OT Way to go Spain; that'll teach 'em. . .

"John Cook" wrote:
See also
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j...64&n=100247763

In a major change of strategy, the US is planning to offer government
jobs in Iraq to former senior officers of Saddam Hussein's military
and the ousted Baath Party.

In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics against the British had a
significant and long lasting effect...

"Jarg" wrote in message .com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Jarg" wrote in message
.com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections.

There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
- the Shah Monarchy.



I see little democracy in Iran, certainly no more than occured under the
Shah.

I will tell you how much democracy there was under the Shah: Zero.

How many of the candidates were disallowed by the mullahs in the last
elections?

You tell me.



I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
productive years in which to evolve.

And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state.


What an absurd idea. Do you live in the US?

About four months in the year.



Iran has
had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
invasion for future possible transgressions.
Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
media would be far right of center in most countries.



Most Americans are far better educated than the average Iranian with the
added benefit that they have a free press as a source of information. The
US media is much more varied than you allow.




And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.

Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
reformers. This is obvious.

The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy.

Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
Iranian calculations.

It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests

Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
bringing 'true' democracy to America.



Don't try to pretend there is some equivalence between US and Iran.

Hardly. They are both unique in both their good and their evil.

Iran
is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy which has largely had a negative
influence in the world.

But US has also had a larger negative influence on the world (along
with a larger share of the positive influence due to its large size
and economy).

The US is recognized as the leader of the
democratic world

Recognised? By Whom?

I live in a democratic country and if you asked the joe on the street
he would laugh at you.

and a source of inspiration for many freedom loving people.

Oh, yes - I agree. But the US is also the anti-christ personified for
other freedom loving people.

As for the presence of US force, they serve to help protect other nations in
the region from Iran.

Get a grip. The American forces are there for only one reason - to
protect their own strategic interests, which since the end of the cold
war are largely limited to securing oil security - by hook or crook.

It's hard to imagine that any US sponsored change of
government in Iran wouldn't be an improvement.

One merely has to look at the improvements in Afghanistan and Iraq to
counter your assertion. BTW many believe that _any_ change in the
current US regime (Iran sponsored or not) will be an improvement.



of the civilized world.

This is unadulterated hubris.



Not at all. Examples of uncivilized behavior are abundant, for example
public beatings, sponsorship of terrorists, hostage taking, etc.

LOL. I suppose they are also guilty of not using toilet paper and
forks or burping loudly.

Dear me! If you really came down to it do you realise how much of that
could be pinned on america too? Subverting democracy, aggressive war,
collective punishment etc are not the signs of civilized behaviour
either.





Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

This is so silly.


Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
improvement over the Mossadegh government?



Indeed it was. Mossadegh's only notable (and foolish) idea was the
attempted nationalization of British assets.

Foolish? I suppose he should have let Britain control his nation's
most precious asset.

He demostrated clear
tendancies towards demogogary.

You mean like most of the current world leaders?

Many of his peers believed he aspired to
dictatorship.

Hearsay and Conjecture.

Whereas the Shah made a concerted effort to drag Iran into
the modern world, including efforts at increasing literacy, land reform and
voting rights for women.

But that does not mean that he was repressive, bloody minded dictator
at the same time.

Incidentally, repression under the Islamic
government is well documented

I dont doubt that.

and much worse than it ever was under the Shah
and the "savak terror".

Perhaps. I am not aware of any metric that compares the two.



And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.

The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown.

A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.



The current Iranian government has only itself is to blame, including its
poor economic policies - centralized planning, lack of diversification, and
state ownership of key industries for example - and the isolation resulting
from efforts to spread Islamic revolution.

You think a bloody revolution, embargo and a decade long bloody war
had nothing to do with it? There goes your credibility.



Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
policies and how could they have done it different in a state
undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
drain during such times.


Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.




It doesn't follow that an organizations ideoliogical biases would show in
the polls it takes.

And there is a pretty good chance that they would too. Hence the
skepticism.

In any case the polls being discussed are not by any
given organization but by many.

