| |
G4EBT > LOST 30.09.04 22:39l 158 Lines 7677 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 623171G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Getting out of Iraq (1 of 2)
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0FSG<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0HOT<OK0PBX<OK0PAD<OK0PPL<
DB0RES<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 040930/1651Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:14264 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:623171G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : LOST@WW
The war is unwinable. The battle for hearts and minds was lost before the
first shot was fired. An exit strategy will be very difficult to engineer
without an ignominious Vietnam-style retreat. Rumsfeld is trying it on now
saying: "Maybe we'll leave before the finishing touches have been
applied". He fools no-one.
My guess is we'll be there for at least a decade to come - maybe more. Oz
might pull out if Mark Latham wins the election, but not if John Howard's
re-elected. Like Bush and Blair, he thinks being in Iraq is "winning the
war on terror" and seems incapable of accepting it was the most monumental
blunder of the last 100 years. Certainly much more serious in it's global
consequences than Vietnam. If this is winning I can't imagine what losing
would look like.
Until Iraq can establish its own army and police force, (many years from
now), it will be quite incapable of stability. The US, with all its might,
can't even protect its own troops, let alone civilians. There's no
guarantee that democracy will be established anyway.
Technically the "war" ended on April 9 2003, almost 18 months ago.
It's useful to take stock of the timeline:
Average US Casualties/week
Invasion: 30 March - 9 April 2003 40.7
Occupation: 9 April - 11 Sept 2003 8.0
Insurgency: 11 Sept - 20 Nov 2003 13.4
Counter " : 20 Nov - ongoing
Resistance to sovereignty after "handover"
To Iraq "interim Government": 27 June 2004 15.0
Average casualties since war began 13.1
Civilian deaths are estimated at 15,000 - 17,000 (No-one really knows -
it's hard to put the bits back together to count the bodies accurately).
US troops injured to date: 7,413.
UK casualties to date have been light - 68, compared to 24 in Gulf1, 13
in Bosnia, and 255 in the Falklands. To put this into perspective, 4,000
people died in accidents at home in the UK last year, and more than 5,000
from hospital acquired infections due to squalid hygiene and superbugs in
UK NHS hospitals.
Since the US declared the war at an end its role has been "peacekeeping",
yet it's continued to use battlefield weapons including bunker-busting
bombs against the civilian population to try to eliminate terrorists.
50 of those were fired into houses at which "deck of cards" targets were
allegedly sheltering. Not one was found, but hundreds of civilians killed.
Let's get a few things thing clear:
Europe owes a great debt of gratitude to the USA and let's not forget it.
However, in a free society, and as friends, we should be honest it our
criticisms on matters where we disagree with the US (and our own
government's) policies.
That isn't anti-American and it isn't unpatriotic. At present, relations
between Europe and America are without doubt in crisis and there's a risk
that anti-Bush sentiments will turn into, or be seen as, anti-American.
Big mistake.
Right-thinking people (of all faiths and none) want to see peace in the
world; terrorism risks mitigated; law & order and respect for human rights
upheld. Where our views diverge is in the strategy for achieving those
objectives. Bush and Blair have lost the plot.
Millions of people like me the world over, including the US, were against
the war in Iraq for one reason only. That far from helping "win the war on
terror" it would do the opposite and make the world a more dangerous
place. It has. The terrorists will be delighted - the result must go well
beyond their wildest dreams.
It has not only inflamed hatred against the US, Britain and their allies
and further de-stabilised the Middle East, it has disunited our countries
internally and between each other, driven a wedge between Britain the US
and mainland Europe, and given further impetus to terrorism.
All in all, it's made the world a much more dangerous and unstable place
and taken the focus off the real issues around security and domestic
afairs such as health, education, housing, law and order. It didn't take
much foresight to predict that outcome - just common-sense.
Meanwhile, the US still props up the only nuclear power in the Middle East
to the tune of $10 million aid each day. Namely, Israel, which - with US
support, continues to disregard UN resolutions and the judgement of the
International Court of Justice in the Hague of 8 Dec 2003 on "the wall".
Unconvicted prisoners in the very prison used by Saddam have been denied
access to the Red Cross and legal representation. They've been tortured,
physically and sexually abused, humiliated and murdered by the very people
who claim to uphold human rights, freedom, and democracy - the US.
US and British soldiers are also on trial for murder.
That isn't a war on terror - it's a war *OF* terror. It's one thing when
atrocities are committed by brutal dictators, it's quite another when
it's done by the US, Britain, and by association, Australia, who seek to
occupy "the moral high ground". Why should it surprise us that there's
hostage taking, and that those hostages are clad in "Guantanamo Bay" style
orange garb? Fail to honour people and they fail to honour you.
The most shallow pre-war analysis of what post-war Iraq would look like
concluded that it would descend into civil war and anarchy, with much
of its infrastructure destroyed by those who claim to be freeing the
population from tyranny. Bush was told about these risks beforehand in
two CIA reports which he chose to ignore. Afghanistan isn't much better.
After 9/11 there was a huge wave of sympathy worldwide for America and
Americans and still is. After that dreadful outrage there was always a
danger that America (Bush) would lash-out in an ill-considered, poorly
targeted manner. It/he has.
Those who committed the 9/11 atrocities on US soil took advantage of
America's lax internal security and died in the escapade, so there was
no-one to hunt down. They were from Saudi Arabia - not Iraq. A whole
country didn't do that - a handful of terrorists did it. No country
anywhere in the world, pro or anti-US has supported the 9/11 atrocities.
Saddam played no part in that or any other escapade against the US or its
allies. He was in no position to do so after more than a decade of
economic sanctions on Iraq by the US and UK, which were so severe they
resulted in half a million under 5-year old infant deaths.
To quote Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, who (rightly as it has
transpired), concluded that there was little likelihood of WMD in Iraq:
"A murderous dictator was removed but all the other consequences are
terrible and tragic". He's right.
Iraq hadn't harboured Al Queda terrorists or been responsible for the
death of a single American after Gulf1. To say he had WMD which could be
deployed against America or the US in 45 minutes was a lie used to justify
invasion.
Nevertheless, Bush thought it was high time he went into Iraq to "finish
the job" his daddy started first time round. He overlooked the fact that
the job was in fact finished - the job being to overturn the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait (another Middle East state which isn't a democracy but
has lots of oil). Maybe he thought it would be a "quick win"?
(More).
Sent under the terms of the UK amateur radio licence as "Remarks of a
personal character", not on behalf of, or for the benefit or information
of, any social, political or religious organisation, none of which I am or
ever have been, a member.
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
QTH: Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 15:07 on 2004-Sep-30
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
