War In Iraq

[Mercwork]

In January, as Iraq prepared to hold its elections, the numbers increased to as high as 825 attacks in one week, the official said. Afterward, the number dropped again to 400 per week in February and 350 in March, leading to some hopes that the insurgency - a mix of Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists - was finally ebbing because of the elections.

About 60 people - including Iraqis, Americans and other foreigners - are injured or killed daily in attacks, the defense official said. Except for the spikes, that rate has remained roughly consistent since April 2004, the official said.
--------------------------------------------

This is political double talk, about the same that was used in Vietnam.
The attacks spiked to 800 a week right before the election, and now they have dropped back to about 400, the norm.
Basically, what it indicates is any lack of progress in the war because the norm has remained constant. So there has been no progress in ending the war. (Sounds like Nam to me)

The logistics of mounting 400 attacks a week means there is still constant terrorist funding and a huge effort against us.

If we pull out, the entire thing is going to collapse. That might not be a bad thing for us.
If we continue to stay, they should really "Let loose the dogs of war" instead of fighting this holding action that seems to be going nowhere.

[Jynx]

Alright mate, you are the worst person I have ever met
How dare you say that we should pull out now, you are insane
We need to stay to creat stablilty and let them finish THEIR WAR, STAY OUT OF IT INSOLENT MORON!

It isn’t your war, it isn’t your say, they aren’t your lives, they are dying to protect you. Get over your stupid pacifism, and acknowledge their sacrifice

[ozzi-solja]

i hear that Jynx

mr merc, you're in a devestating minority with your ideas, especially on this forum

[royal marine]

yeah we need to stay in and unleash hell on them instead of this regular street patrol crap

team of delta and a team of SAS

[Common Sence]

Definately the potential for destructive conversation. I want to be constructive.

I said the other day on one of these threads that the Americans, if they had unleashed their great might on Iraq in the first place they wouldn't be in the mess over their they are in today.
The return I got seemed quite reasonable in that it pointed out to me that it was difficult for you'se to get the support you did...an all out annialitive assault would have pulled together even less support.
I don't see a "victory" coming.....I see the elected Iraqi gov't eventually asking you'se to leave...I think initiall thoughts for this still aim pullouts to begin in Sping of 2006...not sure...anyway, I see them asking you to head out and thanking you. I see you doing what they ask...which is the right thing to do. And then Iraq will fall apart into civil war with support from Seria and Saudi Arabia (wether we hear about the Saud's or not.) Hopefully Iraq becomes a shining eg. of democracy though. I do want to see that.
I don't know how you can unleash the dogs of war (love that expression) on a patchwork enemy that lives in houses with hostages and innocents. One guy has a donkey cart of food, but the next has a donkey cart of food and bombs hidden underneath the food. I don't envy you in this nasty war abroad. I don't know how you could crush the insurgency without causing a humanitarian catastrophy in the eyes of the world and end up being demonized.
If you leave now...you will definately be balked by the world...and would show a terrible lack of will to other potential enemies such as North Koria or Iran, or China.
How can the insurgency be defeated, without crushing the civilian population while still maintaing a solid timeline for withdrawl and still hold the respect of the G8? A daunting challenge.

[Texas]

Definately the potential for destructive conversation. I want to be constructive.

I said the other day on one of these threads that the Americans, if they had unleashed their great might on Iraq in the first place they wouldn't be in the mess over their they are in today.
The return I got seemed quite reasonable in that it pointed out to me that it was difficult for you'se to get the support you did...an all out annialitive assault would have pulled together even less support.
I don't see a "victory" coming.....I see the elected Iraqi gov't eventually asking you'se to leave...I think initiall thoughts for this still aim pullouts to begin in Sping of 2006...not sure...anyway, I see them asking you to head out and thanking you. I see you doing what they ask...which is the right thing to do. And then Iraq will fall apart into civil war with support from Seria and Saudi Arabia (wether we hear about the Saud's or not.) Hopefully Iraq becomes a shining eg. of democracy though. I do want to see that.
I don't know how you can unleash the dogs of war (love that expression) on a patchwork enemy that lives in houses with hostages and innocents. One guy has a donkey cart of food, but the next has a donkey cart of food and bombs hidden underneath the food. I don't envy you in this nasty war abroad. I don't know how you could crush the insurgency without causing a humanitarian catastrophy in the eyes of the world and end up being demonized.
If you leave now...you will definately be balked by the world...and would show a terrible lack of will to other potential enemies such as North Koria or Iran, or China.
How can the insurgency be defeated, without crushing the civilian population while still maintaing a solid timeline for withdrawl and still hold the respect of the G8? A daunting challenge.

