# does Britain and co. flee Iraq before USA attack Iran? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2007, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122 "2007-02-21T19:06:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/21 "2007-02-26T14:03:20Z")
[QUOTE=Ryan\_Liam] As for Patrick Cockburn, can’t we have someone a little more neutral in the reporting of Iraqi affairs to the general public? Roll in the Neo-Con red carpet! :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] Cockburn is an outstanding journalist who, unlike most, actually reports from Iraq for a major newspaper of international reput. He knows and understands the region. The idea of a neutral observer of any sort is just a convenient excuse tighty righties use to blow off anyone telling them stuff they don’t like to hear. Iraq is full of weapons as you well know. The unsecured arms dumps etc. The thought that anything Iran does makes a blind bit of difference is to display a complete and utter lack of understanding. And no - there probably is not point training these people. But no one is gonig to admit that. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/22 "2007-02-26T14:13:10Z")
[QUOTE=col\_10022] WAG but Prince Harry is scheduled to go to Iraq pretty soon. This pretty much shut up every Brit I know who complained about the War In Iraq. I wonder if it also shut up the Royal family (who is against Harry going to Iraq). The one thing that this government cannot withstand is opposition to the War in Iraq by members of the Royal family or worse yet the death of an heir to the throne. Is it possible that someone told Blair that the royal family would squack if Harry actully got shot at in Iraq. [/QUOTE] How many Brits do you know? 🙂 UP TO 100,000 marchers joined the Troops Out/No Trident demonstration on 24 February, calling for all occupying troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, no replacement of Britain’s nuclear weapons system and no attack on Iran. > **[Stop the War](https://www.stopwar.org.uk/)** > > Actions arising from the conference – find out more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUGUST... A FULL public inquiry could be held into the decision to invade, Iraq, a Cabinet minister said yesterday. The signal from Jack Straw, the Leader of the House of Commons, came only a day after Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, repeatedly refused to commit to an inquiry. “I think we have all made clear there will be an inquiry in due course,” Mr Straw told Westminster journalists. > **[News | The Scotsman](https://www.scotsman.com/news)** > > Get all of the latest news from The Scotsman. Providing a fresh perspective for online news. Former world boxing champion Chris Eubank was arrested yesterday after driving his truck up and down Whitehall in a protest against the decision to send Prince Harry to serve in Iraq. > **[Eubank arrested after Whitehall protest over prince's deployment](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/23/iraq.iraq1)** > > Former world boxing champion Chris Eubank was arrested yesterday after driving his truck up and down Whitehall in a protest against the decision to send Prince Harry to serve in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/23 "2007-02-26T14:36:33Z")
Iran is doing a pretty good impression of a dick head right now. If they really did launch a crude ICBM then possibly they are setting themselves up for a demonstration. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/24 "2007-02-26T14:39:08Z")
[QUOTE=Ryan\_Liam] Look, obviously it’s not going to be perfect, it never is, but to think that Basra is spiralling down into a hell hole because we’re leaving is a catch 22 argument. For instance, I can say the British, since operation Sinbad, not to mention it’s expertise in counter-insurgency techniques and nation building, has left the Iraqi Army in pretty good shape to take over. However, you’ll just come back with more statistics insisting it’s not all good, and never will be, on the presumption that because we invaded illegally, nothing we can do in Iraq can ever be right. [/QUOTE] And apologies for coming back with facts and statistics to rebut your pie in the sky, it’s about to rain ponies handwaving. It’s like I thought this was Great Debates or something and not IMHO. :rolleyes: Now how about you pony up the facts on how everything is going swimmingly? How about pointing out all this wonderful nation-building that’s going on? Name one example of the much-vaunted nation-building skills of the UK army? Hasn’t worked yet has it? Lay your cites, lay your facts and figures on the table. I know it’s mean of me to keep intorducing facts but let’s start here shall we? [Army battles gunmen](http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-02-18T132454Z_01_COL834547_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-BASRA.xml&src=rss) > [@](#): > > British forces clashed with gunmen armed with machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades in a Shi’ite militia stronghold of the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Sunday, killing at least three, Iraqi police said. > > The British military confirmed the clashes, saying its soldiers had been supporting Iraqi troops on a “strike operation” in the northern slum area of Hayaniya when they came under attack. > > \ > > Hayaniya is a stronghold of the Mehdi Army militia of radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. About 7,000 British troops are based in southern Iraq and British forces, have conducted several operations in Basra in recent months to capture militia leaders. Clearly not a peaceful place. Killed three? Meaningless. [Basra fear security disaster](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article600527.ece) > [@](#): > > In 2003 many of Basra’s merchants had been happy that British troops were bringing a semblance of order to the postwar chaos. But the lack of postwar reconstruction progress soon stoked anger among unemployed Shia youths. That anger has been skilfully exploited by hardline Shia militias with Iranian backing. > > The infiltration by the religious militias has put the British forces in a difficult position: with fewer than 8,000 troops in the south, plus a contingent of soon-to-depart Italians and Danes, the Army does not have the manpower to go after the armed groups and risk a full-scale Shia rebellion. Such an uprising could dwarf the insurgency that the Americans are struggling to contain within the Sunni minority to the north. > > The Army was forced to turn a blind eye as the militias slowly took over the city, killing their opponents and anyone who did not conform to strict Islamic codes — women without head scarves, including Basra’s many Christians, and musicians and alcohol sellers. Most Sunnis have been forced out of the city. Academics have fled to Syria. > > Suham Khudayir, who works at the state oil company, said: “Our security forces are weak and incompetent and sometimes infiltrated by political groups. If the British Army pull out there will be a huge security gap that might lead to a disaster in the city.” [British leaving Basra to the Mahdi militia](http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,468118,00.html) > [@](#): > > But does the fact that the British are sending troops home mean “mission accomplished” in southern Iraq? Not really. > > \ > > Did they succeed? Despite the number of troops deployed here, the answer is no. > > Today many parts of the city lack running water. Blackouts are a daily occurrence. Many seriously ill people have to reckon with taking a dangerous journey to Baghdad when they need anything other than aspirin or charcoal pills. > > “Before the war we would ask for leukaemia medicine and know that the wait to get it could be long,” says an oncologist at Basra’s university hospital. “Today, when we make requests, we are pretty certain nothing will arrive.” > > \ > > To be sure, the British have neither improved security in the region nor rebuilt a functioning state apparatus independent of Iranian influence. Thus, while the British army officially handed over power to the 10th Division of the Iraqi Army this weekend, locals like Kassim the pharmacist and others are not sure they are up to the task. > > The town’s police is efficient, albeit dominated by members of the Mahdi, a Shiite militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr. According to journalist Ghalid Khazal, 75 percent of the city’s police officers follow orders from Sadr headquarters. That number is roughly the same as that mentioned by General Major Hassan Sawadi, the former police chief of Basra, one and a half years ago, when he said. “I estimate that 80 percent of the force’s members do not obey my orders.” [Vying for power:militias roil in Basra](http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0602/p01s04-woiq.html) > [@](#): > > The southern port city where most of Iraq’s oil exports flow, Basra has been sliding toward lawlessness for more than a year, residents and local officials say, seemingly without much notice from Iraqi and US forces. > > With their attention focused on a raging Sunni Arab-led insurgency fighting an ideological war, murder and corruption in the largely Shiite city appeared a low priority. But in the past month, rival Shiite militias seeking power and control over oil smuggling have put the city on the verge of open warfare. > > Now, Basra is the only city in Iraq under emergency rule, evidence of how far the city has careened off course. Locals say death squads openly patrol the streets and a police official reached by phone reports that at least 400 assassinations in the past two months. > > Residents describe a political climate that is a cross between Al Capone’s Chicago and Medici Florence. Politicians, corrupt policemen, and gangs are all vying with one another to determine who will come out on top. Some Shiite politicians there - as well as US and British officers - also allege that some of the groups are being provided money and arms by Iran, whose border is just 10 miles away. I could go on and on and on with these cites. Where are your ponies are gonna start falling any minute now cites. Note that ‘cite’ does not mean ‘vague hand-waving’. Meanwhile on a wider front [Rape claim splits Govt](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6378821.stm) > [@](#): > > An allegation that Iraqi police raped a Sunni woman while enforcing a new security plan in Baghdad has opened sectarian splits within the government. > > The woman said she was assaulted at a police garrison on Sunday where she was falsely held for supporting insurgents. > > \ > > Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who is Shia, dismissed the claims, but senior Sunni officials insist it is true. > > Observers say the row could undermine the security plan, in which mainly-Shia police are deployed in Sunni areas. The reason why I believe things are going badly IS BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING BADLY. It has nothing to do with belief. Your views on the other hand … So I repeat - lay out your grounds for optimism. Let’s see the cogent expert opinion that supports you. Maybe this will help. [Military on the Surge](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1573994,00.html) > [@](#): > > When President Bush dumped Donald Rumsfeld after the midterm elections in November, many officers in the Pentagon were