How many are from those not from the US or its puppet states?


Jarg

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed? Or to put it
in
the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that
the
guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective
are
part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT
would
claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be
a
"wise" move.

You're very hard on your political and military leadership, Kevin.

No, Paul, but in your usual leap to jump on the nearest "US is Evillll in
Iraq..." bandwagon you have missed the obvious, namely that bit about
placing "known hostiles" in the security force. If you buy into that little
posit of Cook's, then I have obviously misjudged your military knowledge.
And BTW--merely having been a member of either the Iraqi Army or even the
IRGC does not necessarilly make one a "known hostile", OK?

Brooks



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

+++++
Half Iraq's forces 'are traitors or deserters', by Toby Harnden in Baghdad
(Filed: 23/04/2004)

One in 10 members of Iraq's new security forces is actively helping
insurgents while 40 per cent have deserted, according to an American
general.

Major Gen Martin Dempsey, commander of the US army's 1st Armoured Division
in Baghdad, issued the bleakest coalition assessment yet of Iraqi security
capabilities.

Are the new Iraqi security forces prepared to face real danger?
He said that during recent uprisings "about 50 per cent of the security
forces that we've built over the past year stood tall and stood firm".
He added: "About 40 per cent walked off the job because they were
intimidated and about 10 per cent actually worked against us."
snip
Gen John Abizaid, the senior US commander in the Middle East, has
acknowledged that inadequate screening of Iraqi security force recruits
has
been a key failure in American training. Gen Dempsey said Iraqi forces had
been riddled with "infiltrators".
+++++

--
Paul J. Adam

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral
decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US
friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
"rescued"?
You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up
your
tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's
book,
note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and
Pakis
moving that day.

Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
authority from their superiors.

Not real bright, are you? You trot out a source that allegedly supports
your
warped construct, and it turns out you can't even properly get the very
basics of the *source* right. Hint--what *USMC* unit was involved in that

Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
think that's what you are on about?.

Are the Rangers and Delta guys Marines? You can't even get your basic facts
right, amigo.


Mogadishu raid that is the subject of your source? You need to go back
and
read that book again--most of it obviously passed through your cranial
cavity without your accurately decyphering its meaning.

Oh, so now you are postulating a "Day One", to be followed by another...
Day
One? Or is this just another example, like your later, "Well, we'll keep
the
US-ians around to handle the REAL problems while we have a few thousand
of
(undetermined providing nations' troops) serve as window dressing--but
other
than that the US will cede control and be tucked away quietly in its
bases,
out of sight, out of mind!" idea, of how you can use the US forces,
without
actually using the US forces? Doublespeak much? Either you have the US as
a
player, as you are now indicating, or you don't, as you originally
postulated--which is it?

You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
possible.

What "gung ho" attitude? Any specific cites to support that? And it is nice
to know that you have now backed away from your original plan to discard the
US forces on "Day One"...


No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear
up
the mess you created.

No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in
fact.
Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy
hitting,
but
we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus"
otherwise,
huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?

It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
pro-american.
do you believe such a state can exist??.

I find your protestations against being labled anti-American a bit weak,
given the evidence of your repeated posts against myriad things USian,
and
*none* pro-USian...

How does that affect the situation in Iraq?, its still a big cock-up

I note that for a change you don't deny your wide-ranging anti-US bias;
maybe you are finally beginning to come to terms with your own prejudices?




No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have
been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,

Who said they don't?

That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.

So they don't like Chalabi--so what?


So what!!!, you stick someone they don't like in and pretty soon they
will be out and someone you don't like will be in, blimey you are
not facing reality are you, there not interested in imported Iraqi's.

Their governing council will provide the initial interim leadership,
followed by a government of their own choosing. Oddly enough, the question
of national leadership ranked low among the polled Iraqis concerns---seems
you are more worked up over it than they are.


They have the CPA until they can
construct their own new final government, they are overwhelmingly happy
with
their current local government, and they decidedly want the coalition to
remain in the country for the time being. I suspect the reason you don't
like that poll is because it does not square with your own sermonizing of
what the Iraqis themselves *really* want, which begs the question of when
you were annointed and gifted with the clairvoyance necessary for you to
repeatedly tell us their desires.


