Breaking News: British Troop Cut in Iraq - Page 3

execrable · 02-23-2007, 06:38 AM

Sorry guys - I'm seething over this Pat Buchanan article

Quote:

Make Europe pay us tribute

Posted: February 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The Brits are going home.

Forty thousand marched in beside the Americans. Only 7,100 remain; 1,600 will be heading home by Easter.

By August, the Danish force of 470 is to be withdrawn, as is the tiny Lithuanian unit. South Korea has 2,200 troops in the Kurdish north. Though they rarely leave base, 1,100 are to depart by August, the rest by year's end.

The Italians are gone. The Spanish pulled out after the Madrid bombings. Ukraine's 1,600 have departed. The Japanese have gone. Declaring the war "unjust and wrong," Slovakia's new prime minister just ordered home his country's contingent of 110 engineers.

Only the Americans are going deeper in. Aussies excepted, the "coalition of the willing" is no longer willing.

In Afghanistan, Americans, Brits, Canadians and Dutch fight, as Germans, French and Italians do "reconstruction." In World War I, France, Italy and Germany lost 4 million men. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the three together have probably not lost 50.

Prime Minister Romano Prodi resigned Wednesday, when his plan to stay in Afghanistan and enlarge a U.S. base in Italy, lest refusal be seen as "a hostile act toward the USA," was rejected in the Italian Senate.

Vice President Cheney hails Tony Blair's announced withdrawal of British troops as a sign of success. Yet, he says the Pelosi-Murtha plan to withdraw U.S. troops would only "validate the al-Qaida strategy."

The White House says the British pullout is an affirmation of our partnership, but the Brits could have sent those 1,600 to Baghdad or Anbar. They did not.

The Brits are leaving with mission unaccomplished. They are being shot at and mortared every day in Basra. Tribal and Shia militias have not been disarmed. The Sunni are being ethnically cleansed from the south. Militant Shia want the Brits gone so they can take over.

The British people are bridling at the cost in blood and money of a war that destroyed Tony Blair, who is weeks away from resigning as prime minister. One British historian said at year's end he has never seen such levels of anti-Americanism in his country.

There is a larger meaning to all this, and Americans must come to terms with it. NATO is packing it in as a world power. NATO is little more than a U.S. guarantee to pull Europe's chestnuts out of the fire if Europeans encounter a fight they cannot handle, like an insurgency in Bosnia or Kosovo. NATO has one breadwinner, and 25 dependents.

At the end of the Cold War, internationalists like Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana declared, "NATO must go out of area, or go out of business." What Lugar meant was, with the Soviet threat lifted from Europe, NATO must shoulder more of the global burden.

But the Balkan crises of the 1990s showed that Europeans are not even up to policing their own playground. The Americans had to come in, gently push them aside and do the job. The message Europe is today sending to America, with the withdrawals from Iraq and the refusal of Italy, Germany and France to fight in Afghanistan:

"We are not going out of area again. If you Americans want to play empire, go right ahead. We will not again send our sons overseas to fight in regions of the world from which we withdrew half a century ago. You're on your own."

Where does this leave NATO? This leaves NATO as little more than a U.S. guarantee to go to war for the nations of Europe, while Europeans can be freeloading critics of U.S. policy around the world.

NATO is an expensive proposition. We maintain dozens of bases and scores of thousands of troops from Norway to the Balkans, from Spain to the Baltic republics, from the Black Sea to the Irish Sea.

What do we get for this? Why do we tax ourselves to defend rich nations who refuse to defend themselves? Is the security of Europe more important to us than to Europe?

In the early years of World Wars I and II, Europeans implored us to come save them from the Germans. We did. In the early Cold War, Europeans welcomed returning GIs who stood guard in the Fulda Gap.

Now, with the threat gone, the gratitude is gone. Now, with their welfare states eating up their wealth, their peoples aging, their cities filling up with militant migrants, they want America to continue defending them, as they sit in moral judgment on how we go about it.

