Iraq.................

'We Could Go Back To Iraq,' Says Ex-Defence Minister Liam Fox
The Huffington Post UK | Posted: 14/06/2014 09:18 BST | Updated: 14/06/2014 09:59 BST

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/14/iraq-uk-army_n_5494427.html

The consequences of a victory for extremist insurgents in Iraq are so "potentially catastrophic" that the possibility of sending British troops should not be ruled out, former defence secretary Liam Fox said.

Dr Fox said he understood the "extreme reluctance" of the UK and America to put western boots back on the ground but argued the option should stay on the table.

Iraqi security forces had been "pretty pathetic" in their response so far, he said, and it "remains to be seen" whether the country's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki could lead an effective response.

Iraqi Shiite tribal fighters deploy with their weapons while chanting slogans against the al-Qaida inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
If that proved impossible, then western intervention would become irresistible, the Tory MP suggested.

London and Washington have ruled out putting troops on the ground as part of the response to the bloody territory grab by jihadists who have seized control of several key towns, including the second city, Mosul.

"There will be an extreme reluctance by any Western governments to do so but I don't think at the moment, given the potential consequences of Isis (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) success, that anything can be ruled out at this stage," Dr Fox told BBC2's Newsnight.

"The question in the coming days will be whether Maliki can rise up as a statesman at this late stage, whether the Iraqi military - given all the investment that has been made in their equipment and training - can fight back.

"That remains to be seen and then I think this situation will have to be watched very closely by the international community because the price of failure ... to confront and defeat Isis could be catastrophic and felt well beyond the region."


He added: "I do agree that it does look as though the Iraqi government are beginning some sort of fightback, notwithstanding the pretty pathetic efforts of their forces so far.

"We have seen them in the past being able to take on insurgents and they will hopefully be able to do so again."

He said al-Maliki was "paying the price" for refusing to sign a status of forces agreement when Barack Obama withdrew American troops in 2011 - meaning none were able to stay to continue training and equipping Iraqi forces.

Britain and the US are considering what help to offer Iraq in dealing with a bloody insurgency by jihadist militants but have warned the country's leaders they must make "serious" efforts to resolve sectarian tensions.

Obama joined the UK in ruling out any return for ground troops but indicated he was considering a range of military options - thought to include air strikes - to boost Baghdad's efforts to counter the insurgents' drive.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Government might offer counter-terrorism expertise to the Iraqi government.

Obama warned the sweeping advance of fighters from the al Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) could eventually pose a threat to US and other interests.

But, as the surge saw two towns north-east of the capital Baghdad fall to the control of the extremists, who have already taken large areas of Iraq's Sunni heartland including the cities of Mosul and Tikrit, he said the situation must act as a "wake-up call" for Iraq's leaders.

Al-Maliki has been widely criticised for fuelling the sectarian divide in Iraq by openly favouring the majority Shia population at the expense of the Sunnis. Iraq's top Shia cleric has issued a call to Iraqis to do their "duty" to fight the insurgency amid reports of atrocities being committed by Isis.

UN high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay issued a warning about reports of war crimes, including summary executions and extrajudicial killings.

The crisis in Iraq is also expected to dominate a meeting of the National Security Council chaired by Prime Minister David Cameron next week.

Obama said he would consider over the coming days a "range of other options" drawn up by military chiefs short of sending ground forces back to the country they withdrew from in 2011.

He added: "Any action that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq's leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq's communities and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force.

"We can't do it for them and in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won't succeed.

"So this should be a wake-up call: Iraq's leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises in order to bring the country together."

"We are not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which, while we are there, we are keeping a lid on things and, after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we are not there suddenly people start acting in ways that are not conducive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country," he added.

Speaking after talks on Iraq with US secretary of state John Kerry in London, Hague said Britain's three priorities were
to see Iraqi security services stabilise the situation, for Iraq's leaders to show "a united response to this brutal aggression" and urgent help for those fleeing the violence.

A team from the Department for International Development is in northern Iraq to see what humanitarian help the UK can offer.

"We will also continue to work urgently within the UN Security Council to help concert the wider international response," he said.

