Iraq - what now?

mkloby · 10-15-2006, 11:21 AM

My whole point is if we leave - I think that Iraq will turn into another sort of Iran. Clearly Iran will assure a friendly gov't is in power there in the vacuum that will ensue, as I have little faith the present gov't would be able to survive more than several months if we left now. I totally agree that western style democracy definitely has huge problems existing, however, I feel another Iran-esque state is a far worse outcome. Im sure that Brits would tend to agree with that.

The only question - and it is THE QUESTION - is how long will it take before this fledgling gov't in Iraq will be able to sustain itself w/o outside security forces.

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 11:42 AM

Agreed, for the first point, but... look at Yugoslavia - if we'd tried to make them stay one state, they'd still be at it, believe me. So what about some "assisted meltdown" in Iraq that might avoid the fighting which would - or rather, I think we can say, will - take place otherwise? I know there are neighbouring countries which might not take kindly, but have they considered what would happen in the event of a full-blown civil war? At the moment, they are out of it. If fighting did break out, they would be pulled in by their minority citizens using their territory as a base, like Zambia in the Rhodesian War, or Cambodia with the Vietnam War. That might provide them with some incentive to try and be a little more helpful than they (some of them) have been so far.

As for the Iraqi Security Forces getting their act together, you need to look long and hard at Arab/Moslem psychology - the idea that you play on one side to the exclusion of the other does not seem to be shared by them. This dualistic approach to life has always proven to be a major stumbling block for the West in its dealings with the Arab world.

Glider · 10-15-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkloby

Also, brit politics are different than here, but if it is true that a comment like that is fairly well received throughout the british military (and i don't go off newspapers they will skew any opinions to suit their needs) then it seems like there are problems with discontent widespread throughout the mil.

His comments were not, fairly well received, they were very well received. The discontent is with the goverment who commit our people to war but do not support the troops who do the fighting.

A few examples.
1, At a time when casualties are obviously higher than normal, they have closed the last millitary hospital in the UK. They are going to turn it into a housing development for the profit.
2, The Labour party anounce the deployment of the latest version of the Harrier as a major increase in capability. They sent one more plane, not a squadron or a flight, a plane.
3, The Army have been screaming for more helicopters for many months. The goverment anounced an increase in spending of £100m on support infrastructure which was £40m LESS than the Army needed, so they have cut the maintanence of Helicopters and armoured Tanks / APC etc. So the problem will get worse not better.
4, In the UK we have the minimum wage so everyone has a basic standard of living, around £5 an hour. British troops in the fighting areas were getting less than the minimum wage. To be fair this is being addressed.
5, After a deployment the Army allow 24 months at home before another active deployment to allow for training re-equiping, stabalise personal issues ect, this is now down to 12 months and people are voting with their feet.

I could go on but you get the drift.

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 01:17 PM

And when they did buy helicopters, they were second-hand, and were immediately grounded by those-who-ground-aircraft for not being up to specs.

Since the Falklands, there has been a consistent and visible trend to reduce military spending, not just by reducing the tail, but by making political decisions which, when all is said and done, will result/have resulted in people getting killed needlessly. Add that to the fact that Blair's lot do not have any clue how/when/why we will be able to get out of these places, and you have a recipe for justified discontent. Do not forget that today's British soldier is better trained, better educated and more likely to think for himself than he has ever been before. In theory, the result is better battlefield performance, and this has been proven; the other side to it is that if he feels the government is pi**ing on him, he will leave.

And if southern Iraq wants to unite with its Shia bretheren from over the border, perhaps one of thses intellectuals who make up our governmental think-tanks might have realized the possibility before we got stuck in this mess.

plan_D · 10-15-2006, 02:04 PM

We should stay in Iraq until we've ridded Iran of that nut in charge, as it stands we hold Afghanistan and Iraq ... Iran is right in the middle of the two. Perfect staging posts for the up and coming invasion.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-15-2006, 03:13 PM

I just hope they wait 2 more years for both Iran or N. Korea because I am still in the Reserves for 2 more years and can be called back up. I want to get on with my family life now. Got a different front to serve on now.

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 03:21 PM

You lucky lad!

