| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Blair: We face a new war in Iraq |
| 2004-09-20 |
| After ordering British forces to keep a low profile for weeks, is Blair readying the nation for an increase in casualties in Southern Iraq? A more proactive approach to the Spud Thugs? British troops are back at war in Iraq at the centre of a new battle against global terrorism, Tony Blair said yesterday. The first conflict to remove Saddam Hussein, and the so far non-existent weapons of mass destruction, had developed into a struggle against foreign insurgents and remnants of the former regime, the Prime Minister added. Don't forget Basra's crop of Tater Tots, Tony. Sixteen months after President George W Bush declared that combat operations were over, and after a week which has claimed 300 lives, Mr Blair conceded for the first time that a full-scale "new Iraqi conflict" was under way. He said the country had become the "crucible" in which the future of the battle against global terrorism would be determined. Mr Blair's admission followed the disclosure by The Telegraph on Saturday that he had been warned a year before the American-led invasion that post-war Iraq would cause major problems, and that no one had a clear idea of what would happen. The previously secret documents had said a stable post-war government would be impossible without keeping large numbers of troops there for "many years". I don't recall anyone in authority claiming the post-war situation would be less challenging than the war itself. Hardly 'news'. Mr Blair, beside Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister of Iraq, at 10 Downing Street, vowed to see through the struggle and defeat the terrorists. He said Britain would not "desert" the Iraq people. He refused to put a timescale on how long British troops would be in Iraq, but denied suggestions that it could be for 10 or 20 years. Mr Blair denied that coalition and Iraqi forces were losing the war against terrorism, though he accepted the extremists had the capability to kill innocent people. Another blatantly obvious truth portrayed as an admission as failure. Who ever has been able to stamp out murder? If people are determined to murder other people, it tends to be hard to stop them before they've done it. Especially if there are other people helping and hiding them. |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #5 If enough Sunnis don't vote, the Kurds' hand will be one of the strongest in the new assembly. Also, Pan-Arabism is dead. Better a muslim world split three ways-- sunni, kurd and iranian-iraqi shi'a-- and fighting among themselves than fighting against us. Divide and distract. Finally, Turkey will not dare screw with the Kurds if they have a garrison of 100,000+ US troops forward deployed in Kurdistan AND if the US drops support for Turkish entry into the EU. Turkey already is tilting toward Iran, as are India and Russia. If the only way to signal that such support will not be tolerated by the US is to have a sizable number of troops on Iran's border in secure bases, then Kurdistan is the logical choice for such a deployment. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-20 4:32:15 PM |
| #4 first, the kurds wont win a plurality, even if their is no voting in Sunni Arab areas - the Shiites outnumber them. Second a Kurdish state would be seen as a blow against the arab world, and would hurt the US position in the arab world, if it had US support. third the Turks wouldnt support it. It would be landlocked between a hostile Turkey and a hostile (Shia dominated) rump Iraq. Only option would be alliance with Iran, not conducive to US bases. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-20 4:22:12 PM |
| #3 Partition the country-- de facto, through rolling elections (ASAP in Kurd. and south, and later if ever in sunni triangle), and then de jure, once the Kurds have attained a pluarlity in the national assembly. Then move all coalition troops into long-term bases in the pro-US sovereign Republic of Kurdistan. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-20 4:09:02 PM |
| #2 I remember before the war reading a number of bleak worst-case scenarios, such as the 10,000 US casualties that would occur in taking Baghdad. I also remember people talking about another Lebanon. So the idea that these "secret documents" are a revelation is just silly. |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-09-20 1:10:59 PM |
| #1 Damm right on your comments Bulldog. I was getting ready to say damm right Winston. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-20 7:13:58 AM |