Buh-Bye!
Why the hell are the English there anyway?
As they kill with God on their side
Blame it all on the kids the IRA
As the bastards commit genocide! Aye! Aye! Genocide!
--Luck of the Irish, John Lennon
Someday I'll wish upon a star
and wake up where the clouds are far Behind me.
Where troubles melt like lemon drops,
Away above the chimney tops
--Somewhere Over the Rainbow
_______________
As they kill with God on their side
Blame it all on the kids the IRA
As the bastards commit genocide! Aye! Aye! Genocide!
--Luck of the Irish, John Lennon
Someday I'll wish upon a star
and wake up where the clouds are far Behind me.
Where troubles melt like lemon drops,
Away above the chimney tops
--Somewhere Over the Rainbow
_______________
The Brits are getting the heck out of Dodge, handing Basra over to U.S. commanders last week (British End Combat Operations in Iraq.) So long, and thanks for all the fish.
But why are they handing control over to the U.S.? isn't Iraq a country? Hasn't the phony little Status of Forces Agreement declared U.S. forces are to leave the cities and no longer be engaged in combat operations? Whose country is this?
"British commanders have been . . . withdrawing troops from the country in phases." Why have the Brits been implementing their withdrawal since March while U.S. units are still operational? Does the U.S. National Command Authority actually plan to pass the oil-rich Basra area to the Iraqis?
It is interesting to compare the KIA figures of the U.S. versus British forces. With 46,000 troops in country at the height of their combat operations, the Brits suffered 179 KIA over their six years in Iraq. What were the Brits doing, or failing to do, that kept their numbers so relatively low?
If 50,000 troops are left as a contingency force, would somebody please explain what the envisioned contingency happens to be? What is the proposed mission of this force?
A unit is either an Advisory force or a Combat Contingency force. A unit cannot do both. There is a difference on concept, organization and combat potential. Advisers are not arrayed for combat.
Why is the U.S. responsible for Iraqi security beyond 31 Aug 2010?
No quibbling -- we're outta there! That's how to end a war: just do a rear march and go home. Give everyone a medal and start all over.
"The Iraq war formally ended for British forces on Thursday as America's main battlefield ally handed control of the oil-rich Basra area to U.S. commanders and prepared to ship out most of its remaining 4,000 troops."
But why are they handing control over to the U.S.? isn't Iraq a country? Hasn't the phony little Status of Forces Agreement declared U.S. forces are to leave the cities and no longer be engaged in combat operations? Whose country is this?
"British commanders have been . . . withdrawing troops from the country in phases." Why have the Brits been implementing their withdrawal since March while U.S. units are still operational? Does the U.S. National Command Authority actually plan to pass the oil-rich Basra area to the Iraqis?
It is interesting to compare the KIA figures of the U.S. versus British forces. With 46,000 troops in country at the height of their combat operations, the Brits suffered 179 KIA over their six years in Iraq. What were the Brits doing, or failing to do, that kept their numbers so relatively low?
"[Obama] plans to end American combat operations in Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, leaving a contingency force of up to 50,000 to train and advise the Iraqi security forces. The remainder of American troops are required under a U.S.-Iraqi security pact to leave by the end of 2011."
If 50,000 troops are left as a contingency force, would somebody please explain what the envisioned contingency happens to be? What is the proposed mission of this force?
A unit is either an Advisory force or a Combat Contingency force. A unit cannot do both. There is a difference on concept, organization and combat potential. Advisers are not arrayed for combat.
Why is the U.S. responsible for Iraqi security beyond 31 Aug 2010?
Labels: afghanistan, basra, british pull out of Iraq, phony war on terror, PWOT
posted by Lisa at 2:50 PM
2 Comments:
How many of the troops will just relocate? From The Guardian of April 4:
Up to 1,000 more British troops to go to Afghanistan.
"What were the Brits doing, OR FAILING TO DO, that kept their numbers so relatively low?"
Fight. Surely they took part in many a combat mission. But between restrictive rules of engagement, maintaining governance over a RELATIVELY less dangerous area than Baghdad and al Anbar province (and surrounding area) of yesteryear cultural differences at the officer and NCO level, and a willingness to tolerate corruption among local Iraqi power groups, the number of engagements -- especially with hardened operatives -- were, relative to the US military, minuscule.
That is certainly not to say that we don't appreciate their painful sacrifice and significant contribution. Someone had to manage security in those provinces, and we had not the numbers to do so. But the KIA statistics don't lie...
Post a Comment
<< Home