This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Is Tony Blair still trying to justify his Iraq warmongering by saying that sometimes boots on the ground are needed?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/tony-blair-ground-troop...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/tony-blair-ground-troop...
In reply to j0ntyg:
Taking a leaf from the other major faith foundations? BBC seem quite keen on him recently. Naively I believed the man to be a pariah. Still any voices that can add to the endless war justification, eh Tone?
D
Taking a leaf from the other major faith foundations? BBC seem quite keen on him recently. Naively I believed the man to be a pariah. Still any voices that can add to the endless war justification, eh Tone?
D
In reply to j0ntyg:
The thing about Tone is you could spot he was a wrong un back before they gave him the job of PM, but the public voted for him more than once, the sad thing is maybe the majority aren't really ready for change!
The thing about Tone is you could spot he was a wrong un back before they gave him the job of PM, but the public voted for him more than once, the sad thing is maybe the majority aren't really ready for change!
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
How? Bear in mind, he was up against the party of Sleeze at the time.
> The thing about Tone is you could spot he was a wrong un back before they gave him the job of PM,
How? Bear in mind, he was up against the party of Sleeze at the time.
In reply to j0ntyg:
No. He seemed to be talking pretty good sense and is probably right.
> Is Tony Blair still trying to justify his Iraq warmongering by saying that sometimes boots on the ground are needed?
No. He seemed to be talking pretty good sense and is probably right.
In reply to Robert Durran:
He's correct about requiring more (well some of 'ours' are already there) troops to secure ground - not a great idea if they are NATO aligned with all that sectarian animosity he helped stoke.
Apart from that he lied and blustered all the way through the invasion and occupation on Iraq. The hubris of the man is staggering - but not surprising as we are being prepped for war once again.
D
He's correct about requiring more (well some of 'ours' are already there) troops to secure ground - not a great idea if they are NATO aligned with all that sectarian animosity he helped stoke.
Apart from that he lied and blustered all the way through the invasion and occupation on Iraq. The hubris of the man is staggering - but not surprising as we are being prepped for war once again.
D
In reply to j0ntyg:
Agreed. While he may be correct in this case, it serves his conscience and histories judgement well if we can have a successful ground intervention.
Agreed. While he may be correct in this case, it serves his conscience and histories judgement well if we can have a successful ground intervention.
In reply to Dauphin:
Which is all he said, so why bring up all the irrelevancies about the Iraq war again?
> He's correct about requiring more troops to secure ground.
Which is all he said, so why bring up all the irrelevancies about the Iraq war again?
In reply to ByEek:
The look in his eyes that the power gave him, it give him away from the start, people are very easily fooled by charismatic liers
The look in his eyes that the power gave him, it give him away from the start, people are very easily fooled by charismatic liers
In reply to Robert Durran:
I guess because it isn't irrelevant if we are discussing potential military action in the middle east when the last time TB was involved in such an action it was, shall we say, contraversial.
FWIW the '97 Labour government did an awful lot of good, not least CROW or the minimum wage. It's just TBs later actions in supporting the US in Iraq have coloured everything else.
> (In reply to Dauphin)
>
> [...]
>
> Which is all he said, so why bring up all the irrelevancies about the Iraq war again?
>
> [...]
>
> Which is all he said, so why bring up all the irrelevancies about the Iraq war again?
I guess because it isn't irrelevant if we are discussing potential military action in the middle east when the last time TB was involved in such an action it was, shall we say, contraversial.
FWIW the '97 Labour government did an awful lot of good, not least CROW or the minimum wage. It's just TBs later actions in supporting the US in Iraq have coloured everything else.
In reply to David Martin:
In what way?
If the same objective could be achieved by air strikes then what would this say about the Iraq war?
It's the nature of the enemy that makes ground force necessary, and the incompetence of the Iraqis/Arabs that makes it likely to come from outside.
> Agreed. While he may be correct in this case, it serves his conscience and histories judgement well if we can have a successful ground intervention.
In what way?
If the same objective could be achieved by air strikes then what would this say about the Iraq war?
It's the nature of the enemy that makes ground force necessary, and the incompetence of the Iraqis/Arabs that makes it likely to come from outside.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
And there was me thinking you were going to offer a rational answer!
> The look in his eyes that the power gave him, it give him away from the start, people are very easily fooled by charismatic liers
And there was me thinking you were going to offer a rational answer!
In reply to winhill:
I would suggest that before we blame the competence of the Arab nations, we must acknowledge our own role in arming and fostering the movement that we now wish to defeat.
> It's the nature of the enemy that makes ground force necessary, and the incompetence of the Iraqis/Arabs that makes it likely to come from outside.
I would suggest that before we blame the competence of the Arab nations, we must acknowledge our own role in arming and fostering the movement that we now wish to defeat.
In reply to Ciro:
I don't think that even begins to make sense.
What sort of acknowledgement are you after? A plaque in Trafalgar Square? An announcement in The Times?
Or every time that the incompetence of the Iraqi army is noted it needs a footnote to indicate past and current UK Foreign Policy?
> I would suggest that before we blame the competence of the Arab nations, we must acknowledge our own role in arming and fostering the movement that we now wish to defeat.
I don't think that even begins to make sense.
What sort of acknowledgement are you after? A plaque in Trafalgar Square? An announcement in The Times?
Or every time that the incompetence of the Iraqi army is noted it needs a footnote to indicate past and current UK Foreign Policy?
In reply to winhill:
Maybe a list of lessons learned.
?
Britain has been crowd sourcing wars in the desert for long enough and often enough in recent history for the population to see the old repeating pattern of hubris and bullshit.
Or is more we the anti war mob were correct about gulf war 2.0 and you were wrong? See other thread on state power apologists.
D
Maybe a list of lessons learned.
?
Britain has been crowd sourcing wars in the desert for long enough and often enough in recent history for the population to see the old repeating pattern of hubris and bullshit.
Or is more we the anti war mob were correct about gulf war 2.0 and you were wrong? See other thread on state power apologists.
D
In reply to winhill:
Sorry, I'll try and make it a bit clearer.
We armed them and supported their uprising, therefore we cannot blame others for any need for external help to resolve the situation.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that we are solely to blame - it's a complex situation in which a lot of interests have acted with very little integrity over a very long period of time - just that we can't hand off the blame to the Arab world.
Sorry, I'll try and make it a bit clearer.
We armed them and supported their uprising, therefore we cannot blame others for any need for external help to resolve the situation.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that we are solely to blame - it's a complex situation in which a lot of interests have acted with very little integrity over a very long period of time - just that we can't hand off the blame to the Arab world.
In reply to Ciro:
We armed ISIS?
> We armed them and supported their uprising, therefore we cannot blame others for any need for external help to resolve the situation.
We armed ISIS?
In reply to MG:
Probably armed and trained. Along with the Qataris, Saudis, Turks,Jordanians and U.S. The bit about supporting moderate groups is window dressing for the feeble minded. They want Assad gone and control of Syria.
D
> We armed ISIS?
Probably armed and trained. Along with the Qataris, Saudis, Turks,Jordanians and U.S. The bit about supporting moderate groups is window dressing for the feeble minded. They want Assad gone and control of Syria.
D
In reply to Dauphin:
I'm sure there have been mistakes in who got money, weapons, training etc, but am pretty sure we haven't armed ISIS deliberately.
I'm sure there have been mistakes in who got money, weapons, training etc, but am pretty sure we haven't armed ISIS deliberately.
In reply to MG:
You cannot selectively support different factions of an uprising... they don't organise themselves into nice neat military structures that remain static over time.
Nobody has officially said we were providing weapons to Syria in the early days but we have admitted to providing training and other support. Personally, I'd be surprised if we only went as far as we will officially admit. And we certainly did a lot to prevent the Syrian regime from stopping them from flourishing, and made sure that they could take arms from the Syrian government, which is as good as arming them ourselves.
> I'm sure there have been mistakes in who got money, weapons, training etc, but am pretty sure we haven't armed ISIS deliberately.
You cannot selectively support different factions of an uprising... they don't organise themselves into nice neat military structures that remain static over time.
Nobody has officially said we were providing weapons to Syria in the early days but we have admitted to providing training and other support. Personally, I'd be surprised if we only went as far as we will officially admit. And we certainly did a lot to prevent the Syrian regime from stopping them from flourishing, and made sure that they could take arms from the Syrian government, which is as good as arming them ourselves.
Post edited at 16:02
In reply to Dauphin:
I don't think you speak for the anti-war movement and hindsight is always 20:20.
And I don't think anyone was right on the Iraq invasion.
What this has to do with ISIS is another question.
Their success is almost entirely down to the incompetence of the Iraqis. 30,000 troops fled rather than fight 800 ISIS fighters.
They're are still tiny in number 20-30,000 and spread out over an area the size of England, so militarily very weak. Still too strong for the Arabs and the Iraqis though.
The idea that they shouldn't be attacked because history or because Arabs shows the drag effect the Arabs are having on the rest of the world.
> Or is more we the anti war mob were correct about gulf war 2.0 and you were wrong? See other thread on state power apologists.
I don't think you speak for the anti-war movement and hindsight is always 20:20.
And I don't think anyone was right on the Iraq invasion.
What this has to do with ISIS is another question.
Their success is almost entirely down to the incompetence of the Iraqis. 30,000 troops fled rather than fight 800 ISIS fighters.
They're are still tiny in number 20-30,000 and spread out over an area the size of England, so militarily very weak. Still too strong for the Arabs and the Iraqis though.
The idea that they shouldn't be attacked because history or because Arabs shows the drag effect the Arabs are having on the rest of the world.
In reply to winhill:
Many people took to the streets to protest prior to the invasion.
Are you saying that invading a country which has a history of internal power struggles stoked by outside influences and removing the incumbent power (which, incidentally you previously put in charge) does not make you in any way responsible for who rises into the vacuum?
We bombed the f*ck out of the people who used to oppose them. We can hardly complain if they're now too weak to do so.
The idea is that we shouldn't invade unless we're actually going to do the right thing for a change. By all means send in a peace keeping force with broad international co-operation, bring with you a huge package of financial aid for the rebuilding of the country and draft in aid agencies to help the Iraquis use that financial aid and expertise to learn how to rebuild the country themselves, in the process gaining the necessary skills to become self-sufficient, instead of awarding rebuilding contracts to western corporations for profit.
But don't just repeat the same old pattern that's seen the last four american presidents, over a period of 25 years, stand up on television to announce an invasion of Iraq.
> I don't think you speak for the anti-war movement and hindsight is always 20:20.
> And I don't think anyone was right on the Iraq invasion.
Many people took to the streets to protest prior to the invasion.
> What this has to do with ISIS is another question.
Are you saying that invading a country which has a history of internal power struggles stoked by outside influences and removing the incumbent power (which, incidentally you previously put in charge) does not make you in any way responsible for who rises into the vacuum?
> Their success is almost entirely down to the incompetence of the Iraqis. 30,000 troops fled rather than fight 800 ISIS fighters.
> They're are still tiny in number 20-30,000 and spread out over an area the size of England, so militarily very weak. Still too strong for the Arabs and the Iraqis though.
We bombed the f*ck out of the people who used to oppose them. We can hardly complain if they're now too weak to do so.
> The idea that they shouldn't be attacked because history or because Arabs shows the drag effect the Arabs are having on the rest of the world.
The idea is that we shouldn't invade unless we're actually going to do the right thing for a change. By all means send in a peace keeping force with broad international co-operation, bring with you a huge package of financial aid for the rebuilding of the country and draft in aid agencies to help the Iraquis use that financial aid and expertise to learn how to rebuild the country themselves, in the process gaining the necessary skills to become self-sufficient, instead of awarding rebuilding contracts to western corporations for profit.
