THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

British troops may replace Italians in Iraq
By Kim Sengupta
19 March 2005


Britain could send more troops to Iraq to fill the gap left by the proposed withdrawal of Italian soldiers, General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army, has said.

The news of the possible deployment comes as protesters gather for what is expected to be a well-attended march today against the continuing presence of British troops on the anniversary of the invasion.

British troops have already had to step in to take over from the 1,500-strong Dutch contingent as the "coalition of the willing" continues to evaporate in the face of continuing violence in Iraq and protests at home.

Poland, Ukraine and Portugal are all in the process of pulling back their forces, and Silvio Berlusconi has announced the 3,200 Italian soldiers will begin withdrawing in September.

General Jackson said yesterday that no decision has been made on further British deployment, but he added: "Of course there is a capacity to do more if that is the decision ...There seems to be, shall we say, a little confusion precisely as to the Italian contingent and that will be clarified in due course."

The Italian force, a combination of troops and carabinieri, are based at Nasiriyah, in British-controlled southern Iraq, as were the Dutch. Senior US officers are said to feel that it will be "logical" for Britain to take over their role.

Charles Heyman, a senior analyst with the defence information group, Jane's, said: "It's going to be a big hole. I think it's almost impossible for the Americans to produce another 3,000 extra troops. We are probably going to be asked to fill the gap ... people will be looking around for other coalition contingents to help out and it doesn't look as though they are going to find much success in finding anybody else who's going to send 3,000 troops to Iraq."

A defence official said yesterday: "We haven't got a huge amount of commitment elsewhere and there will not be any major logistical problem in deploying more to Iraq. The main problem, of course, is political."

Downing Street claimed yesterday that Mr Berlusconi's remarks about withdrawal had been misrepresented and Italian troops will not pull out. However, Mr Berlusconi had said that he had already discussed his forces' withdrawal with Tony Blair. "We need to construct a precise exit strategy. It is public opinion in our country which expects this decision," he said.

"We will begin to reduce our contingent in Iraq before the end of the year, in agreement with our allies. The first reduction will start in September."

Britain had planned to cut its troops after the Iraqi elections at the end of January. But 650 soldiers, from the Queen's Dragoon Guards and The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, had to be sent to replace the Dutch in the province of Muthanna.

The exit strategy said to have been agreed by the US and Britain is based on Iraqi forces taking over the main burden of security, but there are fears not enough progress has been made.

But there are those, some even on this thread, who still think the Americans are the bad guys and are especially evil because they shoot to kill terrorists.

At dusk the night the Iraq war started in March 2003, Staff Sgt. Spurgeon M. Shelley was near the Kuwaiti border, watching the orange glow of missiles streak overhead as he guided one Marine ammunition convoy after another north across the line of departure.

Manning a dirt berm while wearing his gas mask and full chemical suit, Shelley was determined to make it home alive to see his daughter, Lena, 2. "I'm going to do whatever I have to, to survive," he told himself.

Today, Shelley is on duty in what he calls a "one-man fighting hole" on another battlefield -- a Marine recruiting station in Lexington Park, Md., in St. Mary's County -- with a mission to persuade young men and women to enlist, and probably go to war.

One recent night, after making dozens of fruitless phone calls to high school students, Shelley said his recruiting job is more taxing than combat. "I hear 'no' more times in one day than a child would hear in their entire childhood," he said. "If I had hair, I'd pull it out."

The active-duty Army and Marine Corps, and five of six reserve components of the military, all failed to meet at least some recruiting goals in the first quarter of fiscal 2005, according to Defense Department statistics. The active-duty shortfalls came amid rising concern among Army and Marine officials that their services risk missing annual recruiting quotas for the first time this decade.

Shelley, for example, has signed up four people in nearly six months, despite working 16-hour days. Asked why recruiting is so difficult, he has a quick reply: "The war."

Increasingly, surveys show that the main reason young American adults avoid military service is that they -- and to a greater degree their parents -- fear that enlisting could mean a war-zone deployment and death or injury. One survey showed such fears nearly doubling among respondents from 2000 to 2004.

Yes Mr Bush truly has the welfare of the poor, the dispossessed, the disenfranchised and hot women in bourkhas everywhere when he sends American troops to invade their countries.

I would think it would take more courage and a whole lot more honesty to acutally name names when insulting and passing judgements on posters.

Steve writes (I presume sarcastically)

Quote:

Yes Mr Bush truly has the welfare of the poor, the dispossessed, the disenfranchised and hot women in bourkhas everywhere when he sends American troops to invade their countries.

No, the purpose for invading Afghanistan was in retaliation for 9/11.

Steve writes (I presume sarcastically)

Quote:

Yes Mr Bush truly has the welfare of the poor, the dispossessed, the disenfranchised and hot women in bourkhas everywhere when he sends American troops to invade their countries.

No, the purpose for invading Afghanistan was in retaliation for 9/11. We accomplished that with the even more gratifying result of freeing people from a cruel and despotic government and giving them the chance to rule their own destiny.

Then while we were at it, we decided to remove what most of the free world considered to be a significant threat: Saddam Hussein's WMD and WMD program complete with evidence he had used them and would use them again along with tolerating, funding, and sheltering terrorists while thumbing his nose at U.N. resolutions, taking potshots at those attempting to enforce the sanctions, and thwarting the inspectors.

Once in Iraq the WMD didn't pan out as expected, but then we found plenty of good reasons to be there not the least of which we learned that sanctions were enriching Saddam and killing his people by the tens of thousands, and we learned that most of the Iraqi people wanted to be free and wanted a better life.

At that point this became a humanitarian mission and yes, the vast majority of our American troops understand that and are behind it 100%. We would not abandon those people to murderous butchers who would slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands if we leave before they are ready to defend themselves.

The unexpected benefits have been enormous as the new winds of freedom blow across the Middle East and we are witnessing what some have described 'the Arab spring'. Even the most selfish American with any sense of history and/or economics has to see the enormous benefit in that.

And painting all that oppose your march into the showers view as the scum that scum scrapes of their shoes is your answer? You can't make something true by saying it and I for one am damn tired of having you tell others what I am thinking!

The difference between our two posts Foxfyre was that my sarcasm was pretty obvious, whereas yours is unintentional.

Geli writes

Quote:

And painting all that oppose your march into the showers view as the scum that scum scrapes of their shoes is your answer? You can't make something true by saying it and I for one am damn tired of having you tell others what I am thinking!

Hmm I don't think I included all in my comments Geli, but thanks for being honest enough to include yourself in the 'some' indicated.