So the shamed ex defence minister Dr Liam Fox is suggesting that 'WE' should go back to Iraq.. Well, considering that he has never heard a shot fired in anger, he ought to have a go himself before talking of sending British forces into Iraq again.... Perhaps he could take his travelling companion Adam Werritty, with him.

MALIKI HAS FORMED A COALITION

Badboy wrote:IT APPEARS ISIS HAVE MOVED LOTS OF MATERIAL TO SYRIA

Good morning badboy

Depending on their intentions, if they have moved a significant amount of gear into Syria it could be the rock they perish on. Given the relatively small numbers of them ISIS/ISIL would have difficulty fighting on two fronts.

Assad's regime forces have had a civil war on their hands for quite a while now, and over the last 6 months or so have steadily pushed back the so called Jihadi's The only real stronghold they have left being Aleppo. So Assad's forces are jubilant, with correspondingly high morale. They are also unlike Nouri al Maliki's Iraq troops, battle hardened.

That is not to say that I agree with Assad in any way, but that doesn't change things there.

it does seem as if the Iraqi forces are now stating to put up some resistance. So that would make ISIS/ISIL starting in Syria before they have fully subdued Iraq, a risky strategy to say the least. Of course even if they did subdue Iraq, there would be bombing campaigns from the Shi'ite community. Once again there seems to be no answer

Iran's involvement with Iraq, seems to depend on what newspaper you read and how much of it (if any) you believe! The Guardian says 2,000 troops have gone in while The Times of Israel says 150. Other sources in Iraq claim it's 500. Rouhani in Iran says none.

The Times of Israel names the commander of these none existent troops as General Hassan Gohari, while other sources claim him too be General Suleiman.

They are also claimed to be only advisory troops, alternatively the al Qods revolutionary guard.

At this moment I don't know what to think. I believe we can dismiss Rouhani's claim of none. If it is an advisory force as The Israelis say, then 150 or so would sound about right, with maybe another 2,000 encamped on their own side of the border, or just inside Iraq in case of need. I think the Israelis are probably the most accurate, not only because of their closeness but their intelligence and security services Mossad are highly efficient.

malena stool wrote:I doubt if there will never be an end to the fighting in the Middle East, Panda. As individual tribes they have been at each others throats since time immemorial. While the poor unskilled members of their populations are held back from receiving an education and any say in the structure and running of their country they will follow the instructions of their rich and powerful religious and political leaders like sheep.

Any intervention from outsiders usually unites the individual tribes/clans to fight the invaders who will go back to fighting each other when the outsiders have been beaten.

It's a waste of our soldier's lives to become involved.

Malena, Tony Blair has no conscience and he should be sacked as Middle East advisor for taking money under false pretences.

It says something that Iran is helping Iraq,!!!!

katertaif wrote:Iran's involvement with Iraq, seems to depend on what newspaper you read and how much of it (if any) you believe! The Guardian says 2,000 troops have gone in while The Times of Israel says 150. Other sources in Iraq claim it's 500. Rouhani in Iran says none.

The Times of Israel names the commander of these none existent troops as General Hassan Gohari, while other sources claim him too be General Suleiman.

They are also claimed to be only advisory troops, alternatively the al Qods revolutionary guard.

At this moment I don't know what to think. I believe we can dismiss Rouhani's claim of none. If it is an advisory force as The Israelis say, then 150 or so would sound about right, with maybe another 2,000 encamped on their own side of the border, or just inside Iraq in case of need. I think the Israelis are probably the most accurate, not only because of their closeness but their intelligence and security services Mossad are highly efficient.

According to sky News Reporters Iraq has an army of 900,000, but made up of various Tribes which now creates problems . The concensus among various pundits is that Britain not get involved at all but I think the U.S. has sent a Warship on the way to Iraq. Cameron has been advised to round up all the suspected terrorists in the U.K. and deport them, even if they were born in the U.K.

This situation is looking very serious.Sunni extremists seen killing Iraqi soldiers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27858692

Panda wrote:

malena stool wrote:I doubt if there will never be an end to the fighting in the Middle East, Panda. As individual tribes they have been at each others throats since time immemorial. While the poor unskilled members of their populations are held back from receiving an education and any say in the structure and running of their country they will follow the instructions of their rich and powerful religious and political leaders like sheep.

Any intervention from outsiders usually unites the individual tribes/clans to fight the invaders who will go back to fighting each other when the outsiders have been beaten.

It's a waste of our soldier's lives to become involved.

Malena, Tony Blair has no conscience and he should be sacked as Middle East advisor for taking money under false pretences.

It says something that Iran is helping Iraq,!!!!

The fact he got the post suggests there was one hell of a lot of string pulling behind the scenes..

I think Syria is 'assisting' Iraq just for the opportunity to get as many potential insurgents in their sights as possible. The last thing they want is for any ISIS forces get over their borders and give assistance to the rebels in Syria. I'm not aware of any Iranian aid to Iraq, I've not given any real notice to the tv today.

ORDERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO DEFEND SAMARRA.
VIDEO OF IRAQI SOLDIERS IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES BEING EXECUTED IN MOSUL,ANOTHER VIDEO CALLS FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF KING ABDULLAH OF JORDAN.

Panda wrote:

katertaif wrote:Iran's involvement with Iraq, seems to depend on what newspaper you read and how much of it (if any) you believe! The Guardian says 2,000 troops have gone in while The Times of Israel says 150. Other sources in Iraq claim it's 500. Rouhani in Iran says none.

The Times of Israel names the commander of these none existent troops as General Hassan Gohari, while other sources claim him too be General Suleiman.

They are also claimed to be only advisory troops, alternatively the al Qods revolutionary guard.

At this moment I don't know what to think. I believe we can dismiss Rouhani's claim of none. If it is an advisory force as The Israelis say, then 150 or so would sound about right, with maybe another 2,000 encamped on their own side of the border, or just inside Iraq in case of need. I think the Israelis are probably the most accurate, not only because of their closeness but their intelligence and security services Mossad are highly efficient.

According to sky News Reporters Iraq has an army of 900,000, but made up of various Tribes which now creates problems . The concensus among various pundits is that Britain not get involved at all but I think the U.S. has sent a Warship on the way to Iraq. Cameron has been advised to round up all the suspected terrorists in the U.K. and deport them, even if they were born in the U.K.

This situation is looking very serious.Sunni extremists seen killing Iraqi soldiers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27858692

That is the problem throughout the Middle East. They are all tribal in origin. I don't think Cameron has been advised to round them up and boot them out. That would start the civil war immediately. They have tried to get measures through to stiffen the controls on immigration (they say) and strip undesirable people of British citizenship with a view to deporting them, and therein lies the rub. Who is going to take them?

Will whatever country they are originally from take them back? Very probably not, . In any case I wonder if the government is serious on this or is it just pre general election posturing to see if it's a vote winner.

The Iraqi government forces seem to melt away when the going gets tuff !

ISIS REPORTED TO HAVE TAKEN TWO VILLAGES IN DIYALA PROVINCE.

Good evening badboy.

Yes that seems to be the case. the scenes of them cold bloodedly shooting ex soldiers takes some stomaching though. One thing it may do is stiffen the Iraqi soldiers will to resist. If they are going to be killed anyway.

An extremely dangerous situation for the world not only the Middle East

1,700 SHIITES REPORTED TO HAVE BEEEN KILLED BY ISIS.

Badboy wrote:1,700 SHIITES REPORTED TO HAVE BEEEN KILLED BY ISIS.

Badboy,we are going to witness another Country destroyed with thousands of Refugees spilling over into neighbouring Countries , the refugee situation is near breaking point now. I know Saddam was a Dictator , but at least he kept law and order and the West should never have intervened, Afghanistan is another casualty.

Panda wrote:

Badboy wrote:1,700 SHIITES REPORTED TO HAVE BEEEN KILLED BY ISIS.

Badboy,we are going to witness another Country destroyed with thousands of Refugees spilling over into neighbouring Countries , the refugee situation is near breaking point now.  I know Saddam was a Dictator , but at least he kept law and order and the West should never have intervened, Afghanistan is another casualty.

