talking to people on the ground, I can tell you that for the vast majority of Baswaris the priority is getting on with everyday life. By contrast , the small minority who have sided with the terrorists or organised factions after giving up hope of an ordered future must not be dignified with the label of patriots or ‘honourable insurgents’. There is nothing honourable or patriotic about exploiting the weak, or killing and maiming the innocent.

"So one aspect of the complexity of the situation in Iraq is that these three types of violence interweave and feed off each other. Terrorists, sectarians and nationalists do not wear different uniforms to allow us to distinguish them. They are overlapping groups, with overlapping allegiances. Moreover, important though their differences are, their methods are often the same: appalling and often indiscriminate attacks on those who are striving to make Iraq more prosperous and secure.

"So whatever the source of the violence our immediate response must be the same – rooting out the perpetrators, and ensuring that our forces, and the Iraqi security forces, have the resources and capacity to protect themselves and to protect the population.

"But as well as addressing these violent symptoms, we also need to tackle their underlying causes. With sectarianism and nationalist feeling, the long term solution must come from politics – from the Iraqi Government at national and local level showing the Iraqi people that democratic politics works, and that it can resolve disputes and hammer out compromises , and ,most importantly ,that it can maintain the rule of law. Even in the case of terrorist violence, while clearly extremists who are prepared to engage in suicide attacks are beyond negotiation or compromise, there is still a need to re-engage those who are starting out down that path, or who misguidedly tolerate or shelter them. Again, this is about showing that politics and dialogue can be an alternative to violence and rejectionism.

"In all three cases then, in the long run politics must be the solution. This is why the announcement at the weekend of the first government of national unity is such a huge step forward. But first Iraq must have security, to create the space for politics to work.

"And the first priority for security, as the new Iraqi government has made clear, is to tackle the militias. Armed militias are widespread and a grave threat to the stability of Iraq and to the rule of law. Any government, if it is to survive, must establish a monopoly on the use of force. At the moment the Iraqi government clearly lacks this. That is why I welcome Prime Minister Maliki’s commitment to tackling this problem head-on – and we are already looking at how we can help.

"We have shown our commitment to the Iraqi people and to their government and we will not abandon them now. But that commitment is not blind, and it is not given without clear expectations. We expect the Iraqi people and in particular those in the political process to rise to the challenges and rise above self-interest and sectarianism.

"I have naturally emphasised the help we are providing and will continue to provide on security. But we are also providing large scale development aid, through the Department for International Development. The key objective here is for Iraq to be successfully extracting, pumping and exporting its oil, and using this wealth to drive regeneration. But tackling corruption and restoring the necessary infrastructure will in the end have to rely on Iraqi capacity, and importantly, Iraqi will.

"But the challenge facing the new Iraqi Government will be to engage a wider international participation in support of their efforts. They will need to present the international community with a compelling, credible and coherent programme of development that makes the best use of Iraqi resources and clearly indicates where the regional and international effort should fit in. Iraq is a pivotal country in a crucial region – crucial to global stability and prosperity, and to global security and the fight against terrorism. It is in all our interests, as well as Iraq’s and its neighbours’, that it goes forward as a stable democratic state underpinned by a strong economy. That is why it is important that Arab neighbours engage with the new Government to provide assistance in the next phase.

"There is obviously still much to be done. But I can tell you that close-up, the situation is not just burning military vehicles and shootouts, and that we should not dismiss or underestimate the progress that has been made and the work that continues on the ground every day.

"Our achievements in training and supporting the Iraqi police and army have been a major success. And let us not forget the courage of the Iraqi policemen and soldiers in volunteering for these jobs in the first place. I acknowledge that nothing is perfect in nation building and there are issues with the infiltration of the police by militia and criminal elements. But this is being confronted, now, with a new vigour.

"New structures – Provincial Councils – have been set up to improve local governance, and have been empowered with responsibility for development. All four provinces in the British area of responsibility in the south now have development plans. They are telling us what they need and why.

