Guerilla Actions in Irak

Sid,

I recommend to you the book "COLOSSUS - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire", by NIALL FERGUSSON
Penguin Books (2005), or The Penguin Press (2004), depending of the edition.

It is not only about Iraq. It is about the big picture. Of course, there are also other books circulating around.

I don't know if I'll add anything else in this topic. And what is really scary and confusing is the fact that a world without U.S. as superpower, or without a polarity of 2 or 3 superpowers, is not necessarily and automatically better.
(i.e., could be a world with vacuum of power...)

Hi Florin,

A very good point. I can think of a lot worse alternatives offered during the last century for the position of sole hegemonic world super power. The US international system is certainly an improvement on those offered by imperialism, colonialism and the totalitarianism of both right and left. However, this doesn't make it infallible or perfect.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. You are right. Fergusson's previous book on empires was excellent and I should get "Colossus".

Makes one think...

Who was really stealing oil? The americans who were (and are) buying it on a competitive open market, or the French and Russians who were striking illegal deals with Saddam for cheap oil at the detriment of the Iraki people?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...q_usa_cost_dc_1

Another small article talking about the differences and similarities between Irak and Vietnam:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from...ent/4202186.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12...86978%2C00.html

What use it to discredit Bush any more? He's allready at the bottom, IMO.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Lan...=en&DSNO=778903

Romanian troops are in Nasiriyah too.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle320343.ece

Hi Imperialist,

Actually, the British Army likes to be on active operations, especially if they are low risk enough not to cause too many casualties, but high risk enough to keep the troops sharp, which peace time soldiering cannot do. Iraq, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan are just those types of operations.

This attitude is true of regular soldiers in most armies. Active operations are what most of them joined up for. Active soldiering is not meant to be comfortable - something that many in our soft consumer societies forget nowadays.

You must remember that the Independent has opposed the war from the start and Claire Short is a deeply discredited figure of the far left, who first supported the war and then opposed it. She is no sort of authority on the internal workings of the military, which she has always been personally and ideologically opposed to.

All the armies that serve in Iraq will emerge much improved by the exposure to extended operational experience, which most have not had for decades. Perhaps the key lesson will be the reminder that soldiering is a hard, sometimes dangerous and often unrewarding experience and only people of strong character are up to it.

Don't worry. The British Army lost at least one soldier killed on active operations every year between 1688 and 1967, again from 1969 to the mid 1990s, and most years since then. British regiments that have existed continuously for several centuries are hardly likely to crack up under the very light casualty rate in Iraq. The British Army lost about 20,000 casualties in an hour on 1 July 1916 and yet it did not crack up. It has suffered less than 100 fatalities in over two years in Iraq.

Criticism from individuals and organisations that have no grasp of military history has little value.

Cheers,

Sid.

I believe the article was about morale, not casualty level.
And I am not interested in Claire Short's criticism, I rather highlighted the part with Straw declaring a possible 10 more years involvement, and the intensity of daily friction.

p.s. Iamandi some months ago quoted from the Guardian if I remember right, and you countered that it was an anti-Irak war paper too. Now Independent is the same. Point one paper that is "pro-war", so that we can compare and balance.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

If it is to be ten years, then ten years it is. These things are never certain or predictable.

What is not clear is what level of commitment this ten years refers to. I wouldn't be suprised if we and other countries have training teams there for decades. It has happened elsewhere. For example, the US has had forces in South Korea for over fifty years, but this represents no operational strain because the country is entirely passive. It all depends on conditions in Iraq at any given time.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Relax. The British Army is small and was understrength before the Iraq war even began. It is also entirely voluntary so there is always turn over of manpower. On top of this, all soldiers grumble and British soldiers have always grumbled more than most - it is a defining characteristic. It is far more likely thart political morale at home wll fade than that the Army's will. You have to have been a professional soldier to understand what makes them tick.

Sid.

Dont worry, I'm not jumping out of my seat. But I'm really interested now in what newspaper with no anti-war agenda you would recommend.

Hi Imperialist,

I wouldn't recommend a particular newspaper as they all have biases. The only way to get a good overall picture is to read a variety of them, from the Daily Telegraph on the political right to the Guardian or Independent on the political left.

The Independent is the serious newspaper with the smallest circulation, but it presents its front page in perhaps the most effective manner as it uses better design.

The only serious newspaper that has a consistently good grasp of the internal workings of the Army is the Daily Telegraph, but it is also the one most strongly opposed to the current Labour government, so it will use any stick with which to beat it. Thus it supports the Army's campaign in Iraq, but not the government's handling of it.

Finally, they all have to make sales and they all resort to sensationalism to a greater or lesser degree to make an impact. As a result, minor problems tend to become major disasters in their eyes.

Cheers,

Sid.