The UK Independent reports that the British military command wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve “nothing more” in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.
Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province – the last of the four held by the British – “will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground”. He added: “Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October].”
Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, “We’ve done what we can in the south [of Iraq]”. Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as “nightly suicide missions” – by the end of August.
I have a bad feeling that the Brit’s experience in the south of Iraq is a precursor for an even more dangerous and humiliating scenario for the American troops to their north.
And all faithfully recorded on TV and youtube. This risks being much worse than Vietnam in terms of international PR. And the longer we wait, the worse it will be. Yet it may in fact be better if this trauma is not managed by the current team. So it seems to be case of choose your poison.
The US forces had the benefit of three years to draw down their forces and withdraw all but the most mobile under a relatively benign environment. Further, most of the US forces were close to the seacoast, making it much easier to undertake a seaborne withdrawal of the heavy equipment involved.
Our current situation in Iraq couldn’t differ more from the situation in Vietnam in which we found ourselves in 1975. We will be conducting a fighting withdrawal up a dangerous logistics line toward an exit point which will likely be contested as well, all being done under a very short time frame. Hopefully, our policy makers would concentrate on making sure that the troops get out primarily and concern themselves with the equipment only secondarily. Given this administration’s focus on money and the impact leaving several division’s worth of TO&E in the sands of Iraq would have on the deficit, I’m not sure that Bush and the posse will decide to preserve the fighting force before saving the gear.
Perception Management is the key.
Bad stuff is going to happen in Iraq. Really bad stuff. That is not what matters though. What really matters is what the American Public perceives to be the big threat. We need a really big distraction that will keep the news full of something else. Let’s get the PR shop churning out scary stuff about Iran and maybe sink an aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast. Maybe also an attack on US soil that we can blame on Iran’s true rulers – al Qaeda. Yeah, that’s it. Americans are too stupid to notice anyway. And with Peak Oil upon us, we can’t leave Iraq and tell the truth about why we went there in the first place. They’ll get it right in the history books and thank us later. Father really does know best Heh heh.
A distraction is what we need. Right away. How ’bout right after Labor Day? The unruly, disrespectful commoners that insist upon calling themselves the American Public will thank us for tapping their phones and tracking their every movement once we get attacked by those who we can’t seem to keep track of. Let’s schedule another scary videotaped press release from bin Laden. That will sure scare the sheep. And regardless of what he says in this one, tell all the Patriots not to listen to or watch it because it might contain subliminable [sic] “coded messages” and turn everyone who watches it into Jihadi Islamofascistic Terrorists – like the Democrats.
And you know what… it might just work. Move along people. Nothing to see here.
“Noble Resolve”
And in case you are not familiar with my perception management link
Strategic Communications Laboratories is another good keyword
These “drills” up my Machiavellian index as they come just after many neo-cons have called for, lusted after and “warned” of another impending 911 event.
Sounds like a good horror show, but doesn’t make sense to me for three reasons: (1)it makes the pull-out that much harder due to massive Shi’a hostility. (2) this time western economies would represent the main collateral damage ($150 oil at least) (3) it would make the selling of the pull-out politically harder, not easier. How can you draw down the troops while waging a new war.
No I think war with Iran would have to be the real thing with draft and, as Tony Soprano would say, “all that that entrails.” Iran is too big for diversions.
Addendum: actually a properly-sized country for a diversion is right in the neighborhood. It’s Lebanon: population 3.5 million, sufficiently lilliputian even for cowards like Cheney. Using the battle group bombast to intervene and “save” Lebanon, and perhaps fuck up Syria a little, all under cover of UNRS 1701, get perhaps even Nasrallah’s scalp, now that’s a scenario that would make more sense as a diversion: only wogs get to die and the flow of oil doesn’t get disrupted. Who knows it might even cheer up Olmert. OK enough cynicism for tonight…
lieberman things the ‘road to victory’ ©, goes thru damascus.
in another absurd commentary in the wsj today:
BushCo™’s frontman in the ME war prom dept….
dump the chump!
lTMF’sA
How long can three(3) battle groups be kept in one location?
I believe the three battle groups (Nimitz, Eisenhower, Stennis) in the Gulf are all nuclear powered. The US Nave developed at-sea reprovisioning during WW2 and perfected it into a high art during the Cold War. They can keep a battle group deployed as long as the equipment can hold up. It’s mostly the destroyers and cruisers which would need to be replaced as their powerplants (they all use gas turbines these days) come up on the expected end of their service lifes, but the Navy could rotate them while the carriers remain on station for an extended period.
So the limiting factors for the carriers would be equipment breakdowns, and crew morale?