Wed be better off with Saddam still in charge!

#1
There is a provocative piece in today's Daily Mail by Correlli Barnett under that title (sorry: no web link as I still buy hard copies of newspapers...).

His advice to Bush and Blair:

'They must therefore now announce a firm schedule for liquidating our entanglement. In other words, the US and the UK should cease to make withdrawal dependent on the wishes of a spectral Iraqi government and take their own decision in their own direct national interest...'

Sounded reasonable to me so far but then he continued:

'...just as a previous British Labour government did in the case of India in 1946-47 and Palestine in 1947-48'.

How many how many killed in the Partition of India and in a series of conflicts over Kasmir?
Palestine....where do you start?

Begs the question of whether a country should take a long- or short-term view of 'direct national interest' I suppose. Any comments?
 
#2
As Iraq is at the leading edge of the US's grand strategy in fighting terrorism what message does unilateral withdrawal send?
 
#3
BoomShackerLacker said:
As Iraq is at the leading edge of the US's grand strategy in fighting terrorism what message does unilateral withdrawal send?
More to the question: what message does unilateral invasions of sovereign countries send?

In hindsight, Iraq and Indeed the world would be safer with Sadaam in charge of Iraq.Tough pill to swallow but nevertheless the truth.
 
#4
Wasn't there an MoD 'continuous attitude survey' that revealed that a great many Iraqis wanted the Man in Black back?

How many how many killed in the Partition of India and in a series of conflicts over Kasmir?
Palestine....where do you start?
Thousands in partition , it was one of Dad's favourite stories... "So there we were son , me aged 19 with a shiny new pip, 30 or so soldiers the same age as me, and a million hindus down one end of the street and a million muslims down the other. All you could do was let them get on with it"
 
#5
Now we are all well aquainted with the people who Saddam was trying to keep a lid on for so many years I can only say I admire his ability. Three years ago I thought his habit of feeding malcontents into treeshredders was rather uncouth, now however I regards it as inspired policing.

He really understood his own people.
 
#7
armchair_jihad said:
Now we are all well aquainted with the people who Saddam was trying to keep a lid on for so many years I can only say I admire his ability. Three years ago I thought his habit of feeding malcontents into treeshredders was rather uncouth, now however I regards it as inspired policing.

He really understood his own people.
oh yes, obviously this particular group of people has to be gassed, massacred and tortured to be kept under control, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the complete false estimation and incompetence of the coalition. :roll:
 
#8
PartTimePongo said:
Wasn't there an MoD 'continuous attitude survey' that revealed that a great many Iraqis wanted the Man in Black back?

How many how many killed in the Partition of India and in a series of conflicts over Kasmir?
Palestine....where do you start?
Thousands in partition , it was one of Dad's favourite stories... "So there we were son , me aged 19 with a shiny new pip, 30 or so soldiers the same age as me, and a million hindus down one end of the street and a million muslims down the other. All you could do was let them get on with it"
Quite. My now 85 year old father recalls what he described as rabid hordes gathering in side streets looking for an opportunity to tear him and his compadres limb from limb as they supported the Indian police "...the police fired over their heads, but the kept coming on. Eventually they shot straight into the crowd. It was the only message they understood."
 
#9
Proper_Gander said:
armchair_jihad said:
Now we are all well aquainted with the people who Saddam was trying to keep a lid on for so many years I can only say I admire his ability. Three years ago I thought his habit of feeding malcontents into treeshredders was rather uncouth, now however I regards it as inspired policing.

He really understood his own people.
oh yes, obviously this particular group of people has to be gassed, massacred and tortured to be kept under control, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the complete false estimation and incompetence of the coalition. :roll:
I think you fail to see the irony in Armchair's comments. By last estimation, only 660,000 have died since the 'liberation' of Iraq. Not sure how many Saddam was killing per year but I am sure it wasn't quite that as high as the current average.
 
#10
Proper_Gander said:
oh yes, obviously this particular group of people has to be gassed, massacred and tortured to be kept under control, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the complete false estimation and incompetence of the coalition. :roll:
Now now, the Liberal press has been calling for proactive intervention for over thirty years in various nasty places, finally this doctrine of liberal invervention gets implemented and the Guardian and Independant complain!

The Iraqis are not children Proper_Gander, they are actually very well educated by the standards of the region, a huge amount of the Chaos and vandalism over the past three year has been through self choice. Unless I am mistaken and it was the coalition looting away like good uns a couple of years ago. Or was that Haliburton - one gets confused.
 
#11
has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the complete false estimation and incompetence of the coalition.
It was bloody blindingly obvious. Even a cursory glance at Arrse threads in the run up to invasi.....ooooops liberation , will reveal that 'ordinary' squaddies had a better handle on cause and effect than their lords and masters.

The one American outside the immediate Military who did have a handle on cause and effect , was sacked for being 'off-message'

In 2003 it was announced that Garner had been selected to lead the post-war reconstruction efforts in Iraq. He was regarded as a natural choice by the Bush administration given his earlier similar role in the north. Six weeks into his new assignment Garner went to the White House to meet President Bush for the first time. The president, with the principals seated alongside, including Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and George Tenet, director of the CIA. General Tommy Franks, commander of US Central Command, was there, and Vice-President Dick Cheney was on the secure video teleconference screen.

