RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,156377,00.html
Violence is down and the Iraqis are stepping up to the plate, not perfect, but better.
Hey, if it works, it works...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

And in another thread it goes "Fed Layoffs If No War Funds, Gates Says", the question is:
Is this decrease in violence beneficial for US ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Iraq ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Dems ? No, it is not.
That's why they try to ratten these efforts.

Sunliner, got through your recommendation of General Schwartzkopf's book, It doesn't Take a Hero, was very interesting. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
And in another thread it goes "Fed Layoffs If No War Funds, Gates Says", the question is:
Is this decrease in violence beneficial for US ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Iraq ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Dems ? No, it is not.
That's why they try to ratten these efforts.

Sunliner, got through your recommendation of General Schwartzkopf's book, It doesn't Take a Hero, was very interesting. Thanks.

Exactly.

Looks like the presence of foreign troops was just fueling the violence.

quote:

Originally posted by Brest1944:
Looks like the presence of foreign troops was just fueling the violence.

No shizzle.
Amazing isn't it? When the Brits announced they were pulling back from Basra itself because, and I quote Major General Graham Binns, the commander of all British forces in southern Iraq.........

"90% of the violence was directed at us, so it made sense to hand over to the Iraqi security forces." .....

The Brits were thoroughly slagged off on this forum and called all manner of names and being accused of surrendering to the enemy.....

And here we are now, a 90% reduction in violence, and it's being touted as a success story by just about all that participated in the Brit-bashing of a few weeks ago.

There's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks,"

"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.

The majority of attacks now target Iraqi forces, but overall violence now is still a tenth of what it was in May and June.

Seems like they were right all along.

Squizzer,
to be able to hand over to Iraqi forces, this forces first had to reach a certain level. Brits were giving them the chance to reach this level. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it would have never come to this point, if leaders would have followed your opinions given in your posts. Am I right ?

quote:

Originally posted by Squizzer:

quote:

Originally posted by Brest1944:
Looks like the presence of foreign troops was just fueling the violence.

No shizzle.
Amazing isn't it? When the Brits announced they were pulling back from Basra itself because, and I quote Major General Graham Binns, the commander of all British forces in southern Iraq.........

"90% of the violence was directed at us, so it made sense to hand over to the Iraqi security forces." .....

The Brits were thoroughly slagged off on this forum and called all manner of names and being accused of surrendering to the enemy.....

And here we are now, a 90% reduction in violence, and it's being touted as a success story by just about all that participated in the Brit-bashing of a few weeks ago.

There's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks,"

"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.

The majority of attacks now target Iraqi forces, but overall violence now is still a tenth of what it was in May and June.

Seems like they were right all along.

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
Squizzer,
to be able to hand over to Iraqi forces, this forces first had to reach a certain level. Brits were giving them the chance to reach this level. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it would have never come to this point, if leaders would have followed your opinions given in your posts. Am I right ?

No. The British command on the ground in Basra were right, the US naysayers and war-cheerleaders wrong, as you can now see from the results of British troops pulling back from their occupied posts.

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
And in another thread it goes "Fed Layoffs If No War Funds, Gates Says", the question is:
Is this decrease in violence beneficial for US ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Iraq ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Dems ? No, it is not.
That's why they try to ratten these efforts.

Sunliner, got through your recommendation of General Schwartzkopf's book, It doesn't Take a Hero, was very interesting. Thanks.

When a person's eyes are open you can see that about the Dems all the way to Germany!

Wait, the Brits aren't there to be attacked, and no one's attacking them?!? I thought the Iraqis would follow them home...

As far I can see the Brits decided based on the situation, draw-back and hand-over in the RIGHT situation is a wise idea, to hand over responsibility to Iraqis at right time is and was official US policy. Of course this move of Brits was controversial discussed, as no one knew if it would work out. What I oppose is the fearful, thoughtless, scheduled or political motivated drawback, which will happen very likely not in the RIGHT situation.
As far I've remembered your posts, I believe you're supporter of the latter ways of drawback, that's why I've addressed you.
What's still to consider is the following: if police draws back from a highly criminal district, this will of course minimize attacks on police. But does it make life of the people in this district any better ? Only if the local forces are strong enough to keep peace. That's why the right situation is crucial.

quote:

Originally posted by Squizzer:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
Squizzer,
to be able to hand over to Iraqi forces, this forces first had to reach a certain level. Brits were giving them the chance to reach this level. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it would have never come to this point, if leaders would have followed your opinions given in your posts. Am I right ?

