 sj |
||
|
||
BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq
|
|
|
Subject: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: DMcG Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:58 AM It appears imminent that 650 or so British troops will be moved to support the US in the north of Iraq in the next few days. When this was discussed in Parliament as at least as much a political move as a military one, with many politicians seeing at as essentially supporting Bush and the Republicans. For example,
I am interesting in hearing whether US voters think such a redeployment would or could influence the vote? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:10 PM It is difficult to see how adding our 650 to the 135 000 they already have will make a difference. Are British troops really that much better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: John J Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:30 PM Hmmm, it isn't an ordinary regiment, it IS the Black Watch. Having said that it appears we are once again being the puppet. A very sad and worrying state of affairs. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Gervase Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:39 PM "Home by Christmas," the poor Jocks were told. Where have we heard that one before...? I'd echo Keith - this smacks of politics more than military necessity. Interesting to see what the Regt's own website makes of current defence policies and what headlines it highlights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Ellenpoly Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:55 PM "I am interesting in hearing whether US voters think such a redeployment would or could influence the vote?" It'll be interesting to see how this will be spun by the Bush league. It's all about looking like having allies who will follow the US troops wherever they lead. If this is good for a few political sound bites, it will certainly be used. But it will take a heck of a lot more to actually change anyone's votes. The "October Surprise" in whatever form it might still take, would have to be about finding Osama Bin Laden-HIDING IN IRAQ! Now that would even make me think twice... and then continue to vote for Kerry... ...which I've already done. ..xx..e |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:03 PM What benefit Blair gets out of it is a bit hard to see. I'm sure there's some kind of favour promised in return. Whether it'll ever be delivered is another matter. Next thing is, I suspect, Putin will promise some Russian troops. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: DougR Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:19 PM DMcg: No, I don't think it will influence the election. Great Britian has been one of our strongest allies in the war on terror. I see this as their only continuing to provide troop support. I see nothing at all similar with the vote in Spain, where their election, evidently, was influenced by the terrorist attack in Madrid, and thier PM's strong support for Bush. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Nigel Parsons Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:53 PM I may have misheard it on the news the other day (I was just waking up). But I thought I heard it stated that Bush had stated: "Vote for me & I promise there'll be no conscription" Since when did he believe in conscription anyway? Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:15 PM From the reports I have read the worry amongst the troops who might be deployed is that they will come under the direct command of the US Military and be ordered to operate in ways that they are not used to. Our troops have been used to working in a low intensity manner whereas the American troops tend to be rather more heavier in the way they go in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:30 PM The war is pretty unpopular already, and this'll make it even more so. But Blair can do it without needing to ask Parliament's approval - and he probably wouldn't get it if there was a vote. Even people who back the war are horrified at doing anything that might help Bush get in. But the real puzzle is what Blair is after in all this - could it be that he is actually hoping that Bush will win, and doing what he can to help him? Does Blair prefer the situation where the man in the White House is fairly evidently not in the same intellectual league. Whereas with Kerry he'd be dealing with someone who could probably run rings round him intellectually. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: brid widder Date: 19 Oct 04 - 06:35 PM Could Tony really be so gullible as to back Bushes re-election at the cost of his own... this will be very unpopular... not least with the army! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:02 PM "Vote for me & I promise there'll be no conscription" Bush would say that. He doesn't want Canadian drugs in the US, our drugs being so unsafe and all. He wants Americans getting their conscriptions from American doctors pushing American-manufactured drugs. IMHO. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Amos Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:07 PM An interesting analysis of what went wrong in Iraq and why there was so large an insurgency can be found in this article in the NY Times. A quote: "John Abizaid was the only one who really had his head in the postwar game," General Garner said, referring to the general who served as General Franks's deputy and eventually his successor. "The Bush administration did not. Condi Rice did not. Doug Feith didn't. You could go brief them, but you never saw any initiative come of them. You just kind of got a north and south nod. And so it ends with so many tragic things." A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:32 PM Could Tony really be so gullible as to back Bushes re-election at the cost of his own... The thing about the British system is that it doesn't work like that The only people who vote for or against Tony Blair are his constituents. If we had an American style presidential election he'd be slaughtered in the primaries - though of course he wouldn't be eligible in any case under the American system, in a third election. No point in replacing a Tory-lite by a Tory-full strength with added tar. Blair may be gambling on the assumption that if Bush wins he'll be dead grateful for this help (I wouldn't bet on it), and if Kerry wins he's smart enough not to bear a grudge, especially in the face of the rejoicing he'll be hearing from people over here - including, I have no doubt Blair. Or perhaps the assumption is that, if he wins Bush, will have the bit between his teeth, and this helping hand might conceivably win some kind of restraining influence. This is maybe Blair's long spoon for supping with the devil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:41 PM Couldn't see Kerry running rings round Blair intellectually McG. With Blair it's his morality that's the weakness, not his intellect. But I do think Blair has painted himself into a corner on many fronts, and a change at the White House would leave him feeling somewhat isolated on the international stage. Keith A, there is indeed a huge difference between the few British troops in Iraq and the many US troops, quite apart from any political advantage from showing the alliance to be all sweetness and light. The Brits, by and large, are highly trained professional combat troops, and that is certainly true of the Black Watch squaddies in line for redeployment. A very large proportion of America's 130,000 troops are part-timers, inadequately prepared for the seriously tough situations into which they have been pitched. The point Shanghaiceltic raised should be a real concern. Apart from the issues of competence and training, there is a wide culture gulf between the US and UK troops. I heard a senior Brit officer on the radio yesterday who said: "Our soldiers tend to think before they shoot. American soldiers are what we would call trigger-happy." There are are also sytemic differences in tactical approach: the American way is to go all out for military success whereas the Brits are anxious - too anxious some would say - to avoid initiatives that might be counter-productive. Many UK politicans are justifiably concerned that if Brits are asked to operate under American command they will be tarred with the same brush and will undermine whatever goodwill they have managed to build up in the zones they control. The Brits were not always so intelligently restrained. They just have the benefit of learning some serious lessons during 20 years of urban "containment" in South Armagh, Derry and Belfast, where their crass methods created new enemies by the day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: GUEST,US Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:28 PM Boo fucking hoo. It's about time you wussies stepped up to the plate like us yanks did for you when the Nazis were knockin' on your front door. Uncle Sam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: dianavan Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:42 PM I'm probably way out of my league here but I thought one of the reasons so many countries refused to send troops to Iraq was because they would be under U.S. command. Lets face it, Blair will send whatever and whoever he needs to send because the U.S. is just about their only friend at present. If Bush loses the election or the war, Blair will be isolated. I think its called covering your butt. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:48 PM Yes Sir , Uncle Sam! Need some help rustling Johnny Jihad out from under under your bed, do you? Bit tougher than the Viet Cong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: GUEST,Boab Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:25 AM So you think, dianavan, that Tony will find himself isolated if Bush is dumped? You have no idea, I'd suggest, of the "crawling skills" of Mr Blair! If Kerry is elected, you may be sure that the bulge in the seat of his pants will be Tony's feet from the ankles down. Just B.T.W.--- "Electing Kerry would be inviting terror attack"--G.W.Bush "The risk is we'll be hit again if Kerry is elected"...Dick Cheyney Could somebody tell me where the wall is that separates a "terrorist " from a "fearmonger"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: dianavan Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:35 AM I have only observed Blair from afar, but I am sure you are quite right. He seems to be the weakly coward that gives the bully power. d I just want to your friend.............grovel, grovel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: GUEST,Jon Date: 20 Oct 04 - 03:35 AM dinavan, I don't think Tony Blair is a weakly coward. I think he could stand up for himself if he needed to. He's more of a twister and manpulator with his own agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Oct 04 - 08:22 AM "Weakly coward" doesn't really fit. Blair has an enormous amount of political nerve. He appears to have this enormous belief in himself, involving an evident inability to apply any kind of self-criticism. He really believes in himself. He even believes himself, so that he is incapable of lying, even when he is saying things which were clearly untrue, and recognisable as such at the time. (If lying is saying what you do not believe, and you believe what you say because you said it, you cannot lie.) Self-belief is often a great strength, but, Chesterton once summed up the other side, when he wrote "I'll tell you where you find the men who really believe in themselves", and he indicated a famous Lunatic Asylum (as the term was in those days.) Blair has a great