Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on July 10, 2005, 11:28:42 AM
-
SECRET PLAN TO QUIT IRAQ
Sat Jul 09 2005 19:16:16 ET
BRITAIN and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq - despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region, the SUNDAY MAIL in UK is reporting.
A secret paper written by UK Defence Secretary John Reid for Tony Blair reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later.
The leaked document, marked Secret: UK Eyes Only, appears to fly in the face of Mr Blair and President Bush's pledges that Allied forces will not quit until Iraq's own forces are strong enough to take control of security.
If British troops pull out, other members of the Alliance are likely to follow. The memo says other international forces in Southern Iraq currently under British control will have to be handled carefully if Britain withdraws. It says they will not feel safe and may also leave.
Embarrassingly, the document says the Americans are split over the plan - and it suggests one of the reasons for getting British troops out is to save money. Mr Reid says cutting UK troop numbers to 3,000 by the middle of next year will save GBP 500million a year, though it will be 18 months before the cash comes through.
The document, Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, is the first conclusive proof that preparations for a major withdrawal from Iraq are well advanced.
The British Government's public position is that UK troops will stay until newly trained Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security. Less than a fortnight ago, Mr Blair said it was 'vital' the US-led coalition stayed until Iraq stabilised, and Mr Bush endorsed his comments.
Mr Reid's memo, prepared for Mr Blair in the past few weeks, shows that in reality, plans to get them out - 'military drawdown,' as he puts it - are well advanced.
It says: 'We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces two of the four provinces under British control in Southern Iraq in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006.
Developing...
1) I have no problem with having a withdrawl plan ready. No sense waiting till the last minute.
2) Iraq is worse off now than it was before the elections over there. Multiple bombings everyday, assasinations are common..etc
3) Only difference I really see is more Iraqi's are dying now. And that does not mean less American deaths, It just means the same amount of our troops and now more of theirs are being killed.
4) I hope we are not leaving soon because Iraq is still a mess. On the other hand, We might be most of the problem but I think if we pull out too early its just gonna be a civil war so I am not sure...
5)Brits you guys pulling out 8500 in 3 months? Tell me its not true. thanks
-
I think it's a load of crap to sell papers.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I think it's a load of crap to sell papers.
Isn't it amazing how all these aleged "secret" and "top secret JCS eyes only" type documents allways end up in the paper?
-
Its prudent to have a plan to cover any decision that could be taken in the future.
I would be very surprised if equally their are not plans for them to remain longer.
Its totally irresponsible for that paper to publish this story after the london bombings.
Some will see it as validation that terrorist activity is having an effect on UK decision making.
-
Good point Cavalier.
-
Originally posted by 214thCavalier
Its prudent to have a plan to cover any decision that could be taken in the future.
I would be very surprised if equally their are not plans for them to remain longer.
Its totally irresponsible for that paper to publish this story after the london bombings.
Some will see it as validation that terrorist activity is having an effect on UK decision making.
i'm not sure about the UK but I can only assume the OPSEC is the same there but in the US it is criminal to publish "classified" documents.
-
Gunslinger,
That is oh so true. I wish secret documents would remain secret. It's pathetic the amount of people that violate these documents.
-
I think it is good to publish it, if they have a pull out plan that is preempted by the bombings they want to credibly show that they intended to pull out and the bombings have nothing to do with it.
-
Pongo that doesn't fly. Publishing a paper like that or even hinting at it merely adds fuel to their offensive. It would likely make them think that they are achieving their goals and that the oposition is so demoralized they are going to bail rapidly.
-
Claim, that they would like to end that parade of shame could also support fact, that non of british neither US politics were whining about this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4659287.stm
-
Originally posted by lada
Claim, that they would like to end that parade of shame could also support fact, that non of british neither US politics were whining about this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4659287.stm
well since a majority of terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are Iranians that doesnt seem like a bad Idea
-
Originally posted by lada
Claim, that they would like to end that parade of shame could also support fact, that non of british neither US politics were whining about this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4659287.stm
HUH???? Please explain this as I think the translation of what you said isn't coming through.
-
You make too much of it.
Their success adds fuel to their offensive not some newspaper article.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
HUH???? Please explain this as I think the translation of what you said isn't coming through.
... now when its clear who will takeover when US, UK will leave, they can start to draw planes with their silent comeback.
Its also very odd that non of UK or US politics started to panic about Iran invading Iraq and about horrible Jihad against Iraqi supercool 'democracy'.
Aka do you realize that your leaders dont mind that iraq is going to cooperate with greatest of all evils (according to their rhetoric) ?
edit: umm got it ;)
-
Originally posted by lada
... now when its clear who will takeover when US, UK will leave, they can start to draw planes with their silent comeback.
Its also very odd that non of UK or US politics started to panic about Iran invading Iraq and about horrible Jihad against Iraqi supercool 'democracy'.
Aka do you realize that your leaders dont mind that iraq is going to cooperate with greatest of all evils (according to their rhetoric) ?
edit: umm got it ;)
Let me see if I can translate this.
I think he is saying Why are the US and UK not upset about Iran helping Iraq out now?(militarily)
The answer he is looking for I think is he wants someone to say we dont care about Iran helping because we want out at any price. Is that about right?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Let me see if I can translate this.
I think he is saying Why are the US and UK not upset about Iran helping Iraq out now?(militarily)
The answer he is looking for I think is he wants someone to say we dont care about Iran helping because we want out at any price. Is that about right?
Maybe we figure the more Iranians dead now , the less we have to kill later.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Let me see if I can translate this.
I think he is saying Why are the US and UK not upset about Iran helping Iraq out now?(militarily)
yes this part is correct.
I think that fact that Iraq apply Iranian for help is briliant idea, however im wondering that there is not any single reaction in the news.
Thats why im asking for your opinion.
-
once the heat starts to fly this world war will be over in about 4 hours.
-
Originally posted by lada
yes this part is correct.
I think that fact that Iraq apply Iranian for help is briliant idea, however im wondering that there is not any single reaction in the news.
Thats why im asking for your opinion.
I think your right about it why it's not being hyped up. Should be a huge accomplishment to have their help. But its not because they are still on the "axis of evil" for trying to develop nukes. So you cant really threaten them one day and thank them the next.
Give it time. Usually take a little while for anything that actually is relevant to the situation to make it to the mainstream media.
-
Originally posted by lada
yes this part is correct.
I think that fact that Iraq apply Iranian for help is briliant idea, however im wondering that there is not any single reaction in the news.
Thats why im asking for your opinion.
just my opinion but,
I think ANY help from neighboring countrys, especially one that's a formor enemy just goes further to legitimize Iraq's govt. Any amount of that flys in the face of the so called insurgancy.
-
(http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg)
There is no plan to remove American and British troops from Iraq. In fact, there are no American nor British troops in Iraq at this time.
The democratically elected government has everything under control. The insurgent attacks are steadily decreasing.
-
(http://hogan.ohio.com/ohio/bok/album/images/050131kennedy.gif)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well since a majority of terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are Iranians that doesnt seem like a bad Idea
Source please.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
SECRET PLAN TO QUIT IRAQ
Sat Jul 09 2005 19:16:16 ET
BRITAIN and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq - despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region, the SUNDAY MAIL in UK is reporting.
A secret paper written by UK Defence Secretary John Reid for Tony Blair reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later.
The leaked document, marked Secret: UK Eyes Only, appears to fly in the face of Mr Blair and President Bush's pledges that Allied forces will not quit until Iraq's own forces are strong enough to take control of security.
If British troops pull out, other members of the Alliance are likely to follow. The memo says other international forces in Southern Iraq currently under British control will have to be handled carefully if Britain withdraws. It says they will not feel safe and may also leave.
Embarrassingly, the document says the Americans are split over the plan - and it suggests one of the reasons for getting British troops out is to save money. Mr Reid says cutting UK troop numbers to 3,000 by the middle of next year will save GBP 500million a year, though it will be 18 months before the cash comes through.
The document, Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, is the first conclusive proof that preparations for a major withdrawal from Iraq are well advanced.
The British Government's public position is that UK troops will stay until newly trained Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security. Less than a fortnight ago, Mr Blair said it was 'vital' the US-led coalition stayed until Iraq stabilised, and Mr Bush endorsed his comments.
Mr Reid's memo, prepared for Mr Blair in the past few weeks, shows that in reality, plans to get them out - 'military drawdown,' as he puts it - are well advanced.
It says: 'We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces two of the four provinces under British control in Southern Iraq in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006.
Developing...
1) I have no problem with having a withdrawl plan ready. No sense waiting till the last minute.
2) Iraq is worse off now than it was before the elections over there. Multiple bombings everyday, assasinations are common..etc
3) Only difference I really see is more Iraqi's are dying now. And that does not mean less American deaths, It just means the same amount of our troops and now more of theirs are being killed.
4) I hope we are not leaving soon because Iraq is still a mess. On the other hand, We might be most of the problem but I think if we pull out too early its just gonna be a civil war so I am not sure...
5)Brits you guys pulling out 8500 in 3 months? Tell me its not true. thanks
LMAO. This is along the lines of the Allies hanging the Poles out to dry after stringing them along for 6 years.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Source please.
read any english speaking news paper and it talks about Iranians wether they be govt intel types or jihadists crossing the border. Same thing with syria.
It is no secret that the majority of the oposition fighters/organizers are not Iraqis.
-
Sooner the British pull out the better, they never should of sent troops and followed Bush into that unjustified mess in the first place. Hopefully Australia won't send any.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Sooner the British pull out the better, they never should of sent troops and followed Bush into that unjustified mess in the first place. Hopefully Australia won't send any.
...-Gixer
sad troll
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
sad troll
So long as you see that and don't feed it.:D
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So long as you see that and don't feed it.:D
I took a sniff. Fortunatly there was a good movie on tv
-
Trolls need luvin too!!
(http://www.finnmoller.dk/tr-norge/norge2002/t-troll.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
read any english speaking news paper and it talks about Iranians wether they be govt intel types or jihadists crossing the border. Same thing with syria.
I took 2 but i didnt find it in any of them.
Any link ?
-
Bali
-
I'm not sure if this is Mail on Sunday or just plain Sunday Mail, but I hear the former is basically a tabloid. So it could be a fakie.
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
I'm not sure if this is Mail on Sunday or just plain Sunday Mail, but I hear the former is basically a tabloid. So it could be a fakie.
The Daily Mail is a conservative tabloid. The last time a british tabloid printed stuff based on fake documentary evidence, the editor (Piers Morgan at the Daily Mirror) was forced to resign, even through the substance of his story was later shown to be basically sound (detainees being mistreated in Iraq). I would be surprised if the Mail's evidence is less than reliable.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
read any english speaking news paper and it talks about Iranians wether they be govt intel types or jihadists crossing the border. Same thing with syria.
Sure I just haven't seen an authority say that they are the majority.
It is no secret that the majority of the oposition fighters/organizers are not Iraqis.
That's your opinion, I am asking for a source that it is based on. I've seen people say that there are "alot", "many" or "a growing number" of foreigners fighting in Iraq, but no statisics on it, or even someone say that "most" are foreigners. If you can show me differently then great.
What do you think is more palitable though, thinking that it's foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq, or domestic insurgents fighting in Iraq?
From a Center of Stategic and International Studies analysis of the Iraq insurgency.
"Islamist Groups and Outside Volunteers
Other key insurgent elements include Arab and Islamist groups with significant numbers of foreign volunteers, as well as and Iraqi Islamist extremists, like the one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It is unlikely that such groups make up more 10% of the insurgent force, and may make up around 5%, but in some ways they are the most dangerous element in the insurgency since they seem to be deliberately trying to provoke a civil war between Iraq's Arab Sunnis and its Arab Shi'ites, Kurds, and other minorities."
http://www.csis.org/features/050512_IraqInsurg.pdf
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sure I just haven't seen an authority say that they are the majority.
That's your opinion, I am asking for a source that it is based on. I've seen people say that there are "alot", "many" or "a growing number" of foreigners fighting in Iraq, but no statisics on it, or even someone say that "most" are foreigners. If you can show me differently then great.
What do you think is more palitable though, thinking that it's foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq, or domestic insurgents fighting in Iraq?
From a Center of Stategic and International Studies analysis of the Iraq insurgency.
"Islamist Groups and Outside Volunteers
Other key insurgent elements include Arab and Islamist groups with significant numbers of foreign volunteers, as well as and Iraqi Islamist extremists, like the one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It is unlikely that such groups make up more 10% of the insurgent force, and may make up around 5%, but in some ways they are the most dangerous element in the insurgency since they seem to be deliberately trying to provoke a civil war between Iraq's Arab Sunnis and its Arab Shi'ites, Kurds, and other minorities."
http://www.csis.org/features/050512_IraqInsurg.pdf
from your source
In the spring of 2005, US officials estimated that there might be fewer than 1,000 foreign fighters in Iraq or as many as 2,000. Many felt the number flowing in across the Syrian border and other borders was so high the total was rapidly increasing78 A few press estimates went as high as 10,000 before the fighting in Fallujah.