This isn't an alliance. This isn't a partnership. Time to split the blanket. If they won't defend themselves, let them, as weaker nations have done to stronger states down through the ages, pay tribute.

Sixty years after World War II, 15 years after the Cold War, Europe's defense should become Europe's responsibility.

The guy just makes me so angry - the UK and America have been allies for years now and this just drives a wedge between us.

**Parihaka** · 02-23-2007, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by execrable

Sorry guys - I'm seething over this Pat Buchanan article

The guy just makes me so angry - the UK and America have been allies for years now and this just drives a wedge between us.

Why are you angry about it? Do you think America should be Europes police force?

glyn · 02-23-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Why are you angry about it? Do you think America should be Europes police force?

No I don't. Europe is involved in NATO but at present it is nowhere near punching its weight. The reasons for this are many, and varied. One is the pre-occupation with enlarging the European Union whilst not yet having absorbed the most recent members. Another is the near impossibility of getting so many member states to agree a common plan. I think the main problem is the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and this stemmed from the fact that the United Nations still hadn't authorised the use of force. The fact that the UN was tardy, and giving Saddam every benefit of the doubt tends to be overlooked. The US & UK are perceived as having acted precipitately, and for an increasingly pacific UK population this is translating into anti-American sentiment. Our government has been emasculating the Armed Forces and at the same time finding new tasks for those forces. Everyone is aware of the problems with 'over-stretch' but most tend to seek a simplistic answer to that problem. The governments mis-management of so many challenges facing the nation leaves most of us Brit WABbers in near despair. There have been many instances of anti-American bias in the British media. Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised if we find Americans turning anti-British. It will be a tragedy if these sentiments become increasingly common. Never mind what our governments say and do, some people cannot, and WILL not be told what to think.

Ray · 02-23-2007, 07:50 AM

Quote:

More UK troops for Afghanistan

A substantial number of extra British troops are to be sent to Afghanistan, ...

The UK has been reluctant to add to its 5000-strong force in the country, as it has reinforced several times already.......

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said the move showed that British forces were too "overstretched" to carry out duties in both Iraq and Afghanistan.......

British forces are in Afghanistan as part of Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf)......

'Two-pronged strategy'

Britain has recently revamped its operations in Afghanistan to put most manpower into Helmand province in the south, where the fighting is at its most fierce. ..
Nato and British commanders have said for some time that more resources are needed if the Taleban are to be defeated.

But until now the government has argued that countries like France and Germany should contribute more.

.............. Mr Browne will announce an extra 1,000 troops, but that figure has not been confirmed.

The move comes as the government announced that about 1,600 troops would be withdrawn from Iraq.

............. explained that the south-west of Afghanistan was proving to be a "stubborn nut to crack".

"Many answers lie in deploying more troops and having more equipment on the ground, but they also lie in securing the border areas.

"And I think what really is required is a two-pronged strategy, to ensure those two things can become a reality."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | More UK soldiers for Afghanistan

Excerpts so that it is easier to refer for reply.

Rob Peter to Pay Paul.

You can't beat Teflon Tony!

Ray · 02-23-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

A poll has suggested that more than two-thirds of the Australian people want Mr Howard to announce a date for the withdrawal of the country's forces, or to order an immediate pull out......

Prior to his trip, the US vice-president had been hoping that Australia would bolster its presence in Iraq, which is currently 1,400-strong.

But Mr Howard, who faces re-election this year, has ruled that out. He has instead offered to despatch 70 military advisers to help train the Iraqi army.

It also seems likely that Australia will double its deployment in Afghanistan, raising the number of soldiers to about 1,000.
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Sydney clashes over Cheney visit

It seems that Britain is doing better than Australia.

Australia when asked to give 1400 more was ready to give 70. That too as instructors and not combat soldiers!

