Iraq And Its Future

01-20-2007, 07:52 PM

It is unlikely that the increase in the US troop strength is going to change the situation in Iraq. The need of the hour is to bring the Shea and the Sunni population together and for that a dominant role needs to be played by Iran and Syria who have much more influence than the United States in Iraq. The US Force is generally conceived as an invading force by the local population except those who were earlier in exile and came back along with the Allied forces. Given such a narrow popular base, the United States or any Government functioning under its patronage is not expected to command much popular respect amongst the masses. Whether we like it or not the religious leaders of both the important sects and the Governments of the neighboring countries are perhaps in the best position to help in the restoration of peace and normalcy in Iraq. However, as of now the United States is in no mood to seek the good offices of Styria and Iraq in the matter.

01-20-2007, 09:50 PM

I think itâs too late for Shia and Sunni reconciliation. Saudi's had told US according to media that they have left with no choice but to support Sunnis in Iraq. Till now US had given free hand to Shia's, but now according to news in media, things are changing. I think US had started putting pressure on Malaki to control Shia's or he may see re-run of Saddam for himself. More foot on ground may help. But as per Mahdi militias on TV that they have orders to lie low for sometime. This may bring calm or short term peace.
As of now, Iraq is now another Afghanistan with oil. Militias are only targeting Capital city to get full control. Arrest of Irani workers in north should not be seen as symbolic change in US strategy.

With 2-3 years of continuous peace may bring back old glory, otherwise its lost case.

01-29-2007, 11:28 AM

Iraq: 250 insurgents die as battle rages 
This is a big number. One day major Sunni loss.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-30-2007, 10:23 AM by Husky.)

QUOTEIraq: 250 insurgents die as battle rages
This is a big number. One day major Sunni loss.Mudy, one paper reported the same (250 militants killed) in Najaf on 29 Jan: US, Iraqi forces kill 250 militants in Najaf

But news report of a day later ('30 Jan') says at least 300 militants killed, also in Najaf:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cf...jectid=10421499
QUOTEVideo: US, Iraqi troops kill Iraqi cult leader, at least 300 militants
Tuesday January 30, 2007
By Khaled Farhan

Iraqi and U.S. forces take part in a joint military operation in Najaf.
Photo / Reuters
Watch Video: US, Iraqi troops kill Iraqi cult leader

NAJAF, Iraq - The leader of an Iraqi cult who claimed to be the Mahdi, a messiah-like figure in Islam, was killed in a battle yesterday near Najaf with hundreds of his followers, Iraq's national security minister said today.

Women and children who joined 600-700 of his "Soldiers of Heaven" on the outskirts of the Shi'ite holy city may be among the casualties, Shirwan al-Waeli told Reuters. All those people not killed were in detention, many of them wounded.

Iraqi troops, backed by US forces, confronted the group after learning it was planning an attack on the Shi'ite clerical establishment in Najaf today.

"One of the signs of the coming of the Mahdi was to be the killing of the Ulema (hierarchy) in Najaf," Waeli said. "This was a perverse claim. No sane person could believe it."

Authorities have been on alert for days as hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite Muslims massed in the area to commemorate Ashura, the highpoint of their religious calendar, amid fears of attacks by Sunni Arab insurgents linked to al Qaeda.

But Sunday's battle involved a group of a different sort, a cult which Iraqi officials said included both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims as well as foreigners.

"He claimed to be the Mahdi," Waeli said of the cult's leader, adding that he had used the full name Mahdi bin Ali bin Ali bin Abi Taleb, claiming descent from the Prophet Mohammad.

He was believed to be a 40-year-old from the nearby Shi'ite city of Diwaniya: "He was killed," Waeli said.Mahdi means same as Messiah - a Semitic religious concept, shared by Arabian and Jewish people.
This 'Mahdi' was apparently easy to kill, probably not the mahdi after all. And he didn't bring down the Shi'ite clerical establishment (Shi'ite ulema?) during his life as his followers believed.

Hope no other terrorist religion is going to start up around this (historical, for a change) dude.

02-04-2007, 06:21 AM

Truck blast in Baghdad market kills more than 120QUOTEStory Highlights
â¢ NEW: 128 killed, 343 wounded in suicide bombing
â¢ NEW: Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urges unity
â¢ NEW: Half of foreign fighters come through Syria, official says
â¢ Eight die in other Iraq attacks; two when nine bombs detonated in Kirkuk
Bad day for Iraq.

02-04-2007, 02:10 PM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 4 2007, 06:21 AM)Truck blast in Baghdad market kills more than 120<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
128 killed, 343 wounded in suicide bombing[right][snapback]63970[/snapback][/right]</div>Number of fatalities is up: 132 (but wounded reported as 305 in number): http://au.news.yahoo.com//061112/2/11ec2.html 'Suicide truck bombing kills 132 in Iraq'

Islam is still genociding the Arabians. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /> Evil, evil religion. Must be banned.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-05-2007, 05:24 AM by Husky.)

http://au.news.yahoo.com/061112/2/11ec2.html
QUOTEMortars kill 15 in Iraq after truck bomb
Mortar bombs killed 15 people in a Sunni neighbourhood in Baghdad in fresh violence after a truck bomb killed 135 people in a Shi'ite area in the worst single bombing since the US-led 2003 invasion.

The spiralling sectarian bloodshed threw the spotlight on Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's planned crackdown in Baghdad, but a US general warned it would not produce results overnight and said reinforcements were still being deployed.

American officers told a small group of foreign reporters that the US-Iraqi campaign to stabilise Baghdad would begin soon and said the offensive would be on a scale never seen in four years of war.

The mortar rounds crashed down in the northern Adhamiya district as clashes were reported between gunmen and police in religiously mixed Amil district, police said. Details were sketchy but Adhamiya is frequently subjected to mortar barrages.
More interesting:
QUOTEMore than 20 people were reported killed elsewhere in Baghdad in bomb attacks and drive-by shootings.