....US officials kept repeating estimates of total insurgent strengths of 5,000 from roughly the fall of 2003 through the summer of 2004. In October, they issued a range of 12,000 to 16,000 but have never defined how many are hard-core and full time, and how many are part time. According to one outside expert, estimates as divergent as 3,500 to 200,000 were being cited in March. 2000.72
I would say no one knows exactly but these guys seem to contradict themselves. Of course I cant recall the last time the terrorists lined up for a census count but that may be my poor memory. I would say my statement was spot on considering the numbers and considering they are the "most dangerous" of the fighters.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Trolls need luvin too!!
(http://www.finnmoller.dk/tr-norge/norge2002/t-troll.jpg)
Laz,
You posted the picture of a Euro troll. New Zealand trolls have MUCH smaller heads. EVERYONE knows that.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Laz,
You posted the picture of a Euro troll. New Zealand trolls have MUCH smaller heads. EVERYONE knows that.
I allways thaught this was more accurate
(http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/trolling_moby_style.jpg)
-
:D :aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I would say no one knows exactly but these guys seem to contradict themselves. Of course I cant recall the last time the terrorists lined up for a census count but that may be my poor memory.
It seems to me that providing information on what US estimates where over the entire insugency and so the numbers change.
But if you look at what you quoted, "In the spring of 2005, US officials estimated that there might be fewer than 1,000 foreign fighters in Iraq or as many as 2,000."
As of late October of 2004...."according to a CENTCOM document, MNF-I estimated the overall size of active enemy forces at about 20,000.".
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05431t.html
I would say my statement was spot on considering the numbers and considering they are the "most dangerous" of the fighters.
Which would be true if your statement read, "The most dangerous insurgents/terrorists in Iraq are the foreigners.".
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It seems to me that providing information on what US estimates where over the entire insugency and so the numbers change.
But if you look at what you quoted, "In the spring of 2005, US officials estimated that there might be fewer than 1,000 foreign fighters in Iraq or as many as 2,000."
As of late October of 2004...."according to a CENTCOM document, MNF-I estimated the overall size of active enemy forces at about 20,000.".
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05431t.html
Which would be true if your statement read, "The most dangerous insurgents/terrorists in Iraq are the foreigners.".
those numbers are a year apart? how is that accurate. You are quoting a guessing game.
Alot of grunts who have BTDT have a lot different view. (its funny how the people actually fighting the war have a completly different view than most of the press and political opposition)
-
Gunslinger,
The issue I'd take with your statement would be the "Most of them are Iranians" claim. Foreigner does not mean Iranian in particular.
Obviously some are Iranians, but I'd guess a large number are Saudi Wahibbists and Syrian Ba'athists too. The Wahibbists, the most violent and radical faction of Islam that backs Al Quaeda, is a Saudi based sect. Iran has no tolerance for it and has it's own brand of Islamic fundamentalism that is quite at odds with the Wahibbists.
We are not dealing with a single, unified group or culture here.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
those numbers are a year apart? how is that accurate. You are quoting a guessing game.
Nope only recent info as I can get. Still what was the statistics that you were basing your opinion on and what was the source.
Alot of grunts who have BTDT have a lot different view. (its funny how the people actually fighting the war have a completly different view than most of the press and political opposition)
What's funny is how you persist in not offering up source and making vague claims to "it not being a secret", by the way the most recent insurgent estimates by the US government is indeed classified, or "alot" nameless grunts.
If you don't actually have a source just say so.
-
Story's been picked up by the AP now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8530232/
Not that it provides any real information or verifies anything from the previous story. There's no real denial or acceptance, just typical political tapdancing.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's your opinion, I am asking for a source that it is based on. I've seen people say that there are "alot", "many" or "a growing number" of foreigners fighting in Iraq, but no statisics on it, or even someone say that "most" are foreigners. If you can show me differently then great.
From a Center of Stategic and International Studies analysis of the Iraq insurgency.
"Islamist Groups and Outside Volunteers
Other key insurgent elements include Arab and Islamist groups with significant numbers of foreign volunteers, as well as and Iraqi Islamist extremists, like the one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It is unlikely that such groups make up more 10% of the insurgent force, and may make up around 5%, but in some ways they are the most dangerous element in the insurgency since they seem to be deliberately trying to provoke a civil war between Iraq's Arab Sunnis and its Arab Shi'ites, Kurds, and other minorities."
http://www.csis.org/features/050512_IraqInsurg.pdf
(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db050711.gif)