Elections on the way on both sides!

pdf27 · 02-23-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Why are you angry about it? Do you think America should be Europes police force?

No, it's more the general level of cluelessness he's showing. Examples below.

Quote:

Vice President Cheney hails Tony Blair's announced withdrawal of British troops as a sign of success. Yet, he says the Pelosi-Murtha plan to withdraw U.S. troops would only "validate the al-Qaida strategy."

This guy clearly can't tell the difference between al-Quaeda, the Badr Brigades, JAM, etc. They're all ragheads so who cares, right? The problems in the south are completely different to those around Baghdad, which in turn are different to those around Fallujah. He also seems to be ignoring the varying competency of the Iraqi army in these different areas - which is the whole reason for the British reduction in troop numbers (the local Iraqi army is running things, and needs to gradually take over completely).

Quote:

The White House says the British pullout is an affirmation of our partnership, but the Brits could have sent those 1,600 to Baghdad or Anbar. They did not.

Indeed. They're being sent to Helmand in Afghanistan instead.

Quote:

The Brits are leaving with mission unaccomplished. They are being shot at and mortared every day in Basra. Tribal and Shia militias have not been disarmed. The Sunni are being ethnically cleansed from the south. Militant Shia want the Brits gone so they can take over.

Funny how someone so hot on the right to keep and bear arms in the US is so keen to see the Iraqis disarmed. The being shot at and mortared are partly a function of who we are, and hence a lot of it would stop if the Iraqi army were there instead of us (as is the plan). I would also point out that a lot of the Shi'ite militants he is thinking of are in power democratically in the south anyway (Badr Brigades are associated with SCIRI, who IIRC run Basra).

Quote:

The British people are bridling at the cost in blood and money of a war that destroyed Tony Blair, who is weeks away from resigning as prime minister.

Total misunderstanding of Parliament. Blair is leaving at a time more or less of his choosing (itself rare, and to be fair if he tried to last all that much longer he would be kicked out). Furthermore, even if the war in Iraq had never been fought (or had been fought without UK participation) he would be in a virtually identical state. Iraq is only an excuse for his opponents, not a motivation.

Quote:

Where does this leave NATO? This leaves NATO as little more than a U.S. guarantee to go to war for the nations of Europe, while Europeans can be freeloading critics of U.S. policy around the world.

Same as it always was then - originally because the US considered it a vital national interest that the Soviet Union was unable to add western europe to it's empire.
Interestingly, he cites the failure of european NATO to provide troops to fight in Afghanistan (ignoring the fact that the UK and Netherlands are in Europe, and have been doing far more fighting than the US there of late) as an example of the "europeans" freeloading off NATO, when of course the NATO treaty was explicitly written to exclude such cases to ensure that the US did not become involved in european colonial adventures worldwide. The US is now caught up in just such an adventure, yet when NATO fails to provide troops to the US he somehow cries foul. Had the US supplied troops to support the French in Indochina, the British in Malaya or the Falklands, etc. I might have rather more sympathy for his point of view.

Quote:

In the early years of World Wars I and II, Europeans implored us to come save them from the Germans.

Bull****. In WW1 the US entered in response to the German unrestricted submarine campaign sinking US shipping and killing US citizens, and to the Zimmerman telegram. Indeed, the US was never more than a co-beligerent rather than part of the Entente.
In WW2 Germany declared war on the US and started attacking it.
While the Europeans were no doubt glad to see the US join in in both cases, he is wildly overstating the case and showing a clear disregard for the truth.

Quote:

If they won't defend themselves, let them, as weaker nations have done to stronger states down through the ages, pay tribute.

I take it that works both ways? If so, the bill for Iraq and Afghanistan will be in the post. Say $50Bn? After the cheque clears we'll discuss how much to charge for keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on an ongoing basis.

**astralis** · 02-23-2007, 08:56 AM

pat buchanan is a paleo-conservative, and believes in isolationism, and now rails about american empire.

that he has such comments is not particularly surprising, although it is funny that the author of a book named "republic, not an empire," would urge instead for the paying of tribute.

Bluesman · 02-23-2007, 12:19 PM

BRILLIANT column. READ IT ALL.

Quote:

Mark Steyn: Blair is right on troops
Eighty per cent of the violence in Iraq takes place within 50km of Baghdad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 23, 2007

ACCORDING to my dictionary, the word "ally" comes from the Old French. Very Old French, I'd say. For the New French, the word has a largely postmodern definition of "duplicitous charmer who undermines you at every opportunity".
For the less enthusiastically obstructive NATO members, "ally" means "wealthy country with no military capability that requires years of diplomatic wooing and black-tie banquets in order to agree to a token contribution of 23.08 troops." Incidentally, that 23.08 isn't artistic licence on my part. The 2004 NATO summit in Turkey was presented as a triumph of multilateral co-operation because the 26 members agreed to contribute between them an additional 600 troops and three helicopters to the Afghan mission. That's 23.08 troops and a ninth of a helicopter per ally. In fairness, Turkey chipped in the three helicopters single-handed, though the deal required them to return to Ankara after three months.
And these days troops is something of an elastic term, too. In Norwegian, it means "fighting men who are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, as long as they don't have to do any fighting and there are at least two provinces between their shoulders and the American ones". That's to say, Norway is "participating" in Afghanistan, but, because its troops are "not sufficiently trained to take part in combat", they've been mainly back at the barracks manning the photocopier or staging amateur performances of Peer Gynt for the amusement of US special forces who like nothing better than to unwind with five acts of Ibsen after a hard day hunting the Taliban.

Alas, even being in the general vicinity of regions where fighting is taking place got a little too much so the Norwegians demanded a modification of their rules of non-engagement and insisted their "soldiers" be moved to parts of Afghanistan where there's no fighting whatsoever by anyone at all. Good luck finding any.

Which brings us to that brave band of countries who still use "ally" in the more or less traditional sense. The Old French word it comes from is "alier", which means "to bind to". Au contraire, these days to be an ally of America is to be in a bind. John Howard has just announced that things are pretty tough in Iraq so this is no time for Australia to be heading home. Tony Blair has just announced that things are going well in Iraq so this is exactly the time for Britain to begin heading home. But either way it makes no difference: both Prime Ministers have been greeted with jeers and catcalls, and each man's position has been assumed to undermine the other's, and both by extension to undermine George W. Bush.

Howard, as the most rhetorically surefooted of the Anglosphere's three musketeers, had a good comeback to the suggestion that the Bush surge and the Blair drawdown are mutually incompatible: "Anybody who studies Iraq for five minutes," he said, "knows that controlling Baghdad is infinitely more challenging than controlling Basra in the south. That is the reason why the Americans are increasing their numbers and the reason why, because of the relative improvement in Basra, the British are reducing their numbers."

That would appear to make sense. I had the privilege of being in the Oval Office a couple of months back when Bush observed that 80 per cent of the violence in Iraq took place within 30 miles of Baghdad. If the object is to transfer control to a competent Iraqi military, it would seem likely that a largely Shia army would be more likely to be able to assume control in the largely Shia south before it's ready to police Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. But to the media and much of the political class throughout the Western world, almost by definition there can be no good news from Iraq: the Bush surge in Baghdad is bound to fail, the Blair handover in the south is bound to fail, and therefore Howard's support for both or either or vice-versa is deluded. In strict numbers, London has been reducing - or "redeploying" or "withdrawing" - forces since 2003, when 46,000 British troops were holding down the southern third of Iraq single-handed.

Within a year, it was a fifth of that, and this latest drawdown is significant only because of the opportunity it affords Bush-bashers (and Howard-bashers) for some political sport. The southern provinces are as stabilised as they're likely to get under any regime short of multi-decade colonialisation.

And those British troops who remain will provide serious muscle when the Iraqi authorities need it: the Blues and Royals are shipping out in a few weeks, including Second Lieutenant Wales - that is, Prince Harry - who, according to The Times, "has already made his wishes clear. He wants to be with his squadron, not locked away in a staff job in a heavily protected base."

You don't have to be third in line to the throne to feel that way. Most soldiers from serious militaries want to be doing something real and tough when they're sent halfway round the world. The Americans accept (a little too easily, I'd say) the political reality that these days a military coalition will be 95 per cent US, 4 per cent Britain and 1 per cent everybody else, with the detachment of Royal Marines from Tonga ranking as a greater per capita contribution than any NATO member. But, given the relatively small numbers, they should at least be doing something when they get there.

The British Prime Minister is in a bad position, facing a hostile backbench on his own side and a bunch of contemptible opportunists among the Tory ranks. Howard is, to that degree, in an enviable position: his party supports him, and even Labor would supposedly do no more than withdraw 500 or so personnel from the wider Middle East, which makes Kevin Rudd a more or less loyalish Opposition by the standards of Washington, London and Ottawa.

In other words, it's not the war, it's the home front. If their job is all but done in the Shia south, why could not Blair redeploy British troops to Baghdad to share some of the burden of the Yankee surge? Well, because it's simply not politically possible. Not even for a leader who shares exactly the same view of the Islamist threat and the importance of victory in Iraq as President Bush.

In that sense, the Blair reduction is not a withdrawal from Iraq so much as a withdrawal from the assumptions of the broader Anglo-American relationship: the Prime Minister's successor, Gordon Brown, is likely to prefer something a little more distant, not as distant as those Norwegians in Afghanistan but a little closer to the default NATO model of being supportive without being helpful.

Thus, even for reliable allies with capable militaries, the political price of marching into battle alongside the Great Satan is steep and getting steeper. This does not bode well for the general health of the planet. When the wilier Democrats berate Bush for not maintaining an adequate military, they have a sort of crude point, albeit not the one they think they're making: if the time, money and energy expended in getting pseudo-allies to make pseudo-contributions were to be spent instead on the Vermont National Guard, you'd get more troops more quickly with more capability. Yet for wealthy countries to deny Washington even the figleaf of token multilateralism is, in the end, to gamble with their own futures.

Howard is perhaps the last Western leader to understand this. If he is a pathetic Bush poodle, he was a poodle long before most folks had even heard of Bush. He first committed Australia to supporting American military action against Iraq in 1998, back when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office. All that's changed is the scale of the threat: an American defeat - or perceived defeat - in Iraq would embolden all kinds of forces around the globe, including in Indonesia and the Pacific.

The French and the Norwegians will never be meaningful American allies again, and even the British will be ordering a la carte. To modify Howard's words on September 11, even if 80 per cent of the allies have gone, this is no time to join them.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian columnist, is a regular contributor to The Australian's opinion page.

dalem · 02-23-2007, 15:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by execrable

Sorry guys - I'm seething over this Pat Buchanan article

The guy just makes me so angry - the UK and America have been allies for years now and this just drives a wedge between us.

Buchanan's a frothy instigator, and speaks for very few. For my part, I think he's being insulting and ridiculous.

-dale

pdf27 · 02-23-2007, 21:32 PM

And now, confirmation that they're all going to Afghanistan instead. We're withdrawing from Bosnia completely however, which should reduce the load on us slightly.
Britain sends 1,500 more troops to Afghanistan-News-UK-TimesOnline

Ex MIB · 02-24-2007, 09:56 AM

This will give an indication to what out current commitments and strength are.

Armed Forces - a1a3 - British Army - Statistics - British Army Strength and Deployment - Regular Army - Territorial Army

execrable · 02-26-2007, 13:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Why are you angry about it? Do you think America should be Europes police force?

