Bush adopts British colonial model for Iraq

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/03/wirq03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/03/ixportal.html

The success of British colonial forces against the Malay rebellion in the 1950s is being commended in the United States as a template for victory in Iraq.

Col Andrew Krepinevich, a Vietnam veteran, has been touring congressional offices, the Pentagon and newspapers since autumn espousing an "oil spot strategy".

This week President George W Bush all but formally endorsed a modified version of that approach as official policy.

Rather than focus on hunting down the enemy, the American-led coalition forces should be concentrating on securing specific towns and making life so good there that no one will want to support the insurgents, Col Krepinevich argues. In time, the success will spread slowly outwards as if from an "expanding oil spot" or ink blot, as happened in Malaya. "You focus on a spot segment by segment, area by area," he said.

What an ass.

More like borrowed money from China....

It could have been used to help those in need here in America about a year or so ago I heard what they've spent in iraq they could have given every American man, woman and child $90,000 instead.

The "inkspot" strategy probably has better chance of success, if you have not first napalmed and white-phosphorused the natives or shot whole families on sight and traumatised a generation of children. As the US military have done in Iraq but the Brits in Malayia did not.

I was born and brought up in the 1950s in an east African country that was at the time a British colony. I spent much of my childhood in the African bush, living in houses surrounded by African villages, playing every day in the dust with African children, not in fortified compounds (as Americans have to do). At night, we would have just one African nightwatchman, and my whole family has lived to tell the tale. (In Kenya, in recent times, some nightwatchmen have been bribed by criminals to let murderers in who then killed the Europeans.)

To George Bush, I would say: good idea but I wouldn't - and we didn't - start from where you are starting from.

Let's see, what exactly happened???

It was dismantled in a on the whole orderly and peaceful manner, and the majority of the resulting countries are successful peaceful members of the international community.

One of them however went off the rails and became a militaristic bully who invented nuclear weapons and used them on civilian centers and to this day pursues an imperialist aggressive foreign policy.

That country is America, and you can't blame the British for it.

You surely can't be talking about the British colonial occupation of Iraq during the 1930s.

That ended with bloodshed and disgrace for Britain.

medicine and how to make drinking water safe, built schools and roads, created employment, taught basic hygiene (to help prevent infection and disease) - things that were not there before. We did not arrive in tanks, we lived peacefully in ordinary houses not fortified compounds, and we left peacefully when that country gained independence. In the years since independence, that country has not suffered civil war (unlike some of its neighbours) or the rule of tyrants.

That's what exactly happened in the country in which I was born and spent the first 12 years of my life.

Edited for clarity

friend, originally from Wales, served through the Malaya War in an Australian commando unit, but five years ago left this world for the great walk-about in the sky.

Because we discussed such things often, I'm certain he would have agreed that the problem in Iraq -- like the problem in Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, China and everywhere else United States policy has suffered monumental failure -- is not merely that our lot "first napalmed and white-phosphorused the natives or shot whole families on sight and traumatised a generation of children": that is the primary symptom rather than the cause.

The cause -- the underlying illness -- is the Ku Klux mindset that dictates and manages our foreign policy: the tyrannosauric mercantile greed of our corporations expressed by dime-store diplomats -- ambassadors appointed not on the basis of skill and intelligence but rather because they were the biggest contributors to whichever party is in power at the moment: "doesn't matter if the ambassador's a total idiot -- them people don't even speak 'Mur'can -- and you know them little (browns/yellows/reds/whatevers) ain't really human anyway."

This is a bit sarcastic but sadly it is not much hyperbole at all: the best, most definitive work on the subject remains the novel by Burdick and Lederer -- The Ugly American. Read that -- truth disguised as fiction, and every bit as true today as it was in 1958 -- and you'll understand the entire dismal history of U.S. foreign policy debacles: not just the over-reliance on napalm and Willy Peter, but the underlying causes for such idiocy as well, especially the fact our own infinitely corrupt politicians are only comfortable when their counterparts are equally corrupt: the reason why U.S. tax dollars always get siphoned off into the pockets of crooks, whether stateside (as in the diversion of hurricane-recovery funds) or abroad (as in the theft of foreign aid), and the reason too the U.S. diplomatic service (and the U.S. government in general) is always infinitely tolerant of even the worst sorts of graft, and Willy-Peter-intolerant of even the slightest expression of genuinely progressive thinking. A Mafioso goes into a new neighborhood to organize it, he doesn't talk to the nuns or the parish priest; he seeks out fellow criminals instead: U.S. foreign policy in miniature.