As pressure piled on Maliki to halt a descent into all-out civil war, US military spokesman Major General William Caldwell urged patience.

It is important to acknowledge that it will not turn the security situation overnight," he said of the Baghdad security plan, which was announced in January.

"People must be patient. Give the government and coalition forces a chance to fully implement it. It will take some time for additional Iraqi and US forces to be deployed," he said.

Three American colonels who are senior advisers to the Iraqi army and police in Baghdad said a command centre overseeing the crackdown would be activated on Monday.

"The expectation is the plan will be implemented soon thereafter," Colonel Doug Heckman, senior adviser to the 6th Iraqi Army division, said at a US military base in Baghdad.

"It's going to be an operation unlike anything this city has seen. It's a multiple order magnitude of difference, not just a 30 per cent, I mean a couple hundred per cent," he added, referring to previous offensives that failed to stem bloodshed.

Despite opposition from Democrats in control of Congress, President George W Bush has said he is sending 21,500 reinforcements, most earmarked for Baghdad, to stem sectarian violence between majority Shi'ites and once-dominant Sunnis.

A senior Shi'ite official in Maliki's administration voiced frustration over the government's inability to curb violence, which has claimed about 1,000 lives across Iraq in the past week.

"There is anger against the government among Shi'ite public opinion now," the official said.

"People are getting fed up and very upset. They are asking for action from the government. They want an answer to these killings," he said.

Caldwell repeated US accusations that Iran was supplying weapons to and training "extremist elements" in Iraq. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said half the Sunni militants behind the bombings in Iraq had arrived through neighbouring Syria.

US and Iraqi officials have long accused Iraq's neighbours of failing to stop militants from crossing into Iraq.

A bulldozer cleared debris and rescue workers picked through blood-stained rubble looking for more bodies after Sunday's deadly truck bomb attack. A suicide bomber drove the truck, packed with a tonne of explosives, into a crowded Baghdad market. More than 300 people were wounded.

Maliki blamed the blast on supporters of Saddam Hussein and other Sunni militants and repeated his pledge to act firmly.

But patience is running thin among war-weary Iraqis. In Sadriya, Shi'ites said the Mehdi Army militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr should handle security, not government forces.

"We are fed up with the government falling short in protecting us. After four years our blood still flows," said Abu Sajad, 37, a worker living in the Sadriya area.

Mass attacks against Shi'ites have reinforced perceptions among many Shi'ites that militias such as the Mehdi Army offer them the best protection against Sunni insurgents.

But the Pentagon has said the Mehdi Army poses a greater threat to peace in Iraq than al-Qaeda, and US commanders have urged Maliki to move against it.Shia-Sunni war is being fought in Iraq, with the cavalry sent in via Syria (Sunni reinforcements) and from Iran (which is helping Shia cause).

What is the role of Iraq in this? Does the violence between the two factions have global or only local meaning? That is, has Iraq become the battlefield for determining the power equation with intended repercussions for the Shia-Sunni balance in the whole world, or is it merely that Shias and Sunnis from neighbouring countries are interested in seeing their denomination in control in Iraq?

02-06-2007, 11:56 AM

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,12078-6908526...65_true,00.html
QUOTEBush Proposes US$2.9 Trillion Budget
06/02/2007 08:36 AM
Reuters
By Caren Bohan and Richard Cowan

US President George W Bush on Monday asked a skeptical, Democrat-run Congress to approve US$700 billion in new military spending - much of it for the Iraq war - and to curb many domestic programs.

Bush also warned that even more money for Iraq could be needed, as he unveiled a US$2.9 trillion budget request for fiscal 2008 certain to stoke growing frustrations among Democrats and some Republicans over the war.

Democrats, newly in control of Congress, may jettison many of Bush's domestic proposals and have pledged aggressive oversight of Iraq spending. But Democratic leaders have promised not to cut off funding for the troops.

The military spending request comes as Democrats have expressed alarm over Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. (see previous post, first blue para)

If Congress approves the war-funding request, the United States will have spent $661.9 billion on combat in Iraq, Afghanistan and related activities, the administration said.

On the domestic front, Bush called for making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent and said it could be done while shifting the budget to surplus by 2012.

The spending plan would hold growth in domestic discretionary spending to 1 percent. After accounting for inflation of 2.5 percent, that rise would amount to a cut in programs ranging from labor to education and cleaning up the environment.

"Our priority is to protect the American people. And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs. We also have got priorities in national parks, in education, in health care," Bush told reporters at a meeting of his Cabinet.
('Education'? Yeah, everyone knows his presidential support for Unintelligent Design. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />
'Protect the American people'? What, by invading distant Iraq which has no WMD and nothing to do with OBL or his T-ban's destroying of the twin towers? OTOH, many T-ban are given sanctuary in Terroristan. Hint, hint.)

"But we have proven -- and I strongly believe Congress needs to listen to a budget which says no tax increase and a budget, because of fiscal discipline, that can be balanced in five years," he said.

Democrats questioned Bush's upbeat fiscal outlook.

"The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality, and continues to move America in the wrong direction," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat.

"This administration has the worst fiscal record in history and this budget does nothing to change that," Conrad said.

Bush's budget request kicks off weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers will try to produce their own version of a budget blueprint by spring.

Some of Bush's proposed savings would come in politically sensitive health programs. Bush would squeeze $66 billion over five years in savings from Medicare and $12 billion from the Medicaid health program for the poor.

Bush's budget authorizes $717 billion in military spending between now and Sept. 30, 2008, including $235 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spending for diplomatic operations would boost the total to $245 billion.

Bush requested US$481 billion for the regular Pentagon budget, a rise of more than 10 percent. Some of that will pay for a permanent increase in the size of the military.

The White House said it will weigh whether to seek even more war funding. "As activity on the ground evolves, the administration may adjust the requested amount," it said.

Congress already has approved US$427 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget document said.

Democrats, while promising to do everything they can to help U.S. combat troops, have vowed to look closely at Bush's request for military spending.