No. The British command on the ground in Basra were right, the US naysayers and war-cheerleaders wrong, as you can now see from the results of British troops pulling back from their occupied posts.

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
As far I can see the Brits decided based on the situation, draw-back and hand-over in the RIGHT situation is a wise idea, to hand over responsibility to Iraqis at right time is and was official US policy. Of course this move of Brits was controversial discussed, as no one knew if it would work out. What I oppose is the fearful, thoughtless, scheduled or political motivated drawback, which will happen very likely not in the RIGHT situation.
As far I've remembered your posts, I believe you're supporter of the latter ways of drawback, that's why I've addressed you.
What's still to consider is the following: if police draws back from a highly criminal district, this will of course minimize attacks on police. But does it make life of the people in this district any better ? Only if the local forces are strong enough to keep peace. That's why the right situation is crucial.

quote:

Originally posted by Squizzer:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
Squizzer,
to be able to hand over to Iraqi forces, this forces first had to reach a certain level. Brits were giving them the chance to reach this level. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it would have never come to this point, if leaders would have followed your opinions given in your posts. Am I right ?

No. The British command on the ground in Basra were right, the US naysayers and war-cheerleaders wrong, as you can now see from the results of British troops pulling back from their occupied posts.

The South of Iraq was always going to be different to occupy than the North. The Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence there, even without the ethnic cleansing that has been allowed to take place, has been more about various Shiite tribes fighting for a slice of the oil wealth in that part of the country, than any Sunni-on-Shiite attacks (or vice versa).
The effects of the presence of British troops there, after securing a reasonable amount of security, has been minimal compared to the amount of violence they drew.
This was never Hussein's country in as much as they were ever willing to be controlled by him.

Unfortunately, it seems that many posters here had never taken that into consideration when shouting the odds about British 'cowardice' or berating their ability to read the situation on the ground.

They'll police themselves to a greater extent now then before, and that has to be a good thing if it reduces the losses to my fellow countrymen.

Well now, the Brits have proven two very important points here, the first being that an occupier will be the catalyst for attacks and leaving cuts those attacks significantly. Second, that disengagement is possible without all hell breaking loose.

Victory achieved! Bring 'em home.

not so easy there boys. First of all only 171 KIA in 4 years...compared to over 3,000 for the US. How much violence really existed in Basra in the first place? Now that sadr controls Basra, Iranian influence has a place to flourish. How about even a logistical base of operations for the Iranian quds force? Easier flow of EFPs and other advanced weaponry to the heart of Iraq where the real war is going on.
Come on now...just because its good for you brits dosent mean its good for the coalition. You might have saved a few british lives, but how many iraqi and american lives have u put in jeopardy in this war on terror? The fight aint over yet hoss.

yea good news indeed...

quote:

Originally posted by 10994035:
not so easy there boys. ................................... How about even a logistical base of operations for the Iranian quds force? ................
Come on now...just because its good for you brits dosent mean its good for the coalition. You might have saved a few british lives, but how many iraqi and american lives have u put in jeopardy in this war on terror? The fight aint over yet hoss.

so the solution would be to send Americans in there to replace the Brits......... and lose more American lives. Stats will say "violence went up", and the majority of it will be Insurgent-on-"occupying force" violence, and when we get in a few licks, and kill 50 insurgents for every 10 of ours, the mantra will be that "we are winning the war on terror over there so we don't have them coming over here".

I kinda like it the way the Brits left it now (read topic title over again, then over again)

we (the US forces) should take a hint.

and Outlaws, you just keep readin' and replyin'and readin' and replyin' and readin' and replyin' and if you get REALLY busy, skip step one, like you did here. At this rate you'll hit 25,000 posts by next week............

quote:

Originally posted by rd350:

quote:

Originally posted by 10994035:
not so easy there boys. ................................... How about even a logistical base of operations for the Iranian quds force? ................
Come on now...just because its good for you brits dosent mean its good for the coalition. You might have saved a few british lives, but how many iraqi and american lives have u put in jeopardy in this war on terror? The fight aint over yet hoss.

so the solution would be to send Americans in there to replace the Brits......... and lose more American lives. Stats will say "violence went up", and the majority of it will be Insurgent-on-"occupying force" violence, and when we get in a few licks, and kill 50 insurgents for every 10 of ours, the mantra will be that "we are winning the war on terror over there so we don't have them coming over here".