Bush II in this context is merely the worst -- the most brazenly fascist -- in a long line of Republican despots going far back into the 19th Century.

Not that we Democrats were ever much better, but at least we gave the world Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal, which -- for a much-too-brief time -- left our people better off than they had ever been, and many times better off than they will ever be again.

Another superbly revealing book on the subject of U.S. foreign-policy failures -- that is, if you can find it (because it has been so long out of print) -- is The Betrayal by Col. William R. Corson (USMC Ret.), pub. by W.W. Norton and Co., New York: 1968. Corson details in unflinching terms how and why the U.S. lost the Vietnam War.

Normally I don't respond to posters from other countries unless I'm thanking somebody for a link to information, but your remarks reminded me of something one of my late grandmothers might have said, and struck a chord deep within. I hope the two sources I provided -- Lederer/Burdick and Corson -- will prove useful and informative.

that Fallujah was intended as such an "oil spot" ("...the American-led coalition forces should be concentrating on securing specific towns and making life so good there that no one will want to support the insurgents,") 60 Minutes followed the route of the four contractors in flashy SUVs on their kitchen equipment pickup run. Once their charred remains were hanging from the bridge, all bets were off--

If I also may be a bit :sarcasm: and not too too hyperbolic, what you describe represents the aggressive arrogance of the SUV mindset, whichever streets of the world it may be barrelling down:

"...the underlying illness -- is the Ku Klux mindset that dictates and manages our foreign policy: the tyrannosauric mercantile greed of our corporations expressed by dime-store diplomats -- ambassadors appointed not on the basis of skill and intelligence but rather because they were the biggest contributors to whichever party is in power at the moment: "doesn't matter if the ambassador's a total idiot -- them people don't even speak 'Mur'can -- and you know them little (browns/yellows/reds/whatevers) ain't really human anyway." "

The "tyrannosauric mercantile greed of our corporations expressed by dime-store diplomats" and distracted soccer moms and destructive soccer dads--(literally) looking down on them little (poor/marginalized/untrendy/whatevers) ain't really human anyway." "

The blackened window, dehumanized, conspicuous consumption, out-of-my-way mercenary attitude sends the same message, whatever road its on.

is overkill, in any language. (Fallujah was a modern city.)

A television grab shows hands in flames as a body burns next to an attacked vehicle yesterday in the volatile Iraqi town of Falluja.


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/photo/2004/04/01/2003117893

Give me a break! Many of the asian countries are still trying to shake off that hangover.

Did the victory win hearts and minds?

- if that is what you are talking about. About £1 mllion so far.

winging it by the seat of their shit filled pants.

The British occupation of Iraq failed. Why do we keep following their examples?

I guess the goat book and the caterpillar book don't teach history.

Now Blair wants it back.

beginning with the election of a quite 'socialist' (domestic) government after WWII.

the colonies to protect the UK from Germany before WW2 started. It was the beginning of the end for the British Empire.

Charles Kupchan writes about this in The end of the American era : U.S. foreign policy and the geopolitics of the twenty-first century.

but much of the rest of it was carried out by the Tories when they were in power in the 50's under the likes of Harold Macmillan.

bitterly for it had nothing to do with this British "generosity", right?

SOMEbody needs to read up a bit on the subject!

or the 2003 exit Strategy, or Mission accomplished, which is it?

This is the resistance answer to the latest administration spin that Fallujah and other trouble spots are much better since they were turned to rubble and bombed with willy pete.

"Making life good" in a number of cities will not be cheap.

their village happy? That seems to be the only type of happiness BushCo knows how to spread. :puke:

expect for the haves and have-mores, so why think stupid can do it there

Tell that to the families of the TEN DEAD Marines....

"We have been pursuing this now since the summer of last year," he told The Daily Telegraph. "Fallujah in particular was key, because after it was cleared it was then held in a sophisticated way by Iraqi forces and US marines.

"We brought the population back. . . then went down the list of everything - schools, medical centres, sewerage, water, roads, electricity, the whole gamut of services - to give the population a sense that they had a future."