But don't just repeat the same old pattern that's seen the last four american presidents, over a period of 25 years, stand up on television to announce an invasion of Iraq.
In reply to Ciro:
"The idea is that we shouldn't invade unless we're actually going to do the right thing for a change. By all means send in a peace keeping force with broad international co-operation, bring with you a huge package of financial aid for the rebuilding of the country and draft in aid agencies to help the Iraquis use that financial aid and expertise to learn how to rebuild the country themselves, in the process gaining the necessary skills to become self-sufficient"
That's been tried once and it didn't work, the re-building money wasn't distributed fairly and re-building the army resulted in ISIS getting all the weaponry.
"The idea is that we shouldn't invade unless we're actually going to do the right thing for a change. By all means send in a peace keeping force with broad international co-operation, bring with you a huge package of financial aid for the rebuilding of the country and draft in aid agencies to help the Iraquis use that financial aid and expertise to learn how to rebuild the country themselves, in the process gaining the necessary skills to become self-sufficient"
That's been tried once and it didn't work, the re-building money wasn't distributed fairly and re-building the army resulted in ISIS getting all the weaponry.
In reply to winhill:
These fleeing troops will be from the same incompetent Iraqi army that retook Basra in 2008 after we got our arses kicked by the Mahdi army?
Dispersed forces spread across 130,000 square kilometres. Hmmm, how to control that given our somewhat limited manpower? Perhaps a tactic of:
A. Establish forward operating base.
B. Drive / walk around a bit until contact is made with IS. Assuming they're run out of the pretty effective hardware they have at the moment we can then pin them down with superior firepower.
C. Phone a friend with fast air capability to mallet them.
D. Close with and destroy what's left, sustaining casualties from IEDs.
E. Withdraw back to FOB.
F. Repeat until funds run out.
E. Declare victory and move on.
Unless there's some cunning new strategy to underpin the military side of things, that's exactly what we'll end up doing. As you pointed out in your post, those feckless dusky types won't be able to control things once we gone.
No, it shows that after metaphorically sticking our knob in a few hornets nests to little practical advantage over the last few years we might have got the idea that a bit more thought is required before the Great Satan and his little sidekick start down the 'peace through kinetic energy' road again.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pacifist, (I even have a mass produced lump of cheap alloy on a blue and white stripy bit of nylon ribbon in a sock drawer somewhere to prove it), and I'd pay to watch Jihadi John being turned to pink mist on Sky TV.
However, when that twunt Blair starts banging on about how "we" should be fighting on the ground to ensure his next book deal, my immediate thought is "Tell you what Tone, if it's such a cracking idea why don't you and young Euan strap on 40kg of kit and go running round the Ulu for a bit? Show us the courage of your convictions."
> What this has to do with ISIS is another question.
> Their success is almost entirely down to the incompetence of the Iraqis. 30,000 troops fled rather than fight 800 ISIS fighters.
These fleeing troops will be from the same incompetent Iraqi army that retook Basra in 2008 after we got our arses kicked by the Mahdi army?
> They're are still tiny in number 20-30,000 and spread out over an area the size of England, so militarily very weak. Still too strong for the Arabs and the Iraqis though.
Dispersed forces spread across 130,000 square kilometres. Hmmm, how to control that given our somewhat limited manpower? Perhaps a tactic of:
A. Establish forward operating base.
B. Drive / walk around a bit until contact is made with IS. Assuming they're run out of the pretty effective hardware they have at the moment we can then pin them down with superior firepower.
C. Phone a friend with fast air capability to mallet them.
D. Close with and destroy what's left, sustaining casualties from IEDs.
E. Withdraw back to FOB.
F. Repeat until funds run out.
E. Declare victory and move on.
Unless there's some cunning new strategy to underpin the military side of things, that's exactly what we'll end up doing. As you pointed out in your post, those feckless dusky types won't be able to control things once we gone.
> The idea that they shouldn't be attacked because history or because Arabs shows the drag effect the Arabs are having on the rest of the world.
No, it shows that after metaphorically sticking our knob in a few hornets nests to little practical advantage over the last few years we might have got the idea that a bit more thought is required before the Great Satan and his little sidekick start down the 'peace through kinetic energy' road again.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pacifist, (I even have a mass produced lump of cheap alloy on a blue and white stripy bit of nylon ribbon in a sock drawer somewhere to prove it), and I'd pay to watch Jihadi John being turned to pink mist on Sky TV.
However, when that twunt Blair starts banging on about how "we" should be fighting on the ground to ensure his next book deal, my immediate thought is "Tell you what Tone, if it's such a cracking idea why don't you and young Euan strap on 40kg of kit and go running round the Ulu for a bit? Show us the courage of your convictions."
Post edited at 19:47
In reply to j0ntyg:
It most certainly hasn't, token efforts were made to build an infrastructure but most of the work was given to foreign contractors to rebuild things on our terms, not help the Iraqis come together and do it themselves. The work that did reach Iraqis was so limited, it mostly just succeeded in creating a new middle class, leaving life for the average Iraqi much worse than it was before we arrived, and with an extra layer of social division.
> "The idea is that we shouldn't invade unless we're actually going to do the right thing for a change. By all means send in a peace keeping force with broad international co-operation, bring with you a huge package of financial aid for the rebuilding of the country and draft in aid agencies to help the Iraquis use that financial aid and expertise to learn how to rebuild the country themselves, in the process gaining the necessary skills to become self-sufficient"
> That's been tried once and it didn't work, the re-building money wasn't distributed fairly and re-building the army resulted in ISIS getting all the weaponry.
It most certainly hasn't, token efforts were made to build an infrastructure but most of the work was given to foreign contractors to rebuild things on our terms, not help the Iraqis come together and do it themselves. The work that did reach Iraqis was so limited, it mostly just succeeded in creating a new middle class, leaving life for the average Iraqi much worse than it was before we arrived, and with an extra layer of social division.
In reply to winhill:
Arguably the Iraqi army, despite being rearmed by the US, might actually be far more effective if Tony hadn't invaded. Some of its stronger divisions would still be alive, capable, and (for better or worse) aligned with a mere secular tyrant than a bunch of Muslim extremists. This was one of the many downsides to our regime change game.
In my non expert opinion, I'm not convinced a ground force is necessary. This is open country, where ISIS have to make long advances in pickup trucks over desert terrain, well suited to aerial surveillance, cluster bombs and liberal dosages of B-52 carpet bombing. Likewise, they appear to use a certain degree of guerrilla tactics that cause such bother to our own forces.
But putting boots on the ground would help vindicate Blair on his use of an invasion force rather than more surgical and moderated tactics. A bit of a case of "I had the right idea, it clearly works, but something just went a little wrong when I attempted it a decade back".
> In what way?
Arguably the Iraqi army, despite being rearmed by the US, might actually be far more effective if Tony hadn't invaded. Some of its stronger divisions would still be alive, capable, and (for better or worse) aligned with a mere secular tyrant than a bunch of Muslim extremists. This was one of the many downsides to our regime change game.
In my non expert opinion, I'm not convinced a ground force is necessary. This is open country, where ISIS have to make long advances in pickup trucks over desert terrain, well suited to aerial surveillance, cluster bombs and liberal dosages of B-52 carpet bombing. Likewise, they appear to use a certain degree of guerrilla tactics that cause such bother to our own forces.
But putting boots on the ground would help vindicate Blair on his use of an invasion force rather than more surgical and moderated tactics. A bit of a case of "I had the right idea, it clearly works, but something just went a little wrong when I attempted it a decade back".
Post edited at 20:31
In reply to David Martin:
Because drones and bombs have been so successful in the past at stemming the radicalisation of the middle east?