Hope the wife lets you go if you do get called up!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-15-2006, 03:29 PM

She has no choice if I get called back up. I dont want to get called back up, like I said I have my own front to serve on now.

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 03:34 PM

You get a Nahkampfspange after one month serving on the home front?

plan_D · 10-15-2006, 05:29 PM

Chris, you workin' on your Hawks in the civvie street now? Do I still get a ride in one?

mkloby · 10-15-2006, 06:11 PM

On the several points stated -
Yugoslavia is different from Iraq in one major respect. Who else is fighting Kurds right now? The Turks. That is the biggest reason for not dividing Iraq into national states. That would only occur as a last resort. Like i've said in other posts, national sovereignty often times takes a back seat to politcal goals.

Glider you say they are very well received - why do you say this? I don't trust much of what is written in papers, but the same article admits that there is dissent within the ranks. I mean this seriously - why are you personally saying it is very well received and the paper claims dissent?
Those points you posted - that is a travesty... The hospitals, lack of helo funding. Where's the money going to if not your military? On the harrier issue - of course they're not going to invest in harriers because the JSF is coming online hopefully within a few years. That was a smart move by your gov't. We have min wage over here too buddy - same issues with junior enlisted being underpaid. However min wage yields poverty i'm sure in your country as well. Min wage is all about politics and does not improve the std of living. That's no big secret.

You stated... What I find interesting is that the White House seem to be getting ready to bend. There was a quote yesterday that 'if the Strategy isn't working, we will fix it'

Not a chance. British policy just ain't gonna mold US policy. Ain't gonna happen.

Evil succeeds when good men do nothing. Many in the west proclaim doing nothing is the moral course to take - nothing as in let the middle eastern arab states continue to prop up anti-western religious fanatics that promise death and destruction to the west. This view will result in countless deaths throughout the western world, which is exactly what these muslims broadcast. If thats the view brits senior mil leadership emits, then I just find that sad.

And glider - you have still yet to suggest any alternatives, yet you extoll the merits of the position of the army chief.

plan_D · 10-15-2006, 06:20 PM

The comments were well received in the ranks but not by all. Some senior officers have called for the man to be sacked, as military men should not delve into politics. But Tony Blair has rejected that suggestion, and much of the military agrees.

The money that should be invested into the military is going into immigrants and pathetic education schemes, like studying Victorian pockets which cost the government £140,000. And paying scientists to study why a cookie crumbles...

The British government doesn't need to invest in Harriers, it needs to deploy more of them. More importantly the British forces require transport helicopters, we need to buy and deploy many more Chinooks.

I have an alternative to the current situation, more funding and research into military equipment. And slowly pull the troops out of Iraq, bit by bit as they're doing now. The only thing lacking, in my mind, is the Defence funding.

mkloby · 10-15-2006, 07:19 PM

This is mainly for ndicki and glider - didn't mean to come off too crass in that prior post. Sorry about that. It's just a frustrating scenario - and I'm afraid that if the Brits leave, then us Americans leave, the whole middle east is going to go to hell and Iraq will be another Iran style state. Then I fear my baby that's still got 3 months still in the womb will be over there fighting the same fanatic muslims.
If there's one group of guys we definitely could use w/ us it's definitely you British.

plan_D · 10-15-2006, 07:24 PM

The British aren't going to leave the Americans on their own. We're allies, and as allies we're doing things together. Blair, nor Britain, is going to depart Iraq without knowing the U.S troops have got their section covered.

I don't believe there's any possibility of Iraq becoming a new Iran. There's too much sectarian violence and culture clashes in Iraq to be joined together, it'll split not join.

mkloby · 10-15-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

The British aren't going to leave the Americans on their own. We're allies, and as allies we're doing things together. Blair, nor Britain, is going to depart Iraq without knowing the U.S troops have got their section covered.

I don't believe there's any possibility of Iraq becoming a new Iran. There's too much sectarian violence and culture clashes in Iraq to be joined together, it'll split not join.

If western forces leave - Iran will will surely increase support of friendly factions... possibly to the point that they secure majority control of the country. It's definitely a possibility, as Iraq is another predominantly shia state, and probably the least desirable one.