How Basra Slipped Out of Control: by Gareth Porter

POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Thursday, October 27, 2005 15:21
VIEWED: 10359
PAGE 4 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

HERO

Monday, October 24, 2005 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Any opinion as to his ultimate strategy and goal?

I can't speak for his strategy but his goals are pretty clear:

1. Death to Isreal
2. Pan-Arab Union (with him in charge)
3. Dead Americans (or American allies)
4. Serenity 2 in 2007 (but not a new Series)

Same as most other radical Arab leaders and France.

H

TWEEK128

Monday, October 24, 2005 4:50 PM

Would the plot of that Serenity II involve Martyr ops? I don't think I'd like that version.

I mean, sure, they'd all see Wash again, but, c'mon.

SEVENPERCENT

Monday, October 24, 2005 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TWEEK128:
Sig,

Regarding the agents, an impression I'd gotten elsewhere was that they were active in tracking terrorist elements and were deep cover when they were taken in by the corrupt locals.

Overly simplistic view? Perhaps. Correct? Also, perhaps. Incorrect? Perhaps.

This was my entire point, before the argument got derailed into Howard's belief that a secret cabal of John Kerry, Blair, and Bill Clinton are steering the events in Basra from their secret underground lair in the Andes. We just don't have enough facts to realistically assess what the SAS was up to, for good or ill. I think saying they had 'murderous intent,' without backing, is biased.

But Howard seems to think that regardless of facts or lack thereof, the west is eeeeeeviiilll, like the fru-it of the deeevil.
This makes twice I've had to agree with Hero lately, and I'm not happy about it. No offense intended, H.

Quote:
And, yeah, Iran's hand is likely up al-Sadr's backside. Better our puppet than theirs. But better no puppet at all, and we're more likely to withdraw the hand than Iran would be.

Valid point all around. Does anyone realistically believe that if we withdraw now, Iran won't be in almost complete shadow control of the Iraqi government? One that is increasingly reliant on religious law? How is that in any way in either our interests or the interests of the common Iraqi?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 24, 2005 7:28 PM

The person who seems to be more in tune with Iran is Sistani. Sadr, altho also Shia, was working pretty strongly to siphon support from Sistani. I haven't seen much in the way of evidence that Sadr is in Iran's pocket.

Please don't think they give a shit.

HOWARD

Monday, October 24, 2005 7:34 PM

Please also see

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=14247

and the many links at bottom of the page.

HOWARD

Monday, October 24, 2005 7:37 PM

also how about people checking out this
thread..

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=14217

CITIZEN

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
The British agents were dressed like Arabs.

Shock! Horror!
Undercover agents dressed as Arabs in an Arab country! Whatever next?
I always assumed they wore orange jumpsuits with "Undercover agent" written across the back...

Quote:
The Iraqi police found equipment and explosives in their car identical to that of any terrorist operation.

Soldiers, with weapons? Surely not, you kid?
I mean, what do you expect undercover British agents/soldiers to have in their boot, pink leotard? Feather duster?

Quote:
The British SAS or whatever they were clearly were up to no-good and part of a mission to do harm.

The Iraqi police had weapons. Were they also clearly(?) up to no good.

Quote:
The local police were totally in their right to arrest them.

Possibly. I never made any assertions. I asked questions. Not even biased questions.

Quote:
There was no negotiation no due process of law just illegal brute force used by the British army.

Actually, there was a negotiation. Neither you nor I know what was said during it. For all we know the Iraqi police could have said "Haha, we're going to slowly murder your two soldiers and there's nothing you can do about it.".
They may have said "Sure, if a court finds them not guilty.".
Both are possible, and both put a radically different spin on the situation.
Your assertions are simplistic at best.

Beyond that, it seems to me that Iraqi civilian police don't have jurisdiction over the soldiers in this situation.
That falls to either:
The Iraqi military
Or
British Military police.

Quote:
What this incident proves is that...
THERE IS NO IRAQI SOVEREIGNTY

I agree. Except the all the Bush and Blair lies part.

Quote:
Why do you think that as intelligence agents they had a moral right to be freed?

I never said I did. There’s nothing in my post that even suggests that. You’re putting words in my mouth.

Quote:
Because CITIZEN all your life you have been conditioned with the Disneyesque fantasy that "our side" has benevolence in its heart and intent.

I asked some questions, and instead of answering or accepting them you insult me. I'm naive, incapable of thinking for myself and so on.
What was the insult you used in that other thread?
Ah yes, foolish child, who hasn't been taught how to think. Taught!
Where does one get taught to think the correct (your) way?
The Ministry of Correct Thinking? LOL!

Howard, I didn't even make an opinion, so how the hell can you attack it?
You wanted to hear a position you could attack. I wonder why.

So anyway, I checked your links. I read the Robert Fisk interview, and although interesting, it doesn't seem to really support your argument, nor does it have any baring on this discussion (makes no mention of this incident).
I did search DEMOCRACY NOW for a mention of this incident though, and found it an example of poor reporting.
You say the BBC article is a whitewash? It doesn't force an agenda, it reports the facts. DN, on the other hand, made completely baseless accusations. Let me clarify:

Quote:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/20/1330222&mode=threa
d&tid=25
An Iraqi official said that the British soldiers were arrested after they had fired at an Iraqi police officer.

Which Iraqi official? No name, no actual quote. Hearsay. No counter viewpoint.

Quote:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/20/1330222&mode=threa
d&tid=25
The British Army attempted to downplay the incident claiming that the men were released after negotiations.

Who in the British Army said this. It was widely reported negotiations failed, and there was military action taken. There was never a story from the British Army that said otherwise. I challenge you to show a quote or evidence to the contrary. That is total BS.

Please spare me your stock reply:
"Your a moron too brainwashed to understand or believe the data I present."
That is

TWEEK128

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:41 AM

Quote:

Quote:
The rate at which U.S. soldiers are being killed in Iraq, therefore, rose from only 0.5 a day from Sept. 8 through Sept. 13 to 1.375 a day from Sept. 14 to Sept. 21, and even further to more than two a day over the Sept. 22-28 period, an increase of 400 percent.
...
These figures clearly document an insurgency that is remorselessly spreading in area and getting worse in intensity and capabilities.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050930-032035-4078r
You seem to be suggesting that 'bullying' a local population and generally acting like conquers is more likely to pacify a population than an approach of understanding and working together?
The British have a long history of these kinds of situations and we have learnt from our mistakes.
I could just as easily interpret the current issues in Basra as a result of American aggression (the British and Americans are part of the same occupying power) as British 'lax methods'.
You give lawlessness that the British 'turn a blind-eye too' completely ignoring the fact that these incidents happen in Baghdad (for instance) on a much greater scale.
In fact I suspect if American policy had been more like that of the British the problems would have been lessened.
People join 'insurgencies' and terrorists because they believe they are being attacked, which comes more from a hard-line policy than a softer one.
Given America's Hard-line policy the British 'softly-softly' may have been ill advised but it did not cause the problems.

But it did allow them to spread. Think of it like criminal activity. If the police are understanding of growing lawlessness, it will only increase as will the people's reluctance to cooperate with authorities due to the fear of unchecked reprisals.

We were heavy-handed in earlier actions, but due to the mistakes we made, we're conducting ourselves with far greater respect to local customs and sensitivities. While. Still. Accomplishing. Our. Goals.

While, yes, the British and U.S. do jointly administer, I doubt you were stressing this when Basra was the "good" city. It's the Brits' sphere, and if you wanted to take credit for the "stability" bought by quiet complicity before, you must take credit for the growingly theocratic local elements now.

As for the 400% increase, that sounds nice and scary. Versus what? Day-by-day totals? Or same-day totals the year before? Be completely sure of context of the values instead of letting them be shaped.

Also, the increase may have been due, not to increased operations by insurgents (which, in fact, have actually decreased in frequency, but, I believe, increased in severity)but possibly due to the increased operations by U.S. forces in the border towns through which Syrians and other foreign "insurgents" have been flowing into Iraq.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/10/squeeze-play.html

When you go to their bases, expect your body count to rise some. But I'm positive that their body counts are significantly higher (and that's not just counting that their often-forced suicde ops).

On a side note: Hm...never had a Menk lecture me about diversity. In fact, a Menk once told me that the U.S. is actually slightly less racist than the U.K. on the whole because our national identity doesn't rest on race nearly as much as the TUKOGBANI identities do.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128
But it did allow them to spread. Think of it like criminal activity. If the police are understanding of growing lawlessness, it will only increase as will the people's reluctance to cooperate with authorities due to the fear of unchecked reprisals.
...
While, yes, the British and U.S. do jointly administer, I doubt you were stressing this when Basra was the "good" city. It's the Brits' sphere, and if you wanted to take credit for the "stability" bought by quiet complicity before, you must take credit for the growingly theocratic local elements now.

Basra was a 'good' city for sometime. Now it is starting to see some of the continuing violence of the American controlled areas and you seem to want to blame that on lax British policy.
As I see it it is more indicative of the insurgency and violence fostered by the (continuing) American shoot first ask questions later policy, beginning to spread to the rest of the country.

Quote:
We were heavy-handed in earlier actions, but due to the mistakes we made, we're conducting ourselves with far greater respect to local customs and sensitivities. While. Still. Accomplishing. Our. Goals.

I see no real evidence of either the American military learning from their mistakes in Iraq, or Accomplishing. Any. Goals.

Quote:
On a side note: Hm...never had a Menk lecture me about diversity. In fact, a Menk once told me that the U.S. is actually slightly less racist than the U.K. on the whole because our national identity doesn't rest on race nearly as much as the TUKOGBANI identities do.

A Menk? What, pray tell, is a Menk.
As for the racism lecture, race never came into it. Sociology, perhaps, not race.
As for this other 'Menk' who thinks racism is more of an issue in the UK.
As I understand it in America minorities are often segregated into their own min-communities? This is much rarer in the UK.
When we talk about racism in the police force it's not about how a man caught 'Black in Charge' was beaten to within an inch of his life, it's because someone suggests there isn't enough officers from Minority groups. The UK is sensitive to race issues to an almost pathological degree. I really don't see where this other 'Menk' is coming from.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

TWEEK128

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:58 PM

First off, Menk = Mencurian, however you spell it. Folk from Man-Chest-Ah.

And that pathological sensitivity is actually what he was speaking to, if indirectly. Here, there's self-segregation at times, but nowhere near what y'all over there seem to think. Nowhere near. In the end, anyone can be American, but can a black person be English? Can an Asian of any type?

As for Basra, yes, the U.S. isn't administering that area, and, yes, the British are, so, yes, I would hold the British responsible.

By your reasoning, that which is lessening in, say, Mosul and other cities and is increasing in Basra (institutional and popular resistence to the "occupiers") could be said to be the fault of the British, since it was taking place in U.S. administered areas. Sorry, no joy. I know you want to blame the U.S. for everything, but when it's not in our sphere of control, that tack falls short.

Further, the violence in Basra is not the same as the violence in Sunni areas. In large part, this is because you have Iraqi forces working with the Coalition groups, and against the terrorists. In Basra, the police and government seem to have their fates more tied with radical Shiite theocrats and an Iranian model of government.
Basically it boils down to this:
Sunni/U.S. areas: U.S. / Locals vs. terrorists.
Shiite/U.K. areas: U.K. vs. locals / terrorists.

Why? Because when it is clear that your interest is not the rule of law but "sensitivity" and your opposition is interested in subverting order to their own ends at the expense of the average person, then the people will fear those usurping power and know that you, who are in a position to do something about it, will sooner let them die than to offend the sensitivities of your common opponent.
The British are now on record as having attacked a police headquarters, whereas the terrorists in the North are the only ones who've done so in a U.S. administered areas. There, we've worked with the police to make sure that no undesirable elements make it in. Obviously, that was not a high concern of the British authorities in Basra.

As for goals accomplished, we're rolling back terrorist groups and capturing leaders at a good clip, and attacks against U.S. forces are lower than they were a year ago.

If you're not aware of this, it's because you're reading articles that have a vested, ideological interest in presenting the news in as harsh a light as possible. If you're interested only in hearing the negative aspects, fine, well and good, but don't act like you're interested in anything else or that you'd care if there was any positive news.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE