[oldie]

This post http://forums.techguy.org/showthread...38#post1591238 has prompted me to start this rather profound thread regarding the involvement of coalition troops in Iraq.

Too much emphasis is being given to the USAs so called "determined to see it through" policy in Iraq - regardless

Have recently had some very interesting and enlightening , over lunch, conversations with various American and British influential residents here

Tony Blair and the British government hold the ace card !!! in Iraq !!!

Scenario - Britain decides on a complete withdrawal of all it's troops and intel lot from within Iraq - The USA Stands Alone - The USA faces total isolation from the world stage

British conspiracy at it's best Or a well thought out Mossad type plan

Regards - Oldie

[Ciberblade]

Not to discredit the force at which Britain helps in this effort...but at last count there were at least 16 other contries involved as well.

[oldie]

Oh forgot - a to the USAs "Brookings Institution"

[EdGreene]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

Not to discredit the force at which Britain helps in this effort...but at last count there were at least 16 other contries involved as well.

Keeping things in their proper perspective:
there are more United States Marines than there are all the members of the British Armend Forces; period.

[oldie]

Originally Posted by EdGreene

Keeping things in their proper perspective:
there are more United States Marines than there are all the members of the British Armend Forces; period.

Hi Ed - I realise that. All I ask is that one sits back, then think carefully about the scenario that was put forward in my post. God forbid it were ever to be

Oldie

[DNeurococo]

Here is an interesting point. Consider the contribution from PMFs (Private Military Firms, or as I call them, Private MERCENARY Firms).

There are more PMFs there than any coalition partner, even Britain.

The contributions from the coalition partners is mostly eye-wash - - window dressing. The COMBINED contribution from all coalition partners (minus USA and Britain) is actually LESS than the PMFs. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the countries were bribed/threatened by the U.S. to comply. We saw this with Poland. Poland was complaining that there were not getting enough Iraq reconstruction contracts - - most likely a bribe that was offered for compliance.

Also, the QUALITY of the contribution is often poor. That is, they support us in principle, but often station troops in safe areas. For example, Poland stationed troops miles out to sea, guarding an off shore oil platform. The real purpose of them being there is to create an illusion of world support. But, often the population of the country that is providing troops opposes the troops being in Iraq. We saw that with Spain, whose people overturned their government and replaced it with one that would withdraw the troops.

Ironic, isn’t it? We are supposed to be building democracy there, yet we oppose the democratic choice of the people of the countries involved.

See my thread regarding mercenaries: Mercenaries in Iraq

[oldie]

Originally Posted by DNeurococo

Ironic, isn’t it? We are supposed to be building democracy there, yet we oppose the democratic choice of the people of the countries involved.

Spot on there chum Though I seriously think that the powers that be are having second thoughts regarding what kind of government will eventually control Iraq. Personally I don't feel it's going to be "Democracy" as we know it

Regards - Oldie

[Pacalis]

Although there are many other nations represented in Iraq, besides the U.S. and the U.K. , they are there as window dressing . Bush can say how the world is supporting his war in Iraq . If the U.K. were to bow to public opinion and pull there troops from Iraq (which they have 8,700), this would be a devastating blow to Bush/Cheney. The current troop deployment of the U.S. is around 120,000. And we will certainly be adding more. To fight a guerrilla war, which this has turned into, an occupier needs a 10/1 ratio, just to stay even . (Sun Tzu). So it appears that Bush's revenge in Iraq will be for nothing.We are now starting to use old Saddam cronies to help reform the government. What was the sense of this. We will never see an Arab democratic nation in the Middle East. Not unless we are able to also change them from being Muslim also.

As a side note President Mubarak of Egypt stated in France this past weekend that the U.S. has never before been hated by the Arabs as they are now. And the King of Jordan has postponed his visit to the U.S.
So it appears our alienation of the Middle East is growing, following Bush's recent agreement with Sharon on the Palestinian.

If we don't remove our troops from the Middle East soon, I'm afraid we will see a Holy War, that we have never imagined .

Just my opinion.

"PEACE"

[LANMaster]

US 120,000
UK 8700

Looks like for every British soldier there is about 14 US soldiers.

I agree with you, Oldie, that we must recognize the damage that would be done if our strongest ally in this conflict were to bail out. I don't think Britain will do that. And there ARE 16 other countries with, albeit token numbers, troops on the ground.

[oldie]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

US 120,000
UK 8700

Looks like for every British soldier there is about 14 US soldiers.

I agree with you, Oldie, that we must recognize the damage that would be done if our strongest ally in this conflict were to bail out. I don't think Britain will do that. And there ARE 16 other countries with, albeit token numbers, troops on the ground.

Have been waiting patiently in the wings for your response LAN

(1) As my threads 1st post stated, these are views that took place over a lunch and the usual wine accompanied banter. Not my views or scenario, but shocking food for thought

(2) The numbers game? Overkill? Insignificant. Totally so.

(3) Repercussions of a British withdrawal ?? (A) UN in total disarray (B) USA would almost certainly lose any other allies involved in the conflict (C) US stockmarkets would plummet. The US economy would be in absolute turmoil.

The problem (or otherwise) with British politics is that a back bench revolt is common place. A vote of no confidence is common place, and public opinion is fickle

As stated earlier by myself - God forbid

Oldie

[WarC]

It would most definitely be a loss for the US if the UK were to pull out of Iraq. Not only militarily, as the US would most likely have to "bulk up" the areas British soldiers were responsible for...Putting an even greater stretch on our already stretched forces.

In purely strategic terms, the US could definitely go on without the UK...but the blows would be far deeper than that. Not only would we suffer in terms of our international standing, but it would also raise the chances for a draft and provide more ammunition for those who support it.

Not too mention the increased casualties as a result of more ground to cover. It's been relatively clear since Vietnam that the American public is extremely vocal about American casualties.

The various factions in Iraq and throughout the world would try to take the greatest advantage of the political and strategic chaos that would result...so who knows what could go down in the areas around Basrah and northeast Iraq.

Don't forget that Iran borders Iraq there...It wouldn't be entirely crazy if the Iranian army invaded suddenly, what with the Mehdi Militia, Al Qaeda, and foreign fighters already entangled in Iraq.

This of course would spell political doom for the UK, and they would probably have to re-deploy to help the US fight the Iranians, in a much larger more deadly war with much deeper consequences.

So maybe Iran holds the "ACE" card

That would suck.

[RSM123]

It would certainly be damaging if Britain were to pull out - yet quite simply they will not. Regardless of how unpopular this war is viewed by the electorate - Britain will be in for the duration.

It is worth considering that B'LIAR has already committed British forces to just about every single crisis region / designated UN relief force going. There are troops in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, still troops in Northern Iraq (a consequence of the post Gulf War 'One' Safe Haven strategy.) There are British troops on the 'Green Line' dividing Greeks and Turks in Cyprus, there are still over 10,000 soldiers in Northern Ireland, furthermore there are British Army Training Teams in at least 57 other countries (the host nation pays good money for quality training - good for foreign currency reserves.) Etc ....

This despite the fact that the British Armed Forces are due to face another round of cutbacks in manpower, across the board.

Blair being a statesman with one eye on the Euro Presidency, and the other on the history books, would no more pull out - than he would give birth

He can't afford to - to him, credibility is all, and he dosen't care how many British soldiers have to be sacrificed to secure either or both of the above. To pull British forces out now, would be to acknowledge that the entire venture had been utter folly.

No chance.

[WarC]

Yes, because we all know Blair will burn alongside Stalin for his obviously evil obviously power-grabbing ways, right?

If only Bin Laden was Prime Minister...then things would be fine and dandy

No more helping the disenfranchised around the world...Bin Laden doesn't have any care whether or not those Turks and Greeks knock on eachother until judgement day.

methinks the world would be worse off without those Brit troops around the world, and that coming from an American of all people.

But, I can see why the British people would be inclined to let the third worlders all over kill themselves off, what with that imperialist history and what have you... (That was low but I couldn't resist...historical-based slander against another country is too much to resist at times)

The Brits rock either way. *shrug*

PS: The smileys represent non-hostility! Smilies = non-hostility. I find that to be the case at large 'round here in Civ Debate. So I am now going to use them profusely

As well as the thumbs up sign. I had a cup of coffee not too long ago.

[plschwartz]

Whilst I was working in hospital we had a system dealing with emergency procedures in case of fire with the acronym ACE I forget waht the A was; C was "confine" and E was "evacuate."
Wise term to use for UK forces in Iraq

[RSM123]

Not sure exactly who you're trying to insult there WarC - Nor do I care as nothing I or anyone else says here will change anything

My point was that Blair has staked himself on aligning with Bush on the whole Iraqi venture. For Blair it has nothing to do with introducing democracy to the 'poor, peasant people' of Iraq. His singular motivation is based on selfish concerns. He wants to 'do a Churchill' and be seen as a great statesman. His 'whistle stop' tours are intended for him to be seen as 'Europe's man in Washington - and Washington's man in Europe.

My statements above condemn Blair uniquely - not because I disagree with what is going on in Iraq, but because Blair plainly could not care less himself. The whole operation is something he gambled on - yet now cannot afford to withdraw from.

Not sure what you were driving at with your reference to Imperialist Policy - given that toppling Saddam was inspired by your Administration - nor with your comment about 'Brit troops' ... but then, they're there and you and I are not.

My critique was of the man we here in Britain have as 'leader' you seem to be motivated by a desire to insult Britain, not sure why.