Addressing the nine basic assignments he had been given in the presidential directive, Garner said essentially that four of them shouldn’t be his because they were plainly beyond the capabilities of his small team. The four tasks included dismantling weapons of mass destruction, defeating terrorists, reshaping the Iraqi military and reshaping the other internal Iraqi security institutions. Those would have to be handled by the military, Garner said.

The president nodded. No one else intervened, though Garner had just told them he couldn’t be responsible for crucial post-war tasks — the ones that had the most to do with the stated reasons for going to war in the first place. No one asked the follow-up question of exactly who would be responsible if Garner wasn’t. The importance of what he had said seemed to sail over everyone’s heads.

Two days after he arrived, Rumsfeld called to tell him that Paul “Jerry” Bremer, a 61-year-old terrorism expert and protégé of Henry Kissinger, would be coming over as the presidential envoy, effectively replacing him. After clashing repeatedly with Bremer, particularly over the new envoy’s decision to disband the Iraqi army — which dashed Garner’s plan, approved by the president, to use it for reconstruction — he returned to the US in the beginning of June. He hid out for a couple of weeks, not wanting to see anyone at the Pentagon or talk about his experience in Iraq. Eventually he agreed to see Rumsfeld.

Meeting Rumsfeld alon he cited the first two orders Bremer signed when he arrived, disbanding the Iraqi military and banning as many as 50,000 members of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party from government jobs — effectively sending them underground. Third, Garner said, Bremer had summarily dismissed an interim Iraqi leadership group that had been eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term. Garner's final point: “There’s still time to rectify this. There’s still time to turn it around.[2]

Garner began reconstruction efforts in March 2003 with plans aiming for Iraqis to hold elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull troops out of the cities to a desert base. He was replaced in his role by Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates, on May 11th, 2003.

It has been suggested that Garner was moved aside because he did not agree with the White House about who should decide how to reconstruct Iraq. He wanted early elections - 90 days after the fall of Bagdhad, and the new government to decide how to run the country and what to do with their assets. Garner said "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people. It's their country… their oil.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Garner
 
#13
The US team to run and rebuild Iraq was selected ONLY for political loyalty, experience and ability were not relevant. A 24 year old Congressional Intern who voted Republican and was good at maths got the job of creating the Iraqi stock exchange - with predictable results. One Yank mouth breather I met in Kosovo (where he was a very junior USAID assistant) was put in charge of a $350 million Dollar budget in Iraq, with no track record whatsoever, due to his voting record. He tried hard, gosh darn hard but.....none of his old freinds he kept emailing had any experience either.
 
#15
Your quote above reads remarkably similar to a World Service broadcast I picked up a couple of weeks back. Do you have the full transcript, or is my memory failing me....? :)
 
#16
Sorry blokes but I can't really believe the bull I've read in this post. Iraq would be better with Sadaam back? have you actually been to teh country and spoken to any Iraqis?

'cos I'm pretty sure that if you had you wouldn't have heard that message. It's not that the place would be better wit SH, I think history will see this cock up as mis-guided for sure, what with the lies etc to get us there but have you seen the videos of people being beaten for minor transgressions? Tied to a post and beaten around the kidneys so they'er sure to die? Families wiped out, maybe the women raped and the men expected to pay for any ammunition used? soldiers with their arm dislocated on the parade ground and not allowed to have it re-socketed and so on.

maybe you think Arabs aren't the same as white men so they can only be terrorised into submission? Again , I ask if you've actually been there. Because I've worked with Sunni, Shia and Kurd and they all see themselves as Iraqi. I feel sorry for you if you believe what you read in the press for they also have a huge role in this fiasco, having bleated on and on about sectarian divides where there was none until the terrorists start to play their game and the wish becomes reality.

History will see the bigger failure as having gone to war and not having been prepared to do a proper job afterwards. Even now we could achieve something but it would involve more troops, not less. Securing borders and a proper 'velvet glove - iron fist' approach. Of course I know this won't happen so we'll withdraw, see the country crumble and then who knows what? Kurdish independance - who's going to pay off the Turks, Iranians and Syrians?
 
#17
jimminy_cricket said:
Sorry blokes but I can't really believe the bull I've read in this post. Iraq would be better with Sadaam back? have you actually been to teh country and spoken to any Iraqis?
Hello jimminy_cricket and welcome, it will take you some time to get used to the ARRSE sense of humour in regards to current affairs - best not take it too literally but focus on the deeper undercurrents.
 
#19
I take it we did not give them democracy early on because we did not like the look of the result? When we gave them the chance to vote it was too late. Just can't shake the Imperialistic tendency to interfere.
 
#20
nigegilb said:
I take it we did not give them democracy early on because we did not like the look of the result? When we gave them the chance to vote it was too late. Just can't shake the Imperialistic tendency to interfere.
The Yanks love democracy...except when the people inconveniently choose the 'wrong' side. Look what happened to Salvador Allende in Chile, the only freely elected Marxist leader in the world...
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads