Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Britain 'as inept as US' in failing to foresee postwar Iraq insurgency

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:35 AM
Original message
Britain 'as inept as US' in failing to foresee postwar Iraq insurgency
· Revelation undermines British blaming Rumsfeld
· Experts stressed danger of tribalism to Blair in 2002

Jonathan Steele
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2244156,00.html

The government's top foreign policy advisers were as inept as their US counterparts in failing to see that removing Saddam Hussein in 2003 was likely to lead to a nationalist insurgency by Sunnis and Shias and an Islamist government in Baghdad, run by allies of Iran, the Guardian has learned.

None of Whitehall's "Arabists" warned Tony Blair of the difficulties which have plagued the occupation. The revelation undermines the British claim that it was US myopia which was to blame for the failure to foresee what would happen in postwar Iraq.

"Everyone was unprepared for the aftermath," a former ambassador, who served in the region at the time, told the Guardian. "To my shame I was in the complacent camp . We underestimated the insurgency. I didn't hear anyone say, 'It'll be a disaster, and it'll all come unstuck'. People felt it was a leap in the dark but not that we were staring disaster in the face."

Privately, and in rare cases publicly, British ministers and officials have blamed the chaos of the occupation on blunders in Washington, pointing the finger particularly at Donald Rumsfeld, who was sacked as defence secretary in 2006. The Guardian's researches reveal that Britain's analysts were equally wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. They didn't want to see it.
Lots of people saw it, including me.

They didn't listen to those who knew
and understood the region.

Their plans did not include being
obstructed by sanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. cal04
cal04

Because they don't SE it, or that they don't WANTED to se it?:..

I could have told it to the "experts" anytime before the invasion, that this was a bad move, if they don't wanted to use the whole military force to defend all parts of Iraq. And have a least 500.000 troops on the ground.. And I am not an military by profesjon... Some generals in the Pentagon, was telling mr Rumsfeld long before the Iraqi war that they needed a lot more military power to secure the whole place.. They was ALL fired, or retired as they was, because they DARED to tell the Imperial secretary of Defense that his plan of a mean, lean machine would fail horrible..

And the generals get it really right, when the insurgency was starting to popping up, and the american casualties was starting rising from 0 to almost 4000 soldiers...

Off course they KNOW what would happened, when you fired ALL military and civilian leadership in a country the size of Iraq. This is not a Small little country the occupant can rule by them self.. This is a Nation the size of France.. And everyone who had read their history, WW2 come to my mind know that if you don't have the manpower to defend all border, and secured the country you are getting into a lot of problems..

If mr Bremmer had not fired ALL IRAQI FORCES in 2003, he may had secured the border, and therefore not have the insurgency coming in, from Dubai, Kuwait and most important Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It is tent camps in the desert of Saudi-Arabia where "holly warriors" are waiting for their time to come into Iraq, to fight against US and british forces in the country. This camps are there, with the support of the House of Saud, who se them as a "security went" for the radical islam who they have brewed for a long time inside the Kindom... This is facts, that exist, and who the US Administration, and the Saudi Arabian authorities want to not be known to others...

Even in GERMANY AFTER WW2, with all the criminal charges against military, and civilian in divides, US forces was not willing, og daring to fired ALL the bureaucrats, and all the public servants.. Rather they let german rule them self. After a "de-nazi" program, where even hard-core nazis official was given amnesty and was in high civilian service for over 40 year.. The german military forces, had many ex-nazi officers in their rank, from 1955 and forward.. Why I know this. My foster father was once a soldier, and a part of the allied forces in germany. And he was there when germany official was part of the NATO alliance (the western part): And in a party happened to bump into a german, who bragged about their experience in Norway where they bombed Narvik, the same place he had defended against the german invention.. Needless to say, my foster father was rather furious, and beat the officer down cold.. He was arrested, and send to his commanding officer, who gave him the choice, Leave the army, or face trail. But as he Also say it.. God you beat the crap out of the officer, he deserved it. If I was there, I would to the same thing.. This was in 1955, 10 year after WW2... The german officer never wanted to prosecute my foster father, my wounder why :evilgrin:


What US should have been doing, is to de-bathisfis the whole regime. From the bottom up, the rank and file in the army and civilian servant was just member of the party, but was not criminals.. As in germany where you had to be member of one of the nazi-organization to get a promote, or get better paid. If you was a party member, you even get a bigger salary, and a lot more benefactor than the rest... And you may even rise hight if you had the right conection...

The US forces, should NEVER had fired the whole 400.000 strong army, but rather re-educated them, and learned them how to behave. The special National Guard on the other hand, was another case, and maybe comparable to the german SS in some way... Trial for the criminal one, but not firing ALL Iraqi because they was member of the party, or had public post in the state... What mr Bremmer was doing was little more than destroying the whole Iraqi country..

And as a broke country US cant go away from Iraq.. Not now, not by 2018 or 2020... They HAVE TO FIX THE IRAQ COUNTRY BEFORE THEY ARE LEAVING.. And the current Administration have no clue how to do it...

No wonder Mr Bush don't want to have the Senate and Congress investigate his crimes, If they do this Administration would be totally in tatters.. And the most important of them in a prison cell somewhere, waiting their time to be prosecuted...
I Will not be in this Administrations footwear when the US public is waking up, and understand what they have managed to do with US... Believe me, it wound not be a nice thing when the reality of the NEO-CONS are sinking into the american public.. Even the most "conservative" would wake up, and smell the horse-shit

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-21-08 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. Oh, they BOTH saw it.
It was/is simply way more PROFITABLE to act like they didn't see it. The troops and materiel needed for a successful occupation and rebuilding of Iraq would have cut too deeply into Halliburton's profits.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC