The British have basically been defeated in the South

NRO ^ | 8/10/07 | Victor Davis Hanson

[uksupport1]

I deal in facts mate. Would you kindly answer my questions?

[No Truce With Kings]

Would a squadron of these British surveillance aircraft be a bunch of Nimrods? Or would that be the staff that set up the strategy in Southern Iraq?

[investigateworld]

Thanks for the reminders.

[bluetone006]

Excellent post.

[uksupport1]

Well? Don’t tell me you’re running away from the facts again mate?

[bluetone006]

No worries? I appreciate your optimism but I think you’re on crack amigo. :-)

[Axlrose]

British failure in the south affects the whole country and has caused the enemy to become much bolder overall. Many of the attacks in the north are carried out by terrorists who are flush with victory from Basra.

Don’t forget, it was British insistance in wasting valuable time in the UN talking shop pandering to the French that gave Saddam and Al-Queda extra time to prepare the resistance in the first place.

[theBuckwheat]

I first heard 300 million and later 30 million. The later figure sounded more reasonable, which is why I used it. If anyone has a citation on a different figure, please post it. The real number is large, at least in the tens of millions.

My point was more to what expansionist governments do when they end up with a surplus of restless young men, and less to the exact size of this resource.

Coincidentally, the sixth angel of the so-called Trumpet Plagues in Revelation 9:16 is quoted as announcing an army of 200 million. If these events are in the next few decades, an army that large can only come out of Asia proper (India, Pakistan, China) As time passes, unless something drastic happens to change the demographic trend-line, neither Europe nor Russia will have sufficient youth to field an army of any size near this.

[RobbyS]

With or without the resolve to lift the siege?

[bluetone006]

While I find the MOD budget cuts depressing I heartily agree with everything you have written. People who have never lived outside of the US tend to view other countries in monolithic terms, e.g., the French are “cowards” or whatever. The truth is no population can be accurately described that simplistically. To wit, while I have not agreed with many French policies in the past I do know there are millions of French that are the salt of the earth.

People who lack experience tend to be narrow minded - an affliction present to far too great a degree in the US among both leftists and conservatives. Our geographic isolation hurts us in some ways.

So please take the tone here for what it is - ignorance and frustration combined. Along with a dose of arrogance. Yeesh. Many of you posters are an embarrassment.

[Ramius]

Truth hurts.

It was in the paper. It must be true, right?

I suspect that the truth is closer to: Troublemakers are being chased out of their comfort zones and safehouses. Hot spots are cooling. Soft spots are targets of opportunity and little more. They won't survive long there either.

[uksupport1]

1) If you knew anything about Britain, you’d know that the last thing the Uk would ever do is ‘pander’ to the French. Britain thought an international coalition would be good for the Iraq campaign (see Gulf War 1). If successful then it would have greatly aided our endeavors. It’s not our fault that other countries blocked US and British efforts. The pursuit of a second resolution added little military delay if any. If you want to balme someone for the resistance in Iraq then balme Rumsfeld. His insistence on sending a small force to do the job meant that there were not enough troops to ensure law and order and secure Iraq’s borders. The resistance in Iraq, and Al-Qaeda’s seizure of this opportunity, were a consequence of this mistake and not prior insurgent planning. De-Ba’thification made things worse by alienating the widely military-trained Sunni faction in Iraq.

2) The British have fought the same enemy in Southern Iraq since 2003: the Shiite Mehdi army. The British have given them a bloody nose in every tactical engagement. British troops are still out on operations in Iraq daily. The provinces that we have already handed over to the Iraqis are doing well. By your logic, maybe the UK troops are having a tough time at the moment because insurgents are flush with success over the Americans further north? You state as fact that insurgents are travelling north. Where is your evidence? From sources that I have read, the opposite may be true. Violence in the north is certainly no less intense than in the South at the moment.

Can you please name me a more reliable ally than the UK? You slander the UK with statements that you then have no evidence to support.

Trolling about Britain is one thing, mate. But actively disrespecting British troops is quite disgraceful. Men have lost their lives, their limbs fighting for their country and in solidarity with the US.

[Churchillspirit]

It will be interesting to see how President Hillary - who despises the military - will set about decimating the US forces.

[uksupport1]

Thank you, mate. I know the majority of Americans aren’t narrow minded and rude like the author of this article. I love visting your country. I don’t usually get worked up about these things, but I’d like to see the author of this article state his views to the faces of British service personnel.

[Captain Kirk]

Victor “Pollyanna” Hanson seems to be getting depressed of late.

[expatguy]

I wouldn't think that the States has any reason to be smug.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[FlyVet]

We live in amazing times. As the threat grows, our Allies downsize their capabilities. Sorry Allies, the threat ain't going away.

Radical Islam is wading ashore like Godzilla, and when the populace sees him, they stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and yell "La La La La La!" as they run in the other direction.

[RobbyS]

Things were never as bad in Iraq, even in 2006, as adverised. But the military’s hopes of drawing down last year, were made impossible when the Golden Mosque was blown up, sectarian violence racheted up , and the usual methods for damping the violence did not work. Hanson is simply expressing the feeling of others that the British, who claimed to know how do “do” colonial wars, had—so to speak—lost the knack.

[hedgetrimmer]

If the British and American politicians hadn't been so corrupted and bought out by the Saudi's, the world would not be in such a grave state.

It started in 1986, with Abscam. In those days politicians were punished for taking bribes, but by the time the Bushes and Clintons got into the white house, culpablity for their treachery disappeared.

Now if a politician doesn't pander to the Saudi interests, which include multiculturalism and globalism, they cannot get elected.

Time the American people cleaned all houses of the government. See what this article says about John Murtha and you'll see how entrenched the corruption is, in our government.

[Amalie]

Your analysis is dead-on. Because we fear the overreaching arm of the federal government and the noose in the PC-correct public square, we have given up. It sad but true; the days are moving forward where there will be no freedom AND no security. The truth is that the Europeans, for all of their folly, have no idea what they are in for. The truth is...neither do we Americans. These problems do not get fixed without a lot of dead people, including civilians and innocents. Never have, never will.