Saturday, May 19, 2007

Iraq isn't "too dangerous" for our troops

What exactly is "too dangerous" when it comes to soldiers engaged in military action? I ask this because Paul Flynn MP has tabled a motion which simply says, "That this House believes that Iraq is now too dangerous for any of our service personnel."

On face value I don't get it, how exactly do we define "too dangerous"? In the last 4 years we've lost 148 troops, of which 113 were killed in action - the rest dying as a result of illness, accident, or non-combat injuries. Even if we use the total figure, that's the equivalent of 0.1 soldier dying each day.

If danger is to be measured in the ultimate sacrifice, then we ought to have motions stating that "this House believes that the is too dangerous for the the public"? And anyway, isn't soldiering (in which ever service) automatically defined around the fact that you might die or perhaps get hurt?
at

8 comments:

  1. Anonymous19 May 2007, 20:22:00

    Isnt this an oblique reference to Prince Harry?

    ReplyDelete
  2. dizzy19 May 2007, 20:26:00

    probably.. I thought that after I pressed publish, but dinner was ready.

    ReplyDelete
  3. dizzy19 May 2007, 20:27:00

    Having said this I think the Harry thing was dumb too

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous19 May 2007, 22:08:00

    The whole Iraq adventure is rather dumb, innit?

    ReplyDelete
  5. dizzy19 May 2007, 23:00:00

    depends on what you see as regional strategic interests I guess

    ReplyDelete
  6. malpas20 May 2007, 01:24:00

    Come on - you know it was WMDs that the Iraq war was started. Both Bush and Blair said so.
    Otherwise the perceived risk is weighed against the benefit.
    So D Day was bloody but it served a beneficial purpose in WW2.

    ReplyDelete
  7. dizzy20 May 2007, 05:27:00

    Actually I've always considered the WMD argument to be a peripheral political fix for wet lefties because they have trouble understanding what was essentially a strategic mix of things like, but not limited to, Israel, regime change, terrorism and oil interests. Just because two leaders say one thing it doesn't mean that that has to be my reason for supporting their action does it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous21 May 2007, 10:32:00

    I think it can be too dangerous.

    If we'd got the "heart and minds" bit right then occupation could have been a lot less so but personally I don't believe it was *ever* going to work.

    The whole operation has been a strategic blunder. Where are the benefits?

    Israel? The counterbalance to Iran has been removed.

    Regime change? What will we end up with instead? A Shia theocracy?

    Terrorism? A fantastic training ground.

    Oil? Not exactly cheap these days. A nice dividend for the Saudis, Iran, Venezuela and Russia.

    ReplyDelete