This is the face of Islam. hardly a day goes by without more horror stories of atrocity. The fate of those Nigerian girls has been pushed out because if the situation elsewhere.

Blair wants to do to Syria now what was done to Iraq. This is one guy who really does not learn. We go into a Muslim country with the best of intentions, to bring Law, Order and Stability. They see it as an unwarranted act of aggression against their brothers.

We have seen it in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have watched Libya and Mali as well as the Sudan disintegrate. Now Blair wants to attack someone else. That would immediately whether right or wrong turn these so called Jihadists with British passports against us. They only have one answer to any question

katertaif wrote:

Panda wrote:

Badboy wrote:1,700 SHIITES REPORTED TO HAVE BEEEN KILLED BY ISIS.

Badboy,we are going to witness another Country destroyed with thousands of Refugees spilling over into neighbouring Countries , the refugee situation is near breaking point now.  I know Saddam was a Dictator , but at least he kept law and order and the West should never have intervened, Afghanistan is another casualty.

This is the face of Islam. hardly a day goes by without more horror stories of atrocity. The fate of those Nigerian girls has been pushed out because if the situation elsewhere.

Blair wants to do to Syria now what was done to Iraq. This is one guy who really does not learn. We go into a Muslim country with the best of intentions, to bring Law, Order and Stability. They see it as an unwarranted act of aggression against their brothers.

We have seen it in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have watched Libya  and  Mali as well as the Sudan disintegrate. Now Blair wants to attack someone else. That would immediately whether right or wrong turn these so called Jihadists with British passports against us. They only have one answer to any question

Yes, Blair and Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan , Blair twice lied to Parliament yet was never censured. In fact he was given a job as Middle East advisor......he is a disgrace and Boris Johnson was right to tell it as it is....why hasn't Blair been sacked???

Good morning panda

Why hasn't Blair been sacked? Who appointed him as a government advisor in the first place? He's sticking his nose in business that no longer has anything to do with him that's all. Your views and opinions, in fact the view of every poster on this forum is just as valid as his. He is yesterdays man, and what was done to Iraq, and is being done to Afghanistan is criminal.

While Bush was wrong, I believe he was at least acting out of a genuine belief, whereas Blair was acting out of opportunism. You say he lied to Parliament. That is treason pure and simple.

Blairs attitude is.....drop some bombs on them that will do the trick.

kitti wrote:Blairs attitude is.....drop some bombs on them that will do the trick.

Absolutely kitti. this is one guy who has learned nothing from Iraq or Afghanistan now he wants to bomb Syria and Iraq again.

What I want to know is why is he sticking his oar in a t all, he is an ex politician, and his opinions and view are no more important than anyone on this forum.

The only other alternative I can think of is that his globetrotting, and giving after dinner speeches is falling off, with so many years of noth ing to add (for him that is) I wonder if by putting himself in the news the way he is, he may revive his after dinner speeches together with the money that goes with them. I wouldn't pay to go and listen to him. I'd think twice if he offered to pay me.

katertaif wrote:

kitti wrote:Blairs attitude is.....drop some bombs on them that will do the trick.

Absolutely kitti. this is one guy who has learned nothing from Iraq or Afghanistan now he wants to bomb Syria and Iraq again.

What I want to know is why is he sticking his oar in a t all, he is an ex politician, and his opinions and view are no more important than anyone on this forum.

The only other alternative I can think of is that his globetrotting, and giving after dinner speeches is falling off, with so many years of noth ing to add (for him that is) I wonder if by putting himself in the news the way he is, he may revive his after dinner speeches together with the money that goes with them. I wouldn't pay to go and listen to him. I'd think twice if he offered to pay me.

Good evening katertaif,
I think I'd go to one of his lectures were he to offer to pay... If only to ask him the question of "What his responsibilities involved in the Middle East and did he feel that he'd failed, inasmuch that hundreds of folk including women and children were being murdered on a daily basis." I might also ask if he felt that his recommendation of sending in British and American combat troops and support units constituted the idyllic role of a 'Middle East Peace Envoy'?