But not impossible .If only our governments would stop tieing our soldiers hands behind there backs .Get rid of the cameras ,imbeded reporters (what a joke )Human rights BS etc etc .
Don't see much coverage in and around Basrah do you ,I wonder why !
We seem to be taking the initiative away from the officer on the spot .and instead replacing it with al jazeera or Amnesty international , or some lunatic left wing think tank , that thinks your a Fascist because you are pro active in dealing with Tyrants !

[Texas]

They'll destroy the qualities that made our Forces great

By Tim Collins

Part1
2003 was an uncomfortable time in Iraq. The President of the United States had just announced that combat operations were complete and force levels were beginning to be reduced, following the defeat of the Iraqi army in the field. But the vacuum that had been created by the toppling of the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein had not been filled - and clearly the people needed some form of leadership after 35 years of one-party rule. That vacuum was made more severe by the removal of the Iraqi army and police, resulting in an outbreak of lawlessness that was on a biblical scale. Tim Collins: 'This is not helping justice' The country was looted by its own people, who, in a fit of pique, were smashing up whatever they could not carry away. Very quickly, Iraq was being reduced to a state far below the basic level that all our pre-war planning had anticipated. I was facing a crisis of my own. Having returned from the war, I was facing allegations of war crimes, alone and with virtually no one to turn to for help. As I was hauled over the coals, a friend serving with Special Forces commented that my plight was affecting other commanding officers. They were becoming cautious, some even over-cautious, for fear of finding themselves in my shoes. In Iraq, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR) battle group, along with two other battalions, was plunged into a maelstrom. Some 3,000 men faced a population of two million disgruntled Iraqis. To gauge the immensity of this task, consider that we police Northern Ireland - population 1.5 million - with about 12,000 men. Furthermore, we have the benefit of 35 years of experience there and we can speak the language. The line was held, however. Basra did not burn that summer, and the even-handed policing of the British Army saved countless lives. This was recognised by an operational honours list of unprecedented generosity in peacetime that included a Distinguished Service Order for the Commander of the QLR. But there was a blight on that performance: a civilian, Baha Musa, died in British custody after he allegedly suffered beatings at the hands of British servicemen. His death came hard on the heels of the death of Capt Dai Jones, a popular officer who was killed when the ambulance he was driving was blown up, and shortly after the deaths of six red caps from the Royal Military Police, killed in cold blood in Majar al Kabbir. Two wrongs do not make a right and there is never an excuse for unlawful killings. It is right and proper that such allegations should be vigorously and extensively investigated, and that anyone guilty should be brought to book. Now, five members of the QLR and two Intelligence Corps personnel have been told that they are facing a court martial. What staggers me is that it is two years since Baha Musa died, and the investigation has only just been completed. What is more, the charges have been levelled long after the case was first aired in the civil courts in the UK. Since then, the investigation has been slow in coming to the point of levelling charges against the five men. Control of it has swayed dangerously between politicians and the proper military authorities. The delay and prevarication has damaged morale in the Armed Forces, brought about an unprecedented intervention by former Chiefs of Defence in the Lords, and dismayed both the families of Baha Musa and the men of the QLR and their families (not to mention the wider public and international community). However, now that charges have been levelled, it is for the British military courts to decide on guilt or innocence and to serve justice to the memory of Baha Musa. That job, of course, will not be made easier by the time that has elapsed since his death or by the unhelpful leaks that now seem to characterise Ministry of Defence investigations. It is right that the cases should come to a military court. Military law takes account of the fact that extraordinary circumstances pertain when we deploy armies into the field, and that some norms of society are suspended. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a jury of civilians to understand the circumstances of such cases. What would be a disaster and national embarrassment of epic proportions is if a single British serviceman or woman found themselves instead at the international court in The Hague (traditionally, the UK military delivers the suspects rather than being the defendants). But let us go back to the politics behind the current rash of cases involving British servicemen in Iraq. In my view, there has definitely been political interference in at least one of the investigations of soldiers involved in Iraq. This is not helping justice, it is doing real damage. Trooper Kevin Williams was cleared by his commanding officer, on legal advice, of the shooting of an Iraqi. He was then dragged to the Old Bailey, on the direction of the Attorney General, to be charged with murder before the case was once again dropped. Even those who cannot see the hands of the politicians can see that Kevin Williams's ordeal highlights the danger that soldiers accused of misdeeds will be faced with double jeopardy. The fact that the term "war crimes" has been used this week has also muddied the waters. Both servicemen and the British public need to be told exactly what is going on. Might the soldiers who have been accused eventually find themselves in The Hague? How many more cases like this are in the offing? How high might the arm of the International Criminal Court reach? Could, for instance, the very legitimacy of the war be called into question? Confusion over these matters, coupled with a lack of leadership or any explanation from either the Government or the military high command, has undermined confidence in the military justice system and the chain of command. Inevitably, real damage may be done.

