Share This Page:

  

U-turn

Interested or active in politics, discuss here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Smilie-man'81
Member
Member
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri 13 Jun, 2003 4:49 pm
Location: Hereford and Gloucestershire

U-turn

Post by Smilie-man'81 »

Following crisis talks in Washington yesterday, Mr Bremer flew back to Baghdad armed with proposals to bolster the US-backed Iraqi governing council with more powers and more resources in an attempt to speed up elections.

Under one of the proposals, the council could be expanded or transformed into a full provisional government backed by an interim constitution.

That would represent a radical reversal of earlier US policy which was to put off the transfer of real power to an Iraqi government until after elections, which in turn would have to await a comprehensive new constitution.

The new blueprint, which reverses that methodological progression and which is closer to what was done in post-war Afghanistan, emerged from an urgently arranged series of meetings between the president, his top national security advisers, and Mr Bremer, as the security situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate rapidly.

In scenes last night reminiscent of the height of the war, US forces went back on the offensive with air strikes and armoured assaults on a suspected guerrilla stronghold near Baghdad. Guerrilla attacks, meanwhile, have become more frequent, bolder and bloodier.

In public at least, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has insisted that the attacks are the work of a few remnants of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist party and a handful of Islamic jihadists from other Arab countries.

It is understood that Mr Bremer's administration is concerned about the impact of the decision by US forces to escalate their offensive against the insurgents, anxious that bombing and heavy-handed raids will increase popular support for the insurgency.

Mr Bremer refused to provide details of the new US plan, but US and British officials said he was carrying proposals from Mr Bush aimed at bolstering the interim Iraqi leadership in the hope of winning the confidence of Iraqis and paving the way for elections pencilled in for the end of next year. But, according to some US officials, elections could be held in four to six months.

The UN security council has given the Iraqi governing council until December 15 to come up with a constitutional blueprint and organising elections.

The council, deeply divided by internal disputes, has shown little sign of meeting that deadline, but the new US proposals would put it under pressure to accelerate its work and the transfer of power.

One of the options discussed in the White House yesterday was replacing the governing council with a new body.

The council was hand-picked by Washington after the war, largely from returning exiles, but it has since disappointed US officials by its slow progress. Many of its 24 members fail to turn up to its meetings, and the CIA report said the council had little support among the Iraqi population.

However, the secretary of state, Colin Powell insisted: "We are committed to the governing council and are prepared to help them in any way we can."

"We're looking at all sorts of ideas, and we do want to accelerate the work of reform," Mr Powell said.

"We want to accelerate the work of putting a legal basis under the new Iraqi government and we are doing everything we can to get the governing council equipped with everything they need."

It seems to me that Bush has had a big change of mind and gone with what the French wanted to happen to Iraq since it was officially liberated. This article was taken from the Guardian.
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

Yeah, isn't it interesting..?
Now I'm no fan of the French government, they have plenty to answer for.
But looks to me they were right again (for a change).
The Japanese, South Koreans and Turks are getting cold feet and don't want to get involved, the incidents in US controlled Iraq are getting more lethal, etc...
This brings dim memories of Saigon '75 I watched on the telly as a teenager.
This doesn't look like an exit strategy at all, more like a scramble.
It's a race against time: the longer we stay, the more casualties we take, the likelier it becomes that atrocities will be perpetrated by US troops (the media are now attempting to draw parallels between the story of Tiger Force in Vietnam with what is brewing in Iraq).
Heard a 'fart in the wind' that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are plotting to bring back the draft, very quietly.
Sisyphus
Member
Member
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun 11 Aug, 2002 4:11 pm
Location: Runcorn

Post by Sisyphus »

Is this really a surprise to anyone? US successes seem limited to winning wars when they have an overwhelming technological and military advantage.

In the case of Iraq it's beginning to look like they have won the 'battle' but not the war. Or, they've won the war but are going to lose the peace. Just as many of us said in the early days.