tendency to talk about the need to make "hard and unpopular decisions" - but often the impression comes across that what he values is the fact that they are hard and unpopular, as a kind of measure of political toughness. He seems to brush aside the rather important question as to whether they are right decisions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: freda underhill Date: 20 Oct 04 - 08:34 AM U.S. mutiny soldiers say Army ignored complaints Mon 18 October, 2004 17:35; By Sue Pleming; Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. soldiers who staged a mutiny and refused to go on a convoy in Iraq felt commanders ignored their plight when they complained about the safety and condition of their vehicles, their relatives say. Ricky Shealey, father of one of 18 soldiers who face discipline for refusing an order to go on a convoy last week, said on Monday his son's commanders dismissed complaints they were being asked to transport contaminated fuel in broken-down trucks. "The command just totally ignored them when they told them this fuel was contaminated and they were still gonna send them out on this mission with contaminated fuel. They were completely aware of this situation and I believe it's a command issue, not a soldier issue," Shealey told CBS' "Early Show." Refusal to obey orders, especially in a combat zone, is a serious military offence. Anxious to squash any suspicion of U.S. troop morale or discipline problems in Iraq, the Army said on Sunday it was investigating the "isolated incident" and preliminary findings indicated the soldiers were worried about maintenance and safety. Last year, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, complained to the Pentagon his supply situation was so poor it threatened the Army's ability to fight, said an official document revealed by The Washington Post on Monday. Army officials said most of Sanchez's concerns had been addressed and they were keeping a close eye on the situation. Civilian and military convoys in Iraq, where more than 1,000 U.S. troops have died and thousands have been wounded since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, are frequent targets for roadside bombings and other ambushes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Oct 04 - 08:51 AM Incidentally proportionally more British soldiers have been killed so far in Iraq than American soldiers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Josh Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:02 AM I think the Brits are slightly better at calming it all, Basra hasn't really hit the news as much as the chaos in Iraq and Fallujah. No offence to the yanks but I think they're quicker to use their trigger finger. But I'm not there and I'm sure I would be if RPG's were flying over my head. Josh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: freda underhill Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:07 AM Blair faces revolt from lawmakers October 20, 2004 - 9:44PM; AAP Prime Minister Tony Blair has faced a revolt by lawmakers over a US request to redeploy some British troops closer to Baghdad. Forty-five lawmakers, including 44 members of the governing Labour Party, have signed a motion insisting the House of Commons should be allowed to vote on whether the request is granted. Many are suspicious the request is politically motivated and designed to bolster US President George W Bush before presidential elections on November 2. "We are about to enter a period of increased activity in Iraq. This is nothing to do with the American elections," Blair told the House of Commons. "It has everything to do with the Iraqi elections in January." "I believe we are right to be in Iraq," Blair added. "I think the stabilisation of Iraq and bringing democracy to that country is in the interests of this country." American military commanders asked Britain on October 10 to reposition a small number of soldiers, now stationed in southern Iraq, to the US-controlled sector farther north, to free up American soldiers to step up their assault on insurgents. The government has not said how many troops might be redeployed, or to where. But military sources have said that if the request was granted, Britain's reserve regiment, the 650-strong First Battalion Black Watch, which is stationed near the southern port city of Basra, would be the obvious choice.... © 2004 AP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: freda underhill Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:23 AM October 20, 2004 12:00 PM; Corruption "could wreck post-war Iraq" By Paul Majendie; (Reuters) LONDON (Reuters) - The post-war reconstruction of Iraq could be ruined by rampant corruption, an international survey says. The survey, an annual list of countries held to be the most corrupt in their business dealings, said the future of Iraq depended on transparency in the oil sector. "Without strict anti-bribery measures, the reconstruction of Iraq will be wrecked by a wasteful diversion of resources to corrupt elites," said Peter Eigen, chairman of the Transparency International watchdog which produced the survey. Transparency in procurement contracts was essential, he added. The survey calculated that at least $400 billion (221 billion pounds) is lost to corruption every year around the globe with oil-producing nations among the worst offenders. Bribery is rampant in 60 countries, it said. The Berlin-based group, funded by grants from development agencies and foundations around the world, is made up of lawyers, economists, businessmen and academics. It found the most corrupt countries were Bangladesh, Haiti, Nigeria, Chad, Myanmar, Azerbaijan and Paraguay. Singled out for particular scorn were oil producers Angola, Azerbaijan, Chad, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Libya, Nigeria,Russia, Sudan, Venezuela and Yemen. "In these countries, public