Scary... and CNN is saying the Spanish are moving out and it looks like that other Iberian power Portugal will soon follow. From the London Telegraph... Check out the bolded parts... ______________ Violence in Iraq will get even worse, says Blair By Melissa Kite in Washington and Alex Thomson in Basra (Filed: 18/04/2004) Tony Blair will tell MPs tomorrow that Britain should be prepared for worse violence in Iraq in the coming weeks. The Prime Minister believes that British and American troops must brace themselves for "acts of desperation" by anti-Coalition rebels as the June 30 deadline for the handover of sovereignty in Iraq draws closer, senior advisers to Mr Blair said yesterday. Brig Nick Carter says the Coalition is in Basra only as long as local Shia leader accepts their presence The warnings came as the commander of British troops in southern Iraq, Brig Nick Carter, admitted that he would be powerless to prevent the overthrow of Coalition forces if the Shia majority in Basra rose up in rebellion. Brig Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at all. Last month, 14 British soldiers were injured in Basra, at least three seriously, when they came under attack from demonstrators armed with petrol bombs, rocks and a grenade. "A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned," Brig Carter said. "There would be absolutely nothing I could do about that." Senior military officials fear that insurgents may be planning a "spectacular" as they mount last-ditch efforts to disrupt the US-led timetable of restoring sovereignty to Iraq. Fighting in the Sunni-dominated city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, where an estimated 1,000 Iraqis died in clashes last week between American soldiers and mujahideen rebels, is causing particular concern. British officers in Basra are also worried about the stand-off at the twin holy cities of Najaf and Kufa, where the fiery Islamic cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, has taken refuge from 2,500 American troops determined either to capture or kill him. "If the Americans go into Najaf, there will be 300 Fallujahs," said one officer. A senior aide to Mr Blair said: "We have to recognise that there might be a certain amount of desperation. All the groups realise the significance of the June 30 deadline. Exactly what will happen we don't know. Fallujah is historically a terrible place that even Saddam Hussein could not control." Officials at the Ministry of Defence acknowledge that a planned scaling down of British troops in the region in coming months is unlikely to go ahead. There are 13,000 British soldiers in Iraq, and the MoD had earlier said that their number would be reduced first to 9,000 and then to 1,000 in 2005. It was revealed yesterday that President George W. Bush gave Mr Blair the option of withholding British troops from combat before the war because of the domestic opposition the Prime Minister faced over the Iraq invasion. According to a book about the war, Plan of Attack, by the veteran Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, Mr Blair is said to have replied: "I said I'm with you, and I mean it." Downing Street officials insisted that Mr Blair had not been asked by President Bush to commit more troops during their meeting at the White House on Friday. A spokesman said, however, that the number of British troops would remain under review. In an interview broadcast today on ABC News, Mr Blair admits for the first time that he underestimated the threat Coalition troops faced in Iraq. The Prime Minister says: "I think most of us would say we probably underestimated the basic security threat that we faced. And we're trying to tackle that now. "In terms of the day-by-day management of the issue, sure, I don't doubt that we'll look back afterwards and say, 'Well, we could have done this differently or that differently'." The admission came during an interview recorded on Friday in Washington. During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that the Coalition's presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi. He represents Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's leading Shia cleric. "The moment that Sayid Ali says, 'We don't want the Coalition here', we might as well go home," Brig Carter said. Earlier this month, British troops battled to restore order in Basra as 1,000 Shia gunmen loyal to al-Sadr stormed the Governor's office to protest at the arrest of one of al-Sadr's senior aides and the closure of his newspaper. At the time, Brig Carter described the situation as "extremely volatile". The United States announced yesterday that 20,000 American soldiers serving in Iraq who had been scheduled to return home in the next few weeks would remain stationed in the country for at least another three months.
The weird thing is, they have all those Republicans at the Coalition headquarters doing a brilliant spin job so more than half of Americans think Iraqis love us and for the Committee to Reelect the President but the spinmeisters are screwing the pooch when it comes to winning hearts and minds of Iraqis. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_campaign_of_fear_1 Military 2 hours, 58 minutes ago By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq - With videos of kidnapped civilians and leaflets threatening violence, one top U.S. military officer said insurgents were operating a brilliant campaign of fear that experts said was meant to drain international workers from Iraq (news - web sites) and isolate the U.S. military and its allies. Guerrilla "masters of intimidation" are also successfully countering the U.S. military's own psychological campaign. One of the most demoralizing weapons in the campaign has been the release and broadcast of four videotapes of hostages, one of whom was filmed during his execution. Insurgents have also issued a burst of fliers and statements warning Iraqis against cooperating with the U.S.-led occupation. The U.S. military used similar fliers and warnings to intimidate the Iraqi army during the war. "There are activities here, people here, insurgents and extremists who are masters of intimidation," a senior U.S. military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. . . .
"A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned," Brig Carter said. "There would be absolutely nothing I could do about that." What kind of military commander would issue that kind of golden invitation? Especially to Shiites who have the experience of the popular overthrow of the Shah to emulate. What a dumb ass.
The spin is letting the people think we're doing the best we can for the Iraqis good and the Iraqi insurgents are nothing but violent ingrates.
And let a Civil War erupt that would kill three times as many Iraqis as those who died at the hands of Saddam and the Baathists? What about the oil we fought for?
Freedom and self government are dependent on education, information and a tradition of independent thought. As much as I would like to think that freedom would be welocome by all peoples we have to remember that the Iraqi people have been under a theocratic, fuedel system for thousands of years. The Nation of Iraq was a compromised confederation assembled by the western powers after WW2 and has little nationalistic identity for it's peoples. I think they see themselves as Shiite or Sunni first, arab second and Iraqi somewhere down the line. Being an Iraqi for the time anyone can remember meant only that you were a servant of Saddam and subject to his brutal regime. Establishing a democratic foothold in the arab world that could provide a becon for all other arab people is a lofty and worthwhile goal. I just don't know if it can be accomplished. There is some sense of irony here though that the most innovative and successful step toward democracy in the arab world is the result of the peoples revolt against the US led regime in Iran. Granted they do not have the sect rivalry that exists in Iraq and granted they still are ruled ultimately by the theocratic structure, but it can be said that they have made more real governmental reforms than the other autocrocies that make up the arab world. And the hope for more freedom and reform is a real force among the Irani people. Rather than cut and run, holding to the June 30 dealine, providing security for another year or two and pulling out to let the factions battle till rationality and the common good dictate a solution is probably best at this point. It's messy, it could have been done better and it will probably cost GWB his re-election. Sunnis will probably control Iraqs political future and will be influenced more from Iran than from the US but I think once the genie of materialism and personal freedom is loose it will be impossible for the clerics to stop. It will be more of an evolution than revolution and the US can best be served by allowing it to happen over the long term than trying to force a more radical change over the short term.
If they want to kill one another rather than let America help them to get their **** together... that's their prerogative. I'm not convinced at all that that is what the majority wants. Some do, obviously. We didn't go there for the oil.
" I urge us to bring ( the natives) enlightment and restraint...at the point of a bayonet." J.S Calhoun, Indian Agent, New Mexico, 1849.
The only problem with your analogy is that there is no evidence that we have ever had every Iraqi at "bayonet point" nor, apparently, would we need to. Where do you go from there?
Why do you conclude that? Are you basing your judgement on the actions of the most extreme? What do we know of the wishes of the silent majority in Iraq?
I cannot buy the "liberation" argument because if it were really true, we would be liberating people across the globe and we simply are not. There are plenty of more brutal regimes than Sadaam and we have allowed them to go completely ignored.
But are their more brutal regimes that also threatened Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the world oil supply? It was sort of a 'perfect storm" factors really. 1. Saddam's regime is as repressive and brutal as any anywhere in the world plus uses WMD's to surpress the Kurds. 2.Saddam invades Kuwait threatening to monopolize the western world's oil supply. After losing the Desert Storm war he defies the armastice agreement. 3. Saddam tries to organize an attempt on a sitting US president. 4. Saddam threatens Isreal with Scud missles.(and we think WMD's) 5.Saddam supports Islamic terror. Of course he has to in relation to the Palestinians, he's arab, but he goes public offering money to suicide bombers's families. Liberation, oil supply, terrorist support, defiance of UN sanctions (WMD's) all played a part in Bush's decision and just any one or two probably wouldn't have resulted in an invasion.
We haven't? So...this whole 'invasion' thingie is really just an overhyped US version of the Magical Mystery Tour?
I wouldn't really argue that. I just think that basing it ONLY on the idea that we are liberating the Iraqi people rings very hollow.
Gene, except for financial support for families of Palestinian suicide bombers, most of what you mention dates from several years before the invasion of Iraq. We had Saddam in a box and, although it was expensive and sometimes hazardous for our people, it was far, far less so compared to what we face today and for the foreseeable future. I think Bush made a dreadful mistake. Who knows when we'll be able to withdraw from Iraq with honor, which we must if we are to not completely squander the prestige built up after decades of effort during the post-Veitnam era. One of the most ironic things about this entire mess, for me, anyway, is that his support for families of the Palestinian suicide bombers was the one clear thing Saddam did that supported terrorism. And I'm not talking about his past history, but what he was doing during the few years prior to the invasion. And the Bush Administration never truly made an issue of it. We could have gotten Saddam, in my opinion, to stop doing that as part of an agreement that he seemed to desperately want before all hell broke lose. I would have praised Bush if he had managed that and the other concessions offered by Saddam to prevent our action. That would have been a useful result of the threat of military force. Bush and company clearly were never interested in any kind of deal.
What could you possibly mean? We undertook regime change on behalf of millions of Iraqis. Some of them love and appreciate what we did for that nation. You're not trying to tell me that 100% (or anywhere near that) is diametrically opposed to our efforts? Strawberry Fields Forever, baby!
Since the Spanish troops are around Najaf and that is one of the two hotspots, one can only assume the Spanish are not very optimistic about the outcome of our current negotiations with the alleged murderer. Why are the Bushies negotiating with this so called murderer? They could not deign to negotiate with Saddam post 2002 but now they negotiate with this two bit cleric? So much flip flopping it's hard to keep track.
