Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
What would have happened
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Monday, 24th October 2005
What would have happened if, instead of an American Commander leading the forces during the Iraq War, a British Commander had led them using British tactics etc.. Would there be an insurgency so destructive as it is now?
-
Message 2
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 25th October 2005
What would have happened if, instead of an American Commander leading the forces during the Iraq War, a British Commander had led them using British tactics etc.. Would there be an insurgency so destructive as it is now?Ìý
It is good to warm oneself by another's fire. -
Message 3
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
I'm not sure it is important to discuss whether using British military efficiency would have made the US tactics seem amateurish...
I think we should be more concerned as to why our government cannot kit out our armies with the neccessary equipment to actually justify their deployment in the conflict let alone requesting they lead the operation
Too much US bashing around... a no-win situation for all concerned -
Message 4
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Hi All,
I think the tactics of the actual invasion had no bearing on the outcome with respect to terrorist activity.
Bear in mind that the British Army has trained for decades to fight alongside the US, so you will find that their tactics are very similar when it comes to offensive operations. The problem is, we invaded Iraq, and we're still there. Had we gone in, kicked out Saddam, then got out, leaving a UN force in place (preferably made of Islamic troops), then the Iraqi people would have been grateful and probably well on the road to recovery. Instead we're still there, and drawing in every brainwashed Islamic Jihadi nut from surrounding nations, who go there simply have a pop at the "Great Satan". The war on terror now has a fixed battleground in Iraq, and the US now get to kill terrorists on someone else's turf instead of at home, and no end is in sight.
However, initial tactics in the invasion would not have been responsible for the current situation, so I would say no, have a UK c-in-c running the invasion would have made no difference, also it would have been impossible politically from a US perspective, and every casualty would have been blamed on the UK.
As for US tactics with respect to dealing with an insurgency, then yes you have a point, they are a bit amateurish when it comes to counter-insurgency. US military doctrine dating back to the Civil War has always been "It's better to expend equipment than men", and their belief in peace through superior firepower doesn't help either. Superior firepower in an urban area results in civilian casualties and "collateral damage", which then leads to more insurgents. It is a no win situation. Add to that the US's current policy of deploying National Guard units to Iraq (the equivalent to the British TA) you get a situation where the terrorists' best recruiters are the Americans themselves. Everytime an Iraqi civilian dies, a few more decide to fight back. The war is going to drag on and on. -
Message 5
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Hi All,
I think the tactics of the actual invasion had no bearing on the outcome with respect to terrorist activity.
Bear in mind that the British Army has trained for decades to fight alongside the US, so you will find that their tactics are very similar when it comes to offensive operations. The problem is, we invaded Iraq, and we're still there. Had we gone in, kicked out Saddam, then got out, leaving a UN force in place (preferably made of Islamic troops), then the Iraqi people would have been grateful and probably well on the road to recovery. Instead we're still there, and drawing in every brainwashed Islamic Jihadi nut from surrounding nations, who go there simply have a pop at the "Great Satan". The war on terror now has a fixed battleground in Iraq, and the US now get to kill terrorists on someone else's turf instead of at home, and no end is in sight.
However, initial tactics in the invasion would not have been responsible for the current situation, so I would say no, have a UK c-in-c running the invasion would have made no difference, also it would have been impossible politically from a US perspective, and every casualty would have been blamed on the UK.
As for US tactics with respect to dealing with an insurgency, then yes you have a point, they are a bit amateurish when it comes to counter-insurgency. US military doctrine dating back to the Civil War has always been "It's better to expend equipment than men", and their belief in peace through superior firepower doesn't help either. Superior firepower in an urban area results in civilian casualties and "collateral damage", which then leads to more insurgents. It is a no win situation. Add to that the US's current policy of deploying National Guard units to Iraq (the equivalent to the British TA) you get a situation where the terrorists' best recruiters are the Americans themselves. Everytime an Iraqi civilian dies, a few more decide to fight back. The war is going to drag on and on.
Ìý
this is why i consider DL to be the most reasonable and even-handed contributor to these boards...i wish everyone else was so considered!
cheers -
Message 6
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Thanks hoi_polloi for your kind words! -
Message 7
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Essentially it's too early to tell. One thing I can say for sure is that none of 'our boys' will be home anytime soon, if we know what's good for us and for the Iraqis. Be it a 'coalition of the willing', or (my preferred option) UN forces, we need to be there for many a year to come to ensure stability.
-
Message 8
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231725) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
If the invading forces pulled out of Iraq right now, there'd be a civil war in that country.
If the invading forces pulled out 10 years from now, there'd be a civil war in that country.
In either case, it would all have been for nothing. Nothing we or anyone else can do will make middle eastern countries into western-style democracies as long as their fundamentalist rulers are determined to remain in the 17th century. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Hi Erik,
I think there practically is a civil war in Iraq now. Bear in mind that Iraq is, like so many other nations, an artificial country, its borders drawn on a map by a couple of imperialist diplomats while they carved up the middle east (Sykes-Picot agreement), so it will more than likely fragment along ethnic lines-Sunni, Shia and Kurd.
The Shia are relatively happy that Saddam is gone, as are the Kurds, but the Sunnis, who had all the power in Saddam's Iraq are seriously annoyed that they are now merely a 20% minority group in the country, rather than its ruling class, so civil war is inevitable. The Sunni want power back, the Shia aren't going to let that happen, and the Kurds want independence. Peace is highly unlikely.
All the best,
DL -
Message 10
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Hi Erik,
If the invading forces pulled out of Iraq right now, there'd be a civil war in that country.Ìý
I agree.
If the invading forces pulled out 10 years from now, there'd be a civil war in that country.
In either case, it would all have been for nothing. Nothing we or anyone else can do will make middle eastern countries into western-style democracies as long as their fundamentalist rulers are determined to remain in the 17th century.Ìý
I don't know about that. Give them a real taste of democracy where they can hold their elected officials accountable for their actions, and especially with the women empowered, it could just work out. -
Message 11
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
I don't know about that. Give them a real taste of democracy where they can hold their elected officials accountable for their actions, and especially with the women empowered, it could just work out.Ìý
I admire your optimism, and I certainly hope so -
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
I don't know about that. Give them a real taste of democracy where they can hold their elected officials accountable for their actions, and especially with the women empowered, it could just work out.Ìý
I admire your optimism, and I certainly hope soÌý
Only one flaw with Expat's comment.
Islamic clerics claiming that western style democracy goes against Islam, and unfortunately that much maligned religion is still governed by misogynists. Women are highly unlikely to become empowered in a country which has an Islamic government, and I fear that this will be the fate of Iraq. -
Message 13
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Only one flaw with Expat's comment.
Islamic clerics claiming that western style democracy goes against Islam, and unfortunately that much maligned religion is still governed by misogynists. Women are highly unlikely to become empowered in a country which has an Islamic government, and I fear that this will be the fate of Iraq.Ìý
A democracy is not run by Islamic clerics. It is run by elected officials who happen to be Muslims. The people of Iraq have voted for their constitution (women included) under threats to their lives. When the smoke clears it may not duplicate a western democracy, but it will be a start. I would never underestimate the power of a people, having tasted for the first time in their lives, real freedom.
Turkey is an Islamic country. It may not be the best example of a democracy, but it's working. -
Message 14
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Yes, but I think what DL is trying to say expat is that although this democracy is not run by clerics, they hold a lot more sway over the population of Iraq than a Christian Priest or Minister would hold over a western society. You make a point of Turkey, but remember Turkey's past. It used to have the whole of the Middle East under it's heel, so it's perspective is slightly different. A counter-example (if that's possible?) is the Palestinian Authority. Although it is democratically elected, the Clerics and the Jihadi groups have more power than the authority.
-
Message 15
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Yes, but I think what DL is trying to say expat is that although this democracy is not run by clerics, they hold a lot more sway over the population of Iraq than a Christian Priest or Minister would hold over a western society. You make a point of Turkey, but remember Turkey's past. It used to have the whole of the Middle East under it's heel, so it's perspective is slightly different. A counter-example (if that's possible?) is the Palestinian Authority. Although it is democratically elected, the Clerics and the Jihadi groups have more power than the authority.Ìý
Thanks for clearing that up. -
Message 16
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Yes, but I think what DL is trying to say expat is that although this democracy is not run by clerics, they hold a lot more sway over the population of Iraq than a Christian Priest or Minister would hold over a western society. You make a point of Turkey, but remember Turkey's past. It used to have the whole of the Middle East under it's heel, so it's perspective is slightly different. A counter-example (if that's possible?) is the Palestinian Authority. Although it is democratically elected, the Clerics and the Jihadi groups have more power than the authority.Ìý
An even more dramatic example might be Iran. Here you have all the trappings of democracy BUT the clerics still have considerable powers, both official and unofficial. A previous, moderate, President with widespread support was paralysed effectively by the control of the clerics who were able to block any real reforms. Given a much lower vote a hard liner is the new President and, according to the news this evening is now causing the clerics problems because he is so bigoted.
I think if the troops pulled out now, and probably for the foreseeable future it would not be restricted to a civil war. Any collapse of Iraq, which is virtually certain, would almost certainly draw in at least some of the neighbours. Turkey would never allow any Kurdish state, the bulk of the Arabs a rump Iraq dominated by the Shia and Iran any move by them which would suppress the Shias.
Furthermore, as shown by the situation in both the southern Lebanon and Gaza, at least some extremists would accept any western withdrawal as a sign of victory and an excuse to attack elsewhere. Unfortunately, having got in there, there is no easy way to get out. Better policies would help but it may well be too late.