> In my non expert opinion, I'm not convinced a ground force is necessary. This is open country, where ISIS have to make long advances in pickup trucks over desert terrain, well suited to aerial surveillance, cluster bombs and liberal dosages of B-52 carpet bombing. Likewise, they appear to use a certain degree of guerrilla tactics that cause such bother to our own forces.
Because drones and bombs have been so successful in the past at stemming the radicalisation of the middle east?
In reply to Ridge:
I wonder if they've thought about crowd funding the inevitable botched military operation?
jcm
> and I'd pay to watch Jihadi John being turned to pink mist on Sky TV.
I wonder if they've thought about crowd funding the inevitable botched military operation?
jcm
In reply to Ciro:
Funny, I was just thinking about that, and democracy. More people turned up at that big demo than would have been required to vote yes for Scotland to become an independent country.
> Many people took to the streets to protest prior to the invasion.
Funny, I was just thinking about that, and democracy. More people turned up at that big demo than would have been required to vote yes for Scotland to become an independent country.
In reply to Ridge:
I doubt it, they had several divisions led by the Americans, there's been talk of reviving the Mahdi army to offer some resistence. The only regional power with a military effective enough to rout ISIS is Iran and dem Arabs don't want them chasing ISIS to Syria in case they don't stop.
Driving them to Syria and forcing them to hold ground sounds reasonable.
Except the Americans are still fronting the whole thing and their partners are regimes that are already regarded as tame puppets so I not sure the propaganda war will be advanced by getting a few different countries to join the party. Both Syria and Libya have shown that the amount of hatred directed at the west is likely to be split between those who blame the America for either intervening or not intervening.
But ISIS is a relatively small problem, made up of a large amount of barely trained foreign jihad tourists, currently getting much more respect than they deserve.
> These fleeing troops will be from the same incompetent Iraqi army that retook Basra in 2008 after we got our arses kicked by the Mahdi army?
I doubt it, they had several divisions led by the Americans, there's been talk of reviving the Mahdi army to offer some resistence. The only regional power with a military effective enough to rout ISIS is Iran and dem Arabs don't want them chasing ISIS to Syria in case they don't stop.
> Unless there's some cunning new strategy to underpin the military side of things, that's exactly what we'll end up doing. As you pointed out in your post, those feckless dusky types won't be able to control things once we gone.
Driving them to Syria and forcing them to hold ground sounds reasonable.
> No, it shows that after metaphorically sticking our knob in a few hornets nests to little practical advantage over the last few years we might have got the idea that a bit more thought is required before the Great Satan and his little sidekick start down the 'peace through kinetic energy' road again.
Except the Americans are still fronting the whole thing and their partners are regimes that are already regarded as tame puppets so I not sure the propaganda war will be advanced by getting a few different countries to join the party. Both Syria and Libya have shown that the amount of hatred directed at the west is likely to be split between those who blame the America for either intervening or not intervening.
But ISIS is a relatively small problem, made up of a large amount of barely trained foreign jihad tourists, currently getting much more respect than they deserve.
In reply to j0ntyg:
Local boots on the ground, great, communal regional action to defeat these monstrous killers. Western boots would delight them and I'm sure that killing of western hostages is partly designed to get a response like putting troops in.
That of course would "justify" them in putting Jihadi John in high streets of any states involved. But in the ensuing whirlwind in which Blair and his kids would not be the ones getting slain, yet again, he could ride high in his own mind being proved ultimately justified.
That's not to say, of course, that unheralded and quietly walking people could do a great deal to observe and report targets without anything much being said.
Local boots on the ground, great, communal regional action to defeat these monstrous killers. Western boots would delight them and I'm sure that killing of western hostages is partly designed to get a response like putting troops in.
That of course would "justify" them in putting Jihadi John in high streets of any states involved. But in the ensuing whirlwind in which Blair and his kids would not be the ones getting slain, yet again, he could ride high in his own mind being proved ultimately justified.
That's not to say, of course, that unheralded and quietly walking people could do a great deal to observe and report targets without anything much being said.
Post edited at 11:52
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...