"These Provincial Councils are acting in step with the new National Government’s priorities. They will take over responsibility for provincial security as the Iraqi forces develop.

"It is true that political jockeying and sectarian suspicion has slowed progress in some Provinces, especially in Basra which has a particular legacy of problems.

"But even here, I saw some signs of progress. Despite the helicopter crash and the scenes of disorder in the hours following it, the very next day the Provincial Council announced their agreement to re-engage with the Coalition Forces and re-enter the diplomatic process. Engagement in Basra remains fragile but there is a growing local recognition of the benefits that arise out of a co-ordinated approach. Our experience in Maysan and Al-Mathanna has shown how important this is to making sustainable progress on governance and on security sector reform. Commanders on the ground stressed to me the importance of finding Iraqi solutions. Progress may be slow, but without this co-operation it will be slower still.

"Where does this leave us? I recognise that people – both here and in Iraq – are impatient for change, and that any talk of progress and the achievements of our troops naturally leads to the question of how soon we can start to bring them home.

Consistently we have said that the reduction in the level of troops in Iraq will depend on handing over responsibility for security to the Iraqi authorities. Progress in the provinces will be measured in four ways:

First, we will assess the level of threat, including that from militia
Second, we will assess the capability of the Iraqi security forces to deal with that assessed threat
Third, knowing the importance of showing the Iraqi people that politics is working we will assess the capacity of both national and provincial governments
Fourth, we will assess the coalition’s capacity, in those circumstances, to step in to support the Iraqi security forces, as needed.
"These four conditions are not difficult to understand. But they describe a process not a single event – and a process which is moving at different speeds in different places, as was clear to me last week when I travelled across the South and talked to our people on the ground.

"I do believe however that in at least one of the four provinces we are responsible for, all the conditions are close to being met.

"This is the province of al-Muthanna, which on current trends I would expect to be ready to be handed over to provincial Iraqi control in the near future. The final decision on timing will of course be for the new Iraqi Government, in close collaboration with the Coalition.

"I should emphasise that this first step will not result in the immediate return of British troops. We will still have to provide a rapid reaction force with a strong fighting capability. But as the process of handover continues across other provinces this process will enable us progressively to draw down British troops.

"As I have said the process will move forward at different times in different places. I fully expect us to maintain a military presence in Iraq for sometime to come, but certainly for as long as we are needed. The tasks, force levels, and posture, will be continually reviewed. Our commitment needs to be seen in the broader context of Iraq and the strategic significance of the southern region.

"I do not wish to exaggerate what is possible or how quickly handover can be achieved. As I have said, the threat remains serious in some areas; and sectarianism remains a deep-rooted problem in Iraqi political culture, and will not disappear quickly. The country has to confront these challenges in a weakened state after decades of deliberate vandalism by Saddam. I saw from my visit last week how Basra, a city of one and a half million people, is struggling not just through sectarianism but through a legacy of impoverishment, deteriorated infrastructure, oppression and brutalisation. Inevitably this makes the process of stabilisation and handover slower and more difficult.

"These are serious challenges and I hope I have reflected their scale and complexity. But it is important to keep reminding ourselves of the opportunities Iraq now has. This is why we must remain in Iraq and why we must see the job through. We are in Iraq, under a UN resolution with 26 other nations, to support the development of democratic government and help build the Iraqi security forces so that the country can take responsibility for its own security and its own destiny.

"It is a fair question to ask: what will success look like? Even if we can’t predict exactly when it will arrive, or recognise a single decisive event, we need to understand what we are aiming for. The answer is: a steady and secure direction of travel, towards democracy, towards the rule of law, and towards economic regeneration. A steady development of Iraq’s own security forces: in the short term, increasingly able to assume responsibility for internal security; and in the medium term, able to take responsibility for defending Iraq’s sovereignty and for working with the international community in the fight against terrorism.

"We have a clear ambition for Iraq – which we share with the new Iraqi government. But ambition must be tempered by a sense of reality. Success will be about having confidence that, even in the event of inevitable setbacks, Iraq is on the right path. If that direction of travel can be maintained we will have made the world and the UK a safer place – and we will have done this under the authority of the UN.

"This is why we should resist any talk of cutting and running, and any temptation to impose artificial deadlines. We must see this job through. I will not sell short the work that has been done so far, nor will I tarnish or devalue the sacrifices of the British and Coalition troops and the thousands of Iraqis both in the police and army who have died defending the people of the new Iraq and their right to freedom and self determination."

( That last sentence might have been lifted from a Rumsfeld speech - no Brit talks of "cutting and running" and it is a favourite NeoCon-ism with its unsavoury connotations of desertion and cowardice.....other than that....)

Le Chevre
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article571696.ece

Tony Blair will fly to Washington today for talks with George Bush on how quickly the US and Britain can withdraw troops from Iraq.
Sh1t - does this mean that our beloved Deputy PM is indeed running the country in his absence? Fortunately, with no ministerial responsibilities, I'm sure that our John will be able to keep a firm hand on his staff to ensure that the country isn't run any differently from when Tony's in.

Apart from meeting George Bush, is Tony booked up for speaking engagements in the USA this week?
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
NotyouAgain said:
You forgot the option "until the job is done"
It is a partial case of the option: "it is not my business". Or you can specify when exactry (from your point of view) "the job" would be done.
When the Iraqi Govt asks us to leave ;) And no .. "it's not my business" is not the same as saying "When the job is done".
 
#8
NotyouAgain said:
KGB_resident said:
NotyouAgain said:
You forgot the option "until the job is done"
It is a partial case of the option: "it is not my business". Or you can specify when exactry (from your point of view) "the job" would be done.
When the Iraqi Govt asks us to leave ;) And no .. "it's not my business" is not the same as saying "When the job is done".
There are other opinions. Many think that the decision will be made rather in Washington than in Baghdad.

Anyway, if you are British, Iraqi minister or member American administration then it is your business. If not then it is not your business. So if you insist on "until the job is done" statement then "it is not your business" statement is also true.

By the way, are you British minister?
 
#9
Any poll can be skewed by the questions asked or the choice of options. Sergey, I get the impression that english isnt your first language, so maybe you should stay away from polls.
 
#10
Wha_Dar said:
Any poll can be skewed by the questions asked or the choice of options. Sergey, I get the impression that english isnt your first language, so maybe you should stay away from polls.
Dear Wha_Dar!

Your are absolutely right, English is not my first language. As for your kind proposition to stay away from polls then I haven't voted myself in this poll and don't vote in other ones with rare exceptions - I voted for Telegraph as my preferable newspaper (maybe the only case then I ever voted).

Probably you mean that I should not initiate polls. It is a reasonable remark. However I'm not sure that it violates the rules.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#11
KGB_resident said:
Anyway, if you are British, Iraqi minister or member American administration then it is your business. If not then it is not your business.
Beg to differ there Sergei Nikolayevich....

> I'm a British taxpayer - which makes it my business
> many on this board are serving Army or reservists - which makes it their business
> others, like Lucky Jim, have nearest and dearest serving in the Sandbox - which makes it their business

...and the way Ministers, members of the Adminisphere and others find out that it's fittin' well OUR business is when they are looking for new jobs......which is how a democracy is supposed to function. :x

<< Gentlemen, you have sat here too long - in the name of God GO !! >>

< I may have been sucking back the Sneaky Pete on the last one...but you get my drift>

Na Zdroviye !
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#12
from Aunty:

Iraq: Timing the troop withdrawal


When US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair sit down to talk in Washington later this week they are likely to discuss the vexed question of the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq.

It would be a hoped for dividend from the formation of Iraq's new national government - approved by parliament on Saturday.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has been quick to throw the spotlight on the handover of security from the multinational forces to Iraqi personnel.

His timetable was perhaps a little too rapid for Mr Blair who was in Baghdad on Monday.

Mr Maliki was specific in saying the handover would begin next month, with two British-controlled provinces in the south transferring to Iraqi forces. In total 16 of 18 provinces would be in Iraqi hands by the end of the year, he said.

This is far quicker than any previous US and UK estimates. Some analysts have suggested a major foreign troop presence of 10 years.

British officials later corrected the first handover date to July and a joint Iraq-UK statement was less specific on the other transfers, saying: "By the end of this year, responsibility for much of Iraq's territorial security should have been transferred to Iraqi control."

Mr Maliki knows he needs to take advantage of the momentum his administration will initially enjoy. Achieving his ambitious timetable could be the key to his government's success.

Still, the factors that will determine the timing of troop reductions or withdrawal remain complex and fluid. How could they combine to meet Mr Maliki's schedule? Or to destroy it?


BEST-CASE SCENARIO
The new administration maintains a balance between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish aspirations and succeeds in fostering the "Iraqi-sation" the US and UK governments hope for. A deal is agreed on the contentious issue of who takes the temporarily unfilled posts of interior minister and defence minister.

A Shia gets the former, controlling the police, and a Sunni the latter, controlling the army. Efforts begin to succeed in bringing sectarian militia into the mainstream security forces. Sectarian killings decline, creating a greater sense of security, particularly in Baghdad.

The initial handover to Iraqi forces of the southern provinces of Muthanna and Misan goes as well as expected and others begin to transfer.

Sunni insurgents take note of the desire of the UK and US to leave and join talks with the multinational forces - as suggested this week by Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq Hashimi. Militant violence is contained. The Iraqi administration presses ahead with its plans to increase security forces from 253,000 to 325,000 by December and despite equipment and training problems the force is largely ready to take over security by itself.

The timetable set by the Pentagon of handing over half the 110 US operating bases to Iraqi forces by this July, and almost all by July 2007, is also realised.

President Bush is able to reduce US troops from 133,000 to 100,000 by the end of this year, boosting his standing in time for November's mid-term elections.
Mr Blair brings home 3,000 of the 8,000 British troops by December, taking a step to ensuring his legacy is not blackened by the Iraq War.
Mr Maliki's hope of Iraqis controlling all provinces bar Baghdad and Anbar by the end of the year is, if not fully realised, then at least largely achieved.

WORST-CASE SCENARIO

A US official returning from Baghdad with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last month admitted that the government of Nouri Maliki would be the last throw of the dice. But in this scenario, the game is lost. Squabbling continues over unfilled posts, huge divisions arise in the administration, the Sunnis walk out.

Insurgents target the new administration in a huge show of strength.Mr Maliki's vow to use "maximum force" to "put an end to the militias" fails. The sectarian strife that has increased since the attack on the Shia shrine in the town of Samarra in February descends into all-out civil war. Sunni politicians repeat claims that Shia death squads operating within the police are behind sectarian killings.

The end-of-year deadline to create the 325,000-strong security force is not met. A recent report by a retired American general suggesting it would take at least two to five more years of US support before the Iraqi army can stand and fight on its own now appears far more valid. The handover of Muthanna does not create a snowball. Maysan highlights the complex problem of Iraqi security. It is not only insurgents and militias contributing to the breakdown of law and order but also mafia-style criminal gangs.

The failure of the politicians leaves Mr Bush's promotion of Iraq as a democracy looking unfulfilled. The Kurds gain control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. The Sunni nightmare scenario of being left with a rump western region of sand and olive groves while the Kurds and Shias divide up the oil-rich north and south moves closer to reality. Far from reducing troops the US and the UK are forced to commit them on an indefinite basis.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/5007864.stm

...all going to prove the veracity of Churchill's << Jaw-jaw is better than war, war. >>
 
#13
Goatman said:
KGB_resident said:
Anyway, if you are British, Iraqi minister or member American administration then it is your business. If not then it is not your business.
Beg to differ there Sergei Nikolayevich....

> I'm a British taxpayer - which makes it my business
> many on this board are serving Army or reservists - which makes it their business
> others, like Lucky Jim, have nearest and dearest serving in the Sandbox - which makes it their business

...and the way Ministers, members of the Adminisphere and others find out that it's fittin' well OUR business is when they are looking for new jobs......which is how a democracy is supposed to function. :x

<< Gentlemen, you have sat here too long - in the name of God GO !! >>

< I may have been sucking back the Sneaky Pete on the last one...but you get my drift>

Na Zdroviye !
You are right Goatman. Iraqi war itself is your businees of course. It is a business of any British taxpayer, any soldier, moreover those that (God guard them!) are on duty in Iraq.

However, there is a difference between the war itself and the decision about the withdrawal. So there are two possibilities (writing my I don't mean myself):

1. It is my business to propose a concrete timetable and I wish to make it clear.
2. It is not my business to make any concrete propositions. I don't care or trust highly esteemed, learned mr.Blair.
 
#14
Setting a timetable plays into the hands of those who cause death and destruction.By putting a date on the table for Coalition Forces to withdraw gives them a point in time for a Spectacular.Day arrive's,Bang 1000 pounds of explosives detonates in Market place.100's dead on the day we announced our departure,good plan.We should leave when we have achieved all that is required of us,and Iraq is happy for us to depart.This is already the case in 14 of the 18 Provences.However achieving a workable solution in those 4 will be very difficult,and if I'm honest a long way off.The Def Sec made a good speach,which I hope he delivers on.The well being of our serving troops should be his priority,to this end Good,Reliable,Working equipment should be at the top of his Things to do list.
 
#15
easymoney said:
Setting a timetable plays into the hands of those who cause death and destruction.By putting a date on the table for Coalition Forces to withdraw gives them a point in time for a Spectacular.
Let's look at this point closely. How the insurgents could use the timetable? Suppose that it would be declared that coalition forces would quit Iraq in 2009 (by the way it will happen anyway). US/UK would have trupms. They could ask why are you fighting? We will go out anyway. Many moderate insurgent factions could announce a truce. Fragile peace could be used for reconstruction of Iraq so Iraqis could soon see that presence of the coalition in Iraq is for their benefits. As for the timetable then it could be revised (if it would be needed). So I don't see any negative consequences from a declaration of a timetable.

easymoney said:
Day arrive's,Bang 1000 pounds of explosives detonates in Market place.100's dead on the day we announced our departure,good plan.
So the terrorists would open their faces. Previously they acted under a mask - "we demand a withdrawal".

easymoney said:
We should leave when we have achieved all that is required of us
3 years showed that the current strategy failed and really nobody believes that it is workable. So something should be done, something different.

easymoney said:
...and Iraq is happy for us to depart.
Indeed many would be happy.

easymoney said:
This is already the case in 14 of the 18 Provences.However achieving a workable solution in those 4 will be very difficult,and if I'm honest a long way off.
For understandable reasons Kurdish provinces are peaceful. As for the rest then more than half of Iraqis live in "unstable provinces". And the situation goes worse, not better.

easymoney said:
The Def Sec made a good speach,which I hope he delivers on.
Iraqis would hear it with great interest.

easymoney said:
The well being of our serving troops should be his priority...
Of course Iraqis would be happy to hear how he cares about British soldiers.

easymoney said:
...to this end Good,Reliable,Working equipment should be at the top of his Things to do list.
Right! It is the only way to improve daily life of Iraqi people.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
easymoney said:
Setting a timetable plays into the hands of those who cause death and destruction.By putting a date on the table for Coalition Forces to withdraw gives them a point in time for a Spectacular.
Let's look at this point closely. How the insurgents could use the timetable? Suppose that it would be declared that coalition forces would quit Iraq in 2009 (by the way it will happen anyway). US/UK would have trupms. They could ask why are you fighting? We will go out anyway. Many moderate insurgent factions could announce a truce. Fragile peace could be used for reconstruction of Iraq so Iraqis could soon see that presence of the coalition in Iraq is for their benefits. As for the timetable then it could be revised (if it would be needed). So I don't see any negative consequences from a declaration of a timetable.
Or they would simply scale down their ops and wait until the tropps have gone, then launch an attempt to over throw the current Iraqi govt.

So the terrorists would open their faces. Previously they acted under a mask - "we demand a withdrawal".
No, currently they kill more iraqi's than coallitin troops already, the mask is off ... if it was ever really on to begin with

easymoney said:
We should leave when we have achieved all that is required of us
3 years showed that the current strategy failed and really nobody believes that it is workable. So something should be done, something different.
In what way has it failed? what gains has any of the insurgents or terrorists or criminal factions made?

Secondly, how many insurgencies and terrorist campaigns have been put down conclusively in 3 years? BTW How's Chechenya going?

Of course Iraqis would be happy to hear how he cares about British soldiers.
His our MoD's sec of def, not the Iraqi's.

Right! It is the only way to improve daily life of Iraqi people.
My g-d call someone, we agree on something! ;)

Sorry easymoney if I've butted in.
 
#17
Where he gets this mask idea from god only knows,Dick Turpin they ain't. British troops being deployed with reliable,good,working equipment will only impact on the Iraq's when it kills the insurgent.My point was that it would make our troops lives a lot better having decent gucci kit on tap.I think it was lost in translation,not a cheap jibe as I don't speak russki.
Please don't apologise for butting in,aim your butts eastward.
 
#18
NotyouAgain!

My comments I marked as bold.

NotyouAgain said:
KGB_resident said:
easymoney said:
Setting a timetable plays into the hands of those who cause death and destruction.By putting a date on the table for Coalition Forces to withdraw gives them a point in time for a Spectacular.
Let's look at this point closely. How the insurgents could use the timetable? Suppose that it would be declared that coalition forces would quit Iraq in 2009 (by the way it will happen anyway). US/UK would have trupms. They could ask why are you fighting? We will go out anyway. Many moderate insurgent factions could announce a truce. Fragile peace could be used for reconstruction of Iraq so Iraqis could soon see that presence of the coalition in Iraq is for their benefits. As for the timetable then it could be revised (if it would be needed). So I don't see any negative consequences from a declaration of a timetable.
Or they would simply scale down their ops and wait until the tropps have gone, then launch an attempt to over throw the current Iraqi govt. Is it bad? How many lives would be saved!

So the terrorists would open their faces. Previously they acted under a mask - "we demand a withdrawal".
No, currently they kill more iraqi's than coallitin troops already (if Iraqi army and police are the parts of the coalition then it is not so obvious), the mask is off ... if it was ever really on to begin with

easymoney said:
We should leave when we have achieved all that is required of us
3 years showed that the current strategy failed and really nobody believes that it is workable. So something should be done, something different.
In what way has it failed? what gains has any of the insurgents or terrorists or criminal factions made? It failed because the current strategy is fruitless. Btw, mssrs. Bush and Blair recognized that many mistakes has been done. Many strategic mistakes I could add.

Secondly, how many insurgencies and terrorist campaigns have been put down conclusively in 3 years? Indeed how many? But BTW How's Chechenya going? A slow but visible progrees I guess.

Of course Iraqis would be happy to hear how he cares about British soldiers.
His our MoD's sec of def, not the Iraqi's. It is their Iraqi soil, not yours

Right! It is the only way to improve daily life of Iraqi people.
My g-d call someone, we agree on something! ;)

Sorry easymoney if I've butted in.
 

Latest Threads