U.S. requests help from U.K. Armed Forces..

[red indian]

.........good lord whats going on???!!! I thought you guys were masters of the Universe?? why do you need to ask for help from a puny post colonial "has been" like the U.K.?

Could it be we have something to teach you about this kind of war? and how did we aquire these skills? and who backed the enemy in the war which we learnt the skills you now wish to use?.......stop me if I have said any of this before.

[General Zod]

Red Indian.................never mind:confused:

[red indian]

.......my post was of course deliberately disingenuous and perjorative (in part) what I am really getting at is the very strong feeling that this a political decision to aid Bush in his election campaign.

I dont think for one second that the vast U.S. military machine feels the need for help in Bhagdad from the British, but it seems someone VERY high in the chain of command wants us in there.

A senior U.S. Commander is quoted as saying "British forces should share more of the load" by this I assume he means more Brits should be getting killed. He goes on to say "there is a perception out there that this is an American war and only our soldiers are getting killed. If the british are re-deploying outside their current theatre of operations helps dispel that perception, then thats a useful byproduct"

I would make, the following points, firstly it IS mainly an American war, lets not forget that the U.S. made it clear that they would go it alone if they had to, with or without British support. The question also needs to be asked as to why the british sector is under very much better control? it now seems we are being asked to sort out the mess made by U.S. troops in Bhagdad, while they move out to cause more trouble elswhere.

The most glaring hole in the U.S. argument is this. U.S. Forces number about 130,000 and they have sustained 1062 casualties. British forces are about 9000 with casualties standing at 68. Now, I am no Einstine but, "do the math" as you folks say, and you will find the losses expressed as a percentage are almost identical. So why do the U.S. miltary think we are shirking our responsibilities?

Its also worth pointing out that 9000 troops represents a massive chunk of our Armed forces as a whole, I dont have the figures to hand but i am sure that our contribution to the Iraq war as a percentage of available forces is far in exess of that of the U.S.

I feel that the british contribution to the Iraq wwar has been very under valued certainly by the U.S. media. Now it seems that the U.S. miltary and the U.S. government feel we should be penalised for being more successfull in managing our theatre than they have been in theirs.

[red indian]

.....Hi Zod! how are you?

[General Zod]

Originally posted by red indian
.....Hi Zod! how are you?

Still trucking over here Red Or should I say Lorry? Do they still use that term over there?

Anyway,don't pay attention to what our idiot leaders/news media says I sure don't I know the Allies are doing great? over there in Iraq

[MrMacphisto]

Ah... Red... Still pissed about being dragged into this war for our benefit, eh? Well, I'm sure you're not alone in your feelings, which is why Blair should probably just resign before the British public gets angry enough to behead him. I really wish us Yanks were a bit more perceptive about when we're getting screwed by the government. I guess it might take a Bloody Sunday of our own to wake up. Oh yeah, and how's that EU thing going?

[red indian]

....yes i am sure many Americans understand and appreciate what the U.K. is doing in Iraq, and if they were given the information, many more would do so as well.

Hi Fisto, to be honest, I just cant make my mind up about the whole issue. I know that the U.K. public were lied to about the reasons for going in to Iraq. That is pretty much accepted by everyone in the U.K. who is not a serving member of the U.K. government.

I know Saddam was a loose cannon in the Mid east and had to be dealt with one way or another becuase of his potential threat to oil suppplies.

I know that the West bank rolled saddam going way back to the sixties, when he first came to power by murdering his political apponents. He was "our man in the middle east" and we supported him in his war against Iran.

I know he gassed his own people and we stood back and let him get on with it.

I know he defied countless U.N. resolutions over many years and continually fired on Allied air forces in clear violation of U.N. no fly zone policies.

I know he miss-appropriated oil revenues designed to prevent suffering of the Iraq people while sanctions applied.

I know that invading a country in order to bring about regime change is against international law.

I know that the world is littered with despot rulers every bit as bad as Saddam, such as Robbert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and the west have no intention of doing anything about getting rid of him or any of the other tin pot hitlers accross the globe.

I know I need gas in my tank tomorrow morning to get to work.

I know that trying to impose a "democratic" system virtually over night on a country that has been ruled by the same Stalinist dictator since the 1960,s is a much bigger task than the hoplessly niaeve U.S. administration expected.

I know that I just dont know what the answer to the problem is, or wether is was wrong to go in at all.

Can any one help me??!!

[red indian]

....from what I have read, the suggestions are,that despite the fact you have 130,000 "troops" in Iraq, only a small proportion have the requisite skills to be placed in front line duty in a combat zone, and that is why you have requested the help of the "Black Watch" (The U.K,s elete battle group) I find this VERY hard to believe.

What are your reactions (any one) to the accepted view in the U.K. that there is a massive gulf in the approach to this war, between the U.S. and U.K. troops. Has it been over stated? are we basically the same?( give or take the odd U.S. private, who fancies himself as George Pepard in a shite Hollywood war film) or are we looking at a situation where the US will call in an Air Strike on a particular street in Bhagdad, but the UK, given the same street, would knock on doors and offer tea and biscuits?

[red indian]

....at least you have all answered one question for me. This subject has no resonance at all with the American public, given the lack of interest in this thread, so it can not be of any benifit to President Bush, so maybe it IS being done for purely military reasons after all.

[sushi854]

I think I may have more questions than answers. Red, you suggest that your government lied to the people of your country regarding the reasons for attacking Iraq. WMA's aside, what do you feel is the primary motivation for your country's involvement? Is it more to maintain an alliance with the US or is it actually to clean up the mess?

I can, however, think of one political benefit for President Bush of Britain's involvement in the Iraq mess, and that is the fact that the US Congress authorized him to use force in Iraq with the understanding that he would first exhaust diplomatic methods and would build a coalition. The UK serves as the only other major power significantly involved in the conflict, which to many in the US who are disgruntled with Bush's policies hardly seems like a strong coalition. Without the UK, he has nothing politically. This is certainly not to suggest that the US/UK coalition cannot handle the situation by themselves, but the fact remains that the war is becoming more of an economic burden than the US government originally predicted, and I suspect that the situation is much the same in Britain.

Regarding the military aspect of British involvement, It's obvious that we in the US don't hear much about the activities and sacrifice of the British troops in Iraq. In that sense, I understand the impression you have of the American view of the American vs. British approach to the war, and that is because most Americans have no idea of what the British approach to the war is because they never hear about it. The American "blow stuff up" approach is not really doing wonders to promote stability in Iraq. If the British are really using a "tea and biscuits" approach and their sector really is under control, at least relative to that of the Americans, then maybe the Americans should be stocking up on tea and biscuits themselves.

[red indian]

......Its sort of difficult to separate the WMD issues from the rest of Prime Minister Blairs argument for going to war in Iraq. The U.K. parliament that Saddam could launch wmd's on the west in 45 minutes. Thats the only thing that most of the U.K. public found persuasive enough for going to war.

It is now clear that "intelligence" reports did not say this,and the reports were distorted and "spun" to suit Blairs argument. Its also clear that there were no WMD's at all.

So the question is why did Blair choose to lie to the U.K. public in order to go to war with the U.S.? I am not sure anyone knows the real reason. I think he had to lie to get the U.K. in to the war, he had to use the argument about wmd's, as no other reason, no matter how valid, would have been legal in international law.

There are lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam, but none that would allow a pre emptive strike on another country.

It is particularly strange that THIS prime minister should team up with THIS president. I dont think many Americans realise that Blairs political instincts and views are somewhere to the left of senator Kerry, as are the views of Blairs poltical party of wich he is the head.

Bushes natural ally in the U.K. is someone no one in the states has ever heard of, "The leader of Her Majesties loyal opposition, The Right Honourable and learned Micheal Howard QC" (to give him his full title!)

So this makes it all the more strange that they are the main allies in the Iraq war. Compare this to Bill Clintons frosty relationship with John Major who were politically very much on different sides.