contracting in the oil sector is plagued by revenues vanishing into the pockets of western oil executives, middlemen and local officials," Eigen said. He called on western governments to oblige their oil companies to publish what they pay in fees, royalties and other payments to host countries and state oil companies. He said the payment of kickbacks to secure oil tenders has blighted the oil industry in transition and post-war economies. The "Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index" showed that rich countries emerged as amongst the cleanest -- Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Iceland, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland topped the list. Reuters |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: brid widder Date: 20 Oct 04 - 05:37 PM 'The only people who vote for or against Tony Blair are his constituents.' That's as may be but no-one just votes for an individual candidate but for the party he represents.... and for the leaders/decision makers in that party... I have voted Labour all my life... but I cannot say I will again... at least not while the Labour Party is led by the best friend of the biggest bully in the playground. The war will most certainly be an influencial factor in the coming UK General Election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 20 Oct 04 - 07:54 PM This appreared the other day and it expresses my concerns. Army's approach differs from 'gung-ho' US By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 18/10/2004) To the layman, America's request for 650 British troops to fill in for US Marines based south of Baghdad while they join the American assault to remove Abu Musa al-Zarqawi and his terrorist thugs from Fallujah seems to require a very simple response. But the problems in moving 650 British troops out of Basra are extremely complex, leading defence chiefs to express their "obvious concerns" over the issue. Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, will make only a "holding statement" to Parliament today. No decision has been taken, largely because defence chiefs' concerns centre on not just one or two difficulties but many problems. The first problem, and the one on which Gen Sir Michael Walker, the Chief of Defence Staff, focused initially, was that all the British troops based in the south have a job to do. If Britain does agree to the US request, the battle-group expected to go will be one led by the Black Watch, which is currently the reserve force for the entire area controlled by the British. Earlier the British area was reasonably peaceful and the work relatively easy. But since April, the situation has worsened, largely as a result of the activities of the Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr. The reserve unit has been used time and time again, particularly in the north of the British area, where the situation in Amara has been extremely fraught. If it is pulled out, it will have to be replaced. The only feasible replacement is a light infantry battalion currently serving in Cyprus. But the reserve battlegroup is only deployed when British troops come under heavy fire. It needs to be an armoured unit. There are even more fundamental problems in putting 650 British under the direct control of American commanders. The British and American approaches to low-intensity conflict and peace-keeping are as different as chalk and cheese. Where the Americans tend to "go in heavy" against insurgencies, the British prefer a lighter touch. The US assault on Fallujah, and earlier attacks on other cities, most notably the central city of Najaf, have been brutal, using heavy fire and air support that cannot distinguish adequately between terrorists and civilians. Since the conflict in Malaya in the early 1950s, the British response to low-intensity conflict has been based on using surgical military operations to isolate terrorists from innocent civilians. At the same time, the British deliberately set out to win over the ordinary population, taking pride in their ability to win over "hearts and minds", a term coined for the Malayan Emergency. Even during the worst clashes with the Mahdi army in August, British officers insisted they would not come down hard on militia who deliberately mingled with local people during demonstrations. British commanders took "the sensible decision not to turn Basra into another Najaf, with the inevitable widespread damage and civilian casualties", one officer who was there said. "When Sadr's people kicked off, we could have jumped in with big boots and killed 400 to 500 people," Lt-Col John Donnelly, commanding officer of the Cheshire Regiment, told the New York Times in an interview yesterday. "But we couldn't have defeated them, because they would have melted away into the side streets and we'd have created another Najaf. We've got to find a solution that is based on non-violence or we'll be here for years and years." That implicit criticism will make it difficult for a British unit to serve under US command in peace-keeping operations. If asked to do precisely what the Americans do, it will run counter to all their training. Worse, they could find themselves on the wrong side of the law. The US administration has refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court, which oversees any complaints of illegal military activities. But Britain is a signatory. One British soldier has already been charged with the illegal killing of an Iraqi while others are facing similar accusations brought by Iraqis in the British courts. One source said yesterday that the defence chiefs will be seeking to ensure the British force has total responsibility for the area it is covering and can deal with any situation in the way it sees fit. If the US commander orders British troops to do something, they might have to choose between refusing or committing a crime under British law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: dianavan Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:01 PM Thank-you Shanghaiceltic! This is the same problem Canadians have had all along. I think we have learned our lesson about being under U.S. command. Not only are they heavy-handed, their planning and operations are in complete disarray. Communication is at an all time low and as you know, Canadians were killed by the 'friendly fire' of American hot dogs. Who in their right mind would want to serve under Bush as Commander in Chief? d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: GUEST Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:35 PM Lets spare a thought for all the guys and gals out there ... and there families |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Troop Redeployment in Iraq From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 28 Oct 04 - 08:58 PM This appeared in the on-line Telegraph. I just wonder what bluster we will get from Blare when our troops do take casualties. Again the senior officers are expressing their concerns about working with US troops. From the feeling in the article there are big reservations about the type of tactics that have been employed by the US troops. Senior officers with the Black Watch battle group sent north to replace American soldiers believe that the Government agreed to send them there without properly understanding the risks the troops face. They said the United States marines they were replacing had suffered more than 200 casualties, including nine dead, since July. "We expect every lunatic terrorist from miles around to descend on us like bees to honey," a high-ranking officer said in an e-mail home this week. "I hope the Government knows what it has got itself into. I am not sure it fully understands the risks." Sources close to the Black Watch said that that view was representative of most of the regiment's senior officers. "The troops are well and coming at it with their usual humour," the e-mail said. But while the officers retain undiminished faith in their men's ability, they are worried that the atmosphere created by the more aggressive tactics of the American troops will leave the British soldiers with a difficult task in picking up the pieces. An e-mail seen by The Daily Telegraph said: "The marines we have taken over from have taken nine dead and 197 wounded since July. Hope we do better." The officer also expressed concern over the way in which the troops were being sent hundreds of miles north of their commanders back in Basra, effectively leaving them isolated with supplies and rapid reinforcements possible only by aircraft. Another e-mail said: "The task looks quite challenging - a 500-mile line of communication to sustain 800 men and over 100 armoured vehicles largely from the air." A former Black Watch officer said there was an acceptance that the troops might suffer up to 20 per cent casualties. He added: "They are very happy to do what they are paid to do." The concerns of the senior officers were reflected in comments yesterday from ordinary soldiers who were flown north while the first convoy of armoured vehicles travelled by road. Speaking at Basra before boarding an aircraft, 19-year-old Pte Manny Lynch, from Fife, admitted that he was nervous. He said: "We have heard a lot about the triangle of death, which makes everyone nervous because it seems much worse up there than it has been down here. "We have controlled the situation down here while the Americans seem to have ruined it up there." Under a deal made with American commanders, the troops will have total control over what tactics they adopt in their own area. But initially, at least, that is unlikely to reduce the risk they run. Pte Ian Gordon, 19, from Edinburgh, said: "The people are more hostile towards coalition forces up there. In Basra and the south there is militia trouble but in smaller numbers. We have been given extra training in different situations that we may face and different environments. "The things we've been told to look out for especially are vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers." The battle group includes an armoured reconnaissance squadron from the Queen's Dragoon Guards and Royal Marines commandos equipped with mortars to provide added protection. It is taking over from American marines who will take part in the assault on the city of Fallujah in an attempt to remove insurgents opposing the allies, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader whose men have kidnapped and beheaded a number of westerners, including the Liverpool engineer Kenneth Bigley. The revelation that the Black Watch was to be sent to the area around Iskanderiyah provoked great controversy, with critics saying that the difference between British and American tactics was bound to cause problems. The Government backtracked on a previous decision that the Black Watch should deploy and Lt Col James Cowan, the regiment's commanding officer, was sent north to carry out a reconnaissance of the area around Iskanderiyah before a fresh decision to relieve the Americans was made. Although the way in which the Government handled the affair further angered senior officers, already furious that they will disappear in the amalgamation of the Scottish regiments, they believe that their men will eventually win over the local population. "The one thing the Jocks are good at is winning hearts and minds," a former Black Watch officer said. "They are the perfect combination of a fighting regiment that also understands the need to win over the local population. "The first 48 to 72 hours are going to be pretty tough. But I do think that after a while the Iraqis will realise that these are the good guys. "They might talk in a funny way that makes it difficult to understand but they are good guys." |
