Insurgents in Iraq are right to try to force US troops out of the country, a former British army commander has said.

Gen Sir Michael Rose also told the BBC's Newsnight programme that the US and the UK must "admit defeat" and stop fighting "a hopeless war" in Iraq.

The trouble is with a "hopeless war", is, in this media driven battle age, you get back to the old Vietnam protest song of "1 2 3 4, what are we fighting for? Don`t ask me I don`t give a damn.."(Country Joe and the Fish, I believe).

It`s so Orwellian that we allways have to be at war with someone.

Wouldn`t it be nice if we could just have a (football) penalty shoot out to decide territory and political differences?
Obviously we can`t, we are too aggresive a species even to do that.

In The Know wrote:
Insurgents in Iraq are right to try to force US troops out of the country, a former British army commander has said.

Gen Sir Michael Rose also told the BBC's Newsnight programme that the US and the UK must "admit defeat" and stop fighting "a hopeless war" in Iraq.

Perhaps you could provide them with an exit strategy - I'm sure they'd appreciate it

zooloo wrote:
[quote
Perhaps you could provide them with an exit strategy - I'm sure they'd appreciate it :)[/quote]

Anyone with a brain knew well before the war what was going to happen - it was spelt out to them over and over again by the anti-war movement.

But ... guess who knew better ....?

(We all know that the Yanks are going to run like hell eventually - just as they did in Vietnam)

In The Know wrote:

Anyone with a brain knew well before the war what was going to happen - it was spelt out to them over and over again by the anti-war movement.

But ... guess who knew better ....?

(We all know that the Yanks are going to run like hell eventually - just as they did in Vietnam)

It very easy to notice the errors and follies of others, somewhat harder is give solutions.

If it should have started is beyond debate now it is well under way, the question now is how to back out.

What is your solution? What is your exit strategy?

zooloo wrote:

It very easy to notice the errors and follies of others, somewhat harder is give solutions.


You are talking as if we are speaking with the benefit of hindsight - that is NOT the case. We warned BEFORE the illegal invasion started what would happen - and we were proved right.

As for an exit strategy - I've already told you - the Yankers will run like hell (very soon).

In The Know wrote:
zooloo wrote:

It very easy to notice the errors and follies of others, somewhat harder is give solutions.


You are talking as if we are speaking with the benefit of hindsight - that is NOT the case. We warned BEFORE the illegal invasion started what would happen - and we were proved right.

As for an exit strategy - I've already told you - the Yankers will run like hell (very soon).

My statement you quoted still stands, in particular "...somewhat harder to give solutions".

That is my unanswered question - what is YOUR solution (Exit strategy).

zooloo wrote:

That is my unanswered question - what is YOUR solution (Exit strategy).

And it will remain an unanswered question ! The whole hypothesis is ridiculous ! If they want to leave they can simply pack up and go !

What you really mean is "How can the Yankers run and still save face", isn't it?

Why should anyone want to help them out? They have caused death, destruction and mayhem now TWICE in my lifetime - maybe (just maybe) if they face yet another embarrassing and humiliating "exit" then they may just think twice before launching another incurrsion (so they can grab oil) !

What I "really mean" is what is your solution?

The idea they "...can simply pack up and go" is naive at best.

It is very easy to point the finger what is harder is to admit that when you do there are three fingers pointing back.

I am genuinely interested to know if you have a valid reasoned view or if you are just taking easy pot-shots at the obvious. Do you have a positive contribution?

Let me be the intermediary here...
I think what zoo means is...
a simple pull out could easily mean civil war and slaughter of many more innocents.
So how can the US pull out (as they must and will) without doing massive damage to innocent Iraquis?

Indeed, I most certainly believe the USA has a tiger by tail - I know I wouldn't let go.

(Isn't it nice the way I segued tiger into the post just for you JK )

JK2006 wrote:
a simple pull out could easily mean civil war and slaughter of many more innocents.
So how can the US pull out (as they must and will) without doing massive damage to innocent Iraquis?

But many would argue that we are already in civil war now - with no sign of a solution.

It could be argued that the Yankers are exacerbating the situation by supporting the "fake" government of the Shias, which continues to agravate the Sunnis.

If Iraq were to split along ethnic lines - would that be such a bad idea? (and after all, isn't the division of Iraq exactly what the Yanks are currently planning with the construction of their "Berlin Wall" to divide the ethnic groups?)

Iraq was always an "unnatural" country - merely drawn on a map to allow the west to control the area. It needed a strong leader such as Saddam to maintain order - in exactly the same way that Yugoslavia was an unnatural alliance and fell to pieces - and civil war - once the hardman leader (Tito) was removed. All of this was clearly understood by the anti-war movement ... they could see exactly what would happen.

So ... back to my original post .... when someone like General Sir Michael Rose (the former leader of British Forces in Bosnia) says we should "admit defeat" and "pull the troops out now" should we not listen to him and his undoubted experience of such matters?

Whatever happens - we should not make it "easy" for the Yanks - otherwise they will be encouraged to launch such mayhem again.

I'm in absolute agreement, I was against the entire invasion, but it still doesn't answer the question - how can it be done with minimal suffering? Or are you saying - screw the suffering; it's worth it just to show how stupid it was to go in?

JK2006 wrote:
I'm in absolute agreement, I was against the entire invasion, but it still doesn't answer the question - how can it be done with minimal suffering? Or are you saying - screw the suffering; it's worth it just to show how stupid it was to go in?

Unfortunately I cannot see an end to the suffering at present.

If the Yanks pulled out immediately there may be a few days in which the various groups would grab their sections of the country - but it could settle very quickly as they are pretty much in control of their own areas now.

So the question really is -

a) a few more days of suffering, or

b) years of endless suffering with no solution in sight (and it's highly likely that they will revert to plan (a) anyway at some future time !)

Either way it is speculation but...

I think it would be more than "...few more days of suffering" if the US simply fled.

Wouldn't partition would bring us to a state such as Northern Ireland or Palestine where normal life and terrorist attacks live side by side for years?

Even though various groups have their "areas" these areas overlap and I'm certain valuable areas (Eg. Oil fields) would be contested still.

As in many regions in the World the maps were drawn up by occupying colonial powers and inherently have the seeds of discontent within. However wrong that may be it is the situation we have.

The entire region is pretty trigger-happy and paranoid, an immediate and sudden withdrawal could easily be the lighting of the blue touch-paper that proceeds an escalation beyond Iraq.

No matter how wrong the situation is, and I certainly consider it to be wrong, those involved simply cannot just up and off.

What they can/should do, I have no idea. I am interested to hear reasoned proposals for a solution, the line that we shouldn't be there doesn't help. We are there... now what?