Fresh foul-ups in 'free' Iraq

[Naselus]

Ah, the wonder of it. Not only have we managed to destroy their houses, fire them from their jobs, and kill their families, now the people of Iraq have to cope with British troops shooting their policemen and performing mass jail-breaks.

It's hard to know where to start. Let's go through it in order, shall we?

1. In order to make sure Iraq is able to become a self-governing, self-sufficient nation, we dispatch the SAS to spy on thier police forces. This isn't so bad. It naturally means we have the moral standards of Satan, in a badness competition with Hitler and General Pinochett, taking place in a nudist kindergarten. But still, at least it's not like the rest of the story, in that it's not completely, totally, unbelievably incompetent.

Unless you think survailance work should, for example, be done by MI4's foreign intellingence officials, rather than by goons from the SAS. That would make it pretty dumb.

2. Upon being discovered watching the Iraqi police, our aformentioned SAS goons don't surrender and allow diplomatic process to secure instant and painless release. Instead, the shoot two Iraqi policemen dead, causing total outrage, and THEN proceed to get captured, ensuring that the volitile and occasionally outright hostile people of Basra knows exactly who is responsible for killing two of the people we hired, for doing exactly what they were hired for.

This is possibly the crowning glory of British stupidity. The Crimean war? Forget it. Nazi Appeasment? Practically a good idea. Solidifying our alliance with the US, as it declares was on the worlds most popular religion and starts pushing people into violent extremist ideologies? Ah, wait, yes. OK, it's not the dumbest thing we've ever done, but it's damned close.

3. Having caused massive rioting by killing guys who were doing the jobs we told them to do, we proceed with the final act of genius. The British army surround the police station where the two murderou- PATRIOTIC heroes actual AREN'T, knock down a wall allowing arround 150 known Iraqi Insurgents to escape, shoot at some protesters, and eventually find the Goonies in a nearby house where they were being held to prevent a lynch mob from killing them in the street.

Now, short of distributing Koran toilet roll to every house from a carnival float topped with a burning effigy of Allah, could this really have been handled any worse? Even if the task had been given to George Bush?

[Naselus]

Anyway, rant over. Let's take a look at some of the responses currently being circulated, shall we?

1. There is no crisis between the Iraqi Government and the British over this issue.

Ah. Goodo. Despite the outrage that the people of Iraq clearly feel about this, their government is avoiding making an issue of it. They're actually setting up an enquiry into what happened, with a heavy starting assumption that the British (the guys who shot two policemen) are completely innocent. This is obviously going to ensure that the people of Iraq, already pissed off at the occupying army that's been camping in their country for two years now, will be finally sure their new regime are puppets. Genius once again.

2. The whole "Oops! Just released 150 known terrorists and destroyed one of the few gaols we can keep them in!" thing is described as "a very unfortunate development".

If someone released the entire high-security wing of Strangeways, I would like to hear something a little more comforting than "Oooh, that's unfortunate!". If I stub my toe, it is unfortunate. If, on the other hand, 150 dangerous bomb-and-AK47-weilding maniacs have just been released from jail by some people who were responsible for two policemen being shot, I'd prefer an attempt to, you know, tell me what's going to be done about it. Like the immediate incarciration of the perpetrators. Unfortunately, in this case, the villains of the piece put the current government in power, and so might just get away completely and totally scott-free, and the blame will get heaped on local police. Who were also hired by the crooks in question. This really build faith in the Judicial and political systems in place in Iraq, doesn't it?

3. The soldiers should have been handed over to the coalition immediately.

Despite the fact they'd been driving around with a LAW anti-tank rocket Launcher, two assault rifles and a light machine gun, and had just shot two policemen while resisting arrest. Now, I'd suspect that these people might just be mecenaries, if I was trying to arrest them and had watched them gun down two of my friends. But I'm a suspicious bastard, really.

If I were one of the Iraqi police officers involved, I would have wanted to keep them in jail anyway, rather than hand them over for a slap on the wrist and four weeks in a military prison. These guys have broken most of the laws Iraq actually HAS at the moment, and yet they have a licence to because they're British. Great PR for the other Brit soldiers out there, too.

4. The Coalition is still going in the right direction in Iraq.

The only way I can imagine this not being total utter bullshit with bullshit on top is if the 'right direction' is another way of saying 'We're only here to secure the oil deposits". But I actually reckon it's just bullshit.

5. 150 prisoners did NOT escape from the Jail.

This is also, most likely, bullshit. They knocked down an entire wall. The army attempted a jail break in a hostile environment, and the best way to do that is the one they chose; they broke the jail open. They made no attempt to secure the area afterwards, so I'm amazed they remember who remained in the prison so much more clearly than the eye witnesses.

6. "Now we are in the situation where presumably revenge will be sought by relatives of the dead Iraqis - and our allies in the police, I think there has been a complete breakdown of trust and it's going to be very difficult for British troops to call on them."

This is probably true. It's from the BBC's Paul Wood, and not the MOD or the Iraqi (puppet) government. I included it because Paul's actually on the ground in Basra, and actually talked to the people there. None of these other quotes are from people who've done that. And he's got no reason to lie about what's blatantly true, either.

This is a massive, massive f**k-up, on the kind of scale you normally only see in a brothel at happy hour.

[HStorm]

Whether the operation went well or not - and it hardly needs pointing out that it didn't - I still just cannot believe the phenomenal degree of political stupidity required by the army and the British Government to have sanctioned such a mission in the first place.

I know the army prides itself on looking after its own, but pleeeeeeeeeease, what the hell were they thinking?!? By this one brainless, gung-ho attack, they have successfully undermined what credibility the occupying forces were able to maintain over the last two years.

Now it's not as if they were fooling many people about the true nature of the invasion anyway, but at least they could get grudging co-operation from a large proportion of the Iraqi populace as long as they didn't behave like blatant hypocrites. The invasion was, at least partially, wrong and it caused great humiliation and unease for many people in Iraq, but at least as long as the occupiers didn't break their own rules it was easy enough for people to concentrate on the positive side of being conquered.

But this attack has in one fell swoop contradicted everything that Bush and Blair keep telling us the War In Iraq stood for. Rule of law over-ridden by military force. Due process of law and fair trial of the accused set aside to make way for the principle of soldiers being above the rules all others are subject to. Endangering law and order for thousands by allowing the escape of hundreds of criminals, all in the name of freeing two men who might themselves have been guilty of espionage and murder, and were awaiting trial. Total disregard for the wishes of an elected government, even its right to be consulted on policy matters within its own jurisdiction, in preference of armed rule. Result: murder, sabotage, espionage and bullying militarism.

Is this what all those people fought and suffered for since early 2003? Maybe it was caused by stupidity more than evil this time, but in the end, how is this significantly better than Saddam's methods?

By doing this, the British army have made it impossible for people even to pretend to themselves that the foreign presence in Iraq is anything other than an Imperialist occupation. And what for? To prevent two men from standing a trial that we have no reason to believe would have been loaded or unfair. This is the sort of casual corruption that the British Empire did out of habit.

[modeski]

While I don't have the time to be as erudite as Nas or Storm on this issue, I'd still like to weigh in with my 2p worth.

My first reaction on hearing this news was one of incredulity. We broke two people out of jail. What? How can anyone even try to justify this? If they broke the law, they broke the law. Isnt' that meant to be what handing control back over to the Iraqis was meant to be about?

You know, letting them set up their own police force, establish their own elected government...and leave them free to run their country?

I jest of course. The powers that be pay lip service to this, but anyone with a brain capacity any larger than that of the typical undereducated squaddie knows that we are there for oil and to create a power base in the middle east. Johnny towel-head can go hang if he thinks he's going to lock up a couple of our boys for merely breaking the law!

I'm glad there's outrage, rioting. Damn right. As has been said, if the same thing was to happen here, the entire nation would be in uproar. This is yet another in a long line of outrageous acts committed in our name, and it has to stop.

[ringmasterrob]

I found this whole incident shocking and shameful really, a real head in hands moment. We've gone and send out a totally contradictory message to the Iraqi people and revealed our true interests within Iraq. That is that we're in it for our own selfish ends. What annoyed me even more is the way it was reported in certain British press, making out the men who were 'liberated' from their 'Iraqi captors' out to be some sort of super spies who were wrongfully imprisoned from the start. The ‘rescue’ operation was described as a masterstroke of military planning and the 150 freed prisoners 'rumour' was swiftly denied in favour of sycophantic praise of the military action. Utterly sickening to be honest, makes a joke of the whole idea of giving power back to the Iraqi people if we’re going to just abuse it for our own ends!

[Naselus]

Ah. The ministry of Tru - Defence, sorry, has provided us with the explaination for their actions.

Basra's police force are, in fact, all terrorists.

Now, as a somewhat cynical chap, I'm forced to notice there's only two possible conclusions from this, and only one of them can be correct. Unfortunately, they're both quite bad.

1. The MOD is lying. I've listed this one first and not because I'm trying to use the power of suggestion to sway you toward a baised conclusion, or even because it's probably the truth. I know that some of my posts make me seem like the kind of throthing hyper-liberal demon the American Government hates and fears, with crazed ideas like legalization and taxation of all consentual crimes to provide massive funding for police to hunt REAL criminals with and health care for poor people, and frankly I don't much mind. I am indeed George Bush's worst possible nightmare. But the reason I listed this first is because, believe it or not, I think it's actually a better for Britain and the MOD's image if they are just making this up. Which brings us to...

2. The British army has been flouncing around Basra with gay abandon, handing out guns, training and police uniform to absolutely ANYONE WHO WANTS THE COCKING THINGS. With no apparent vetting procedure. If you're a terrorist, but have no weapons to do anything about it, don't worry! The British will arm you, train you, and put you in a position of power. With access to all sorts of priviledged information. And then they'll put you in charge of the prison where you're likely to be sent if they catch you!

So, either the MOD is stupid and lies about it, or it's totally, painfully, unbelievably, sickeningly stupid and isn't even bright enough to cover it up. Bravo, MOD, Bravo

[HStorm]

According to the MOD's depiction, the two accused were handed over by the Basra police to the local Shia Militia, and this was seen as a 'threat' to their lives. Execution without trial, supposedly.

The reasons they give for this seem to boilt down to "We can't trust the Iraqi authorities, they're terrorists like all the other Arabs." I also note in despair when reading British news reports of what happened, that the Shia Militia are surreptitiously being rebranded "Militants" rather than "Militiamen". Technically speaking, the description is accurate, as Militia, by definition, must indulge in militant behaviour, but the term is of course inextricably tied to the ideas of terrorism and illegal violence, allowing readers to get the wrong impression that the Shia Militia are a terror force supported by rogue elements in the Basra police. This Militia is not actually illegal.

[HStorm]

If the right-wingers of the USA still cling to their willful doubts that the prime motivation behind the invasion of Iraq was oil, let them be dispelled in a single stroke.

english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2F3C5550-D829-459A-AD59-845A3ECA829C.htm

So much for reserving the oil for making the people of Iraq richer.

[HStorm]

George Bush insisted yesterday that the Coalition is 'winning in Iraq'. It was clearly another meaningless platitude to try and put a brave face on things. It has also become clear that the US military has been paying state television in Iraq to broadcast pro-Western propaganda. There are fresh allegations about Western companies abusing their control over the country's oil supply, digging in the Kurdish north and causing outrage among Sunni groups. The civil war continues to rage as badly as ever with atrocities a completely commonplace fact of daily life, and the prime target of them appears to be the occupying troops.

Now in general I've been in favour up till now of keeping the troops there until we've managed to stabilise the country enough to hand it over to a home government. But all the recent political screw-ups, the increasingly shameless and open abuse of the oil reserves, and the resultant hostility and resentment getting out of hand, I no longer believe that stability can be achieved there by Western forces; they were always drawing a lot of extremist hostility, but now the opposition is clearly spreading far and wide, and it seems the troops are now the greatest obstacle, not stepping stone, to stable peace.

So let's reassess what we were saying on the 'Iraq Handover' thread on the Polls board 18 months ago. Is it now time to say that enough is enough, and that we should establish a strict timetable for withdrawal?

[Naselus]

Utterly impossible. The situation is unwinnable; keep the troops there and you merely anger the people more, pull them out and the entire Middle East region will destablize.

Removing Coalition troops would be an admition of defeat. The Saudi monarchy would probably topple within five years, as the threat of overwhelming US might would count as nothing following their failure in Iraq. With the Saudi's gone, the remaining despots would all fall within 20 more years. Almost all would be replaced with equally vile theocracies, none of whom would be willing to sell oil to the Great Satan, yet between them controlling maybe 80% of the world's supply. And that could destroy the world's economy completely.

So, who thinks the invasion of Iraq was the most stupid moment in world history? Apart from possibly a couple of Roman soldiers thinking "Hey, let's nail that carpenter to a bit of wood! Where's the harm?"

[HStorm]

Well this is the point, the situation is unwinnable, so why should we carry on throwing away so many lives for it? The civil war is going to carry on there whether our troops stay, and frankly, no matter how good a job they did in the early months after the Ba'athists fell, they're only making things worse now.

I know it's unlikely that BnB will dare to give the order to withdraw, but the question I'm asking is, should they? And is there maybe a way that the troops can be replaced by someone the Iraqi people would find less objectionable?

[Naselus]

Well, no, they shouldn't. The danger of middle east meltdown would be too great. They simply shouldn't have ever been there, and now there's no way out of the problem.

It was common knowledge in Washington that removing Saddam Hussain would completely destablize the middle east, and that's why he was left in power after the first Gulf War. That's why daddy Bush, and later Clinton, left him in power. He kept the status quo, and that's vital in the region. And now that's been utterly ruined by BnB, and there is NO way out of the situation. Bummer, eh?

[HStorm]

Here's yet another gem, so hilarious my ribs are almost bruised from my laughter; although I must give the Iraqi Government credit for at least having the balls to own up.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of the hopelessly misnamed 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' terror group, was actually captured by Iraqi police last year, and then released without charge because they didn't recognise him.

Full story here; -

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4534564.stm