You have zero military experience?
Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.

Uhmm--the guy driving the Roach Coach (mobile snack stand) around FT Knox
could claim he "worked with" those of us who were actually pulling duty.
I used to make bits for missiles systems and elsewhere on worked on
communications, beyond that I can't say.

Well, you moved beyond that very limited range of expertise a long while
back.

Sorry, no points awarded for that claim. So what we have in you is a guy
who
claims that he knows the "strategy and tactics" of the situation in Iraq
better than those who *do* wear the uniforms, or the SecDef, etc., yet
who
has zip/nada/zilch in terms of military experience or training. That
figures.

OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
identify with he-

Heck, I was fed up by the time I got to the last post, but it was so darned
fun pointing out that your personal critique of the "strategy and tactics"
(and where do you lump in operational art, oh-annointed-one?) was based upon
zilch/zero/nada experience or knowledge of things military, not to mention
reminding you of your continual and rabid anti-US bias in all things,
commercial and governmental, that I figured it would be worth staying
engaged.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3646947.stm
Quote"Now, the two serving generals have raised questions about the
wisdom of excluding Baath party officials from the post-war
administration"
Now what was it you were saying about ridiculous assertions!!, I said
excluding the old mob was a big mistake, two US generals (who I
freely admit have an Infinitely better handle on the situation in
Iraq than you or I, "seem to share the view that the policy of
casting senior Iraqi officers aside was a mistake."

So you equate being a member of the Baath Party as being de facto proof that
they are known hostiles? Quite a leap you are making there.


"British generals, too, have been speaking out".

"Yesterday, the head of the British Army - Gen Sir Mike Jackson - told
the House of Commons Defence Committee it was a fact that the British
approach to post-conflict situations was doctrinally different to that
of the US".

"There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
other commanders."

LOL! There is *always* criticism--even internally, within US forces, no
doubt. Par for the course. So what? My favorite Patton quote went something
like, "If everyone is in agreement, then someone is not thinking."


But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
the British are wrong, and the polish too..

No, YOU are anti-American, by dint of your past tirades; they just disagree.
Even you should be able to see the difference.


That would be my guess, based upon your
ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is
better than not having them there...

Well I have two US generals and a couple of other nations who agree
with me...Or do you agree with "the famous French statesman, Georges
Clemenceau, who said that "war is too important to be left to the
generals". Funny I thought you didn't agree with the French.

No, you don't. You indicated we should be putting known hostiles into the
forces--not the same thing.



Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed?
Or to put it in
the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that
the
guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective
are
part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT
would
claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
"wise" move.

"23/6/2003 U.S. announces formation of new Iraqi army
RAMADI, Iraq (AP) - U.S.-led civil administrators announced the
creation of a new Iraqi army Monday, hoping to contain anger among
soldiers jobless since Saddam Hussein's military was disbanded and to
curb a rash of anti-U.S. attacks."

Or perhaps

"I'm not that comfortable in the new army," said Nawar Mahmood, 23,
who said he was a member of the Kurdish pesh merga militia and had
been reassigned to the new Iraqi army. "I spent 13 years in the pesh
merga fighting the Baathists, and now there are many Baathists in the
new army."



Now Mr Brook every single Iraqi soldier is a known hostile,

No, they are not, not after the initial conflict was resolved and Hussein
removed from power. By your view, Germany would have been left with NO
leadership after the war at ANY level had we taken that complete approach to
defining "hostiles". As would have Japan.

Out of time to debate this with you further at this point. Go back to your
"Typhoon is Great, and All US Aircraft are Turkeys" website and general
bashing of us Yanks, John--it was more entertaining than this misguided
foray of yours into "strategy and tactics" (neither of which you ever
specifically critiqued...).

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
You're very hard on your political and military leadership, Kevin.

No, Paul,

Yes, Kevin.

