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

Given that Iraq has been battered on this forum ( as a subject ) I do not want to revisit the whole thing again, but isn't the pull back to the airbase by the UK troops the beginning of the end game, at least for us, and if it works - perhaps for the US too?

Personally I don't see the move as a cut and run, nor as a defeat. There comes a point in conflicts like this when you realise that all that can be done, has been done, and that no improvement in the affairs of the occupied country will come about whilst foreign soldiers are seen by the internecine parties as backing their 'opposition'

We shall discover in the next few days whether removing the thorn will let the wound heal enough for Iraqis to sort themselves out. IMHO that this approach might work. I further hope , that if it does, our coalition partners may benefit, Bush has already referred to current 'security' levels maintained with fewer troops. Perhaps he has seen the light at last, and realises that you cannot dominate by firepower alone, especially if your enemy isn't woried about death.

In the last generation the Germans tried it, the Russians tried it, the Americans tried it in Vietnam, it failed in every case.

Novo

Its was always a matter of holding the line until they could be replaced by official Iraqi forces.

There was, quite some time ago I think, several comentators in the media, I seem* to recall from various positions in the armed forces, suggesting that the vast majority of violence and attacks in Iraq were aimed at the UK/US forces, and so one albeit simplified method to reduce the fighting bombins etc., was to remove the US/UK forces against which the violence seems to be directed... Hopefully this is the case, and once the various factions in the country see an Iraq army/police taking control of security, the violence will abate...

I don't buy that last post, as one strategy employed by the US was to remain within bases/the green zone, to prevent attacks. This didn't reduce the violence.

Strange, as the only reports I ever seem to hear about violence is that which is directed against our troops out there Maybe the more 'internal' violence just doesn't get reported I dunno...

It seems to me fairly obvious the foreign troops provoke violence. They can't help it. Its nobodies' fault unless they were a politician (or perhaps a voter?) who failed to predict it when declaring their war (which seems unlikely?). Being unusual, being wealthy, having language difficulties. At best, hearts and minds is a form of damage limitation.

On the other hand, it was a situation with continuing potential for civil war. Once the invasion was done, there was no option to just pull out. Som The Coalition (Tm)* forces had to stay, keeping the lid on things, even though they were causing more trouble at the same time, because at that point they were the only people who could. If, now, there is a functioning Iraqi police force, then the coalition is probably more trouble than its worth and its time to get out.

So, all quite logical then, if you accept the decision to invade in the first place, which seems the strongest point of contention.

*I don't like the term coalition for this. It has a whole invented 'Rebel Alliance' feel to it which doesn't seem appropriate. Still, pointing only at U.S. forces is also wrong.

I agree the foreign troops provoke violence; but to claim there are no reports of civilian on civilian violence is almost outlandish.

Hi Arnie,

You are absolutely right. The tragedy is that having taken military action to remove the brutal controlling regime, in a religiously divided country, no 'plan 'seemed to exist to control the civilan to civilian volence. Which was surely the obvious outcome of the vacuum.

Novo

Absolutely, couldn't agree more Novo.

I read recently that the problem developed after the elections. The Brits were welcomed at first and quickly secured the area militarily. Elections were held and officials appointed. However, the Brits suspected that many of the officials were linked to Iran and various militias, so they withheld powers from them and over-ruled decisions. People quickly realised that these councils were a sham and the discontent started.

Quite what the coalition expected when they allowed free elections I don't know, but given the way the religion, militias and sectarian divides are woven into the society there, surely it was inevitable that people would be elected the coalition thought unpalateable.

For an excellent overview of the political situation in Iraq post-invasion, I recommend "Occupational Hazards" by Rory Stewart - an account of a year spent trying to govern an area north of Basra.