General Sir Michael Rose on Iraq

[Heibges]

Very interesting. I believe he said the same thing several months ago.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6618075.stm


Insurgents in Iraq are right to try to force US troops out of the country, a former British army commander has said.

Iraqi insurgents would not give in, he said. "I don't excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting."

Sir Michael has written a book drawing similarities between the tactics of insurgents and George Washington's men in America's War of Independence.
He told Newsnight: "As Lord Chatham said, when he was speaking on the British presence in North America, he said 'if I was an American, as I am an Englishman, as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms'.

"The Iraqi insurgents feel exactly the same way."

"It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved."

"The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened.
"The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq."

[kurtz]

Might have a dig at the journalese here. "says they are right..."

Where? he doesn't say that he says he can understand them, there is a difference.

Just picking:)

[Tchocky]

oh my

*waits*

[The Avon Lady]

Packing the kids off to school. Then doing a big shop. Then catching up on some serious emails from work.

While I'm away, can anyone else figure out why General Rose is a fool?

CYA.

[robbo180265]

What Genral Rose has said seemed pretty obvious from the start to me. That's why I and 250,000 other people marched in London to try and stop the war before it happened. We invaded their country for no good reason (don't give me the invisible WMD's line - I didn't belive it then, and I don't now). As far as the "insurgents" are concerned, they're fighting a war for their freedom.

The longer we stay as an army of occupation - the more soldiers we recruit for the other side,you'd have to be blind not to see that.

We will have to withdraw with our tails between our legs, it's just a question of when really - sooner the better I say.Iraq has been a unmitigated disaster from day one.

[kurtz]

As far as the "insurgents" are concerned, they're fighting a war for their freedom.



Odd kind of freedom!

[robbo180265]

As far as the "insurgents" are concerned, they're fighting a war for their freedom.



Odd kind of freedom!

Maybe to us that's true, but imagine if you will how you'd feel if your country were invaded by a superpower. Wouldn't you fight to try to preserve your way of life? I think you would , and the terrorist leaders are using this to recruit more and more "insurgents".

I know I'll get a slating on this forum because it's a millitary based forum, but out here in the real world, public opinion is against the war. Sooner or later we will have to leave Iraq, it's just a question of how many of our soldiers are going to have to die in the mean time.And of course how long it takes the warmongers to admit defeat.

[Tchocky]

You fight against an invading army - hero

Someone fights against your army - Atheist/communist/freedom-hater

not my personal belief, but I'd be pissed off if was an Iraqi

[Skybird]

Sir Michael obviously just states what is obvious since months and years. There is nothing foolish in that - foolish it is to think one just needs to carry on endlessly what one has being doing for four years now, and things all of a sudden will become better: that's not just foolish, that is straightout idiotic and off-reality. He also is not the first high-ranking military officer indicating that the war cannot be won, and that the troops are put at risk in a hopeless battle.

I have doubts that even an intellectual vacuum like Bush is stupid enough not to see the truth. What it is about now is trying to keep the war alive until democrats possibly won the presidential election and are likely to withdraw the troops. Then all responsibility for failure can so comfortably be put not onto neocon'S shoulders, but onto democrats shoulders and they can be accused of having lost the Iraq war. What a smear. and if the next president is a Republican again - the war just will be fought on to avoid admittance of bush's total failure. again, what a smear.

[Smaragdadler]

http://groups.google.kg/group/alt.politics.international/msg/3a66f8388a0b7895

[Heibges]

I think the big difference between Iraq and other "insurgencies" is that there are too many different groups, and none really united by common cause.

Some want the "occupiers" out of Iraq.
Some want "Western Influence" out of the Middle East.
Some want their particular faction to dominate Iraq.

The insurgencies in Iraq are more like former Yugoslavia, than those in America, Vietnam or Israel.

You could make a case that the British shouldn't have pulled out of Palestine or America. Both those had far greater geopolitical implications than the US pulling out of Vietnam.

[robbo180265]

I think the big difference between Iraq and other "insurgencies" is that there are too many different groups, and none really united by common cause.

Some want the "occupiers" out of Iraq.
Some want "Western Influence" out of the Middle East.
Some want their particular faction to dominate Iraq.


I think you're right - but they are united by one thing.

They all hate us for what we've done to their country.

Quick quiz.

Who said:
"The actions of the Haganah alone will never be a true victory. If the goal of the war is to break the will of the enemy - and this cannot be attained without destroying his spirit - clearly we cannot be satisfied with solely defensive operations... Such a method of defense, that allows the enemy to attack at will, to reorganize and attack again... and does not intend to remove the enemy's ability to attack a second time - is called passive defense, and ends in downfall and destruction... whoever does not wish to be beaten has no choice by to attack. The fighting side, that does not intend to oppress but to save its liberty and honor, he too has only one way available - the way of attack. Defensiveness by way out offensiveness, in order to deprive the enemy the option of attacking, is called active defense."

and were they the bad guys - or the good?

[tycho102]

"The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened.
"The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq."


I concur.

The boat-loads of refugees won't make it out of the Hormuz, much less into international shipping lanes. Iran will see to that. So all the surrounding nations will take care of any exodus just like Vietnam.

Oil prices won't skyrocket any more than they did, relatively. So, again, just like Vietnam.

And in 20 years time, Iran will be pumping out crude for a nice little profit. Just like Vietnam.

Oh, wait. Will Hillary normalize relations with Iran? Dude, that would make the Vietnam parallelization complete. All we need is for Hillary to go to Iran and it'd be just like Bilbo when he went to Vietnam. Too bad the ayatollah khomeni wouldn't accept a basketball, or it could be just like Madeline when she went to North Korea.



History repeats itself. That would be totally cool.

[Heibges]

"The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened.
"The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq."


I concur.

The boat-loads of refugees won't make it out of the Hormuz, much less into international shipping lanes. Iran will see to that. So all the surrounding nations will take care of any exodus just like Vietnam.

Oil prices won't skyrocket any more than they did, relatively. So, again, just like Vietnam.

And in 20 years time, Iran will be pumping out crude for a nice little profit. Just like Vietnam.

Oh, wait. Will Hillary normalize relations with Iran? Dude, that would make the Vietnam parallelization complete. All we need is for Hillary to go to Iran and it'd be just like Bilbo when he went to Vietnam. Too bad the ayatollah khomeni wouldn't accept a basketball, or it could be just like Madeline when she went to North Korea.



History repeats itself. That would be totally cool.

The Ayatollah only accepted Bibles and Birthday Cakes. :lol: :lol: :lol: