The killing fields of Iraq

[rov1200]

Why is the killing still taking place in Bagdad where the US troops are there in great numbers but the violence has virtually ceased in Basra where the British troops pulled out from?

[rov1200]

Meant to supply a link to the latest carnage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7 528117.stm

[Gromit]

Violence has virtually ceased in Basra?

I supposed the The Battle for Basra passed you by then.

There is a Garrison of 4000 British troops stationed at Basra airport. They have not pulled out, they will be there for some time.

Basra is an important mission, but it was always regarded as an easier operation than trying to secure Baghdad.

In essence, there is a civil, tribal and religious war going on in Baghdad. The place had been held together by a draconian tyrant. Unfortunately, when he was gone, there was nothing (least of all an ineffectual occupying army) that could stop all the different sides trying to kill each other.

[rov1200]

The way I have seen it reported is that the British mission is nearly over and they will shortly hand over defence duties to the Iraq army. While we were in Basra it acted as a magnet to the insurgents. The half way house at Basra airport enabled the the Iraqis to make and take their own decisions.

Many believe Baghdad will never be peaceful until the US forces leave and follow the British example.

[Gromit]

I don't know where you have seen it reported, but I would change your news supplier because you seem very ill informed on the subject.

The British handed over control of Basra to the Iraqis at the end of last year. Rather than than being because the job was done, it was because politically there is a timetable to follow. An Iraqi army officer commented at the time "The British legacy in Basra is criminal gangs, a corrupt and infiltrated police force, and borders open to all,"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1217/p06s01-woiq .html

Though the British have handed over control, they are still there, ready to do battle if the Iraqi Government in Basra need their help. The expectation is that the British troops will be needed for many years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/02 /desbrowne.defence

The decision to hand over in Basra was never a British idea. The plan was formulated by the Americans. They have been running this war (which may explain why it has been a shambles).

I am sure Al Quaeda would make the biggest cheer if the US left Iraq premamaturely. The Americans however do not plan to give up their prize so easily. They will remain there for years as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/23/worl d/main4288863.shtml

[jno]

at the moment both the British and the Yanks would like to get out. They can't because it would seem like a defeat, but they would rather have their troops in Afghanistan, where they still hold out hopes of success, if only they had enough manpower on the ground.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1763c44c-56bc-11dd-8 686-000077b07658.html

But the Americans do not have unlimited resources; and we have even fewer

[rov1200]

I agree with some of your points but this article paints a truer picture. We are desparate to get out and would do tomorrow if it were not for an unspoken agreement that would isolate the USA and its surge which is counter intuitive to our own plans. There must have been a deal made in the past between Blair and Bush to stick together in Iraq and no one wants to break that agreement. This will all change when Bush departs in November.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/midd leeast/iraq/2443653/Gordon-Brown-prepares-for- likely-Iraq-withdrawal-by-2010.html

[keyplus90]

If anyone thinks that either in Iraq or Afghanistan there are any chances of winning any sort of war then those people are ill informed and would stay like this. Until American and allied forces would openly admit that we are just bluffing people about any success.

And if someone here thinks that Afghanistan is in better situation than Iraq then they have to think again. I can not provide any links to prove this but in today�s political world not every thing is provable on media. Yes you can get as much propaganda as possible but ground realities are always different. In Afghanistan Taliban are becoming our heroes very soon again. And you would see that. Only then they might not be called Taliban as they do not have any uniform so you can give them any name.

[Lonnie]

I know this has nothing to do with the question, but to follow on from keyplus, both Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable, mainly because they are wars against who we call terrorists, and the only way a conventionable force can win such a battle, is if you have the support of the local populace, which we had once in Iraq, but do not have, and now never will, in both countries.

[keyplus90]

Very good point by Lonnie. With due respect to all good people who are in majority I am sure, western governments have always managed to win the support of a bunch of people in all these countries and that bunch sits behind closed doors and they are called Prime ministers and presidents and people around them. Thinking of an ordinary person is different and unfortunately western govt do not want to look ate the real picture and their favoured people within those countries keep on telling them that every thing is under control only to have some $$$$$ transferred into their personal banks in Swiss banks.

Ordinary people in these countries and many more are turning more and more against west as they take them as invaders. No wonder no one knew Taliban is Pakistan before the attack on Afghanistan and now there is a movement called Pakistani Taliban and their influence is even reaching into the cities where once these people were not even known in tribal areas. What is the reason behind it?

[rov1200]

The troops cannot leave Afghanistan now. The have got the Taliban/Al Qaeda on the run as proven by the latest skirmishes and a call from Bin Laden for a truce. He would say that as the American forces are reaching over the border to Pakistan and getting close to his hideout. Iraq is a diversion and has seriously hampered our desire to oust the terrorists elsewhere.

[keyplus90]

Oh Ok. Lets wait and see.

[Lonnie]

We went into Afghanistan in 2001First, i'm in full support of our troops, in both countries, who, under the greatest of strains and stresses, are doing a great job, the people to blame are the Politicians.

But as to having the opposition on the run, not a chance, our troops win some skirmishes, and we are winning the war.

The oppostion have unlimited supplies of arms and men, not also to dismiss the terrain.

We went into Afghanistan in 2001.

With our superior Armies and equipment, Why haven't we won yet?. 2001-2008.

[rov1200]

The Americans killed many of the Taliban when they used their 500lb bombs in 2001. But after the initial firepower decided to go for Iraq instead. Meanwhile the Taliban regrouped joined forces with Al quaeda and set up training camps in Pakistan. Blowing holes in the sand with their sophisticated weaponry is really pointless so the switch to the terrorists hideouts on the Pakistan border where the USA have killed some prominent figures using remote controlled planes. In answer to this the Taliban are showing their faces more and more along the border and they don't stand a chance.