Did some outside body force those men on the US-led administration? You
chose them, trained them, equipped them, at *some* point you end up
responsible for their performance or lack thereof.

Paranoia about "known hostiles" aside (quoted from *your military*, I didn't
make that up) their performance has certainly been less than stellar to
date.

Or, I suppose, you can call the Daily Telegraph a Leftist liberal
anti-American mouthpiece, which would be funny.

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
You're very hard on your political and military leadership, Kevin.

No, Paul,

Yes, Kevin.

No, Paul--you need to read the remainder of what I wrote instead of snipping
it away...

snip

Oooh--all gone now! I guess in Paulian Speak that means I get a point or
two?

Brooks

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

American soldiers
in Iraq behave with an aggression that may be conform to their
training but is sadly out of sync with their task (according to
British
forces in the same country).

What is their task in Iraq - win hearts and minds by letting insurgents
shoot at anything in or out a coalition forces uniform or win the minds by
eliminating anything that makes an attempt at shooting at anything in or out
of a coalition uniform. The British commanders problem is probably based on
a rather stupid investigation instigated against troops who returned fire on
Bloody Sunday. The British troops that day did the right thing, pity the
press didn't agree...

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Exactly *what* would you do?

Suggestions to turn the situation in Iraq around --- as bad
it is, it should not be abandoned as hopeless (although it
may very well be):

1. Persuade George W. Bush not to seek re-election.
He would not be the first president to understand that his
country is best served by his retirement. Bush is so widely
hated and distrusted that his presence itself is a serious
obstacle to the success of US foreign policy.



Bad idea. And it won't happen anyway so why waste the words.


2. Say you won't outstay being welcome.
State clearly and without reservations that if an elected Iraqi
government (or the majority of the Iraqi people in a fair
referendum) desires the US and/or coalition troops to leave,
they will go. The Iraqis need to be convinced that the best
way to free themselves of foreign occupation is to cooperate
in the rebuilding of their country's institutions.



Already done.


3. Ask the Iraqis to create a credible provisional government.
Give all people with a reasonable following and influence
a seat in an assembly; and tell them that if Iraqis want to
govern themselves, they will all have to cooperate in creating
a coalition government, one way or another. If the country
is to be prevented from falling apart, now is the right time
to start to learn to cooperate. The UN should asked to be
the arbiter.



Plans already in place.


4. Hand over real power.
If it the Iraqi government is to have any credibility at all, it
must have a degree of power over the actions of the occupation
forces, as long as the government holds together. Again, have
the UN in the role of arbiter. Ask the UN members to "loan" a
police force to the government, until the Iraqi police can be
decently trained. (Right now, the Iraqi "government" is not
even told what the occupation authority intends to do.)


Plans already in place.


5. Call on traditional power structures
Local leaders will avoid violence that will hurt of destroy
their own communities, if they are given a honourable,
workable alternative. Don't put the Baathists back in charge;
that will destroy the credibility of the US-lead coalition.



Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Unfortunately most of the Iraqi
talent was Baathist, much as the Nazis in Germany. The initial decision to
exclude Baathists was heavily criticized. The revised policy making
exceptions for non-idealogues seems like a good compromise.


6. Don't touch the oil
And don't even dream of getting near it.



The US doesn't need the oil, the whole suggestion of "war for oil" was just
a bunch of silliness from poor thinkers and people with an anti-US agenda.

Sounds like most of your "plan" is a copy of the actual plan supplemented
with one completely unrealistic idea.

Jarg

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...

What is their task in Iraq -

Win hearts and minds by behaving as if it were their own country.

Doubtful because then there would be no NEED to have armed troops located
there.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:58:04 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"John Cook" wrote:
See also
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j...64&n=100247763

In a major change of strategy, the US is planning to offer government
jobs in Iraq to former senior officers of Saddam Hussein's military
and the ousted Baath Party.

In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics against the British had a
significant and long lasting effect...



The British are well versed in this sort of thing, due to many many
conflicts, perhaps somebody should listen to them!, T.E.Lawrence's
'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk