There is now formally "a government" in Iraq.
As with in the 1920s and 1930s the defining issue in Iraq is "the occupation". (Previously it was RAF bases).
All the political parties are opposed to the occupation. The occupation, however, gives an argument for the "insurgents" to recruit.
The UK government has no real "strategy" in Iraq that is worth the name. They say that they want to wait until the Iraqi security services can cope. However, the presence of the occupying forces makes the situation harder to handle.
They have no clear objectives by which they can measure when they should leave. Hence unless people support an unending commitment then the time to leave is now (or at least in reasonable and safe phases).
Blair's most misleading argument about Iraq was that it was Saddam Hussain or invasion. There were many other options that led to the downfall of the Ba'th without the generation of major hatred against the UK and US governments in the Middle East.
Many people fail to understand that one of the biggest motivations in any group based conflict is revenge. Iraq is but one more example of this.
As with in the 1920s and 1930s the defining issue in Iraq is "the occupation". (Previously it was RAF bases).
All the political parties are opposed to the occupation. The occupation, however, gives an argument for the "insurgents" to recruit.
The UK government has no real "strategy" in Iraq that is worth the name. They say that they want to wait until the Iraqi security services can cope. However, the presence of the occupying forces makes the situation harder to handle.
They have no clear objectives by which they can measure when they should leave. Hence unless people support an unending commitment then the time to leave is now (or at least in reasonable and safe phases).
Blair's most misleading argument about Iraq was that it was Saddam Hussain or invasion. There were many other options that led to the downfall of the Ba'th without the generation of major hatred against the UK and US governments in the Middle East.
Many people fail to understand that one of the biggest motivations in any group based conflict is revenge. Iraq is but one more example of this.
Comments
Managing an occupation is a complex task that is generally fruitless.
I also opposed the invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that the reasons given were spurious, but to taken an entirely non-interventionist line because "Managing an occupation is a complex task that is generally fruitless" strikes me as unacceptable in a civilized world.
I do not see that myself as "an occupation".
Wikipedia's definition is:
"the periods of time following a nation's territory invasion by controlling enemy troops (see Military occupation)"
I tend more towards John's definition of 'occupation' than Bob's. Not every deployment of troops is a de facto occupation, unless you're relying on a very flexible definition of the word. Iraq clearly is an occupation because, despite the elections, the US forces have complete control over Iraq's defence and security apparatus.
The presence of the belligerent troops adds to the causes of insurgency.
It is important to understand that people seek revenge when someone in their family is hurt. This revenge is frequently sought against the occupiers. The consequence of that, however, tends to be more people seeking revenge.
They were far from uncritical of the western troops. They particularly criticised the US troops for their failure to secure the borders quickly enough (so allowing insurgents to enter easily), their insensitivity to the local culture and leadership and their habit of speeding through areas in armoured vehicles without stopping to connect with the community.
In general the people I spoke with (a mixed group of trade unionists, mostly from the north of Iraq) felt that the British troops were doing a much better job, in particular in the areas of connecting to the communities and generally not annoying anyone unecessarely.