elated to be rid of the domineering Secretary of Defense. They looked forward to a day when their views on such crucial issues as the Iraq War might carry more weight with the White House. But as the Administration prepares to announce its latest new Iraq strategy, those same officers may no longer be so optimistic. Bush is widely expected to call for the so-called surge option: injecting some 30,000 new soldiers and Marines into Iraq. But many officers at the Pentagon, including some of the most senior, aren’t sure such an increase in the force is a good idea. > > The head of the Marine Corps has openly questioned the wisdom of the move without an overarching strategy. “We would fully support, I think, as the Joint Chiefs, the idea of putting more troops into Iraq if there is a solid military reason for doing that, if there is something to be gained,” Gen. James Conway, who became Commandant of the Marine Corps six weeks ago, said to reporters recently. “We do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers — just thickening the mix — is necessarily the way to go.” > > Now other members of the military’s top brass are quietly questioning the lack of a clear-cut strategy. “What is the objective? Does the President want Iraq to look like Iowa?” asks one retired senior officer. “What has finally put some backbone in the Joint Chiefs is that, to date, there has not been a realistic endstate identified that matches the reality on the ground. They still don’t get it. Tactics without a strategy are a recipe for disaster.” > > A recent report overseen by former Army Major General John Batiste, who headed the 1st Infantry Division and has been a vocal critic of the Administration’s handling of the war, says the choice Bush faces in Iraq is stark: “We have reached the point where we need to ask the question whether it is more important to preserve the country of Iraq with its facade of democratic government, or protect our own national security interests.” > > Virtually every expert who has followed Iraq for the last four years says a military surge without accompanying political and economic progress would be a waste. Oh dear - that was no help at all was it. So - muster your cites. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/25 "2007-02-26T21:08:18Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] It is a bit of a tricky problem, if he did not go, then it would make him look like a toy soldier, and I suspect that he would kick up such a fuss that he would go anyway. The idea of sending police minders with him is daft, there is a sort of system of ‘peer minders’ - although they have a tendency to get drunk and smoke dope with their charges. [/QUOTE] I rather suspect his squad probably has a SAS corporal and Sergeant. And British squaddies are about the most fearsome non-special-forces soldiers you could possibly meet, especially when boozed up. But I don’t expect the US to invade Iran. Nor do I expect Bush to attack Iran at all. They have his measure. They’ve called his bluff at least once. If America does attack, I expect that any attack will be limited to an aerial assault, and probably involve nuclear weapons. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/26 "2007-02-26T21:36:21Z")
> [@](#): > > I expect that any attack will be limited to an aerial assault, and probably involve nuclear weapons. What is your expectation of the use of nuclear weapons based on? ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/27 "2007-02-26T21:41:38Z")
> [@](#): > > And apologies for coming back with facts and statistics to rebut your pie in the sky, it’s about to rain ponies handwaving. It’s like I thought this was Great Debates or something and not IMHO. Yawn, the amount of times I get slack for bringing some good news on the table, I’d be a millionaire now, it’s been countered by cynicism and blatant ‘I refuse to see anything good come out of that place called Iraq, because the Neo-Cons invaded it on a faulty pretext’ > [@](#): > > Now how about you pony up the facts on how everything is going swimmingly? How about pointing out all this wonderful nation-building that’s going on? Name one example of the much-vaunted nation-building skills of the UK army? Hasn’t worked yet has it? Well the fact that the Iraqi Army in Amarah was able to bring down the fighting between different Shia factions is one example of the ability of the British Army in building up a capable force. > [@](#): > > Lay your cites, lay your facts and figures on the table. Ok, since you asked. [http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21245190-401,00.html](http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21245190-401,00.html) > [@](#): > > ATTACKS and killings in Baghdad have dropped by 80 per cent since Iraqi and US forces launched their security plan for Baghdad, Iraqi army spokesman Qasim al-Musawi said today. > > “Terror operations in Baghdad dropped by 80 per cent,” since the Iraqi Government officially launched a broad plan aimed at snuffing out sectarian violence in the capital, Mr Musawi said. > > “The morgue was receiving 40-50 bodies per day before and now has received only 20 in the last 48 hours,” said the spokesman for Lieutenant General Abboud Gambar, who commands a joint force of Iraqi soldiers and policemen. > > Mr Musawi said that 144 people had been arrested in the four days since Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced the operation was underway. He said “they were wanted suspects and the arrests were not arbitrary.” > > US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who made an unannounced visit to Baghdad today, cautioned that it was too early to expect real results from the plan. > > “The Baghdad security plan is just