Steve -
Message 17
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Plenty of good info, and food for thought Steve.
Cheers. -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 28th October 2005
Expat,
Lord Ball summed up exactly what I meant. It is very difficult in the "western world" to understand the Islamic world, and their clerics have a great deal more influence on the general population than say, a bishop in the UK does. If an influential Islamic cleric says "Democracy is against the Koran", then the population will believe it. That is the major problem. Just look at Iran's charming statement today. The President of Iran, apparently elected in a fair and free election, stated that "Israel should be wiped off the map", which is almost a declaration of war IMO, and he said this because the chief beardy Ayatollah Khomeini had made the same statement 20 or so years ago. Iran's president simply believes that because an Ayatollah said this, then this must be the will of Allah.
All of this bodes ill for the world, and my own opinion is that there is going to be a big old war. The Christian right in the US believes Iran is evil, Iran believes the US is evil. When Iran issues statements like this one, then this causes further antagonism towards the US indirectly, and at the same time the UK is issuing statements saying that Iran is supplying insurgents with weapons to fight in Iraq, then there will be only one outcome, a war.
The problem is that an attack on Iran will be seen by all Muslims as an attack on islam itself, and this will lead simply to the "Jihad" that bin Laden and all his cronies crave so much.
As bin Laden himself said "The difference between the Americans and us is that they love life. We love death."
Yours depressingly
DL -
Message 19
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 28th October 2005
DL,
Your point in message #12 was pretty obvious. It was not difficult to digest. There are many interpretations of the Quran. Islamic countries adhere to it on different levels. The Taliban and the Osama Bin Hiding crowd, and say the folks in Indonesia live differently. We have already seen the door crack open in Egypt. I would not get too excited about venomous statements from Iran. I do however very much agree with you there will be plenty more blood on the sand before the mid east is settled.
Relations among Arab states are anything but harmonious. They will not unite to fight the great Satan as the outcome is well known to them. If you figure the rest of the Muslim countries in the neighborhood will be happy with a nuclear armed Iran, I disagree. Excuse me being redundant, but in my opinion if the women get empowered they will bring the peace.
I will now say something that you will not agree with (surprise surprise lol ) The average Iranian likes Americans. Quite frankly they needed a revolution, it's just a pity that extremism was the vehicle it came in on.
Cheers. -
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 28th October 2005
Good morning Expat,
Hope all is well in Texas. Your opinions do seem to be moderating recently! There are indeed many interpretations of the Quran, but I for one do indeed find it confusing when people start talking about it being "taken out of context" usually when referring to verse which talk about "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" and so on. Seems a pretty straightforward statement to me.
The rise of religious fundamentalism is something which troubles me (as no doubt you have gathered), regardless of which book they believe is correct, and it does seem at times that the world is polarising on religious grounds. You talk of the empowerment of women in the Middle East, but this is at odds with their religious doctrine and their culture over there. Saudi Arabia, supposedly an ally of the west does not even allow women to drive! Yet because the west needs oil, all the inequalities and overt racism present in Saudi society are ignored. You can't help but think that if Saudi Arabia had no oil, it would have been them who were invaded, not Afghanistan after 9/11. The number of Saudis involved in the attacks both directly and indirectly, through planning and financing the attacks demonstrates clearly the level of Saudi involvement.
As for Iran, the last thing the world needs is a country run along the lines of 7th Century ethics having nuclear weapons. They simply cannot be trusted with them. You could easeily foresee them building a bomb, smuggling it to the Israeli coast, and then blowing a city or two to pieces "in the name of Allah" then claiming that terrorists did it. If they are (as the British government claim) sending weapons to Iraqi insurgents to use against British troops, then they are equally likely to do the same with nukes. Remember that the first thing countries tend to do with nukes when they get them is to let a couple off!!!
God this is depressing stuff... -
Message 21
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 28th October 2005
I hope you're sitting down.......I agree with your post.
Except for my moderation opinions, I call it like I see it.
Cheers. -
Message 22
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 28th October 2005
Wha.......
Crashing noises as DL loses consciousness and hits the floor.....
-
Message 23
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 29th October 2005
Superior firepower in an urban area results in civilian casualties and "collateral damage", which then leads to more insurgents.Ìý
Collateral damage which of course includes civilian life is why the United States does not use Superior Firepower in built up areas. To fight Al Qaeda and the insurgents is why we have deployed the best Bayonet and Rifle butt fighters in the world, the United States Marine Corps. If we were using Superior Firepower in Baghdad there would be no Baghdad period.
