US prepares to plug hole left by British troops

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by obamaviii, Aug 12, 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. Three words: Early General Election.
     
  2. The article sounds about right, in that the US would probably have to step up FP activity for their convoys running up to Baghdad through Basra and Dhe Qar Provinces, to compensate for the lack of coalition (UK) troops on the ground in those areas. The issue about "defending" the iranian border, mentioned in the article, is not something I know enough about to comment on other than that if these provinces have transitioned to PIC, it implies that the DBE and IA are capable of looking after their borders with the minimum of coalition assistance (UK or US).

    If there is indeed US pressure on the UK to stay on the ground in Basra province, I would assume it would be largely down to the inherrent FP that having UK troops in the area provides. However, what we need to achieve in Basra is the Iraqi security forces able to take full responsibility for security (without needing coalition support) when they are able to do so, our job is done and our continued presence in the province would just further upset the situation. People must realise that "Basra is never going to be like Birmingham" and we should not strive to make it so. But it is our responsibility to leave the country having given the Iraqis the best chance to succeed, in their own way (i.e. largely by ensuring that their security forces are up to the job).
     
  3. "There is also the nightmare scenario of Iraq becoming an Islamic fundamental state, willing to give succour to groups like al-Qaeda.""

    Interesting level of analysis there - a shia government would willingly give shelter to a Sunni group which has called for the extermination of the Shia? Hmmm....

    I can see limited US presence down MSR Tampa, but not in Maysan or the border. The US has a cultural blindspot about the borders in MND(SE), conveniently ignoring the large porous borders in places like Wasit province.
     
  4. We have had a great deal of history of withdrawing from areas where our mandate to operate with the consent of common people on the ground has evaporated. We know from places such as Aden, Cyprus, Kenya and elsewhere that regardless of higher politics, if ordinary people do not want us, then we are on a hiding to nothing.

    Our legal right to be in Iraq was always doubtful, our presence there had no widespread public support at home, and it really makes no difference whether our presence may be politically desirable since politics in this country is as much divorced from the aspirations of ordinary people as it is on the ground in Iraq in relation to theirs. We need look no further for a contemporary example than the huge gulf that existed between political leaders in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s and the people who eventually made them irrelevant!

    The Americans, despite Vietnam, have learned absolutely nothing. You either leave when people want you to leave or you engender inter-generational hatred and contempt while your soldiers die - it's that simple!

    As for US friendship, 300 years of accumulated wealth purchased their friendship during the second world war. It was a hard-nosed business deal in their favour! When we were broken and penniless at the end of it, their friendship counted for absolutely nothing. We were abandoned until the Soviets began an expansion programme into Western Europe and 'friendship' in the form of Marshall Aid was born out of a perceived threat to US interests!

    Our friendship with our European neighbours is far more important to our survival than the vagaries of whichever psychopath happens to occupy the White House at any given moment! There is a distinct degree of hypocrisy on the part of those who are, on the one hand violently anti-European on the basis that we surrender sovereignty to Europe while at the same time turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that our relationship with the USA exactly mirrors that which existed during the cold war when Cuba was a client state of the USSR fighting it's proxy wars in Angola and other countries in Africa!

    We were 'suckered' into a war on two fronts by a strong president and a servile Prime Minister, both cognitively dissonant to any connection between their foreign policy and the violence and hatred towards our two countries that that policy engenders which both widens and deepens with every day we remain in a country that does not want us or our 'democracy'!

    Quite apart from the tragedy of the innocent lives that have been lost in that country, - our and theirs, the intervention had weakened the concept of the international rule of law that the trials at Nuremberg were supposed to have established. It has done irreparable damage to our diplomatic and international standing in the world community. It has turned the USA into a virtual isolated fortress with it's freedom more threatened from within and without than at any other time in it's history. It has led to the imposition of a virtual Police State in our own country with our freedoms and liberties a shadow of what they were. It has made us loathe and distrust our own politicians to such an extent that we seriously doubt the ability of any of them to represent our views any longer. Politicians have lost our trust and our respect and despite their efforts I seriously doubt if they will ever win it back!

    The world is now a more dangerous place then ever to live in since in the drive to export 'democracy' by armed force, we have destroyed it nationally and internationally. We have made democracy a meaningless concept to the dead who will never enjoy it and those we will kill unless they learn to accept McDonald's and Starbucks on the streets of their cities and towns as visible manifestations of it's so-called precepts!

    The popular American protest song from the 1960s is as true today as it was when it was written in the Vietnam era:

    "War!

    What it good for?

    absolutely Nothing!"
     
  5. It's always about national interests. We have no more friendship (at the top level), when the chips are down, with the europeans than the US, probably less. Most of the threats to Britain's survival have come from European psychos not american ones and it wasn't american U-boats in the Atlantic, the Kaiser wasn't american nor Napoleon etc. So the Yanks decided to cripple us financially as part of their help, very sensible realpolitik on their part which probably meant we gave up the empire a bit easier with a few less "Iraqs" of our own. The idea that we should rely on Europe for our survival when the chips are down is laughable even if the EuroSov idea allowed for a "we", which it doesn't.