beginning to unfold and it’s important to realise it was never intended to be a single day, it was intended to ramp up over time,” Ms Rice said. > > The Iraqi army spokesman said that sweeps through nests of illegal fighters had allowed 130 displaced families to return to their homes and stores to reopen for business. > > “Shops along Haifa street that were closed during last month’s operations are now open,” Mr Musawi said in reference to a fierce battle on one of Baghdad’s main shopping streets on January 25. > [@](#): > > I know it’s mean of me to keep intorducing facts but let’s start here shall we? By all means, I’ll just counter them. > [@](#): > > Clearly not a peaceful place. Killed three? Meaningless. And the withdrawal of British forces from the area and having it as backup for the Iraqi Army is bad because? If you put less of a foreign presence on the streets and actually help the indigenous forces take over and become effective themselves, it actually helps us ‘win’ in the long term. Unless you desire the UK to remain in Basra, kill everyone in the city and deem it pacified in order for us to have a ‘victory’ in your view right? Basic rule of counter insurgency, train effective military forces who are from local area to remove a reason for insurgents to attack you. > [@](#): > > I could go on and on and on with these cites. Where are your ponies are gonna start falling any minute now cites. > > Note that ‘cite’ does not mean ‘vague hand-waving’. Which is why I mentioned it’s within the British Army’s right to increase patrols on the Iraq-Iran border, as to limit their influence. So why would the British Army do something so monumentally stupid as to withdraw, not provide adequate assistance to local security forces in limiting the flow of weapons to private militias who challenge their authority? > [@](#): > > The reason why I believe things are going badly IS BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING BADLY. It has nothing to do with belief. Your views on the other hand … > > So I repeat - lay out your grounds for optimism. Let’s see the cogent expert opinion that supports you. The Iraqi Army hasn’t folded to the insurgents or various militias in over two years, even when they’re facing massive losses in the face of such violence, you see, everyday, more and more Iraqis willing to join the military and police forces. Since the Iraqi Government is not conscripting their forces, and because money is only one motivating factor in joining the Armed forces, something else must be at play here for them to put their lives on the line and fight insurgents. There’s my optimism. > [@](#): > > Virtually every expert who has followed Iraq for the last four years says a military surge without accompanying political and economic progress would be a waste. > **[Operation Imposing Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Baghdad_crackdown)** > > Prelude Invasion (2003) Post-invasion insurgency (2003–2006) > [@](#): > > Under the Surge plan developed in late 2006, Baghdad is to be divided into nine zones, _with Iraqi and American soldiers working side-by-side to clear each sector of Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents so that reconstruction programs can begin in safety_ The fact that someone in the beginning of the war followed counter insurgency techniques in Mosul, only to have it completely fucked up during the re-assignment, lends more faith into my belief that Iraq will defeat the terrorism which is afflicting it. General Petraeus is someone who’s I believe is more well read in the techniques and strategies of counter insurgency. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/28 "2007-02-27T00:15:47Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] What is your expectation of the use of nuclear weapons based on? [/QUOTE] Partly Iran’s determination to produce nuclear weapons, partly because they’ve demonstrated capability, partly Bush himself, partly because they’ll be needed to destroy the protected facilities. I don’t expect Bush to nuke Tehran. Iran wants to play with the big boys; therefore it must accept the consequences. If America were to use a nuke on Iran - their nuclear facilities only, possibly plus some military bases - I would expect a lot of righteous indignation in public, and a lot of crapping of pants in private. If Bush were to lash out and America were to simply obliterate Iran in toto, then I see America becoming viewed as the Soviet Union of old; a very dark future. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/29 "2007-02-27T00:52:00Z")
[QUOTE=col\_10022] …The one thing that this government cannot withstand is opposition to the War in Iraq by members of the Royal family or worse yet the death of an heir to the throne. Is it possible that someone told Blair that the royal family would squack if Harry actully got shot at in Iraq. [/QUOTE] The Queen isn’t going to act against her government’s advice to save her grandson. She puts her duty as sovereign above everything else including her own family. She’s also of the WWII generation. The woman had to beg her father to even be allowed to serve what was essentionally a PR role in the Forces. Charles however might put his foot in his mouth, but there’s not a damn thing her can do about the war. BTW Harry isn’t the heir to the throne. He’s the spare. The biggest worry for the government isn’t him being killed, but him being captured. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/30 "2007-02-27T01:24:11Z")
[QUOTE=Wildfire\*\*MM] Any thoughts about this ? [/QUOTE] My thoughts are that the US is not likely to attack Iran (or anyone else) any time soon…unless by attack you mean ‘toss a few tomahawks at them a la Clinton’. THAT is remotely possible…as is a bombing run or three. Anthing more than that is beyond our capabilities. In addition, I don’t think that the possibility of the US dropping some bombs or missiles on Iran is the reason Britain and co is thinking about fleeing Iraq. I’d say it has more to do with their own public opinions than the thought that the US is getting rdy to invade Iran. Only the truely nutty think this is anything more than a wet dream of Bush et al… 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/31 "2007-02-27T08:46:57Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] I rather suspect his squad probably has a SAS corporal and Sergeant. And British squaddies are about the most fearsome non-special-forces soldiers you could possibly meet, especially when boozed up. [/quote] I totally agree with both points. [QUOTE=Quartz] But I don’t expect the US to invade Iran. Nor do I expect Bush to attack Iran at all. They have his measure. They’ve called his bluff at least once. If America does attack, I expect that any attack will be limited to an aerial assault, and probably involve nuclear weapons. [/QUOTE] That is exactly what worries me, the US has seen that ground assault is counter productive, and also seen what can be accomplished with next to no risk - South Lebanon is a mess. I saw a very small article in (IIRC) the Observer saying that Israel is asking the USA for permission to overfly Iraq with its bombers. Obviously it is a plant, but that does not mean that they are seriously considering it. I can’t see anyone dropping a nuke on Iran, but it does look as the interested parties are stoking things up - incredible stupidity all round. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/32 "2007-02-27T14:43:54Z")
[QUOTE=Ryan\_Liam] Yawn, the amount of times I get slack for bringing some good news on the table, I’d be a millionaire now, it’s been countered by cynicism and blatant '. [/QUOTE] I should not have to point this out, but with a deep sigh I will. The ‘surge’ is a temporary operation. And those of us following the news have already noted the Shia militia’s being told to keep their heads down while it is going on. The fact that for the duration violence has gone down slightly means nothing. And I should not have to point out the specious nature of your cite - being based on bodies taken to the morgue and not actual casualties. And I shouldn’t have to remind you about the temporary gains from the last ‘surge’ and how quickly they vanished. And you can highlight the claim that Iraqi soldiers are involved until the cows come home. Until you can demonstrate that those that turn up (you have been keeping your eye on the high desertion rate haven’t you?) are loyal to the government and are not settling factional scores this also means nothing. That the surge is aimed at the Sunni militias while the govt supporting ethnic cleansers lie low just shows we are being used as tools by one side in the civil war. [Some intrusions from the reality-based world](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1364760.ece) > [@](#): > > The new surge has got off to an equally uncertain start. Six American helicopters have been downed in the last three weeks and the crackdown could not begin last Monday because too few Iraqi troops turned up — the same problem that bedevilled last summer’s push. > > Raids against Shi’ite militia leaders and Sunni insurgents have been taking place across the city, but many rebels have gone to ground. Supporters of the Shi’ite Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, were warned last week by Nasser al-Rubaie, the head of his parliamentary group, not to resist troops. > > “Our instructions are to melt away and disappear,” said a member of the Mahdi militia. > > At least one Iraqi brigade showed up for duty last week at only 55% or 60% of its full strength. Gates told the Senate armed services committee last week that it was not “good enough”. “We are hoping it [the surge] will succeed, planning for it to succeed, allocating the resources for it to succeed,” Gates said, but he added that troops could be moved “out of harm’s way” if it failed. Meanwhile - in Baghdad. [Blast hits Ministry](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6396783.stm) > [@](#): > > A bomb placed inside an Iraqi ministry has exploded during a ceremony attended by Vice-President Adel Abdul Mahdi, injuring him and killing six others. > > \ > Violence has continued in the capital and surrounding areas on Monday: > > ``` > * At least 13 people died in a suicide car bomb attack on a police checkpoint in the city of Ramadi > > * Five policemen were killed in separate attacks south of Baghdad > > * A mortar shell slammed into a street in central Baghdad, killing a woman and a man. > > ``` > > \ > > On Sunday, a female suicide bomber wearing a vest packed with explosives killed 42 people at a Baghdad college. Let’s try a cite from the day after yours shall we? [Worst fears realised](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6370109.stm) > [@](#): > > The worst fears of military chiefs trying to re-establish control of Baghdad have been realised. > > After huge car bombs killed more than 60 people on Sunday, there were three suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad on Monday morning. > > \ > > And in this early assessment of how things were going it was significant that Gen Fil said he still needed more engineers to come in alongside the brigade-strength of US infantry now pouring into Baghdad every month. > > Success depends on securing better power and water supplies, as well as other improvements to the well-being of the people of Baghdad. > > Gen Fil also said he had asked for more combat helicopters and this could