Sorry not to get back to you Parihaka - my points have been put for me by pdf27. Plus the basic fact that the U.S and the U.K. are allies, I certainly don't and won't hold Americans at fault for one man's rather warped view.

Buchanan may have a point about Nato but rubbishing our contribuition to America's wars and putting a one sided history of last century isn't the way to solve it.

Ray · 02-26-2007, 15:35 PM

Parihaka,

It is true that US does not have to be Europe's policeman.

But then Europe does not have to be the one to salvage US' misadventures or be its handmaiden!

Guinnessman · 07-19-2007, 18:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

No I don't. Europe is involved in NATO but at present it is nowhere near punching its weight. The reasons for this are many, and varied. One is the pre-occupation with enlarging the European Union whilst not yet having absorbed the most recent members. Another is the near impossibility of getting so many member states to agree a common plan. I think the main problem is the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and this stemmed from the fact that the United Nations still hadn't authorised the use of force. The fact that the UN was tardy, and giving Saddam every benefit of the doubt tends to be overlooked. The US & UK are perceived as having acted precipitately, and for an increasingly pacific UK population this is translating into anti-American sentiment. Our government has been emasculating the Armed Forces and at the same time finding new tasks for those forces. Everyone is aware of the problems with 'over-stretch' but most tend to seek a simplistic answer to that problem. The governments mis-management of so many challenges facing the nation leaves most of us Brit WABbers in near despair. There have been many instances of anti-American bias in the British media. Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised if we find Americans turning anti-British. It will be a tragedy if these sentiments become increasingly common. Never mind what our governments say and do, some people cannot, and WILL not be told what to think.

Couldn't agree more. The fact is that even if our government made a U-turn and said they were going to massively reinforce the British contingent in Iraq, as far as I can tell there just isn't the numbers to do it, never mind the political will or popular support.

Something I worry about is the knock-on effect this may have in Afghanistan. Pulling out of Iraq before time does not create a good image. A question that must be in the minds of the Afghans our troops are training and supporting must be - "This time next year, will the British still be around?" If they think the answer to this question is no, they might just not bother, or worst case, might decide to actively support the Taleban. Not good either way.

02-23-2007, 08:56 AM	#37 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,503 Country:	pat buchanan is a paleo-conservative, and believes in isolationism, and now rails about american empire. that he has such comments is not particularly surprising, although it is funny that the author of a book named "republic, not an empire," would urge instead for the paying of tribute. __________________ Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. -Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

02-24-2007, 09:56 AM	#41 (permalink)
Ex MIB *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: England Posts: 184 Country:	Current strength and deployment numbers This will give an indication to what out current commitments and strength are. Armed Forces - a1a3 - British Army - Statistics - British Army Strength and Deployment - Regular Army - Territorial Army __________________ Join the Army! Travel to exotic, distant lands and sweep it!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Kerry Slams U.S. Foreign Policy	Enzo Ferrari	Political Discussions	252	02-08-2007 05:34 AM
Rethinking Iraq: The Way Forward	astralis	The War in Iraq	0	10-30-2006 13:51 PM
Iranian-backed militia groups take control of much of southern Iraq	troung	The War in Iraq	1	06-02-2006 01:11 AM
The real story Joe Wilson's twisted tale	Leader	Political Discussions	48	11-03-2005 10:09 AM
Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis	Shek	The War in Iraq	0	08-24-2005 07:29 AM

02-23-2007, 21:32 PM	#40 (permalink)
pdf27 Contributor Join Date: 06-05-06 Location: UK Posts: 538 Country:	And now, confirmation that they're all going to Afghanistan instead. We're withdrawing from Bosnia completely however, which should reduce the load on us slightly. Britain sends 1,500 more troops to Afghanistan-News-UK-TimesOnline

02-26-2007, 15:35 PM	#43 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,276 Country:	Parihaka, It is true that US does not have to be Europe's policeman. But then Europe does not have to be the one to salvage US' misadventures or be its handmaiden!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)