Sneak Preview: The Next War

Cancel7

Banned
Now playing in the foreign press only. But, coming soon to a newstation near you.

The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border
British soldiers return to action as tensions between US and Iran grow
Exclusive by Kim Sengupta in Baghdad
Published: 12 September 2007
British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.

The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq. Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at Basra said: "We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces are, as we know, engaged in the 'surge' and the border is of particular concern to them."

The mission will include the King's Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.

The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.

The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General Petraeus spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state".

In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation" he said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2953462.ece
 
Bush did tell us in '01 that we had only started "the 1st war of the 21st century."

I always thought that was such a strange statement. How about making it the last war, ever?
 
Bush did tell us in '01 that we had only started "the 1st war of the 21st century."

I always thought that was such a strange statement. How about making it the last war, ever?

You know, I forgot about that statement, but yes I do remember it now. It is a very strange thing to say, and kind of a chilling one too.
 
You know, I forgot about that statement, but yes I do remember it now. It is a very strange thing to say, and kind of a chilling one too.

He really wanted to be a war president. He told a ghostwriter in the '99 that running a war was the only way a President could achieve "greatness." Along with that "1st war of the 21st century" comment, who can forget "I'm a War President!", right after 9/11.

The guy really turns my stomach. '08 can't come soon enough...
 
He really wanted to be a war president. He told a ghostwriter in the '99 that running a war was the only way a President could achieve "greatness." Along with that "1st war of the 21st century" comment, who can forget "I'm a War President!", right after 9/11.

The guy really turns my stomach. '08 can't come soon enough...


Don't save all your anger for Bush.

The republicans in congress and in rightwing media are running interference for him. Yeah, the Dems haven't done enough. But wars - either ending them, or starting them - require a minimal level of bipartisan support. That's just the way it works.
 
"Don't save all your anger for Bush. "

No worries. I'm pissed at everybody.

Still, he, along with his small cadre, have been the much more proactive parties to this debacle. Dems & Republicans have been enablers, to be sure. Fear in both parties rules the day; how excruciating to watch members of both parties try to cover all of the bases on this thing since '02, so that the damage is minimal if the war goes either good or bad....
 
"Don't save all your anger for Bush. "

No worries. I'm pissed at everybody.

Still, he, along with his small cadre, have been the much more proactive parties to this debacle. Dems & Republicans have been enablers, to be sure. Fear in both parties rules the day; how excruciating to watch members of both parties try to cover all of the bases on this thing since '02, so that the damage is minimal if the war goes either good or bad....

Yes.

I am still hanging on to the dems, because I feel strongly that this war ends when Republicans walk up to the White House and tell him it ends. Just like Nixon. Because as long as you have your own party, it doesn't matter. You have to lose that support, that is when you see change.

But, there is an anger building inside me over the sheer cowardice of the democratic party. If it finally boils over, I won't vote Democrat again possibly for the rest of my life. Because it's been slow to build. I have been far more pragmatic about this than most, if not all, peace activists, certainly the ones that I know.
 
Back
Top