Brian Riedl, analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said Bush has little to lose politically and much to gain from a confrontation with Democrats over domestic spending.

"The president can draw a line on discretionary spending and refuse to sign a spending bill that is above his stated level," Riedl said. "He can enforce that top-line number through the use of his veto." (Additional reporting by David Lawder)

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-13-2007, 01:08 PM by Husky.)

Iraq is a battlefield of death again. According to live news update (tv), the Shi'ites were the victims here:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/987536
QUOTEBombs rip apart Baghdad, 88 dead
Â Â
Feb 13, 2007

Bombs have laid waste to crowded markets in central Baghdad killing 88 people as Iraqis marked the first anniversary of a Shi'ite shrine bombing that pushed the country to the brink of civil war.

The blasts took place about the time Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in remarks commemorating the bombing of the Samarra mosque, warned that Iraq had no future unless a US- backed offensive against militants in Baghdad succeeded.

In the deadliest attack, simultaneous blasts pulverised Shorja market, Baghdad's oldest, killing 79 people, destroying vendor stalls and setting ablaze an eight-storey warehouse. Police said 165 people were wounded.QUOTEThe Interior Ministry spokesman said three suspects had been arrested.

One old woman cursed Maliki's government. "They've killed all our sons. What have they left for us?" she shouted.QUOTEPrevious attempts to halt bombings and death squad killings in the capital have failed.

Earlier, Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, urged followers not to seek revenge against Sunnis. Sistani said the Samarra bombing, blamed on Sunni militants, had plunged Iraq into a cycle of "blind violence".

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in a wave of sectarian attacks triggered by the destruction of the Samarra mosque, one of the holiest in Shi'ite Islam. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced to flee sectarian cleansing.

"We call on the believers as they mark this sad occasion and express their feelings ... to exercise maximum levels of restraint and not to do or say anything which would harm our Sunni brothers who are innocent for what happened and who do not accept it," Sistani said in a statement.

The reclusive Sistani, who lives in the holy city of Najaf, is regarded as a voice of moderation. Sistani, who heads the Shi'ite religious establishment, or Marjaiya, has repeatedly urged Shi'ites not to get sucked into sectarian conflict.

02-18-2007, 04:35 AM

Two news reports.
1) http://au.news.yahoo.com/070217/23/12gdy.html
QUOTEPrince Harry to serve in Iraq: report
By 7News
Britain's Prince Harry will reportedly be serving in Iraq by the end of the month.
A senior military source told London's Daily Mirror that Prince Harry, 22, a second lieutenant in the Blues and Royals Regiment would probably be joining reconnaissance missions near the Iran border.

"The final details are being sorted, but he is definitely going. Naturally, his royal status has to be taken into account - but he will see action,'' the source was quoted as saying.

The newspaper said Harry is likely to be in charge of a troop of 12 soldiers in light armoured vehicles who will likely spend days or even weeks out in the desert conducting reconnaissance missions.
(News is foolish to make this public beforehand. They should have let him go secretly, and when he's back the army can talk about it/show pictures for proof of his having fought in the same war on terrorism as the British army.)

It added that Defence Secretary Des Browne is expected to announce the news on February 26.

But a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said the newspaper's report was entirely speculative and no final decisions have been made on which units will relieve the 19th Light Brigade currently in Iraq.

She added the next handover of troops is also not expected until around May.

A spokeswoman for Clarence House insists no final decision has been made on whether Prince Charles' second son will be sent to the Middle East and the Royal Family is still waiting to hear.Also, now the royal family will be seen as an active body in the war in Iraq, rather than a passive one that allowed for it to happen.

2. The theatre of the battle of Faithfuls competing for allah's truth expands:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070216/2/12gbq.html
QUOTEBomb explodes in southeast Iran
Police and insurgents have clashed after a bombing in southeastern Iran near the site where an explosion killed 11 members of the elite Revolutionary Guards this week.

"Minutes ago, the sound of a bomb explosion was heard in one of Zahedan's streets," the state-run news agency IRNA said on Friday.

The semiofficial Fars news agency said clashes broke out between Iranian police and armed insurgents after the explosion.

Fars quoted the governor of Zahedan, Hasan Ali Nouri, as saying the blast was a "sound bomb explosion"- a device that creates a loud boom but that usually does not cause casualties.

Nouri said there was gunfire heard but that it was late at night and that police had cordoned off the area.

On Wednesday, a car bomb blew up a bus carrying Revolutionary Guards, killing 11, in Zahedan, capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province, which sits on the border with Pakistan.

A Sunni Muslim militant group called Jundallah, or God's Brigade, which has been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops, has claimed responsibility for the Wednesday bombing.

Iran has accused the United States of backing militants to destabilise the country. Tensions between Tehran and Washington are growing over allegations of Iranian involvement in attacks on US troops in Iraq, and over Iran's nuclear activities.

Fars said Friday's explosion was at a school in Zahedan.

"The insurgents began shooting at people after the explosion. Clashes are continuing between police and the armed insurgents. Police have cordoned off the area," the Fars agency said.

IRNA quoted an unnamed "responsible official" late Friday as saying that one of those arrested on charges of involvement in Wednesday's bombing, identified as Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, has confessed that the attacks were part of alleged US plans to provoke ethnic and religious violence in Iran.

The confessions by Zehi helped police detain an unspecified number of Jundallah members and confiscate weapons and documents from the group in a raid Thursday in Zahedan, IRNA also said.

A majority of Iran's population are Shi'ite Muslims but minority Sunnis live in southeastern Iran.

Friday's blast came just hours after the funeral of the 11 Revolutionary Guardsmen in the capital.

Iran's state-run television showed footage of Zahedan residents marching in the streets with the coffins of the killed Guardsmen. The crowd chanted, "death to hypocrites," in a reference to the insurgents.

The blasts are a sharp flare-up of violence, but the remote southeast corner of Iran, near Pakistan and Afghanistan, has long been plagued by lawlessness. The area is a key crossing point for opium from Afghanistan and often sees clashes between police and drug gangs.