I just hope the Iraqi people can get some sort of stability once the coalition have pulled out. Or else we've got a bigger terrorist training ground than anyone could imagine in their worst dreams. And if it does turn out that way, what will happen. The US attacks again, loses the peace again.....................an endless tape!
Spannerman
Member
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: East Anglia

Post by Spannerman »

Isn't it amazing how many of the 'man in the street' could forsee a post war Iraq, the chickens I'm afraid are coming home to roost, why the hell couldn't B Liar and Dubya see this coming?
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

They didn't wanna...
As to Bush, he is very poorly informed and extremely lacking in world experience, all he knows is what is being fed to him by his vice-president, his national security advisor (who knows more about the Soviet threat than anything else, and only from an 'academic' standpoint), and the Rumsfeld clique, many of whom have different agendas.
Rice, who might have had reservations, more in line with Powell, was bypassed by the Pentagon civilians who then had their way.
Bush does not read. He receives oral briefs from the aforementioned people who themselves have no understanding of Intelligence, favoring the occasional pull at the Mossad teat. I've said it before, I know, but this is catastrophic.

Blair has no such excuse: he's not the absolute ignoramus that Bush is. So really what's in it for him?
Because it's all about his career, it seems. Has either man even mentioned Osama Bin Laden in the last few months?
One thing that's beginning to chafe is the comparison between the US controlled areas and the British controlled areas. The media here amplifies the notion that the South, Shia'a dominated, is more peaceful than the North and the population more pliant and supportive. I think this is an oversimplification: I read of farmers in the South stirring up due to the lack of plastic sheeting to protect their crops. The British military then purchased $400.000 worth of it and distributed it to merchants. Everyone won in this: the farmers and the merchants.
That was smart.
How much support could we, the US, have gained by adopting a similar approach early on, instead of coordinating contracts with American and Israeli companies? Wrong priorities...
Spannerman
Member
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: East Anglia

Post by Spannerman »

." Has either man even mentioned Osama Bin Laden in the last few months?"

You are right Frank, I thought exactly the same when watching the TV news tonight about Saddam, nothing reported about either for weeks, so where are they?

I wouldn't be surprised to find that both are 'fried bread' but to keep the war on terror still alive the US/UK are making out they are still being hunted and alive.

I note UK Foreign Sec Jack Straw today saying in the USA that these terrorists (bombing of Cabiniera HQ yesterday) will continue. Christ if some nation attacked the UK uninvited and against the will of the world I would turn to being a terrorist!
Andy O'Pray
Member
Member
Posts: 3189
Joined: Thu 06 Dec, 2001 12:00 am
Location: www

Post by Andy O'Pray »

I think that we should differentiate between terrorism and guerrilla warfare. I think that most of us would agree that what is being fought in Iraq is a guerrilla war. Many of us on this site have fought both terrorism and guerrilla warfare. There is a distinct difference.

Aye - Andy. :fadein:
Sisyphus
Member
Member
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun 11 Aug, 2002 4:11 pm
Location: Runcorn

Post by Sisyphus »

Frank S. wrote: Blair has no such excuse: he's not the absolute ignoramus that Bush is. So really what's in it for him? ...
Now that's some question, Frank! He argued against a serious groundswell of public opinion, significant numbers of MPs who opposed him etc. He stood up against the anti-war faction. Despite young Leo hiding safely in University he has a young family and, I believe, fully understood what he was asking of other young men/women in the forces. So what was/is in it for him. 'A place in history'? Well, power is a very seductive thing. 'A job in corporate America'? Seems unlikely.

It's a real puzzle. :-? :( :-?

Maybe we'll have to wait for his biography to find out. Or, more likely, someone else's biography. :o
Spannerman
Member
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: East Anglia

Post by Spannerman »

I came across this article, thought some of you guys across the pond might be interested, how true I know not but put in question format I suppose anything is feasible:

http://www.againstamerica.com/
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

I looked at a number of articles, mostly sourced from third parties. Yeah, it does raise more questions than it provides answers and analyses, but it's still interesting.
Wonder who's behind it? Seems a bit 'opaque'...
Anyway, as to what we're doing currently in Iraq, it looks more and more like failure.
I don't mean the casualty rate (which is higher now than in the first three years of the Vietnam war, or so I'm told), but the 'Iraqification' measures: the military's tasked to churn out Iraqi security forces recruits while Bremer (who has zero experience in nation-building, being a so-called terrorism expert) is tasked with setting up a 'viable' Iraqi government.
Bearing in mind that the US military, for all that can be said about it, has been much more effective than Bremer's administration at restoring services and generally improving lives, it's galling that Bremer still calls the shots.
I think a turning point was the death of Sergio Viera de Melho (sp?), the UN envoy: he knew what to do and how to do it and was beginning to show success when the UN compound was bombed.
If someone can tell me how things are going to turn out when we leave Iraq to a few thousand supposedly trained Iraqi cops and Ahmed Chalabi on top, I'd like to hear it. Even if it's not Chalabi, our record at picking the right horse has been, er, dysmal.
User avatar
Whitey
Member
Member
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue 12 Aug, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: Dixie, Well my heart anyway

Post by Whitey »

I agree, but what do we do now? Our culture and the Iraqi culture are very different. I think we should set timelines and have an agreement to keep a small task force in country to assist in the finding of Saddam and to look out for and advise the new Iraqi government on how to take on terrorist's so we don't ened up letting Iraq turn into an Afgahnistan.

I agree with Frank, our president was set up by his cabinet, the very people who had the most to gain. I'm actually feeling sorry for Bush nowdays.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

As I see it, the way out is to relinquish political reform and control to the UN, right now. Bring out Bremer and the Iraqi council for whom the Iraqis have no use.
Consider that there is a very good chance that Bremer's machine has been 'infiltrated' by hostiles providing information to the insurgents (another Vietnam parallel).
Keep US forces in place with a withdrawal timetable, relieved wherever applicable by Iraqi security forces maybe monitored by UN advisors.
The idea floating around of a constitutional monarchy was interesting, although I can't see who would be king. Sean Connery? J/K...
Richard Perle maintains Chalabi should have been made president by Americam fiat, a very, very, very bad idea.
Prepare the country for elections. This has been done at the local level successfully throughout Iraq.

There's no way around it: casualties will continue to mount. Period.

But if we are to prevent a total collapse, the UN has to be not just brought in, but put in charge.
It's very late in the game, but I think it can still work. Possibly referendums should be held, to find out whether it would be necessary to partition Iraq into three states as well, I don't know for certain.
In the long run? I don't think we'll see anything close to what Bush and his politburo claimed to hope.

Here's my bout of unjustified optimism... :drinking: :drinking: :drinking:
Spannerman
Member
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: East Anglia

Post by Spannerman »

I don't know if you guys across in the U.S. are getting the feedback on Dubya's visit to England next week, apparently it looks like there is to be a hostile reception from some quarters. I really hope this doesn't turn ugly as there are some antagonists around who would like to see just that.

How is his visit here seen in America?
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

It's virtually not talked about.
For now, anyway.
I hope the City comes out okay...
The only bits I get about the visit are from British news outlets and it doesn't look too good. The chimp impersonator is likely to cause a diplomatic incident, given his emaduccation.
Jesus Christ on a moped, he's not funny anymore...
User avatar
Whitey
Member
Member
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue 12 Aug, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: Dixie, Well my heart anyway

Post by Whitey »

Yeah we haven't heard on the news anything about the fan faire trip to London. Actually we haven't heard much about the UK in general.
Right now sex scandals with Bryant and the Peterson murder case inturrupted by Iraq news seem to take up most of the news. Sorry you guys have to pay for the circus, we know how it is. Every time old boy goes to camp David we pay a ton of money.

I hope you guys undrstand we don't have much say in what goes on anymore.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
Post Reply