It is a no win situation. Add to that the US's current policy of deploying National Guard units to Iraq (the equivalent to the British TA) you get a situation where the terrorists' best recruiters are the Americans themselves. Every time an Iraqi civilian dies, a few more decide to fight back. The war is going to drag on and on.Ìý
Deploying the National Guard is necessary because of our Global commitments. The National Guard is not at all " (the equivalent to the British TA) " Every time an Iraqi dies its usually another Iraqi or foreign fighter that killed him. I expect the insurgency to slow down when Saddam has his trial, and does a break dance at the end of a rope. The best recruiters are the Syrians and Iranians who are assisting foreign fighters to enter Iraq thru their respective countries.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Brits and Yanks do not fold under pressure.
Cheers. -
Message 24
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Saturday, 29th October 2005
the best Bayonet and Rifle butt fighters in the world, the United States Marine Corps Ìý
I think you'll find that, generally, the British Army is far superior to the US Marine Corps when it comes to handling a Bayonet. I mean, the US forces never order them fixed, while there have been incidents in Southern Iraq where British Army Regiments have been ordered to fix Bayonets when fighting insurgents. According to reports, the Insurgents fled when they saw what was happening. As old Jonesy used to say on Dad's Army "They don't like it up 'em" -
Message 25
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 29th October 2005
I think you will find generally that you normally talk thru your backside.
-
Message 26
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 30th October 2005
If a Brit were to fix bayonet (hollow handle and all) on a near buttless SA 80 its because its broken again. That weapon has been rejected by your special forces, who insisted on, and were issued American M16's with real Bayonets.
-
Message 27
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Sunday, 30th October 2005
I think you will find generally that you normally talk thru your backside.Ìý
I think that you can't write that well. I mean, I do remember you creating a furore about DL not writing properly and now you start using "thru". Expat, it looks suspiciously like you're using double standards. I do find, however, that you talk through (yes, that's how it is spelt) your backside. -
Message 28
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 30th October 2005
AAaaaagghhh........skewered again, by another thrust from Lord Ballony's Rapier like intellect.
-
Message 29
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Sunday, 30th October 2005
I'm glad you realise such basic things as this, expat.
-
Message 30
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 31st October 2005
Morning Expat.
"Collateral damage which of course includes civilian life is why the United States does not use Superior Firepower in built up areas. To fight Al Qaeda and the insurgents is why we have deployed the best Bayonet and Rifle butt fighters in the world, the United States Marine Corps. If we were using Superior Firepower in Baghdad there would be no Baghdad period."
Sorry Expat, but that may be the case in Baghdad, but the rest of Eye-raq appears to be a free-fire zone to your armed forces. Your previous statement as quoted above can be happily shot down in flames by one word.
Fallujah.
I seem to remember seeing footage on the news of artillery rounds going in to a city, M1s and Bradleys driving through the streets letting main gun rounds go, A10 strikes, Apaches letting rip with Hellfires and -even worse- unguided rockets IN A BUILT UP AREA.
Hit the ejector seat on this one mate.
DL -
Message 31
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 31st October 2005
Lord Ballony
I think you will find generally that you normally talk thru your backside.
Quoted message from expat32Ìý
I think that you can't write that well. I mean, I do remember you creating a furore about DL not writing properly and now you start using "thru". Expat, it looks suspiciously like you're using double standards. I do find, however, that you talk through (yes, that's how it is spelt) your backside.Ìý
thru
prep. & adv. & adj. Informal
Through. -
Message 32
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 31st October 2005
Message 30 - posted by DL**, 3 Hours Ago
Morning Expat.
"Collateral damage which of course includes civilian life is why the United States does not use Superior Firepower in built up areas. To fight Al Qaeda and the insurgents is why we have deployed the best Bayonet and Rifle butt fighters in the world, the United States Marine Corps. If we were using Superior Firepower in Baghdad there would be no Baghdad period."
Sorry Expat, but that may be the case in Baghdad, but the rest of Eye-raq appears to be a free-fire zone to your armed forces. Your previous statement as quoted above can be happily shot down in flames by one word.
Fallujah.
I seem to remember seeing footage on the news of artillery rounds going in to a city, M1s and Bradleys driving through the streets letting main gun rounds go, A10 strikes, Apaches letting rip with Hellfires and -even worse- unguided rockets IN A BUILT UP AREA.
Hit the ejector seat on this one mate.
DLÌý
ANJA NIEDRINGHAUS / Associated Press/ December 5, 2004
American Marines and soldiers and their Iraqi allies took on Iraq's terrorist stronghold, headquarters of the notorious Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and flattened their enemy. Zarqawi's killers, bombers and hostage takers who had turned Fallujah into a terrorist bastion are now dead, captured or in flight. In 10 days of tough urban fighting, every block of Fallujah's 20 square kilometers was meticulously cleared by coalition forces going house to house and room to room.
Cheers -
Message 33
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Tuesday, 1st November 2005
Still, the city's flattened and a fair number of it's civilian inhabitants are dead, expat. I'd call it a gross misuse of force.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.