Regarding your thoughts on Bush needing us politically in order to go to war, well, you may be right but lets not forget that the US administration said they would go it alone of they had to, so I dont think UK help was considered indispensable.

I agree with your thoughts on the low profile given to UK efforts in Iraq, I am not suggesting we are totally ignored, but I watch a lot of US news coverage and the fact UK forces have been requested to move in to an American sector to help them out, has been almost completely ingored, so that seems to blow in hole in the UK left wing argument that Blair has allowed them to go in order to help Bush politically ion the run up to the US elections.

What tends to get missed in my view is this thing of scale and proportion, I get the feeling that the US media ignore UK efforts becuase our contribution is so small compared to the 130,000 plus US forces, but this misses the fact that 9000 UK troops is a big committment for us proportionally. The entire UK army is smaller than the total US marine corps.

I think the US approach to the war since the end of the major strategic war of manouver has been terrible. I think they have missed a trick in not consulting with UK forces on how to run the show. We have a lot of expertise in this kind of war and we could have been a lot of help.

I dont expect to see any miracles happen in what ever area UK troops are deployed in armed with "tea and biscuits" the damage has been done.

It was stupendously short sighted and naieve to think an instant all purpose democracy could be imposed on Iraq over night and we could all go home slapping each other on the back, we are talking about a feudal, medieval, basket case of a country. Just look at the former Soviet block countries and what happened and is still happening there after the lid came off the cold war. Its the same kind of problem.

[sushi854]

I agree that it is short-sighted and naive to think that democracy could be established in Iraq overnight, but I don't think the Bush administration was naive at all about the consequences of invading Iraq. I think they just didn't care. I have no documentation to support this opinion, other than rumors of Bush's insistence on invading Iraq from the moment he took office, but I actually believe that Bush had a personal score to settle with Saddam, and any potential problems with developing a long-term solution on how to secure and rebuild a post-invasion Iraq could not be allowed to disrupt the initial plans for invasion. I also believe that the attack on September 11, 2001, was the best possible thing to happen to Bush with respect to his plans for Iraq. I realize that this view is unfounded, and that it has the potential to offend and incite flames here, but it is what I believe. Because there is little evidence to support this view, I don't often argue it as I want to avoid sounding like a raving conspiracy nut. I also know that many others here are thinking the same thing.

I am aware of PM Blair's political background, and the fact that the Labour Party platform is pretty much opposite of our Republican Party. I have always wondered exactly what motivation Blair had for insisting that Britain join the US in this invasion.

Perhaps he genuinely felt that Saddam needed to be removed for any number of reasons, and that this would be a great opportunity to do it. Lots of people felt this way, and there is no question that Iraq is better off without Saddam. The problem is that there is no shortage of states with despotic regimes that would be better off without their current leader. Unfortunately, there is no established easy formula for toppling dictatorships and establishing democracies without excessive loss of life and financial commitments, so it is not something that is done very often.

Regarding the political influence on the US election of UK participation, I certainly don't think Blair's intention was to bolster Bush's chances for re-election. Bush did claim that he would go into Iraq alone if necessary, but that claim did not sit well with a large percentage of US voters. I believe that if the UK had not participated and Bush had invaded anyway, he would have no chance of re-election right now. Even with UK involvement, one of Kerry's harshest and repeated criticisms of the president is that he did not establish the coalition he promised when he asked Congress for the resolution to use force against Iraq.

Finally, I think that the reason the British troops are ignored by the American media is that the American media tends to ignore international events in general. Britain could have its entire armed forces in and around Iraq and it may still be ignored by mainstream US media. It could be that many Americans only care about news that affects Americans directly. For this reason, Americans who actually want quality international news will turn to the BBC or major foreign newspapers. I guess that’s all for now...

[sushi854]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64934-2004Oct26.html

British Troops Move North Toward Baghdad
Militants Threaten to Behead Japanese Hostage

By Rawya Rageh
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, October 27, 2004; 5:56 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Nearly 800 British forces left their base in southern Iraq on Wednesday, heading north toward Baghdad to replace U.S. troops who are expected to take part in an offensive against insurgent strongholds.

