6 British Soldiers killed in Iraq

[Agathon]

On CNN just now. No links available yet. Apparently the 6 "injured" in Basra were actually killed according to MoD.

Well I guess those Iraquis are sick of being "liberated".

The resistance to occupation seems to be increasing quite rapidly which is worrying on several fronts. The longer the occupation goes the more resentment will build up and more resistance will occur. More resistance will mean the occupation lasts longer.

And this incident was in Basra, against the Brits, whom everyone thought were the "nice" face of the invasion.

Of course it's not yet time to run screaming, but it definitely is getting interesting.

[GePap]

The majority aren't. But a significant enough minority is to cause problems.

What type of incident was it?

[alva]

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
The majority aren't. But a significant enough minority is to cause problems.

What type of incident was it?

Don't know - details are still hazy - that's all they said.

I thought the majority consensus in Iraq was "Great Saddam's gone, now leave us the **** alone."

[GePap]

Only if "eave us alone" doesn't mean: hey, look, Saddam's back! Plus there is that fact that certainly the Kurds aren;t really that happy to stuck with the whole "Iraq" bit, but they play nice cause the US is there.

Politically, I think this adds to Balir problems. He is shakky on the weapons, and I don't think the Brti public is that gun-ho about being part of an occupation when thier boys might be getting killed,if they doubt the veracity of having one in in the first place.

[PLATO]

Did anybody really expect something different than this? We have been told over and over that it will take at least a year to get things in some semblance of order in Iraq. Everybody seems to want everything to be just perfect two months after the US took over a country? This simply isn't realistic. Given the climate in the ME, Iraq may be years away from being without some sort of terrorism. The goal here is to try to create an environment that is stable enough for the Iraqi people to be able to govern themselves. With the fact that all relevant opposition to the Baath party was eliminated by the previous regime, I believe that a year is ambitious. I would expect this kind of thing to continue for several months at the least.

[Bereta_Eder]

mess with the seeds, the chickens eat you

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Did anybody really expect something different than this? We have been told over and over that it will take at least a year to get things in some semblance of order in Iraq. Everybody seems to want everything to be just perfect two months after the US took over a country? This simply isn't realistic. Given the climate in the ME, Iraq may be years away from being without some sort of terrorism. The goal here is to try to create an environment that is stable enough for the Iraqi people to be able to govern themselves. With the fact that all relevant opposition to the Baath party was eliminated by the previous regime, I believe that a year is ambitious. I would expect this kind of thing to continue for several months at the least.

The thing that wasn't expected was the amount of baath loyalty remaining, not to mention the amount of looting that is still happening. Plus the amount of Republican guard that "faded" back into the populace.

I'm starting to think 2-3 years is ambitious. Consider that Afghanistan is supposed to be less than a year away from holding general elections, and how close to a stable environment that is.

[DanS]

I am surprised, since this happened in a Shiite area. You don't hear much about the South, because there hasn't been any hostility there.

Overall, I would guess this is not an indication of the future unrest in the South. Probably imported from the Sunni areas.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


The thing that wasn't expected was the amount of baath loyalty remaining, not to mention the amount of looting that is still happening. Plus the amount of Republican guard that "faded" back into the populace.

I'm starting to think 2-3 years is ambitious. Consider that Afghanistan is supposed to be less than a year away from holding general elections, and how close to a stable environment that is.

depends who was doing the expecting.

there were people here saying that due to iraqi nationalism, basically everyone other than the Kurds would be resisting. Instead the resistance is mainly in the Sunni belt, and seems to be largely the hardcore - baathist-fedayeen-SRG. There may have been some who thought there would be less resistance, but this is within the range of what many expected.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The majority aren't. But a significant enough minority is to cause problems.

What type of incident was it?

Chopper taken down - not rioting in the street.

[Q Classic]

one is almost tempted to say that if they don't like us there, and don't want us there, for us to just leave them on their own devices.

of course, that'll only breed resentment. occupation of this nature leads to a situation where all options lead to hate, it's just a question of which ones lead to less hate.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Did anybody really expect something different than this? We have been told over and over that it will take at least a year to get things in some semblance of order in Iraq. Everybody seems to want everything to be just perfect two months after the US took over a country? This simply isn't realistic. Given the climate in the ME, Iraq may be years away from being without some sort of terrorism. The goal here is to try to create an environment that is stable enough for the Iraqi people to be able to govern themselves. With the fact that all relevant opposition to the Baath party was eliminated by the previous regime, I believe that a year is ambitious. I would expect this kind of thing to continue for several months at the least.

If the proper amount of troops had been committed, and some pre-planning for fixing infrastructure, paying people in the absense of a functioning economy, etc., then a majority of this stuff is completely avoidable. Unfortunately, Bush and Wolfie want to prove they know more than Shinseki and other professionals, and prove their manhood by how few troops they can use to occupy Iraq.

You can't have large counterinsurgent operations without taking those troops out of routine security duty, and the allied forces are spread pretty damned thin when you figure they have to be in a security posture 7/24 across the whole country. They can't, so they concentrate in some areas, and give the Iraqis a lot of ability to do **** in the shadows, where allied forces aren't covering at the moment.

This is going to be a slow, lingering FUBAR at this rate.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Chopper taken down - not rioting in the street.

Occupying troops dead = occupying troops dead. It doesn't really matter how they do it.

[Cruddy]

Re: 6 British Soldiers killed in Iraq

Originally posted by Agathon

...And this incident was in Basra, against the Brits, whom everyone thought were the "nice" face of the invasion.

Of course it's not yet time to run screaming, but it definitely is getting interesting.

It wasn't in Basra. Try Al Hamann province north of Basra. Resistance forces generally don't operate in cities at the start of hostilities.

Apparently 2 separate attacks with other injuries apart from the dead.

Not good news - but I'm not surprised in the least.