British 'credibility' in the GWOT?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

Zen9

[-]

Posts: 3513

( 7-May-2008 00:17:47)

Cryptic? its the bleeeding obvious if you think about it all, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Most wars are avoided, by diplomacy, manouving, posturing, and ultimately by understanding, "know your enemy, know yourself and you will never be defeated". Its only when people don't understand, or can't that things progress to the possibility of fighting, and fighting always costs a lot and carries the risk of loosing.

The objective of war is to "make the enemy do your will", to obey.

When war is 'fought' it seems to take three phases, the opening, the actual contest for who will win and then the long hard part where the side that won has to keep on fighting until the otherside finaly has to accept its over.
That why we made such a terrible mistake in 1918, letting the Germany Army go home with vast numbers of ordinary soldiers thinking they could still have won. They did'nt see what the Generals had, and knew since Ludendorf's offensive had petered out.
Its that belief paved the way for the process that lead to WWII.

In the likes of Afghanistan the key might just be paying $5.50 a day for a worker when the Taliban pay $5 for a fighter.

Being top dog is'nt enough, despite what Machiavelli said, because the minute our backs are turned the old habbits would return. After all the 'top dog' method is what characterised the Imperial effort after the massacre at Kabul, during the Empire. We would simply send troops in to punish them, show them who is 'top dog' and I fail to see how that effort produced much good for us or them. Afghanistan is the mess it is precisely because we did'nt go in and engineer a proper functional state long ago. The Soviets would never have gotten their puppets in if we had.

In Iraq the 'war' such as it is is over, whats happening now is a new war among Iraqis over who rules Iraq. And I have some deep concerns about what Maliki really is.

jim3au

Command of the Battlefield

[-]

Posts: 1489

( 7-May-2008 02:25:13)

Xtvpry, on any battlefield that British forces go onto in Afghanistan, they command it. Only another NATO ally could hope to contest it.

If it was as simple as you say GW Bush would have been correct when he stood on that aircraft carrier and declared hostilities over.

There may be some respect for a warrior who is better than them but I doubt it. Allied troops have good body armour. Allied troops have better small arms. Allied troops have artillery and air cover. Allied troops have transport and communications. We are irritating, dangerous, spoiled foreigners. All they have on their side is God and youthful daring.

xtvpry

[-]

Posts: 2147

( 7-May-2008 20:21:43)

Reply to Zen.

It was difficult for me to pick through this one Zen, full as your post was of spelling and grammatical mistakes and misconceptions about all sorts of things.

Neither Iraqi's nor Afghani's are holding out a begging bowl to the West. They want security not socialism. Both have had socialism before and they do not want state handouts. They are not making demands on Western largess with menaces. They do not need to be bribed by us. In Iraq the Concerned Local Citizens movement formed spontaneously. Ok, so now they are on a government payroll but drawing a government pay check was not their primary motivation. Tens of thousands of Shia in the depressed South have joined the Security Forces since the Madhi Army left because they hated the JAM and support the new Iraqi nation. Of course while the JAM were around they could not say as much for obvious reasons. Arabs often wait to see which way the wind is blowing before changing sides. They want to see who is the 'strongest horse'. There is a tipping point after which the weaker side collapses. This is about to happen in Sadr City too.

There is no civil war in Iraq and never has been. The Sunni population have decisively turned against Al Qaeda whereas previously the former Baathists made common cause with Al Qaeda, now with a very few exceptions, the former Baathists are all Concerned Local Citizens. The Shia have experienced Iranian/Hezbollah/JAM rule and they have decisively rejected them as well. All those groups intent on regicide have been or are well on the way to defeat. With security will come a surge in construction/reconstruction a virtuous circle will have been created. It is the same in Afghanistan. Remove the Taliban and the rest will follow. It is quite wrong to settle for some kind of status quo which leaves our enemies in control and the indigenous populations oppressed.

Last Edited By: xtvpry 7-May-2008 20:24:05. Edited 1 times.

xtvpry

[-]

Posts: 2148

( 7-May-2008 21:48:39)

Reply to Jim,

The British Army rarely control the battlefield except in a localised and temporary way usually after making heavy recourse to some form of Fire Support.