    A sovereign British government that makes a choice to support America as an ally (even if it's a mistake) is completely different from Britain becoming a province of a EuroSov Reich. I call it that because at no point in the entire process have the minority of people who wanted it ever dared to honestly and openly state their case to try and get a democratic mandate for it's creation. Every step of the way they have lied, decieved and misled the voters into a completely new state while pretending it was some kind of free trade area. At the final hurdle they won't allow a referendum because they think they'll lose. Good start to the "democratic" people's republic of EuroSov.

    Anyone who thinks that the people who found it so easy to completely ignore democratic principles in the pursuit of their EuroSov Reich, will then suddenly change and go on to create genuinely democratic EuroSov institutions is either a fool or a commie cnut.

    But anyway, as Big Brother is probably watching I'm going to stop slagging off the Guppymint on this forum from now on as I don't want to add any straws to the camel's back as I'm guessing they're itching to close this forum down.
     
  6. Interesting reading
     
  7. Why is it that the Italians, Portugese, Spanish, Dutch, Japs, etc. etc can pull out without any real issues.

    I am not talking militarily before any cheap shots are posted but politically.

    The relationship between the US and these countries has not been affected one bit as far as I can see.

    JSF collaborations, NATO relations, trade links etc etc. are intact so why is such a big deal when we go?
     
  8. Differance is that Blair helped sell the war here in the States... he was able to convince members of Congress who were undecided to sign on to the plan. Which means there will be some political and media backlash here when your personnel pull out of Iraq. In the end, the noise will mean nothing on our nation's relationship so it isn't worth worrying about.
     
  9. Iolis, that's an outstandingly good post.
     
  10. I think at this point the consensus here in the US is that we should be pulling out as well. It would seem to the average American that the Iraqis either refuse to take up the slack and bring their country into the 21st century or are incapable. With that in mind, most will want to know when the US is pulling out upon hearing about the British, others will just say things like "There were brits over there??"

    Most Americans don't pay much attention to external news unless it involves us. Before condemning us about that, in all fairness if you think about the size of the US, it would be like being up on all the news in every country in Europe and then worrying about whats going on in other parts of the world. The average American won't spend the time for all that.
     
  11. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Well said Iolis!

    The Americans themselves are on record as stating that even strong alliances with their friends will not matter if US national interests are at stake.

    For the record, UK national interest was at stake in Suez, as was French!

    Now, in Iraq, UK national interest, which from our perspective is more important, is at stake. It serves us not in the least to our benefit to be in Iraq. We have no cushy oil deals in the pipeline ('scuse pun), we havent the military budget (thanks Broon) to maintain operations in this theatre and others at the same time, we are losing troops unnecessarily to unpleasant, sneaky attacks, we are not protecting the Iraqi people from harm by insurgents, and any other trade deals with the 'new' Iraq are well sewn up by the septics, again, by their own admission.

    Time to pull the plug has long since passed, and you never know, it might even win that odious knobber Broon an election to boot.
     
  12. What wonderful support the British military have on these pages!

    Iolis posted;
    Aden, Cyprus, and Kenya seem more to be the exceptions and 'elsewhere' more the rule. Example, if you were to put the question today to the people of Zimbabwe, how do you think they would respond? Malaysia circa 'Emergency' time, Kuwait 1991, Singapore WW2 and after? And if Britain hadn't persevered against Napoleon? The list goes on.

    Iraq wasn't about a 'legal right'. It was about removing a nasty
    dictator, who had proven himself a threat to his neighbours (eg Kuwait and
    Iran), and his own people (eg Marsh Arabs and Kurds)

    A. International politics is never 'that simple'. Either was Vietnam.
    Communism was on the expasion before they were challenged in Vietnam, it was their high tide. They were on the defensive after Vietnam. It broke their backs. 14 years later the house of cards that was the communist world crashed and burnt.
    (And these days Vietnam seems to have moved on, no hatred and contempt obvious).

    Rubbish. You really think that countries you have had recurring wars (the last well within living memory) with are your friends, and those who helped you aren't! Absurd Lend-Lease made a big difference. Remember the UK disarmed in the '3os, Cheaper than an expensive military budget. If they'd had a credible deterrent to Hitler and Mouussolini's adventurism, WW2 may not have started at all, or the axis powers could have been stopped before they took over mainland Europe and Scandinavia. The attack on Russia then would not have been possible, and what?, 30 million lives or so may have been saved. If you want to lay blame for Britain's situation post WW2, look at the political mood in the 30s (People who would find common ground with yourself, perhaps?).

    Look at history! Most of Britain's wars have been with European
    meglomaniacs/powers. Britains true friends and family ARE the Angloshere.
    Britain is located NEAR Europe, rather than are a part of it (in the same
    way Australia is NEAR Asia, but not of it).

    Look at the time line. 9/11 occurred BEFORE the Iraq and Afghanistan
    campaigns, not after it, as did many other attacks on western interests.
    Iraq et al are effects, not causes of this war.

    War, unfortunately, is not the worst of evils, slavery, bullying are
    worse. Many humans would prefer to die on their feet than live on their knees.
     
  13. Rubbish. The invasion was about WMD's..
    No! Wait!
    Supporting international terrorism.........?
    Or was it something to do with Iraq wanting to adopt the Euro for Oil sales?

    No one, and I mean no-one, would have agreed to send all these people to their deaths just to 'free' the Iraqi people.
    Who are you trying to kid?
     
  14.