5 Comments »

1. Translation:

   ‘insurgents’ = residents

   ‘launched an attack on’ = defended themselves from

   ‘defend themselves’ = bomb indiscriminately

   ‘politically’ = in our favour

   ‘at a local level’ = in the white house

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 28 Apr 2004 on 3:53 pm | Link

2. Translation:

   "residents had defended themselves from US troops. As a result, they had a right to bomb indiscriminately, which was precisely what they were doing. Obviously we would like to see the situation resolved in our favour. However, that would only be possible if the will for that to happen existed on the other side as well. Clearly, the balance between political and military aspects was one which had to be assessed in the white house"

   It does make sense!!!

   Comment by Lodjer — 28 Apr 2004 on 4:00 pm | Link

3. The "hard reality of life in Fallujah", contrary to what Tony B.Liar says, is that an occupying army is laying siege to the city and bombarding it with tanks, artillery and gunships.

   These are methods of which Saddam Hussein would no doubt approve.

   Comment by Ron F — 28 Apr 2004 on 8:18 pm | Link

4. Let’s face it – you have to have politically screwed up pretty badly for Kofi in the UN to come out against you. Today’s comments from him point out, in a loud voice, exactly what’s in the head of a lot of people listening to the news:

   That perhaps it’s not such a brilliant strategy for an occupying power to be seen to be waging war against the citizens of the land they occupy.

   Comment by Gregory Block — 28 Apr 2004 on 11:25 pm | Link

5. Right from the start American tactics have been wrong. The utter contempt of any kind of regard for any of Iraq’s cultural or historical sites (sites that date back to the very dawn of civilisation), as well as the complete disregard of public records and so on, shows they didn’t care. The only thing on the minds of American military commanders was gaining a solid foothold on Iraqi soil. And not for just for oil, although the revenue for companies such as Haliburton cannot be ignored.

   This was all about re-election for George Bush Junior. And part of the strategy involved gaining a solid (and hopefully safe, although they’re not THAT bothered as long as troops don’t start dropping like flies, say 4 or 5 times the rate they are at the minute) base in the Middle East, so that they could influence, not only the direction of Iraq, but also Syria, Iran, and by extension Palestine/Israel. Don’t forget that by controlling Syria’s oil supply from Iraq (can’t remember the percentage of Syria’s supply but it’s quite large) the US can "attempt" to reduce funding to groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and so on.

   Also don’t forget that Saudi Arabia has agreed to be seen to be cracking down on militants for the US to remove SOME of it’s troops, and naturally the fact that the US still maintains a military presence, coupled with the fact that the Saudis have now been seen to deal with the Great Satan, of course means that Osama Lad will take great delight in any opportunity to chuck a spanner in the works. So Iraq has turned into the perfect place to send any of his younger lieutenants for training, which of course coupled with dissatisfaction among the Iraqis themselves for whatever reason, perfectly higlights the complete lack of forethought on Dubya’s part.

   If the US had invaded for the reasons they said they did, which now seems dubious at best, they’d have deployed sufficient troops to secure every important public building and institution (including public utilities as well as telecoms, IT and Broadcasting organisations) as they went along; they’d also have rounded up the staffs of most of the aforementioned things and bade them politely continue working under armed protection while the rest of the forces sorted out the bad guys in the area. At the same time, Engineers and Signalmen would be helping to repair damage to water, electric and communications systems; Linguists and Intelligence people would be using the TV and radio networks to assure Iraqi troops, as well as locals who laid down their arms, that they were not being considered as criminals. The rooting out of Baathists should have been left till later, for the Iraqis to deal with. Major routes should have been patrolled more thoroughly, rooting out the bandits who prey on all and sundry. Etc etc etc. Fairly basic, really. Would have meant more troops and slower progress, but it would have been a lot safer and easier in the long run. After all, the Iraqis KNEW they were being invaded; it wouldn’t have mattered if there were 100,000 troops or a million.

   Although I paint an idealistic picture, I do not envisage that EVERYthing would have run smoothly; but by assuring the Iraqis themselves that they were under no threat, they’d have went a long way to winning the battle for "hearts and minds" – and that’s the only way the occupation could ever have run smoothly enough for the US to get what it wanted. Sure, there’d have been pockets of resistance, but I’d wager everything I own that the depth of anti-US feeling would be nowhere near the levels they currently are throughout most of the Muslim world.

   But time was not something that Dubya wanted to contemplate. He wanted a decent slice of the "road-map" under way after Iraq was buttoned up nice and neat, as well as hopefully as cheap as possible. Unfortunately for him, neither has happened. Iraq has turned into a quagmire because of the lack of enough forward strategic thinking; – and of course Britain is firmly stuck in the same quagmire. Tony, of course, is incapable of admitting that the US (and by extension himself) could possibly have been wrong in any way.

   Again, Dubya’s re-election is the driving force behind the recent mess. Paul Bremer is almost directly responsible for Muqtada Al Sadr’s recent rise to fame and fortune, and it’s too late in the day to give him the elbow – that would make George look silly. And again, Tony is desperately trying to defend his own legacy, and his credibility, as well as his job. As much of a muddle as the Labour party seems to be in lately however, I agree with a lot of political commentators that Tony has lost little authority in his own party. Which is a huge pity, I think – because once again it just highlights how much in need of REAL change this country is in need of.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 29 Apr 2004 on 2:54 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.