GW Bush did not declare 'hostilities over'. He spoke to congratulate the crew of an aircraftcarrier after Operation Iraqi Freedom which was a huge success, underneath a banner which said Mission Accomplished. The banner was for the benefit of the crew of the aircraftcarrier and the Operation had indeed been accomplished successfully.

As an after thought I have tagged this one onto my post. Enjoy.

Iraq Fact Check: Responding To Key Myths

Written by Office of Public Liaison , The White House

Wednesday, 07 May 2008 00:00

1. MYTH: The American people are footing the bill for Iraq's security and reconstruction while Iraqis sit on large windfall oil profits.

FACT: The Iraqi government is taking over the funding of reconstruction. In 2008, Iraq's budget for large-scale reconstruction projects exceeds that proposed by the U.S. by more than 10 to 1, and the U.S. military expects that Iraq will soon cover 100 percent of such expenses.
FACT: Iraq's security ministries are now spending more on their security forces than the U.S., and Iraq's 2008 budget provides for more than 75% of the total annual cost for Iraq's military and police.
FACT: The government of Iraq has committed to footing approximately half the bill for the "Sons of Iraq" community watch program-which was originally 100% U.S.-funded.
FACT: Iraq's Ambassador to the U.S. Samir Sumaida'ie says that Iraq still has to import gasoline, and argues that "some people are going a little bit too far looking at the Iraqi surplus and the gigantic American deficit and putting two and two together … The windfall from the oil will not cover a fraction of what we need to provide clean water, electricity and the most rudimentary services for our people."

2. MYTH: "It's no big deal" if Congress fails to pass a war supplemental bill by Memorial Day.

FACT: According to Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "We need [the supplemental appropriations bill] very badly before the Memorial Day recess. We stop paying soldiers on the 15th of June and we have precious little flexibility with respect to that … Clearly that creates incredible constraints and difficulties for us."

3. MYTH: The Iraqi government has not taken advantage of reduced violence by making political progress.

FACT: Since September 2007, Iraq's parliament has passed significant legislation dealing with reconciliation and nation building, including:

o A pension law
o De-Ba'athification reform
o An amnesty law
o A provincial powers law
o Changes to the design of the Iraqi flag to remove Saddam-era additions
o A 2008 budget that includes record amounts for capital and security expenditures

FACT: Recently passed legislation is already having an effect. For example, the amnesty law passed in February has already led to the release of Iraqis who were under detention for non-serious crimes.
FACT: The national government is sharing oil revenues with provinces despite the lack of a framework hydrocarbons and revenue-sharing law.

4. MYTH: The U.S. is negotiating a back-door treaty with Iraq's government that will tie the hands of future Presidents.

FACT: The United Nations authorization under which U.S. military and civilian personnel in Iraq are legally serving will expire on December 31, 2008. U.S. and Iraqi officials are therefore seeking a "strategic framework" that would provide legal protections and establish a long-term relationship between the two countries after that date.
FACT: In 2007, Iraq's leaders asked the U.S. to move to a more normalized bilateral relationship, instead of the special case managed by the U.N.
FACT: The framework U.S. and Iraqi officials are now discussing would in no way limit or affect the military and diplomatic options the next President will have under the U.S. Constitution.
FACT: Any strategic framework would be similar to the agreement the U.S. now has with Afghanistan and much like the conventional peacetime agreements the U.S. has with dozens of other countries.
FACT: It is unclear what would happen to more than 20,000 detainees now under U.S. custody if the U.N. authorization expired on December 31 with no strategic framework in place.
FACT: The United States does not seek and will not seek permanent bases in Iraq, and any framework would affirm this principle.

5. MYTH: Iraqis are not defending their country.

FACT: As General David Petraeus testified in April, Iraqis are increasingly in the fight, recently incurring losses three times the level of Coalition losses.
FACT: Iraqi soldiers, police, and volunteers are securing their nation in increasing numbers. According to General Petraeus, more than 540,000 individuals serve in Iraq's Security Forces, with more than 133,000 soldiers and police added over the past 16 months.
FACT: The military reports that there are now more than 91,000 Sons of Iraq-Shia as well as Sunni-under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect neighborhoods and secure infrastructure.
FACT: More than 21,000 Sons of Iraq have already been accepted into Police, Army, or government jobs.

6. MYTH: Current spending on the war is historically unprecedented.

FACT: Today's U.S. defense budget accounts for just over four percent of the economy, less than the U.S. commitment at any point during the four decades of the Cold War.
FACT: During the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations, the U.S. defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of the total economy.
FACT: Even during the Reagan Administration, when the economy expanded significantly, the defense budget accounted for approximately six percent of GDP

Last Edited By: xtvpry 7-May-2008 23:32:00. Edited 2 times.

Zen9

[-]

Posts: 3515

( 8-May-2008 14:14:39)

xtvpry
Having a go at a dyslexic?

"Neither Iraqi's nor Afghani's are holding out a begging bowl to the West. They want security not socialism."
Where on earth did I say socialism? Begging bowl?
What afghanistan needs is investment, work that pays, a long list of things, none of which is 'socialism'.

"It is quite wrong to settle for some kind of status quo which leaves our enemies in control and the indigenous populations oppressed. "
Where did I say that?

xtvpry

[-]

Posts: 2149

( 8-May-2008 23:37:58)

Having a go at a dyslexic?

Are you begging for sympathy?

Have you heard the one about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac? He lay awake all night wondering if there was a dog. Geddit? Boom boom. The old ones are the best.

My comments about socialism and begging bowls etc were exaggerating to make a point about the way in which you and Jim seem to think about Iraq and Afghanistan as if the terrorist menace in these countries is really akin to a 'cry for help'. I was told that the people in Basra joined the Mehdi Army because Basra was an economic black spot and there were no jobs. I was told that people in Faluja are only apparently pro-American because the Yanks are the people giving out the jobs. I was told that we could avoid fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan if we gave them jobs and play centres. Actually Iraq is full of infrastructure projects which are half finished because the recipients have absconded to Syria or somewhere with the project money. Security is needed for most infrastructure projects to be a success. For that what we need to do is to remove the terrorist presence from local communities and that is a job for the military.

I wrote; -

"It is quite wrong to settle for some kind of status quo which leaves our enemies in control and the indigenous populations oppressed. "

And where did you say that, you ask? Well you didn't say it in so many words but it is a fair summary of what we did in Basra and in Musa Qala. Lots of people say the war on terrorism is hopeless; Iraq is hopeless; Afghanistan is hopeless. Why waste blood and treasure trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Better to find someone, anyone, and hand the lot back and let them do whatever they want so we can get out. I wonder if you fall into that particular camp? I can certainly remember having losts of discussions with you about how everything was tried in Basra and nothing worked and it was all so hopeless. We made the mistake of thinking that the Mahdi had vast amounts of popular support in Basra. They did not. Now the people of Basra despise us for giving them so easily to these black clad thugs.

Last Edited By: xtvpry 9-May-2008 12:56:57. Edited 1 times.

Zen9

[-]

Posts: 3518

( 9-May-2008 10:55:17)

Well well such prejudice and ignorance. Hardly a surprise when I see little of your words beyond this topic here on this forum. Perhaps this is your only bent?

Theirs was not a cry for help and I fail to see where you get that idea, as I fail to see your humour or why you are constantly and single mindedly bashing the UK and advocating withdrawl and cowardice. Bashing the Generals for the politicians decisions, you make them whipping boys for the mistakes of others.
Where in fact has been your advocacy of proper resourcing of the military fighting in two theatres?
Where has been your advocacy of the persuite of UK interests?
You seem very keen for us to "get out and let the yanks do it", how is that in UK interests? Maybe in US interests, maybe in Iraqi interests, quite probably in Iran's and Syria's, but rather inconsiderate of your own country.