I kinda like it the way the Brits left it now (read topic title over again, then over again)

we (the US forces) should take a hint.

and Outlaws, you just keep readin' and replyin'and readin' and replyin' and readin' and replyin' and if you get REALLY busy, skip step one, like you did here. At this rate you'll hit 25,000 posts by next week............

Al Qadea does not operate in Basra.....our number 1 enemy is al Qadea in Iraq. You want us to leave them alone and hope they forget about us? I bet u were one of those kids that got picked on at school and though that by giving the bully your lunch money he would leave u alone. You made that mistake then and u wanna make it again. Only difference is this bully dosent threaten us with a beat down.he threatns us with death...and not just you, but your family too. You go head a be a female organ like your democrat friends in congress....leave the real business to us big boys.

quote:

Originally posted by 10994035:

quote:

Originally posted by rd350:

quote:

Originally posted by 10994035:
not so easy there boys. ................................... How about even a logistical base of operations for the Iranian quds force? ................
Come on now...just because its good for you brits dosent mean its good for the coalition. You might have saved a few british lives, but how many iraqi and american lives have u put in jeopardy in this war on terror? The fight aint over yet hoss.

so the solution would be to send Americans in there to replace the Brits......... and lose more American lives. Stats will say "violence went up", and the majority of it will be Insurgent-on-"occupying force" violence, and when we get in a few licks, and kill 50 insurgents for every 10 of ours, the mantra will be that "we are winning the war on terror over there so we don't have them coming over here".

I kinda like it the way the Brits left it now (read topic title over again, then over again)

we (the US forces) should take a hint.

and Outlaws, you just keep readin' and replyin'and readin' and replyin' and readin' and replyin' and if you get REALLY busy, skip step one, like you did here. At this rate you'll hit 25,000 posts by next week............

Al Qadea does not operate in Basra.....our number 1 enemy is al Qadea in Iraq. You want us to leave them alone and hope they forget about us? I bet u were one of those kids that got picked on at school and though that by giving the bully your lunch money he would leave u alone. You made that mistake then and u wanna make it again. Only difference is this bully dosent threaten us with a beat down.he threatns us with death...and not just you, but your family too. You go head a be a female organ like your democrat friends in congress....leave the real business to us big boys.

Oh stop being so scared and read the title of the thread again.
The policy used by British troops in the South of Iraq has reduced violence there by a staggering 90%.
Seems to me that 'Al Queda in Iraq' is not quite the scale of threat you seem to think it is. Most attacks on the coalition have been from Sunni's, then Shiites, then, waaaaaay down there being responsible for something like 5% or so, Al Q in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
And in another thread it goes "Fed Layoffs If No War Funds, Gates Says", the question is:
Is this decrease in violence beneficial for US ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Iraq ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Dems ? No, it is not.
That's why they try to ratten these efforts.

Sunliner, got through your recommendation of General Schwartzkopf's book, It doesn't Take a Hero, was very interesting. Thanks.

Glad you liked it, it sure opened my eyes as to how he felt about 'Nam vets and the prosecution of the first Gulf War. Wish he was still around, in some ways...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Yes, can understand you.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
And in another thread it goes "Fed Layoffs If No War Funds, Gates Says", the question is:
Is this decrease in violence beneficial for US ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Iraq ? Yes, it is.
Is it beneficial for Dems ? No, it is not.
That's why they try to ratten these efforts.

Sunliner, got through your recommendation of General Schwartzkopf's book, It doesn't Take a Hero, was very interesting. Thanks.

Glad you liked it, it sure opened my eyes as to how he felt about 'Nam vets and the prosecution of the first Gulf War. Wish he was still around, in some ways...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Well done to our British allies. Circumstances were far different down south than in the central area of Iraq so comparing is apples and oranges. What this does indicate is that if you stabilize an area and give the local military/police time to rebuild, retrain and re-equip, they are capable of stepping in and taking over. With the drawdown from the surge starting now, it will be interesting to see if we can make the formula work in other areas.
Squizzer, I recall there was some knocking of the British policy when they first withdrew, but I also recall many posters, myself included voicing our opinion that they were following the official long term strategy of turning responsibility over to Iraqi forces as soon as they were ready to take the reigns.