Jundallah, which is believed by some to have links to al-Qaeda, has waged a low-level insurgency in the area and is led by Abdulmalak Rigi, a member of Iran's ethnic Baluchi minority, a community that is Sunni Muslim and also can be found in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Rigi has said his group is fighting for the rights of impoverished Sunnis under Iran's Shi'ite government.

Fars said that Rigi appeared on a station run by an opposition group known as the People's Mujahedeen, which is based in Iraq, minutes before Friday's explosion. The People's Mujahedeen has long sought to overthrow the Iranian government by force.

Iranian officials have often raised concerns that Washington could incite members of Iran's many ethnic and religious minorities against the Shi'ite-led government in Tehran.

Iran has faced several ethnic and religious insurgencies that have carried out occasionally deadly attacks in recent years - though none have amounted to a serious threat to the government.

In December, Jundallah claimed responsibility for kidnapping seven Iranian soldiers in the Zahedan region, threatening to kill them unless group members were freed from Iranian prisons. The seven were released a month later, apparently after negotiations through tribal mediators.

In March 2006, gunmen dressed as security forces killed 21 people on a highway outside Zahedan in an attack authorities blamed on "rebels," though Jundallah was never specifically named.Almost certain this is a backlash for Iranian infiltration of Shi'ite reserve militants into Iraq.
The beginnings of this in Iran means that this might in time even engulf India. Christoislam's gift to the world: unrelenting war, death and misery.

02-18-2007, 07:46 AM

This news is just a gossip. Harry is good for desk job. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

QUOTEAlmost certain this is a backlash for Iranian infiltration of Shi'ite reserve militants into Iraq.
The beginnings of this in Iran means that this might in time even engulf India. Christoislam's gift to the world: unrelenting war, death and misery.
I don't think this is backlash, may be well orchestrated work by Saudi, uncle and Jordanians.
We are seeing some reaction in Pakistan and saw reaction in India when after friday prayer in month of Feb, when Indian Muslims started rioting in Lucknow.

6-7 years more to go.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-21-2007, 08:05 AM by Husky.)

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070220/19/12hnl.html
QUOTEWednesday February 21, 10:28 AM
Blair to announce Iraq troop withdrawal: reports

Photo : AFPÂ
LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday that thousands of his country's troops are to begin withdrawing from Iraq in weeks, according to media reports confirmed by the White House.

According to The Sun and The Times, Blair will say that the first contingent of 1,500 troops will leave the war-torn country and arrive back in Britain in a matter of weeks, and a further 1,500 will follow by the end of the year.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, meanwhile, confirmed that Blair told US President George W. Bush Tuesday of his plans for troop withdrawal.

"We view this as a success," Johndroe said, suggesting the British move was a sign of increasing stabilization in Iraq.Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> (Not sure about this at all, in face of all the insurgency witnessed.)

"They spoke about this this morning on the phone," he said.

Blair is set to appear before parliament on Wednesday for his weekly half-hour question-and-answer session.

According to the press reports, Blair will say that Operation Sinbad -- involving attempts by British and Iraqi troops to secure the southern town of Basra from insurgents -- has been a success, but will also stress that hopes for a withdrawal are conditional on signs that Iraqi forces are able to take over.

A spokesman for Blair's Downing Street office would not confirm or deny the report, but told AFP: "The prime minister said he will update parliament first about these matters, and it's right that he does that."

Britain's apparent decision to pull troops out of Iraq comes soon after Bush announced he would send 21,500 extra combat troops to the country, on top of the 138,000 US soldiers already there.

Britain has about 7,100 troops in Iraq, most of them based around Basra. It is the second-largest foreign contingent of soldiers after that of the United States.

In an interview with the BBC on Sunday, Blair rejected suggestions that he should bear responsibility for the sectarian violence in Iraq, but said Britain and the United States had a duty to bring it to an end.

He said in the interview that Washington was not pressurising London to maintain its troop levels and recognised that the security situation was different in British-run Basra than in Baghdad.

The United Nations said in January that at least 34,452 Iraqis died across the country and another 36,685 were wounded in 2006.

A total of 132 British troops have died since the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 while there have been 3,127 US military fatalities in the same period, according to an AFP count based on Pentagon figures.
Watched a BBC programme on how British troops were doing in Iraq and what the Iraqis thought of their presence. Granted, the sample could well have been biased to make people in Britain feel good about their army's presence there.
The interviewed Iraqi populace, old and young men and women as well as teenage children spoke (with translators or in English) and they all unanimously said similar things: they don't fear the British troops (whom they view as peacekeepers). They fear the Americans, because the Americans act like oppressive hooligans. One kid among a group of Iraqi kids said that the Americans were mean to them (children), whereas the Brits played with them. There was even footage of a Brit soldier playing goodnaturedly with a kid, other soldiers smiling. It was really nice to see that side of Iraq.

I feel sorry for the Iraqi populace who will have fewer British soliders and will have to face more US troops (brainwashed to treat Iraqis as dust, like the Americans who went to Vietnam were brainwashed to treat all Vietnamese including S Vietnamese in an abominable manner).

Better even than British troops would have been Australian or NZ peacekeepers. Everyone likes them a lot, because they are friendly, kind, non-threatening and in countries like Fiji, they are instantly recognised as helpers.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070221/2/12hp2.html

QUOTEWednesday February 21, 12:31 PM
Britain not cutting and running: Nelson
The Howard government denies Britain is cutting and running by deciding to start pulling its troops out of Iraq.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has told US President George W Bush he will begin pulling Britain's 7,100 troops out of Iraq - reportedly within weeks.

Although Mr Blair has yet to confirm details, news reports in Britain say Mr Blair will announce the first contingent of 1,500 troops will leave Iraq in a matter of weeks, and a further 1,500 will follow by the end of the year.

Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson played down the significance of the expected announcement and said it was a sign of progress in southern Iraq, where most British troops are based.

"Under no circumstances should anybody interpret the British having 5,000 troops in Basra, 10 times the Australian number, looking after the same number of provinces, as any kind of cut and run," he told reporters in Perth.

"In fact, what this is evidence of is the fact that in the south of Iraq we are making progress and the British are confident enough to reduce their troop numbers to around 5,000."

The Howard government has refused to set a deadline for the withdrawal of Australia's 1,400 troops in Iraq, many of them also based in southern Iraq.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Britain was reducing, not withdrawing, its troops from Iraq.

"The British government are reducing their troops numbers in Iraq," he told reporters in Perth.

"They will be leaving several thousand troops in Iraq and the important point to make here is the British are not withdrawing from Iraq.

"The British want to have more of a program that is consistent with what our troops are doing in Tallil, that's what they're doing.

"They're not withdrawing."

Earlier, Mr Downer described the British move as good sense.

He said coalition forces were keen to transfer security to the Iraqis as soon as possible.

"It makes good sense," he told ABC Radio.

"What we are all trying to do is increasingly transfer responsibility for the security to the Iraqi security forces."

Now, moving on to Afghanistan, a different view emerges (bit in red):
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070220/23/12hds.html
QUOTETuesday February 20, 06:15 PM
PM says Rudd is full of himself
By 7News
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has launched a personal attack on Prime Minister John Howard, describing him as a risk to Australia's national security.
Mr Rudd is enjoying an extended honeymoon with voters after receiving a big boost in the latest opinion polls.

"Mr Howard is looming as an increasing risk for Australia's long-term national security," Mr Rudd said.

"I think he's getting a bit full of himself," Mr Howard replied.

Today's Newspoll gives Mr Rudd a record 68 per cent approval rating and a 10-point lead over Mr Howard as preferred PM.

But Labor's two-party-preferred lead fell to eight points.

"It just makes me want to work harder for the Australian people," Mr Howard said.

While the debate over troops in Iraq rages on another front is opening.

Afghan Ambassador to Australia, Mohammad Anwar Anwarzai, told 7News he wants more Australian troops for his country.

"If some more elements, some more troops could be sent to Afghanistan for reconstruction purposes they are most welcome," he said.

"We would like to see them until the job is done."Afghan government want Aus troops to stay and what's more, wants some more to be sent. The Afghan government also wants Pak to stay out of Afghan business, accusing Pak of trying to sabotage the emerging stability, development and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

02-21-2007, 09:00 AM

British had very good experience in colonizing countries. They had used old trick in Iraq. Only problem with UK is they canât loot here because others more powerful calling the shot. Look at India, India is still mentally slave of West. Can you believe current Indian PM Moron Singh went all the way to UK to thank them for Rail system and good work but moron forget to tell British that its time they should apologize Indians for countless famines and millions of death and poverty. USA is also a good example of being UK colony.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-21-2007, 02:16 PM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 21 2007, 09:00 AM)British had very good experience in colonizing countries. They had used old trick in Iraq. Only problem with UK is they canât loot here because others more powerful calling the shot. Look at India, India is still mentally slave of West. Can you believe current Indian PM Moron Singh went all the way to UK to thank them for Rail system and good work but moron forget to tell British that its time they should apologize Indians for countless famines and millions of death and poverty. USA is also a good example of being UK colony.That's so true. The BBC propaganda was quite powerful. Though I'm not contesting the sincerity of the particular UK soldiers' behaviour shown in the programme, you're right that the British government's involvement in the whole Iraq and Afghan affair is suspect. And the programme could not have been anything but feel-good propaganda (just that it was very well-made propaganda and so came across as believable).

02-21-2007, 03:48 PM

The Australian PM and Australian Foreign Minister don't seem to have the same idea of what the country is going to do about their troops stationed in Iraq. PM says they're not going to reduce Australian troops, but increase them by 70. FM says they'll reduce them when local Iraqi security increases.
Both news reports are dated the same day too.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070221/2/12hp2.html
QUOTEWednesday February 21, 08:16 PM
Downer admits UK is getting out of Iraq
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer Iraq has admitted Britain is withdrawing some troops from Iraq and says Australia will also downsize its presence once Iraqi security forces are built up.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has told US President George W Bush he will begin pulling Britain's 7,100 troops out of Iraq.

The first 1,500 troops reportedly are expected to leave Iraq in a matter of weeks.

Britain's move is a blow for the federal government, which this week committed Australia to sending a further 70 troops to Iraq and which argues the time is not right to pull out of the strife-torn nation.

Mr Downer initially refused to admit on Wednesday that Britain was withdrawing troops, insisting it was only a reduction of numbers.

He later told Southern Cross Broadcasting: "Well, they are withdrawing some."

The minister said his earlier intransigence was because "an intellectual child in the media" had asked him if he was claiming there was no difference between reduction and withdrawal.

"Reduction ... is to reduce the numbers, not to withdraw them all, to withdraw some but to leave behind, I'll tell you what they are leaving behind, they are leaving behind thousands of troops," Mr Downer said.

"They are reducing their numbers but they are not withdrawing from Iraq."

Mr Downer said Australia would withdraw from Iraq when Iraqi security forces were sufficiently built up and trained to maintain the democratic process and withstand terrorism.

He refused to say when.

"What sort of a fool would say to the terrorists, we'll go on the first of January, so you guys just have a bit of a rest, put your feet up, get a bit more equipment, wait till we have gone and then make whoopee."

Mr Downer said reports were wrong when they speculated 1,500 British troops would be withdrawn but refused to reveal the number.

"Because I am a diplomat and because I am polite, it is not my job to announce Tony Blair's figures before he announces them."

Mr Downer said he would not be saying in the federal election campaign that Australia would be pulling out of Iraq.

He said he did not want his political epitaph to say he stood for nothing, or that he chopped and changed his position just because the winds of politics kept changing.

"I'd rather it had on my political epitaph that I stood up and fought for my country in every possible way I could and I had done everything I could to secure this country."
http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?...ame=358074
QUOTEPM rules out reducing Iraq troop numbers
21st February 2007, 13:49 WST

Prime Minister John Howard has ruled out following Britain's lead and reducing troop numbers in Iraq.

Government ministers have played down the significance of Britain's move to start pulling troops out of Iraq, stressing it's a reduction, not a withdrawal.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has told US President George W Bush he will begin pulling Britain's 7,100 troops out of Iraq - reportedly within weeks.

Although Mr Blair has yet to confirm details, news reports say he will announce the first contingent of 1,500 troops will leave Iraq in a matter of weeks, and a further 1,500 will follow by the end of the year.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says the decision is a sign that conditions have stabilised in southern Iraq and that Britain will still keep 5,000 troops in Basra.

Australia also has about 550 soldiers in southern Iraq, based at Tallil, and Mr Howard says there are no plans to reduce those numbers.

"You've got to maintain critical mass and to do the job, according to our defence advice, you need that," he told reporters in Perth.

"The reason I understand Mr Blair will give is that conditions have stabilised in Basra so that there can be this decision taken.

"They will still have 5,000 and we will 550.

"I don't think it follows from that that there should be a reduction in our 550," Mr Howard said.

Australia will send up to 70 more military trainers to Iraq within coming months, as the US also steps up its military forces in the country to try to stamp out the insurgency.

Mr Howard said the Americans were responsible for the most violent and disparate parts of Iraq, including Baghdad and Anbar province.

Mr Howard said he had known for some time of Britain's pullout plans, and said it made sense for the British to reduce their troop numbers while the Americans increased theirs.

"And anybody who studies Iraq for five minutes knows that patrolling Baghdad is infinitely more challenging than patrolling Basra," he said.

"That is the reason why the Americans are increasing their numbers and the reason, because of the relative improvement in Basra, the British are reducing their numbers."

Mr Howard said the 70 extra trainers would take Australia's troop numbers in southern Iraq to a little over 600 - about a 10th of what the British have.

In all, Australia currently has about 1,450 personnel in the Middle East, including about 900 inside Iraq.

Dr Nelson also said the British pullout was a sign of progress.

"Under no circumstances should anybody interpret the British having 5,000 troops in Basra, 10 times the Australian number, looking after the same number of provinces, as any kind of cut and run," he told reporters in Perth.

"In fact, what this is evidence of is the fact that in the south of Iraq we are making progress and the British are confident enough to reduce their troop numbers to around 5,000."

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer added: "The important point to make here is the British are not withdrawing from Iraq."

But Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said if it was good enough for Mr Blair to withdraw troops, Mr Howard should follow suit.

"If the British now have a withdrawal strategy from Iraq, the Australian people ask themselves a pretty basic question, 'Why doesn't Australia now have a withdrawal strategy from Iraq?'," he told reporters in Sydney.

"My challenge to Mr Howard is what is your policy for winning the war in Iraq and what is your exit strategy for Australian troops.

"We'd like to hear answers to that because so far we haven't got any."

Mr Rudd said Labor's policy on Iraq is simple.

"We believe our combat forces should come home and we should not be sending more troops to Iraq."

Mr Rudd also said he was disappointed Mr Howard did not support his proposal to assist training Iraqi security forces in Oman.

AAP
On a related matter:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070221/2/12hwl.html
QUOTEWednesday February 21, 07:58 PM
Australia 'relies on UK support in Iraq'
The impending withdrawal of British troops from southern Iraq has raised questions about just how the Australian task group will manage without crucial support services provided by Britain.

Australia's Overwatch Battlegroup West, based at Tallil in Dhi Qar province, has no helicopters of its own and relies on the British military for services such as aero-medical evacuation.

Neither does Australia possess a major medical facility in southern Iraq and relies on British facilities at Basra for treatment of casualties.

And, should the Australian Overwatch Battlegroup run into serious strife, it can call on the UK Force Reserve which comprises infantry, artillery and battle tanks.

In such an emergency, Royal Air Force Tornado bombers could provide close air support.

Australia also relies on the British for important services such as intelligence support.

Agreements underpinning the British support for Australian operations were negotiated ahead of the initial Australian deployment back in May 2005.

The Department of Defence said it was confident the Battlegroup would continue to receive the coalition support it required to conduct operations after the draw down of some British elements.

"The ADF (Australian Defence Force) is routinely involved in detailed discussions with the UK, the US and other coalition partners on support arrangements for our deployed personnel," it said in a statement.

"The Overwatch Battlegroup West provides a high level of protection for its personnel, including personal equipment, armoured vehicles and significant reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities.

"While robust and capable independently, the Overwatch Battlegroup West does rely on coalition partners, including the UK, for some enabling support."

Defence said support came from various coalition members and included offensive fire support including artillery and close air support, aero-medical evacuation, some logistic, medical and engineering support, some air movement of personnel plus other help as needed.

"ADF elements deployed in Southern Iraq are part of the Multi-National Division (South-East) which has UK, Australian, Romanian, Danish, Portuguese, Czech and Lithuanian troops and assets under its command," Defence said.

"The Overwatch Battlegroup West operates within this multinational environment and receives support from various coalition members."

Defence spokesman Brigadier Gus Gilmore said there were robust support mechanisms in place but no plan remained unchanged.

"As troops levels change, as contributing nations change, then we need to review how we conduct our operations and how we fulfil our commitments the government has tasked us to achieve," he told reporters.

"Of course, we would review how we conduct our operations but our task hasn't changed."

Australia has 520 troops in southern Iraq with a further 70 military trainers to deploy in May to help build up the capacity of Iraqi security forces.

As well, a fresh Battlegroup drawn from Darwin-based troops, is now training in preparation to rotate into southern Iraq.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to announce plans to withdraw Britain's 7,100 troops from southern Iraq in London on Wednesday night.

Media reports from Britain point to an initial withdrawal of a first contingent of 1,500 troops within weeks and another 1,500 by the end of the year.

Prime Minister John Howard has ruled out any matching withdrawal of Australian troops.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-22-2007, 03:07 AM by Husky.)

Post 153:
QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 21 2007, 09:00 AM)British had very good experience in colonizing countries. They had used old trick in Iraq. ... Look at India, India is still mentally slave of West.[right][snapback]64781[/snapback][/right]This reminds me. Anyone here catch all of the Doha Debates broadcast by BBC World?
Doha Debates: 'debates' held in Doha (Qatar) on whether western-style democracy had its merits and whether the Middle-East would benefit from its introduction. The main speakers/debators were all Middle-Eastern and all affirmed they were muslim at some point during the debates. There was a BBC presenter in the centre asking questions and a speaker who wasn't for western democracy on one side and a woman ('Mona' or something) who was. The audience also contained a bunch of people that were supposed to span the whole spectrum (but not representative of the population proportion-wise, since then a greater number of rigidly islamic people should have been present). Even the Danish cartoons were discussed.

And of the two transmissions I saw, the programme ended with more people clapping for the 'progressive' Mona (without veil, of course) than the opposing speaker. Felt rather doctored and unlikely. Bet most in the Middle-East didn't even watch this English-language programme. And also that if they had watched and understood it, most would have totally disapproved.
There were islamics from the Indian subcontinent, from Africa, and African-Americans too in the audience. Very contrived picture of a 'multi-ethnic islam in the middle-east.'

Mona's position on the Danish cartoons was also interesting. It's been a while back since I watched it, but I think her argument was along the lines of 'As a devout muslim, I too felt insulted and offended. But then I thought, our reaction to this is exactly what led to those cartoons/what those cartoons are portraying.'

Maybe this 'Mona', or whatever her name was, is the beginning of Middle-Eastern Macaulayism. Leastways, couldn't help thinking it when I was watching the saga. (A few decades later, Mona's replacement will be arguing that she is not islamic and presenting psecularism. Although, I can't say that in this context of islamic countries, that would be a bad thing... Actually, fake secularism is the same as christoislamism. So it's only true pluralism that wouldn't be a bad thing.)

ADDED:
Googling on: youtube "Doha Debates"
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=you...ebates%22&meta=

There's videos uploaded of a few of the topics in these 'debates'.

02-21-2007, 08:58 PM

QUOTEMaybe this 'Mona', or whatever her name was, is the beginning of Middle-Eastern Macaulayism
Very much possible. Brits used or pop up Islam during their good days. In India they favored Muslims over Hindu. Majority of Muslims were employed in good positions and always favorite for promotions over Hindus. They created three hells Israel â Palestine and India-East and West Pakistan, Division of Iraq.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-23-2007, 08:04 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 18 2007, 07:46 AM)This news is just a gossip. Harry is good for desk job.Â <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />[right][snapback]64582[/snapback][/right]Apparently, Harry wants it to be more than gossip and has threatened to quit the army otherwise:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070222/19/12ifo.html
QUOTEFriday February 23, 06:18 AM
Britain's Prince Harry to serve in Iraq
Britain's Prince Harry, who is third in line to the throne, is being deployed to Iraq where he will become the first British royal to serve in a war zone for 25 years.

A defence ministry spokesman said on Thursday the red-haired prince would be sent to Iraq with his "A" Squadron of the Blues and Royals regiment "over the next few months" as part of the latest British troop rotation.

But the deployment of the younger son of the late Princess Diana may be a major security headache for military commanders as the prince could be a target for insurgents and a magnet for suicide bombers.

"This is like President Bush sending a son to the frontline. The decision is both dangerous and courageous at the same time," said Evening Standard royal correspondent Robert Jobson.
(Bet the Iraqis would like to see Bush senior's son Dubya in the frontline. He should put himself where his troops are and feel the love...)

"It is a success for Harry but he has become the number one target for insurgents."

Harry could be the first member of the royal family to face combat since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew helicopters in the 1982 Falklands War. Harry's great-grandfather, King George VI, saw action in World War One.

The announcement comes a day after Britain said it would be withdrawing almost a quarter of its 7,100 troops from Iraq in coming months. But British soldiers would remain in the country into 2008 if Iraq wanted them to provide support and training.

Harry's regiment will leave for Iraq in May or June and could serve up to seven months there, Defence Secretary Des Browne said in a statement.

The 22-year-old prince, who as a Second Lieutenant has the rank of Cornet in his regiment, had reportedly threatened to quit the army if not allowed to serve on the frontline.
(Royal tantrum: 'I will quit unless I can go. What do you mean I should go ahead and quit then? I'm going to tell daddy on you. Daddy!'
Also, British aristocracy - not to mention royalty - always got straight into officer positions in their army. It comes with the christian caste system. They never needed to be foot soldier first like the lower classes, who were rarely considered for serious promotion anyway, even if they survived the wars.
In WWI and WWII, British officers' ranks didn't mean they were experienced or adept. It just meant their upper class mummies and daddies paid their way or pulled some strings. They thought they were born 'in the saddle and the uniform' - that leading, strategy and military tactics were in their blood.
Probably high-ranking positions are still held by British Royalty, even if the aristocracy can no longer claim it.)

Harry, the younger son of Charles, the Prince of Wales, has trained to become troop commander and will be leading 12 men in four Scimitar armoured reconnaissance vehicles.

Urging media restraint on Harry's posting, the Defence Ministry said: "Speculation about precisely where Cornet Wales will serve or the exact details of his role is potentially dangerous."
(His red hair will give him away to the Iraqis though.)

Harry, who once sparked international outrage for wearing a Nazi uniform at a costume party, graduated from the elite Sandhurst military academy last year, saying he wanted to fight for his country as a frontline soldier.

Harry has always said he wanted to put his training into practice.

"There is no way I am going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country," he said on his 21st birthday.

"That may sound very patriotic, but it's true," said Harry, dubbed a royal "wild child" for underage drink and drugs antics.
(Patriotic is when one doesn't get one's men in trouble, which they will be if they had to keep an eye on him.)

His elder brother Prince William is also in the Blues and Royals but is most unlikely to serve in a war zone because he is second-in-line to the throne.

The pair won worldwide sympathy as forlorn children walking head bowed behind their mother's coffin at her funeral in 1997.Can't see what is gained by Harry going off to Iraq at all...
He'll only be causing more trouble and concern for his countrymen stationed there. They'll have to expend more energy, since they'll have to look after him (since he's royal and all).
And he's still a kid in many respects - just let him stay home. No harm's done. He has said the needful and the media has noted it.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-23-2007, 05:11 AM by Husky.)

Abandon ship!
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070221/2/12hxk.html
QUOTEFriday February 23, 08:28 AM
Iraqis must police themselves: Denmark
Attacks against coalition forces in southern Iraq are increasing but Iraqis have to start looking after themselves, the head of Denmark's military says.

General Hans Jesper Helso said that while conditions have improved in the Basra area, it was now time for the Iraqi security forces to start taking greater responsibility for their own security.

His comments came after Britain announced this week it would draw down its force in southern Iraq from 7,000 to about 5,000 troops.

Denmark immediately followed, announcing it would withdraw most of its 460-strong force from southern Iraq, leaving 50 troops who would continue to operate helicopters.

But General Helso told ABC Radio there had been an increase in bomb, rocket and small-arms attacks on foreign forces in the Basra area.

"The increase on the attacks on the coalition forces tells me that there are at least some people in the south as well as elsewhere in Iraq who would like to see the coalition gone," he said.

But it was too early to say if the removal of foreign forces would lead to a reduction in violence, he said.
(Iraq will be left fertile for Talibanism or Wahabi extremism - with increased resentment towards the west. And there's already increased violence with Shias and Sunnis killing each other on a near-daily basis.)

"There will always be a risk. When we have left the area with ground troops and when the UK has reduced, it will be wrong to say there will be no IEDs (bombs) and things like that because there will always be an internal fight going on," he said.

"But the Iraqis have to deal with that themselves."

General Helso said Basra was definitely a better place than it was four years ago.

"There are more smiles on the faces of the people. They are more democratic. There are small scale democratic movements going on," he said.

"More schools have been reconstructed. The watering system of the marsh has been improved dramatically. In my opinion very clearly it is a better region than when we arrived."Come on. If people helped to make a mess of Iraq (it's unstable now, so it's worse than it was in when Saddam's dictatorship was holding it together with an iron fist), then they should stick around until they've sorted things out. At the very least, they ought to try something to diffuse Shia-Sunni animosity, if that were possible.
Else there will be festering resentment and 50 years down the track when some western country suffers another major terrorist attack, everyone will be going: why in the world did that happen? As if it came out of the blue.
You have to finish what you start, see it through to the end. Else it could come back and haunt you.
I expected more from Denmark, even if it was merely one of the minor players in the invade-and-'reconstruct'-Iraq.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-23-2007, 08:05 AM by Husky.)

Australian government's view on the war on terror - they're comparing it to the imperative of waging WWII. And they are saying Iraq ought not to be abandoned.
Yet no one is arguing for staying in Iraq for the right reasons: that Iraq should not be abandoned, because it ought to be properly reconstructed. (Whether the reconstruction is feasible is another matter, but no one wants to stick around and try. Where's all that 'western' idealism gone then, to 'bring democracy' to dictatorships like Iraq and theocracies like Afghanistan? Or was that slogan just part of the army recruiting promo?)
http://au.news.yahoo.com/060709/2/zpmy.html
QUOTEFriday February 23, 08:54 AM
Nelson defends terror, Kokoda comparison
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has defended remarks comparing the perils faced by Australia in 1942 with the dangers of the current war on terror.

Dr Nelson said that as in World War II, it was obvious the current generation faced a struggle which posed a real threat to democratic values and freedoms.

"Whilst it is much more difficult to see it than it was in 1942, the kind of struggles that we face in this century are no less of a threat to us, and Iraq is but one of the theatres in which we are fighting this," he told ABC Radio.

In his speech to a defence industry conference on Thursday, Dr Nelson said no Australian of 1942 needed convincing that the nation was in peril, and compared the struggle with that of the Kokoda Track.

"Today, in the year 2007 throughout the world, we face something which is quite different. It is harder to see, but it is a disparate global insurgency which is driven by people who are fanatically not only anti-American but opposed to the kind of liberal that countries like ours represent," he said.

Dr Nelson said the west could hand victory to the terrorists by not lasting the distance in Iraq.

"The most important thing is we have got to have the intestinal or moral courage to make sure that we prevail over the people who are involved in hijacking the name of Islam to build a violent political utopia "
(No one 'hijacked' the name of islam. The j-hadi terrorists just clarified the true meaning of this religion to the world - the meaning it has always had since the beginning of the religion. Until western governments realise this, they will never win the war on terror. They'll just keep fighting it again and again, as muslim moderates in their midst give birth to generations of j-hadis.)

Dr Nelson said the terrorists might not be able to out blast the west, but they could outlast us.

"Whilst it is not as easy to see as it was in arguably the most important year of Australia's history in 1942 that Australia had a problem, we have a problem," he said.

"It is very, very important that we don't simply say after a relatively short space of time: `Look, it is all too hard, we will leave it to somebody else and we will just give it away'.

"That is precisely what the terrorist networks throughout the world want."

ADDED:
It seems Dick Cheney, on visiting Australia, didn't receive a warm reception from some parts of the populace. But Cheney is glad that at least Australia is not abandoning America's enterprise in Iraq, even if the size of the Australian troops stationed there is quite small.

(1) http://au.news.yahoo.com/070212/2/12e56.html
Police form security cordon for Cheney
(2) http://au.news.yahoo.com/070222/23/12il8.html
Protests mark Cheney's first day in Sydney
(3) http://au.news.yahoo.com/070212/2/12e56.html (replaced story (1))
Australia, US respect each other: Cheney

Login




Remember me Lost Password?