prove to be the Achilles heel of the operation. > > The US has lost five helicopters to insurgent fire in a month, and there are new weapons out there that are doing the damage. > > \ > > There is another major weakness in the plan too, and that is the dependence on Iraqi troops. > > Gen Fil said their quality was growing every day. But privately, US and British forces who have trained the troops are concerned about the Iraqis’ ability to do the job. > > There was a mutiny of Iraqi troops in the south when they were ordered to go to Baghdad. > > British hopes to hand over another southern province at the end of last year have been postponed because of the incapacity of the Iraqi forces there, and the stated aim of Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett to hand over Basra “by the spring” is not conceivable on present trends. Honestly - you wonder why your cites are never taken seriously? You just snatch at something that looks superficially good without any thought to context, you don’t analyse it, you don’t look at other information - you just post it with a triumphant gotcha and then feel like a martyr when hit with a weight of alternate cites. Not that I need to but here’s some more info [Surge mixed results](http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070220/wl_csm/obaghdadx) > [@](#): > > But the relative calm has been followed by car and suicide bombs that killed 60 on Sunday and at least 10 more Monday. > > Throughout Baghdad, the security plan is being viewed through a sectarian lens, despite Mr. Maliki’s promise to pummel equally Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. > > For example, buoyed by hope that he could return home after being forced out by Sunni insurgents, Moayad entered his street Saturday behind Iraqi commandos backed by Americans. > > The carpenter and 50 other Shiite residents were pleased to see a dozen insurgents arrested, cuffed, and blindfolded. > > But as they picked through their trashed houses in the religiously mixed Al Amel neighborhood, their sense of safety was short-lived. “When [the Iraqi commandos] finished, an American officer came and said to release [the insurgents],” says Moayad and other witnesses. “Even the Iraqi officers were very angry, and went back to their base.” > > While inexplicable, that decision drew angry reactions from Shiites there that wanted to return home - and highlights the colliding sectarian interests at play as US and Iraqi forces seek to impose order. > > When those Sunnis who had occupied their houses were released in Al Amel - two of whom had attempted to kill him one month ago, he says - Moayad and other Shiite returnees had no choice but to depart again. > > “I think the Americans want the security plan to fail,” he asserts. “I was very hopeful [when it was announced]. But today, after the Americans released these insurgents, I will never respect US troops again.” > > \ > > So far the surge has yielded little head-to-head confrontation between US forces and Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. US officers say they expect both sides to have hidden their weapons or drifted away for the time being, until the surge passes. > > Shiite areas controlled by the Mahdi Army, loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, are meant to be a particular US target because of links with death squads that have been killing dozens of Sunnis a day. Maliki’s government, which relies on Mr. Sadr’s supporter to rule, is reported to have pushed for Sunni areas to be cleaned up first. > > Sunni leaders have cried foul, with Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi telling Al Jazeera TV on Sunday that leaks of the plan to Shiite militia chiefs meant a “golden opportunity for Iraq has been squandered.” > > But the perspective from Shiite areas is exactly the opposite. > > “[Shiites] believe that this security plan is against the Shiites of Iraq - it’s an American plan, [President George] Bush’s plan, to limit the Shiites of Iraq,” says a resident of Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite slum and Mahdi Army stronghold of northeast Baghdad. > > “The dirty Iraqi troops with the Americans, they detain many, many people,” the resident says, referring to a special Iraqi unit based at the Baghdad Airport that works with US forces in some cases. “If they see a picture of Moqtada in your house, they will detain you.” > > The cleric himself, this resident says, has ordered his followers - who battled US forces twice in 2004 - not to take on the Americans. Mahdi Army fighters confirm those orders. You persistently fail to understand the difference between strategy and tactics. The Surge is a tactic, no more. I see no strategy beyond hoping things will somehow get better. You keep on parroting the words ‘counter-insurgency techniques’ and Mosul. Mosul is a Kurdish city - you know - the Kurds - the ones you think are our friends? And even there we can barely keep a lid on things. And to repeat my main point. All your hopes hinge on a neutral and strong Iraq security force loyal to the govt. They are the people who have to ‘stand up’ and so far there is no sign of such a force. Just sectarians in uniform. Until you can demonstrate the existence of this mythical beast you have nothing. I’ve cited evidence against, the Defence Dept is hiding the readiness reports from the GAO, the army is already failing to fulfil its requirements for the surge. [Mahdi army gains strength](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16600612.htm) > [@](#): > > U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling east Baghdad, which is home to more than half the city’s population and the front line of al-Sadr’s campaign to drive rival