- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, October 19, 2006

The beginning of the end?


As the wheels start to come off the Iraq war adventure and mounting advice is to cut and run from a quagmire is it time to start asking what those 655 000 Iraqi lives were extinguished for?

Blair and Bush isolated over Iraq's direction
United States President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were looking more isolated than ever as the ground shifted further under their strategy of remaining in Iraq "until the job is done".

The President and the Prime Minister were left clinging to the dream of establishing a lasting democracy in Iraq as their advisers urged them to look for a more realistic exit strategy.

The calls came as roadside bombs and enemy fire killed eight soldiers and one Marine in and around Baghdad yesterday, raising to 67 the number of US troops killed in October and American military losses to nearly 2800.

A leaked report by the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former US Secretary of State James Baker, a close friend of the Bush family, paved the way for a large-scale withdrawal of US forces and a dramatic shift of US policy. It suggested that instead of the "stay the course" policy, Bush could extricate the US from Iraq by removing US forces to bases outside Iraq.

In an even more spectacular u-turn, the advisers are believed to suggest that Iran and Syria could be invited to co-operate in the stabilisation of lawless Iraq. That was implicitly rejected by White House spokesman Tony Snow, who said the Administration would not "subcontract" management of the war to outside advisers.

But Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told the BBC that violence in Iraq could end "within months" if Iran and Syria joined efforts to stabilise the country, and two high-profile Republican senators separately called for a change of course.

Last week, Blair was urged to scale down his ambitions for Iraq by by the chief of Britain's armed forces, General Sir Richard Dannatt, who also said the presence of British troops was exacerbating the security situation.

On Tuesday, the Home Secretary, John Reid also broke ranks by saying at a private meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party that foreign policy was contributing to the radicalisation of young Muslims in Britain.

5 Comments:

At 20/10/06 9:58 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You just hate america

 
At 20/10/06 4:17 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

peter0462 - Mum's opinion again?

Do you think Saddam is getting a fair trial? Think before you answer this!

Do you think removing Saddam from power improved things for the Iraqis - if so on what grounds?

Do you think that the invasion of Iraq has had a positive or negative effect on fighting terrorism? Do you think it slowed down or accelerated the move towards a nuclear powered NK? So who is responsible for Kim developing nuclear weapons then? Mum woken up yet?

Do you think computers and cellphones and satellite TV are only consequent to a small fraction of the huge waste of money spent on the military actually going into research, without which they would never have existed? Oh please.

you and other limp wrists

Why not just call a fag a fag, Peter?

- Nobody.

 
At 21/10/06 2:17 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody, you truly are THE MAN

 
At 21/10/06 3:01 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheers Rangi :-)

- Nobody.

 
At 21/10/06 6:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since looking closer at the job the U.S. propaganda machine is doing on Iran and it's leader (thanks to posters on this site), I am beginning to wonder if Saddam was, in fact, as murderous as they made him out to be. One thing we do know is that, under his stewardship, Iraq was the most liberal muslim state in the world. Furthermore, this article from Le Monde Diplomatique, a neutral publication, seems to raise a few questions.
http://mondediplo.com/2003/04/06collateraldamage?var_recherche=Saddam

 

Post a Comment

<< Home