:eyes:

This is 100% media spin for the domestic market, trying to find some "strategy for victory" that will have traction with the voting public.

The Malay Rebellion gets trotted out regularly as an example that shows that you can win one of these things, but this "interpretation" of how the British "won" is factitious. "Won" in this case means "held on a while longer" or "avoided the appearance of being kicked out". And the playing off of different ethnic factions against each other ("let's you and him fight") was a far more relevant part of the strategy than this "strategic hamlet" crap they are recycling here.

In this case "won" means the country was not about to fall to the insurgents. Which it never did.

I had thought that there were larger motives at work, but it's true, the place never fell to the insurgents. OTOH, the insurgents can say "The place did not stay in the hands of the British" too. But I'm guessing you don't view that in the same way. The British Government, perhaps, just got tired all the "World Empire" stuff andd decided to go home out of boredom.

Since the British people rejected naked Empire, Bush/Blair are trying a fresh approach.

It is far too late, as mentioned above, for this method to work in Iraq. Far too many people have been killed, wounded, traumatized and radicalized.

One of the strengths of the British apprtoach in Malaysia was that they recognized that they were not trained, equipped or carrrying the correct mindset to move to fullblown counter insurgency operations after the WWII experience. The British Army was a primarily European battlefield army.

That said, there was still a core of officers and NCOs, held over from WWII, who had experience in jungle warfare and in dealing with the "natives" with respect. The infantryman of WWII was gone. Most were "for hostilities only" enlistments. They were replaced by the standard new recruit who knew only what he had been taught.

This led to a conscious decision to take back the area only lightly held (if at all) by insurgents. These areas were the core of the "oil spots". The Green Zone and Fallujah would be the last areas "reclaimed" under this method. This gave the British Army the time to learn and relearn and to teach to the footsoldier the needed skills.

It worked in Malaysia.

...but the money promised you is going to make sweet spots for terrists.

doing this for over a year? :rofl:

James Jeffrey, the state department's chief policymaker for Iraq and the senior adviser to Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, said the clear, hold and build strategy had had a range of influences. He added that the United States had been following it for a year.

"We have been pursuing this now since the summer of last year," he told The Daily Telegraph. "Fallujah in particular was key, because after it was cleared it was then held in a sophisticated way by Iraqi forces and US marines.

Yeah, it was cleared alright, but in a way that's more reminiscent of clear cutting a forest than thinning out the dead wood.

Can you say "a smoking sink hole filled with rubble and corpses"?

ment about development economics in countries whose political leaders you think are bad.

Or, it combines elements in a way that undermines the broader points of those two arguments.

The liberal exit strategy for Vietnam was to retreat to the cities (and then negotiate peace). It was an exit plan. This Malay strategy sounds like an excuse to remain.

Sachs's argument about development is that you can't invade countries whose leaders you hate (and Sachs is very critical of leaders like Mugabe and Castro). He says the best thing you can do is help develop their neighbors who will then set an example that the citizens in the poorly-run country will want their government to emulate. However, Sachs doesn't think you should invade the neighboring country in order to set that example.

Incidentally, it is disconceting to hear colonial models supporting arguments for contemporary actions. What do the Malaysians -- one of the most antineoliberal governments in the world -- think about their colonial experience today?

We have been pursuing this now since the summer of last year," he told The Daily Telegraph. "Fallujah in particular was key, because after it was cleared it was then held in a sophisticated way by Iraqi forces and US marines.

"We brought the population back. . . then went down the list of everything - schools, medical centres, sewerage, water, roads, electricity, the whole gamut of services - to give the population a sense that they had a future."

Carry on!

journalists there, taking photographs and writing reports. Parts of Fallujah are said to be radioactive, that's why.

President Bush is such a liar.

has to be the stupidest fuck that ever walked in the halls of the White House.

:sarcasm:

He once asked Charlotte Church what state Wales was in.

"In time, the success will spread slowly outwards as if from an "expanding oil spot" or ink blot, as happened in Malaya."

But it does have aspects of the Freudian slip to it.

A failed, criminal international policy is dusted off and promoted by criminals who never won an election in the first place and were STILL INSTALLED and where the ENTIRE COUNTRY voted FOR THE OTHER GUY, are again unilaterally re-writing the rules.

It would be bad enough if this government were legitimate, but these crimnals should never have been allowed to "win" in the first place!

Not only do you have to defeat an enemy's army, you must convince the people of that country they are better off under US control then their native leaders.

Thus from day one Electricity, water and sewerage should have been rebuilt. Starting of such rebuilt should have started even before we finished fighting. At that time they was NO insurgency and just by turning on the power to the whole country within three months of taking over the country would have even turn the Sunni's in our favor. Water and Sewerage would have been added points (and could have been done at the same time). The problem is PLANNING FOR SUCH RECONSTRUCTION HAD TO START AT THE SAME TIME AS PLANNING FOR THE INVASION. Why was it NOT done?

I Can NOT find the Article I read several months ago about Iraq and the Neo-Cons, but it went something like this:
1. The Neo-Cons believe that the Government should keep its hands OFF the economy.
2. That the Neo-Cons saw Iraq as they best chance to implement Neo-liberal Economic Theory (i.e. NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE ECONOMY).
3. Thus, the Neo-Cons OPPOSED rapid US rebuilding on Iraq, on the grounds it should be left to the Private Sector.
4. The Private Sector said we will NOT invest until we are guaranteed property rights.
5. Under International law, occupying powers can NOT change the ownership or laws of the country they are occupying.
6. Iraq Constitution said it was a Socialist Republic.

Thus the Neo-Cons had a problem with the "Best chance to how Private Enterprise could do the job of Re-building better than the Government". In that no investor was going to invest in Iraq until you had a free and independent Iraqi Government. Such a Government was NOT possible for 2-3 years AFTER the invasion. Given that situation the only agency capable of fixing Iraq's infrastructure was the Government, but this option the Neo-Cons opposed.

To "Solve" this problem the Neo-Cons had the Vote for a Constitutional Convention, a vote on the Constitution and now a vote on a General Assembly. The problem being the Constitution contains provisions that follow Neo-Cons Economic outlook, a clear violation of International Law. Thus private investors still do NOT have any belief that their investment will be protected, and thus NO PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN IRAQ.

Given the failure of the above AND now the growing insurgency, Bush is finally accepting the fact he has to rebuild Iraq WITH US FUNDS. Between the Insurgency and lack of foreign private investment it is the only way to get the power and water turned on in Iraq. Furthermore the Generals and Admirals in the Pentagon ha finally told Bush that he has to do something NOW, or the Army is about the Crack as it did in Vietnam from 1968 onward (People tend to forget the US Army fought very well till about 1968 when they was a steady decline in fighting spirit among US Troops, it was so noticeable that by 1970 the North Vietnamese were telling their Soldiers NOT to attack US Soldiers unless fired on first, many US Army troops were going to the field setting up a perimeter for protection and than having a Pot Party instead of fighting).

More on Vietnam and the Deterioration of the US Army from 1968:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/09/soldiers_revolt.shtml

Thus the policy being advocated is the Policy that should have been adopted from Day one, but was not. The Neo-Cons oppose Government providing any service other than Military Might, while the Military is Telling Bush that unless you improve the conditions of the Civilians this insurgency will last for years AND THAT THE US ARMY WILL CRACK BEFORE THE INSURGENCY IS MILITARILY SUPPRESSED.

Thus Bush has two choices, both he will dislike, go for the Draft OR withdraw from Iraq OR HOPE THE INSURGENCY DIES ON ITS OWN (The later can only occur once Water and power is 100% restored). The Choices are the Kiss of Death for the GOP AND any hope of getting his tax cut made permanent will die (The cost to rebuild Iraq by itself should force a Tax HIKE).

The Neo-Cons oppose all three of these options, but have no solution of their own but that is why I do not see Bush adopting even this plan. Bush wants his Tax Cut made Permanent. He does not want to Raise taxes. He would prefer to Draft to help the army, but his party has made that a non-position given its stated opposition to the Draft (And the Democrats are NOT going to bail Bush out by supporting the Draft without substantial GOP votes).

What will happen? This plan will fail, for Bush does NOT have the money (Without a substantial tax increase) to make it work. Thus you will see the Army destroyed like it was between 1968 and 1972 for a return to the draft is a Kiss of Death and Bush is unable to admit a mistake and withdraw.

changes Bushco have made, especially with them holding Fallujah up as an example of how they are already doing this.