The deployment came hours after Iraq's most feared militant group released a video threatening to behead a Japanese captive within 48 hours unless Japan withdraws its troops from Iraq.

British Lt. Col. James Cowan said British troops, accompanied by 40 U.S. Marines, left the southern city of Basra to head for a base located north of Hilla, about 60 miles south of Baghdad. Forty U.S. Marines were with them, he said.

Associated Press Television News footage showed large flatbed trucks carrying armored British vehicles up a road through Iraq's southern desert.

The British soldiers' families expressed worries Wednesday that the redeployment puts the troops in greater danger.

"It wasn't a cake walk in Basra but it's going to be a lot, lot more dangerous up there," said James Buchanan, 56, from Arbroath in central Scotland, who has two sons with the regiment in Iraq. "They're going to get one hell of a kicking this time," he said.

Nearly 800 Scottish soldiers of the First Battalion, Black Watch are to replace U.S. forces who are expected to take part in offensives against insurgent strongholds west and north of the capital in an attempt to bring order to Iraq before elections in January.

The American military wants the British to assume security responsibility in areas close to Baghdad, so U.S. Marines and soldiers can be shifted to insurgency strongholds west of the capital, including Fallujah.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to agree to the U.S. request for redeployment is a politically sensitive one for the British leader, whose popularity has plummeted because of his support for the Iraq war.

Britain's 8,500 troops are based around the southern port city of Basra in a relatively peaceful area of Iraq. Sixty-eight British soldiers have been killed in Iraq, compared with more than 1,000 U.S. troops.

The political pressure mounted with last week's kidnapping of British aid worker Margaret Hassan, who heads CARE International's operations in Iraq. Hassan, 59, who also holds Iraqi and Irish citizenship, was kidnapped on her way to work in Baghdad. No group has claimed responsibility.

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Tuesday that more extremists are massing in Fallujah and warned of increasing terrorist attacks to come. On Saturday, insurgents ambushed and executed about 50 unarmed Iraqi soldiers as they were heading home from a U.S. military training camp northeast of Baghdad.

On Wednesday, a motorcycle bomber attacked a U.S. convoy in central Iraq, killing one American soldier and wounding another, the U.S. military said in a statement. The name of the soldier killed was being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

In the hostage drama, a video was posted on a militant Web site Tuesday said a Japanese man was kidnapped by Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab Zarqawi's group and vowed to kill him within 48 hours unless the demands were met.



note-I left off the second page of the article because it didn't have anything to do with British troops and was only about the Japanese hostage.

[Cosmo_ac]

If you read Bob woodwards book "plan of Attack", sushi, you'll note that both Rumsfeld and Cheyne pretty much have very large chips on there shoulders and were strong supporters for the invasion of Iraq. I have yet tpo read all the book, but this is what is showed so far. Apparently in a part later on, Tenet gives Bush his info about Iraq, to which Bush responds that the info isn't very convincing. However, i'll have to wait until i get to that part.

[red indian]

.......Thanks for your input Sush, plenty of food for thought, and thanks for posting the Washington Post article, which served to demonstrate my point PERFECTLY!!! What is the bloody point of the journalist who wrote the piece quoting statistics regarding US and UK casualties with out putting them in the proper context and proportion? As I have explained above the US/UK loss rate is absolutely IDENTICAL in relation to the size the repective forces deployed. What do the US media and military want us to do? round up a few hundred squadies and machine gun them, so that everything is nice and fair and equal?

Coming across professionally published articles in such a respected organ which are so badly researched, makes me remember you should never believe what you read in the papers! and it makes me think thatmabe I am not as stupid as I thought!

[sushi854]

Cosmo..thanks for the book suggestion, I'll have to check it out.

Red...I noticed that too. The AP reporter just HAD to mention that Britain had lost 68 troops, while the US lost 1,000. It definitely supports your opinion.