You also have a tendancy to put words and ideas on the mouths of others that bear little resemblence to what they've actualy said. We have been saying this was a mess from the get go, and insufficiently resourced for anything but the sort of effort seen, with the results you seem to so crow about.

"I can certainly remember having losts of discussions with you about how everything was tried in Basra and nothing worked and it was all so hopeless."
No you spoke of how everything was tried and how everything was hopeless, I never said such a thing. You have been the continual advocate of defeatism since you wish the UK to give up trying. Where has been your call for more resources? Not once do I reccal it in your words, merely that you admire the US and think their approach the only one.
I do reccal that you blame the British Military for trying to make do with what they've been given by the politicans, and how you seem utterly contemptious of their leadership while absolving the civil polticians who actualy hold both the purse strings, and the ability to make the arguments for better investment in forces with the public.

"We made the mistake of thinking that the Mahdi had vast amounts of popular support in Basra. "
The support for Hojestolam Moqtadr al-Sadr (if I spell his name right) was and is there among Shia, he could not have built such a force without it, but that support is as wide ranging in spectrum as any support for any politician and he has clearly overstepped the limits of that support on every side. Even his Iranian backers are sacrificing him, though whether thats to make Maliki more credible for their long term goals is another matter.
You and I here cannot gauge these things from the UK, only local knowledge on the ground there could say for certain.

"Now the people of Basra despise us for giving them so easily to these black clad thugs."
For the love of the gods xtvpry! The politicians had decided a drawdown of forces and a timetable for withdrawl before we'd entered Basra in the first place, commanders on the ground would be first to say they needed more forces to do the job properly and its clear their concerns where not in the planning from day1. Nor listend to ever since. The only reason Brown is keeping the forces in Basra at the level they are is because it would make him look bad otherwise in the circumstances and the minute he can get away with further withdrawls regardless of the situation on the ground he will. With you leaping to blame the Generals for a political decision.
Blair was purposefully blind to the consequences of toppling Saddam, completely ignoring the lessons of history, and even unwilling to properly prepare for the war to maintain a fiction that it was still undecided.

The roots of any 'giving up on Basra' are political, made by politicians here in the UK, and they gave up before they even had it.

Jimlad1

[-]

Posts: 1440

( 9-May-2008 15:57:23)

I write this as someone who works for MOD and who has been privy to many of the discussions about what to do in Basra and Afghanistan.

We are operating in a challenging environment - never forget that fundamentally we are not, and have not been wanted in Basra for a very long time indeed. What the locals wanted was for us to turn up, boot out the bad guys and leave. This was made clear to us. Our remit now is training - 10 Div is doing reasonably well, although we continue to expect it to be achieving western levels of perfection - we forget that the Iraqi army has never actually been that good.

We can talk about "providing security" - for what exactly? The reconstruction projects that never occurred because the locals lacked the capacity to do anything with them? The businesses that never got off the ground because there is such a dependency culture there? Give them money, they expect more. Give them kit, they expect you to fix it. Go on patrol and they expect you to provide them with fuel. They don't want to take responsibility for their actions, its as simple as that. The longer we stay, the more dependent they become on us.

The reason the Sadrists are so popular is that they offer security and protection - its like the mafia in southern italy. Get in with them and life is sweet - fall out with them and life is deeply unpleasant. Due to the state Iraq was in, people were joining JAM for ideological reasons - get in, become a man and make something of your life. They join the army as it offers the chance for a job and money - not for Iraq. Ultimately they realise that power lies with the militias, and it will until the militias become the Government or the Sunni take over again.

We are struggling to sustain two commitments in two different continents and something has to give. I'd also note that Britain is not alone in drawing down in Iraq- when I was in MND(SE), we had thousands of personnel from across the world including UK, Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Romania, Italy, Portugal, Norway, US, Lithuania and others. Nowadays all but us and the Romanians are gone, with most of the Ozzies on their way home. Don't criticise the UK in isolation - accept that we realise the limits of what we can do - and if we want to win the fight in Afghanistan, we must draw down in Iraq.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

British 'credibility' in the GWOT?

Quick Reply