[Texas]

Part 2
Successful commanders need to be bold and attuned to risk-taking. In that is the seed of victory. Yet initiative in the field is being stifled. Recent political interference is taming commanders, breeding over-caution and destroying the qualities that once made our Armed Services a force to be reckoned with. With such a politically-charged burden, how many officers would be willing to lead men in action without close legal advice? I have to pose the question to myself: if I found myself back in the town of Rumylah, where my own so-called war crimes were supposed to have taken place, would I have acted as I did on the night of March 27, 2003? On that night, I had two companies in contact with the enemy - a company from the Iraqi army deployed just outside Basra to guard the world's largest oil reserve, and my own company guarding the approaches to the village in which we were stationed. It was believed that the village was clear of enemy. An Iraqi who had been assisting us came to see me. He had discovered, he said, that there was a plot to murder him along with our other Iraqi helpers. I had two choices. Did I begin an investigation into the man's claims and wait to see what evidence there might be of this alleged plot, and then seek guidance from a higher headquarters to see what action they thought I should take, and whether they were prepared to back me if I took it? Any such advice might first have to be referred back to London. Or did I follow my instincts and take the war to the would-be assassins to make it clear that there would be no murder on my patch? Naturally, I chose the latter course, and personally led a patrol to search the homes of the would-be assailants. Two of the three quickly crumbled and surrendered their weapons after admitting their part in the planned murders. The third took more persuasion. He, too, was arrested, but not before he got his head split, possibly during a struggle with me (we were unsure of who did what because it was dark). The net result was that three murders were averted, three lives saved and, as a result, the whole of the resistance in my area of control collapsed and the insurgents handed in 130 weapons. Would I take the same action now, after seeing the lack of support for our commanders by the Army and Government? Even if I had the gift of hindsight, and knew how I would eventually be treated - with disgraceful leaks to the media and outright lies peddled in some sections of the press? Of course, I would. But that is my way and I place the value of lives over everything else. But would a young officer with an eye to his career and a blind trust in the system do likewise? Perhaps not. Frankly, in the modern Army, you take risks alone. You also have to take them in the full knowledge that the outcome may be examined long after the event in the comfort of an office in the UK by men who have never experienced combat and who are not on your side. This is the danger. Could the effect of these investigations be to instil the sort of caution in our field commanders that makes some doctors reluctant to help victims of road accidents for fear of being sued by ambulance-chasing lawyers? For we now have a new breed of lawyers: war-chasing lawyers - those who make money and reputations by scouring for "war crimes", and into whose hands the Armed Forces are playing with their tardy investigations. The cases announced this week - the fourth concerning British servicemen in Iraq - will probably be heard in the New Year. By then, the trials of seven members of the Parachute Regiment will probably have concluded. There is a crying need for leadership to ensure that they are set in a proper context and seen for what they are: a small, potential blot on the otherwise exemplary work that the Army has done the people of Iraq. The key point here is that whatever is or is not proved, the British Army is not a bunch of war criminals. The handful of men charged represent a tiny proportion of more than 78,000 servicemen and women who have served in Iraq since the invasion began. What about the Iraqis? I know from my Iraqi friends and contacts that they view the prospect of these trials with disappointment. The alleged crimes, said one, were the sort they might expect from Saddam's army, but not the British. Have these charges knocked us off our pedestal? Their verdict is a unanimous no, but they are all confused about why they are taking so long to come to trial. Clearly, the question we must ask ourselves is how can we ensure that we never find ourselves in this position again while, at the same time, maintaining an Army that is characterised by daring, courage and integrity. The answer must always be a well-trained and well-led Army. In the aftermath of this crisis, we need to examine whether the training and preparedness of those who found themselves in this situation was sufficient. Remember, this was a period of huge turbulence, so close guidance on the ground was often impossible. It was left to commanders to direct by intent and then trust to the judgment and training of officers and men to interpret that intent. This is what is called "mission command" in the Army and it is the only way in which a present-day army can meet the pace of modern operations. In my case, I left the Army because I felt I had no option. Before being accused of war crimes, I had been an officer who was tipped in annual appraisal reports for high office. I was cleared of all charges yet I became invisible to promotion boards. The Army had stopped reporting on me altogether: essentially, I had been set to one side. Even so, I hope that not too many commanders become so disillusioned by recent events that they, too, opt to leave the service. There is a crisis of senior leadership in the Armed Forces that we cannot afford to ignore. If we are to continue to attract men and women of the calibre that we have had until now, we need an Army that has the confidence of its superiors.

[Common Sence]

The media and War really don't mix do they.
I bet you the reporter who gets the story of the soldier who "murders in cold blood" gets a bigger holiday bonus than the reporter who scores the story about the soldier who saved the little girl and her kitty cat from the roadside bomb.
It's good to have a situation under observation, but to create observations and to have a tribunal decide if it's real or not.....well, that has an infinate number of negative ramefecations that immidiately affect the front....and recruitment at home.
I remember here a bit back some of our troops were bombed by a couple of American fighter pilots. It seemed like the U.S. gov't DID NOT want to come down on these people.
It seems that if something goes bad against an Iraqi civilian it's game over and an investigation goes to the top and fingers get pointed to innocent soldiers.

Sounds like a huge double standard is going on somewhere. Unless I misread the previous post...which I was a little crosseyed by the end of.

If a British or American soldier in Iraq sees a crime in the street...such as the beating of a child or woman, or someone being robbed or raped what are they entitled to do. I know that we have sent peace keepers on missions where they were not aloud to intervene in such situations....if you do no one talks about what the soldier really did. They just say that they murdered someone, and deny them all the glory as to WHY.

It is most frustrating and reminds me of your post Texas.

[Texas]

The media and War really don't mix do they.
I bet you the reporter who gets the story of the soldier who "murders in cold blood" gets a bigger holiday bonus than the reporter who scores the story about the soldier who saved the little girl and her kitty cat from the roadside bomb.
It's good to have a situation under observation, but to create observations and to have a tribunal decide if it's real or not.....well, that has an infinate number of negative ramefecations that immidiately affect the front....and recruitment at home.
I remember here a bit back some of our troops were bombed by a couple of American fighter pilots. It seemed like the U.S. gov't DID NOT want to come down on these people.
It seems that if something goes bad against an Iraqi civilian it's game over and an investigation goes to the top and fingers get pointed to innocent soldiers.

Sounds like a huge double standard is going on somewhere. Unless I misread the previous post...which I was a little crosseyed by the end of.

If a British or American soldier in Iraq sees a crime in the street...such as the beating of a child or woman, or someone being robbed or raped what are they entitled to do. I know that we have sent peace keepers on missions where they were not aloud to intervene in such situations....if you do no one talks about what the soldier really did. They just say that they murdered someone, and deny them all the glory as to WHY.

It is most frustrating and reminds me of your post Texas.

sorry, I know it was a bit long winded .But I think highly relevent .If our politicians are prepared to send our boys off to war or on Peace keeping duties ,they also have be prepared to do things in a proper manner when unpleasent things occur .That doesn't involve using our soldiers as scape goats !

[europeanfigther]

I heard in another forum that america is profiting from the war in iraq, its not only them, its a lot of countries and industries, think of what an army needs, weapons and weapon industryes work, food and food industries work, clothes and clothse industries work abd all this things make many countries profit but it's still not right to do what you're doing in iraq.

[SoldierofAmerica]

I heard in another forum that america is profiting from the war in iraq, its not only them, its a lot of countries and industries, think of what an army needs, weapons and weapon industryes work, food and food industries work, clothes and clothse industries work abd all this things make many countries profit but it's still not right to do what you're doing in iraq.


Alright, people get confused here a lot. It is an Historical fact that economies do tend to boom in times of war. There are a lot of Industries and Corporations are benefiting from this war and making millions, keep in mind however that all of this money is coming from The US Government not Iraq. Certain Americans are profiting but America is not, quite the contrary America is pouring countless Billions of dollars into this war. It is a huge cost to America there is not profit to be except to the few who are in a position to take advantage of these situations and the Iraqi people who are getting schools, utilities, food , toys etc… from the Coalition Governments and Private donations from citizens and countries all over the world. There is huge being poured into Iraq from all over the place from the common good-will of Humans. Private, corporate and government funds and goods, when Currency is being exchanged in this scale there is going to be huge profit for somebody; rest assured that it is not the American Government that is reaping the benefit of this war.

[SoldierofAmerica]

A little food for thought...

More people died in the last two days in the city of New Orleans which was 80% evacuated at the time the Hurricane hit than America has had casualties in the last two years of War in Iraq...