Sunni Muslims from their homes and neighborhoods, said al-Sadr’s militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and army units that they’ve trained and armed. > > “Half of them are JAM. They’ll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night,” said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army’s 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia’s Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. “People (in America) think it’s bad, but that we control the city. That’s not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It’s hostile territory.” > > The Bush administration’s plan to secure Baghdad rests on a “surge” of some 17,000 more U.S. troops to the city, many of whom will operate from small bases throughout Baghdad. Those soldiers will work to improve Iraqi security units so that American forces can hand over control of the area and withdraw to the outskirts of the city. > > The problem, many soldiers said, is that the approach has been tried before and resulted only in strengthening al-Sadr and his militia. > > Amid recurring reports that al-Sadr is telling his militia leaders to stash their arms and, in some cases, leave their neighborhoods during the American push, U.S. soldiers worry that the latest plan could end up handing over those areas to units that are close to al-Sadr’s militant Shiite group. > > “All the Shiites have to do is tell everyone to lay low, wait for the Americans to leave, then when they leave you have a target list and within a day they’ll kill every Sunni leader in the country. It’ll be called the `Day of Death' or something like that," said 1st Lt. Alain Etienne, 34, of Brooklyn, N.Y. "They say, `Wait, and we will be victorious.’ That’s what they preach. And it will be their victory.” The bottom line is that since this whole debacle started you’ve been promising us ponies and each time it turned out to be just a big pile of dung. Your credibility is zero and all the hand-waving and yawning in the world will not change that. Neither will one undigested cite against the weight of evidence against. And as it happens I’m famliar with Petraeus’ [counter insurgency manual](http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24f.pdf). He’s a respected figure in the field. In a different situation, with adequate political leadership, a clean slate not an ongoing mess and a different larger army it might be useful. But he’s a soldier, not Gandalf. Here’s some [relevant facts](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ef29092a-a04f-11db-9059-0000779e2340.html) > [@](#): > > The first US army counterinsurgency manual in 20 years, it recommends a starkly different approach to tackling the insurgency than most US commanders have followed since the April 2003 Iraq invasion. > > It says that the principal goal of the US military should be to win the respect and support of the domestic population and that killing insurgents can often be counter-productive by creating even more to take their place. > > Furthermore, it recommends that US soldiers and civilians learn Arabic and become culturally sensitive to the conditions of the local population as a way of improving critical intelligence. “Without good intelligence, counter-insurgents are like blind boxers flailing at an unseen opponent,” it says. > > \ > > However, Gen Petraeus will also face three obstacles, they say. First, the surge - or “escalation”, as the Democratic party has called it - would need to be many times the expected 20,000 in order to pacify Iraqi population centres. > > The report says the ideal ratio of troops to population in a counter-insurgency operation is 20 per 1,000. This would imply the US would need to add at least 250,000 to its existing force of 140,000 - a logistical and political impossibility. Iraq’s population is 26m. [The Patraeus Doctrine](http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/01/28/the_petraeus_doctrine/?page=2) > [@](#): > > “The political clock and the operational clock are wildly out of synch,” said Andrew Bacevich, director of Boston University’s Center for International Relations and a West Point graduate who served in Vietnam. “What he is setting out to do requires lots of time and, frankly, he doesn’t have lots of time.” > > Taking command in Iraq at this critical juncture in the war is a daunting task, one that many military analysts see as the most difficult mission thrust upon an American general since 1968, after the Tet offensive destroyed any illusions that the US was winning the Vietnam War. > > Barry Posen, a professor at MIT’s security studies program, taught Petraeus at Princeton in the mid-1980s and has stayed in touch with him through the years. He says that Petraeus – who spent the last year and a half rewriting the US military’s counterinsurgency doctrine for the first time in more than 20 years – is uniquely qualified for this command. > > But Posen also points to the minefield that Petraeus finds himself in as he assumes a command and embraces a strategy that may be inherently flawed – and inherently contradictory to his own sense of doctrine. > > “Imagine the commander in chief comes to you and says, ‘The good news is I want you to do the thing you have talked about your whole life…The bad news is that it is already a mess,’” explained Posen. "So what do you imagine a good soldier is going to do at that point? Say, ‘No sir, I don’t think I can help you, it is too far gone’? No, he is going to do the best he can. > > “He has to say it is a mess to buy time,” Posen said, “but he has to say it is a redeemable mess. And that is what we heard from David Petraeus in Washington.” > > Get back to me when the 250,000 Arabic speaking troops are in place. Until then he’s just another bright, loyal and courageous guy trying to do an impossible task against his own better judgement. Vietnam was full of such people. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/33 "2007-02-27T19:15:18Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] but it does look as the interested parties are stoking things up - incredible stupidity all round. [/QUOTE] Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122/34 "2007-02-27T22:08:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I should not have to point this out, but with a deep sigh I will. The ‘surge’ is a temporary operation. And those of us following the news have already noted the Shia militia’s being told to keep their heads down while it is going on. The fact that for the duration violence has gone down slightly means nothing. And I should not have to point out the specious nature of your cite - being based on bodies taken to the morgue and not actual casualties. > > And I shouldn’t have to remind you about the temporary gains from the last ‘surge’ and how quickly they vanished. The last surge failed because gains made where not built upon. So in the MNF learning that lesson, they’re trying again with the right strategy. > [@](#): > > And you can highlight the claim that Iraqi soldiers are involved until the cows come home. Until you can demonstrate that those that turn up (you have been keeping your eye on the high desertion rate haven’t you?) are loyal to the government and are not settling factional scores this also means nothing. > > That the surge is aimed at the Sunni militias while the govt supporting ethnic cleansers lie low just shows we are being used as tools by one side in the civil war. If the ‘Government supporting ethnic cleansers’ are around, then why has Maliki had a change of heart since he gained the political captial after executing Saddam to go after such political groups? His ass is on the line just as GWB’s even more so, because if the Iraqi Government fails to achieve self sufficiency, then his head will be next on the noose. He’s got nothing to lose for going after all militants. > **[الشرق الأوسط: تغطية شاملة لأخبار اليوم العربية والعالمية](https://english.aawsat.com/?section=1&id=8146)** > > الشرق الأوسط: صحيفة عربية دولية تقدم أحدث الأخبار عربياً وعالمياً، مع تغطية شاملة تشمل السياسة، الاقتصاد، الثقافة، والرياضة، وتحليلات معمقة تلبي اهتمامات القراء. > [@](#): > > Caldwell noted that the Multi-National forces have divided the armed groups in Iraq into two groups: “either reconcilable or irreconcilable.” He explained that the second group includes “al-Qaeda and Shiite extremists.” Caldwell added that Muqtada al-Sadr “is not in Iraq and has not been in Iraq for some time. He is currently in Iran.” > > Regarding reports about talks between the Multi-National forces and commanders in the Al-Mahdi Army, Caldwell said, “With the Iraqi Government’s blessing, the Multi-National forces have on-going talks with militia groups, including the Al-Mahdi Army. However, the Al-Mahdi Army is so fractured, and for example, we might speak to one group in Baghdad, but another group in Basra would be different”. He added that, “It would be irresponsible not to pursue all avenues – the political part of the plan means engagement and bringing all into the political process. There are irreconcilable groups, that includes Al-Qaeda and Shiaa extremist elements that we view as being irreconcilable – these are often personality based rather than group-based”. > > He noted that the Multi-National forces and the Iraqi forces have launched “an intense operation against the death squads, and we have detained 700 elements of these squads until now.” Caldwell explained that the forces needed to implement the new Baghdad security plan, known as the “Law Enforcement” plan, are not complete yet, as additional American forces will not arrive before May. He said, “The plan is just beginning and all the parts are not in place yet and won’t be until May when all the additional forces arrive in Baghdad.” He added that the additional Iraqi forces earmarked for carrying out the plan have not been deployed in Baghdad yet. Caldwell explained that the deployment of 50,000 Iraqi troops in Baghdad would be completed within two weeks. He drew attention to the relative success of the security plan against the death and assassination squads. He explained that during the past two weeks, murders and assassinations in Baghdad declined by 46 percent, but the number of car bombs increased. He added that this is al-Qaeda’s way of imposing its presence in Iraq. Caldwell added that the Iraqi and Multi-National forces are trying to deal with the new wave of bombings, particularly through the establishment of “joint security stations,” which now have reached 14 stations in Baghdad and expected to increase to between 30 and 40 stations in the coming few weeks. He added that the existence of these stations meant that the American forces do not need to return to their large camps, but remain with the Iraqi forces to protect the civilians and track what takes place in the neighborhoods. > > Regarding the arrest of Ammar al-Hakim, the son of Abdulaziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, for several hours last Friday, Caldwell said, “This was an unfortunate incident. The Iraqi border guards, supported by the Multi-National forces, were doing their jobs in making sure that they were not smugglers or persons who would endanger the lives of Iraqi civilians.” He added, “The people in the cars were belligerent and uncooperative”, thus escalating the confrontation between the two sides. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-britain-and-co-flee-iraq-before-usa-attack-iran/393122.md?page=1)