British troops 'may have to stay 10 years to keep order'

20 April 2004


British troops might have to stay in Iraq for up to 10 years to help local forces maintain security after the proposed hand-over of power to the Iraqi government on 30 June, the commanding officer of UK forces in Basra has warned.

Brigadier Nick Carter said it could take British troops between two and 10 years to restore long-term stability, under the authority of an Iraqi police force acceptable to all rival factions within the country.

"We are in cloud-cuckoo land if we think we are going to create overnight a police force that is accountable to the population," the officer told The Scotsman newspaper. "We have to build solid foundations now for the longer term."

Yesterday, British troops were attacked by supporters of the Shia cleric Muqtadr Sadr in the town of Amarrah. Brigadier Carter warned that increased violence in south Iraq from militia loyal to the rebel cleric could mushroom into a major revolt in Iraq's Shia community if the Allies tried to seize the leader by force.

He added: "While they [the wider Shia community] regard Sadr as an upstart, they have some sympathy with his grievances," he added. "The Basra Shia will see an attack on Sadr as an attack on the Shia overall. He is becoming a bit of a talisman figure."


why do other countries have to suffer for the faults that america has made???

this is really not fair i think...

EDIT: LINK- news.independent.co.uk...



[Edited on 20-4-2004 by they see ALL]

It would be nice to put a link to the original story.


news.independent.co.uk...

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
It would be nice to put a link to the original story.

news.independent.co.uk...

sry i forgot...

my mistake...

I think it has been made fairly clear by the US that this would end up being a 5 to 10 year mission. Did anyone actually think that we would go in, stay there just a year or two and leave it screwed up?

It took at least 10 years on average to get Japan and Germany put back together after WWII. This will take a while and that's not counting anything else that may happen in the meantime.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
I think it has been made fairly clear by the US that this would end up being a 5 to 10 year mission. Did anyone actually think that we would go in, stay there just a year or two and leave it screwed up?

It took at least 10 years on average to get Japan and Germany put back together after WWII. This will take a while and that's not counting anything else that may happen in the meantime.

so is this america's policy???

to blow up countries then rebuild them to fit their liking???

whats going on with them???

exactly - this was expected. I would imagine they will be there longer then 10 years - probably around 15.

By the way - British troops are there because of the English government - NOT THE AMERICANS. So don't go blaming everything on the US.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
exactly - this was expected. I would imagine they will be there longer then 10 years - probably around 15.

By the way - British troops are there because of the English government - NOT THE AMERICANS. So don't go blaming everything on the US.

and who needed help and talked the brits into going into iraq???

AMERICA!!!

in a years time we'll end up having a bring back saddam campaign to stop the rebels. I can see it now, US/UK troops placing the iraqi flag in saddam palace and building saddam a new statue.

Originally posted by they see ALL
and who needed help and talked the brits into going into iraq???

AMERICA!!!

Hate to tell you this but:
1. We did not need your help, but it was appreciated
2. We did not convince you to go with us into Iraq. We shared intelligence and made the same determination.

Don't blame the US for the UK's involvement. Blame your own government.

Let's not forget that we are also allies who have pledged to help each other out whenever possible.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
exactly - this was expected. I would imagine they will be there longer then 10 years - probably around 15.

By the way - British troops are there because of the English government - NOT THE AMERICANS. So don't go blaming everything on the US.

Well Bush and Blair are bossom buddies Blair is Bush's shadow i mean whatever Bush does blair does.

[Edited on 20-4-2004 by drunk]

Originally posted by drunk
Well Bush and Blair are bossom buddies Blair is Bush's shadow i mean whatever Bush does blair does.

it some ways yes, but Blair does not back Israel and feels Israel is a problem in the middle east. Whereas, Mr.Bush loves Israel so much that he'll back them no matter what

I am so sick of this British-American "special relationship". It's really treason under a different name. I remember being furious and writing letters and all when they named one of our recently-launched cruisers the "Winston S. Churchill" as if there weren't enough American heroes left to be honored!! Our Eastern seaboard is in bed with the Crown and has been since even before Woodrow Wilson. What we need is another revolution to set us free from the Brits and their psychophantic elitists here.

Everytime the Brits sniffle we catch a cold. Enough is enough...time to put America First for real!!

P.S. The Brits should stay there for as long as they like. At least they've had centuries of "peacekeeping" experience. We Americans, used to be a Republic however, but we're being drawn kicking and screaming into England's imperialistic mold.

Infinite> youare right thats the only problem between the 2 leaders


mepatriot> But the Americans knew what they were getting into, American troops have no street warfare training i'm afraid to say. The Brits have the experince from Northern Ireland.

Originally posted by drunk
mepatriot> But the Americans knew what they were getting into, American troops have no street warfare training i'm afraid to say. The Brits have the experince from Northern Ireland.

That is not true. Where did you hear that from???

We train for urban combat all of the time. We are one of the few armies in the world with MOUT training.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Hate to tell you this but:
1. We did not need your help, but it was appreciated
2. We did not convince you to go with us into Iraq. We shared intelligence and made the same determination.

Don't blame the US for the UK's involvement. Blame your own government.

Let's not forget that we are also allies who have pledged to help each other out whenever possible.

Thank You! It irritates me when I hear the words "America's War on Terrorism" It is not America's. It is the World's.

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to fight with us against the enemies, fine. We might assume you want to fight against us and some future time.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
That is not true. Where did you hear that from???

We train for urban combat all of the time. We are one of the few armies in the world with MOUT training.

the army may train for urban combat, but their skills are below par

Originally posted by infinite
the army may train for urban combat, but their skills are below par

Compared to what/whom?

If are skills are below par, then why do other countries come to the US to train and not to the UK?

You'll find most countries train aboard for jungle,urban,desert warfare. UK is a small land area and do you think you really can train tanks in the UK?? America has a bigger land mass, doesn't mean your army is good.

[Edited on 20-4-2004 by infinite]

Originally posted by drunk
But the Americans knew what they were getting into, American troops have no street warfare training i'm afraid to say. The Brits have the experince from Northern Ireland.

Actually, no we didn't. Sadly, most Americans are ignorant of what their gov't does behind their backs, and the fact that they lie about everything else doesn't help. No one here seems to know or care about anything, until it affects them, personally. Until that happens, all you see is apathy. It's the United States of Apathy. The only time the citizens seem to show genuine concern about important issues, is when it's too late. I think most have accepted that they're not really in control of anything at all.

Originally posted by mepatriot
I am so sick of this British-American "special relationship". It's really treason under a different name. I remember being furious and writing letters and all when they named one of our recently-launched cruisers the "Winston S. Churchill" as if there weren't enough American heroes left to be honored!! Our Eastern seaboard is in bed with the Crown and has been since even before Woodrow Wilson. What we need is another revolution to set us free from the Brits and their psychophantic elitists here.

Everytime the Brits sniffle we catch a cold. Enough is enough...time to put America First for real!!

P.S. The Brits should stay there for as long as they like. At least they've had centuries of "peacekeeping" experience. We Americans, used to be a Republic however, but we're being drawn kicking and screaming into England's imperialistic mold.

WTF!!!!


The US and UK are ideal partners. We have the centuries of warfare knowledge and experience. Our special forces, for example, are the best trained in the world. The US has the muscle.

But the Americans knew what they were getting into, American troops have no street warfare training i'm afraid to say. The Brits have the experince from Northern Ireland.

I agree - what was the last urban war the US went into without the UK?