h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm

Wow.

The new head of the British Army has blatantly said UK troops are making the situation worse in Iraq, and recommends getting out ASAP. This flies in the face of the UK government position.

What do people think? Is a withdrawal likely? How much popular support is there for such an action?

Ste

Quick survey of the people in my house shows a 100% support for withdrawing from both Iraq and AFfganastan (unscientific survey I know) Likelyhood of it? None whatsoever, 'people in power' would 'lose face' and as appearance is all politics is about these days of course they'd not want to do that. There doesn't seem to have been much good done in Iraq by the presence of any of the US/UK/etc forces there, cept for knowcking out a hefty number of the native population in the name of 'keeping face'... Withdrawel of toops one hopes must eventually occur one day in the future, better sooner than later, the quicker they can have their civel war and eventually settle down to some kind of peace

<>

Exactly, KLegs!

That is sad, true and rather frustrating...

Are there any indications of what a Gordon Brown-led government would do?

If ever there was a time for Tony Blair to make himself the "People's Hero" - it's now.

Agreed,

Now is the time for him to truly lead the country or to go. We now all know that we 'invaded' illegaly, that the 'evidence' was to say the least a put up job, we also found out yesterday that the estimate of Iraqi deaths has been 1000's too low - now the Chief of the army says we are doing more harm than good.

What more does TB need to convince him that he must do the RIGHT THING,
which is PULL OUT or RESIGN.

Novo

The General, (I think) was railing against the idea that the British Army might be expected to maintain a presence in Iraq for the next ten years as a back-up to the Iraqi army. This is a very real fear felt by senior officers that we'll end up with a NI-type situation.

The army hates these police actions as it is inevitably a lose-lose situation. IMO, the army wants to release troops from the policing of Iraq for the real combat in Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6049126.stm

It seems like TB is doing a 'I'll-do-exactly-what-you-say......later'

If British troops really *are* making the situation worse then a deadline should be set for a quick withdrawal, however I'd like to see some evidence.

The BBC followed-up this story with a quick few remarks from their reporter in Iraq who said that Iraqis were overjoyed when Saddam was overthrown and lots of them approached him and "shook his hand" (don't recall the Beeb quite covering it like that at the time, but never mind) but that now there is a lot of fear because of sectarian violence and tensions. However, his words disagreed with the general's insinuation that it was the British presence that is causing the trouble. I think the same general has also made remarks about "Judeo-Christian tradition" and the danger of Islam so he may well be an isolationist determined to get out and let the arabs kill each other. I'll keep an open mind about this all, however.

"we also found out yesterday that the estimate of Iraqi deaths has been 1000's too low"

You forgot to mention that that's merely yet another estimate to go with the dozens of others, all of which disagree with each other.

The sad fact is, no one really knows how many Iraqis are being killed or even by whom, but everyone has an "ideal" figure they stick to for their own purposes.

"The General, (I think) was railing against the idea that the British Army might be expected to maintain a presence in Iraq for the next ten years as a back-up to the Iraqi army. This is a very real fear felt by senior officers that we'll end up with a NI-type situation.

The army hates these police actions as it is inevitably a lose-lose situation. IMO, the army wants to release troops from the policing of Iraq for the real combat in Afghanistan."

That makes some sense, but I don't feel the Iraqi army is up to policing the country yet. It's had to be rebuilt from scratch in three years which is extremely difficult. And it needs to be ensured that its commanders are loyal to the Baghdad government and not local tribal/religious groups.

I agree more troops are needed for Afghanistan, as the Taliban are successfully regrouping in the south of the country.

Zagreb,

"You forgot to mention that that's merely yet another estimate to go with the dozens of others, all of which disagree with each other."

Actually not entirely true. There are many different figures reported, but they are counting different things. Where they are counting the same things, they tend to agree. For example the Iraq Body Count website is based on reported deaths. The US military estimate is I think based on their own confirmed deaths statistics. They are both 'passive' estimates in that they rely on people coming to you to tell you that someone has been killed, and therefore are only lower bounds on the actual figures. The recent Lancet report, and the previous Lancet report by different authors, actually both pretty much agree in the death rates that they report, and they use an 'active' estimate. That is they went out and did random samples of households and found out how many people had been killed in each. A good article about this can be found on this page:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_davies/2006/10/how_to_not_lie_with_statistics.html

Thank you for that link, Dogster and for some clarifying of the way the figures come about...

Briefly looking at the Lancet paper, the sampling and the stats look good.

I loved the way Tony Blair had the audacity to "agree" with everything the General said...

"Briefly looking at the Lancet paper, the sampling and the stats look good."

The lancet report has been rubbished by Iraq Body Count (who opposed the war).

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

I have to admit to being a little sceptical of claims like 1000 bodies a day. I am sure the hundreds of reporters all searching for the "big" story would have come up with some concrete evidence of this. Our media may be censored, but every media outlet cannot be so compliant. I am sure Al Jazeera would love to run a story like this and I can certainly see the political capital that could be generated from it.

Why the Lancet? Was it sandwiched between articles on Flu jabs and athletes foot? It's a little like Newsround having the only footage of the moon landings.

" Our media may be censored, but every media outlet cannot be so compliant. I am sure Al Jazeera would love to run a story like this and I can certainly see the political capital that could be generated from it."

Our media aren't remotely compliant. Every bomb blast in Iraq is reported. There are a lot of people in the media (print and broadcast) gunning for Blair and the Iraq war and its unpopularity is one of the best ways of hitting him.

"Why the Lancet? Was it sandwiched between articles on Flu jabs and athletes foot? It's a little like Newsround having the only footage of the moon landings."

I'm not sure. It could be just a medical survey as part of the publication that's been seized on because of its potential political capital. It could be that the editors of the lancet have it in for Blair. Who knows?

that link doesn't make sense. take these 2 points:

"Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;"
...
" If these assertions are true, they further imply:
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;"


How does A imply B?