Brits Out!

There seems to be a growing swell of pressure to bring the British troops out of Iraq at the earliest opportunity. This reports that military commanders have advised Gordon Brown that Basra is effectively lost and no purpose is served by continuing to take casualties. There also appears to be a rather unpleasant blame culture going on, explored in more depth in this article, where the US forces are becoming exasperated with the British inability to control the insurgents in what was a fairly reliable theatre.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree with the characterisation of British/American relationships, I fear there may be some scapegoating about to take place. Nonetheless, it has been clear for some time that the British position is untenable - if even the US no longer thinks her ally is worthwhile, what are they doing there?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Note for the curious: The second article makes the point that American commanders are getting fed up with the British references to Northern Ireland - perhaps reflected in this place - so I quoted a common exhortation directed at the British Army in those days as the thread title.

Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay

By Raymond Whitaker and Robert Fox
Published: 19 August 2007

Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.

Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province – the last of the four held by the British – "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]."

Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August. The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to "reposture" the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months.

Before the invasion in 2003, officers were told that the Army's war aims were to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and to the Middle East as a whole. Those ambitions have been drastically revised, the IoS understands. The priorities now are an orderly withdrawal, with the reputation and capability of the Army "reasonably intact", and for Britain to remain a "credible ally". The final phrase appears to refer to tensions with the US, which has more troops in Iraq than at any other time, including the invasion, as it seeks to impose order in Baghdad and neighbouring provinces.

American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south". A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy." Other officers said the British force was never configured to "clear and hold" Basra in the way the Americans are seeking to do in Baghdad.

Immediate American discontent is said to centre on the CIA's reluctance to leave Basra Palace, an important base for watching Iran, which may explain why Britain has held on to the complex until now. But last week it was reported that US intelligence operatives were in the process of pulling out. Further ahead, the US is concerned over the security of its vital supply line from Kuwait, with some American commanders saying that if the British withdraw, American troops will have to be sent south to replace them. As the hub of Iraq's oil industry, Basra is also a tempting prize for the Shia militias battling each other for control.

There are fears that the bloody power struggle in Basra will escalate sharply if and when British troops depart, but commanders point out that up to 90 per cent of the violence is directed against their forces. They are understood to believe it was never the role of occupation troops to intervene in a "turf war" among factions from the same community, all of which have links to the government coalition in Baghdad.

Mr Brown will have to take these wider concerns into account, in reaching a decision that has political as well as military implications. At Camp David he stressed that "we have duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep" in support of the Iraqi government and "the explicit will" of the international community. The 15 September report on the progress of the security "surge" by the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, will be crucial to British as well as US military plans.

General Petraeus is expected to report mixed results, and to plead for more time for the surge to work. But the White House, under pressure from Republicans facing disaster in the 2008 elections, is likely to announce at least some troop reductions. British commanders, and some US commentators, believe that will enable the Prime Minister to spell out plans for a British withdrawal when MPs return in October, although the process may last well into next year.

British forces useless in Basra, say officials

Tim Shipman in Washington, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:42am BST 19/08/2007

When America's top commanders in Iraq held a conference with their British counterparts recently, Major General Jonathan Shaw - Britain's senior officer in Basra - was quick to share his views on how best to conduct counter-insurgency operations.

For much of the last four years, the Americans in the room would have listened carefully, used to deferring to their British colleagues' long experience in Northern Ireland. This time, however, eyes that would once have been attentive simply rolled.

Few were in the mood for a lecture about British superiority, when they fear that Downing Street's planned pull-out from Basra will squander any progress from their own hard-fought "troop surge" strategy elsewhere.

"It's insufferable for Christ's sake," said one senior figure closely involved in US military planning. "He comes on and he lectures everybody in the room about how to do a counter-insurgency. The guys were just rolling their eyeballs. The notorious Northern Ireland came up again. It's pretty frustrating. It would be okay if he was best in class, but now he's worst in class. Everybody else's area is getting better and his is getting worse."

The meeting, called by General David Petraeus, the senior US officer who has the task of managing the surge, is emblematic of what is fast becoming a minor crisis in Anglo-American military relations.

In Britain, Gordon Brown's government has tried to depict a quiet process of handover to Iraqi troops in Basra, which will see the remaining forces in the city withdraw to the airport in November.

What US generals see, however, is a close ally preparing to "cut and run", leaving behind a city in the grip of a power struggle between Shia militias that could determine the fate of the Iraqi government and the country as a whole. With signs of the surge yielding tentative progress in Baghdad, but at the cost of many American lives, there could scarcely be a worse time for a parting of the ways. Yet the US military has no doubt, despite what Gordon Brown claims, that the pullout is being driven by "the political situation at home in the UK".

A senior US officer familiar with Gen Petraeus's thinking said: "The short version is that the Brits have lost Basra, if indeed they ever had it. Britain is in a difficult spot because of the lack of political support at home, but for a long time - more than a year - they have not been engaged in Basra and have tried to avoid casualties.

"They did not have enough troops there even before they started cutting back. The situation is beyond their control.

"Quite frankly what they're doing right now is not any value-added. They're just sitting there. They're not involved. The situation there gets worse by the day. Americans are disappointed because, in their minds, this thing is still winnable. They don't intend to cut and run."

The officer predicted that the affair could have long-lasting implications. "There will be a stink about this that will hang around the British military," he said.

It is a view echoed by General Jack Keane, the architect of the surge strategy, who has just returned from Baghdad.

Gen Keane, who has the ear of Vice President Dick Cheney and Stephen Hadley, President George W Bush's national security adviser, told The Sunday Telegraph: "It is disappointing and frustrating to see a situation in Basra that was once working pretty well, now coming apart. The situation there has been getting worse for some time."

The depth of concern has grown since Gordon Brown's first prime ministerial visit to the US earlier this month, when he delivered a blunt message to Mr Bush that he would stick to plans which could see most of Britain's 5,500 troops gone from Iraq next year.

The next political drama will come in four weeks when Gen Petraeus reports on the status of the surge strategy, which has successfully quelled violence in some areas but has failed to put an end to calls from Congress to bring the troops home.

Britain's uncertain legacy in Basra will then be used as a political battering ram in Washington, as Mr Bush tries to win support on Capitol Hill.

One US official said that recent US military intelligence reports sent to the White House had concluded that Britain had "lost" Basra, and that Pentagon war games were predicting a virtual civil war in the South once British troops left.

He said: "When the White House makes the case for continuing the surge on the Hill they will say: 'Look what happened in Basra when the Brits went back to their barracks. We can't pull out now. Give us more time to get it right'."

He added that White House officials had expected Mr Brown to strike a different tone on Iraq to that of Tony Blair, but that they were disappointed not to win a firmer agreement to keep British troops in place.

"They don't mind a change in rhetoric, but the bottom line for the president was to keep Basra as a British responsibility. He didn't get as much as he wanted. There was a whiff of double dealing about it all."

As The Sunday Telegraph revealed last week, plans have been drawn up to send thousands of American troops into southern Iraq to take over the supervision of the vital supply route north from Kuwait, a task the British will bequeath when they leave.

But the senior US officer warned that combat troops may also have to go into Basra itself to "protect the population" from violence between its numerous warring Shia militias - an extra burden as perilous as any in Baghdad.

US Marine Colonel Gary Anderson, who has conducted recent Iraq war games for the Pentagon, said the situation Britain would leave behind in Basra "could be the most bloody part of the transition".

He said: "The primary issue in Basra will be a struggle between various Shia factions for control of the region, and frankly the regular government in Baghdad as well. It will be between pro-Iranian factions and those that are more nationalistic. It's going to be nasty."

Col Anderson said British troops "did the best they could", but added: "I'm not sure they did as good a job as they did traditionally. This isn't Northern Ireland. They thought they had a pretty good model but Iraq is a different culture."

Michael O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, added: "Basra is a mess, and the exit strategy attempted there has failed. It is, for the purposes of future Iraq policymaking, an example of what not to do.

"Basra has gone far towards revising the common American image of British soldiers as perhaps the world's best at counter-insurgency."

They won , they stepped down as the Iraqis were able to step up .
That was the line wasn't it .
The shape of things to come eh .:thumbsdown:

There was an article in the Economist magazine about this.

Regardless of whether or not Britain pulls out of Iraq, they certainly need to increase their military strength.

A mere 5 words should come from the mouth of POTUS:

"Thank you for the help."

Quote:

---

A mere 5 words should come from the mouth of POTUS:

---

Thanks for all the fish

Or,
Thanks for all the Badgers.

This is...disappointing, especially considering our recently military progress in other areas.

CR

British forces should be withdrawn and withdrawn rapidly.

The complete lack of UK public support demonstrated for the war in Iraq leaves the British armed forces in an untenable position. It is increasingly vital to the British psyche that the USA be the sole power responsible for Iraq -- they want no part of what the consider to be a wasted and/or immoral effort.

Forcing them to continue fighting under these conditions cannot end well -- for us, for the Brits, or for Iraq.

An unfortunate side-effect being that it gives US government a scapegoat when the surge fails. Nonetheless, that is a worthless factor when compared to the situation for the troops.

Who needs the Brits anyway? We have Chuck Norris.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...nia/chuck8.jpg

Quote:

---

This is...disappointing, especially considering our recently military progress in other areas.

---

They had all the things in their areas that America is trying to achieve at the moment in its areas , they did their mission ,they stood down as the Iraqis stood up , they handed over to the elected officials and security forces when they were able .

Take a good look at it . Its the shape of things to come .:shrug:

I remember someone posting, a while back, an article that was critical of the US approach to the insurgency while congratulating the British for their "soft touch", what happened?

This just means that more Americans will be forced to try and pick up the slack once the British abdicate their responsibilities...

Quote:

---

I remember someone posting, a while back, an article that was critical of the US approach to the insurgency while congratulating the British for their "soft touch", what happened?

---

What happened was they completed their mission , they got on with the locals , got them set up and handed over , that was the mission wasn't it .
Just because America is only just getting started you cannot blame the British for having finished already .

Quote:

---

This just means that more Americans will be forced to try and pick up the slack once the British abdicate their responsibilities...

---

The British are abdicating nothing , they did their job .
If America is years behind schedule with their job then that is Americas fault .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I remember someone posting, a while back, an article that was critical of the US approach to the insurgency while congratulating the British for their "soft touch", what happened?

This just means that more Americans will be forced to try and pick up the slack once the British abdicate their responsibilities...

---

The military dimension isn't separate from the political dimension. British tactics succeeded in Northern Ireland because, concurrent to this, their politicians pursued a complementary strategy. Separate one from the other, and you'll have ideas that work against each other. There was a documentary series a while back, which looked back at the different sides in the conflict. One of the generals who commanded during the campaign concluded that nothing his forces actively did significantly contributed to the eventual victory, and that all the important work was done by politicians, as it had to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What happened was they completed their mission , they got on with the locals , got them set up and handed over , that was the mission wasn't it .
Just because America is only just getting started you cannot blame the British for having finished already .

---

Mission accomplished, is that it? Basra was never handed over. It's still under British authority.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Brigadier General Anthony Hunter-Choat, a security director for Iraq's reconstruction programme, said America had initially backed the British "softly, softly" approach to security in Basra, by which power was devolved to tribal leaders, rather than ruling from the top down.

"The Americans thought the British were highly successful," he said. "Now they've started to think that the people the British used to keep the place going are not the right people to hand Basra over to."

A think-tank report, quoted in the report, said the legacy of British rule in Basra was "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighbourhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias". A former British defence official, now working in Baghdad, said London's push to withdraw forces had been criticised at the "highest levels" in Washington. America "has been very concerned for some time now about a) the lawless situation in Basra and b) the political and military impact of the British pull back," he said.
link

Quote:

---

Mission accomplished, is that it? Basra was never handed over. It's still under British authority

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Basra is being handed over . Mission accomplished .

BTW Nice story Xiahou , does it escape your notice that what the article decribes is the exact same thing you recently praised when the Americans did it in Anbar province .:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Basra is being handed over . Mission accomplished .

---

Leaving doesn't make the mission accomplished. :no:

Quote:

---

BTW Nice story Xiahou , does it escape your notice that what the article decribes is the exact same thing you recently praised when the Americans did it in Anbar province .:inquisitive:

---

I don't think you know what you're talking about- feel free to prove me wrong though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

British forces should be withdrawn and withdrawn rapidly.

The complete lack of UK public support demonstrated for the war in Iraq leaves the British armed forces in an untenable position. It is increasingly vital to the British psyche that the USA be the sole power responsible for Iraq -- they want no part of what the consider to be a wasted and/or immoral effort.

Forcing them to continue fighting under these conditions cannot end well -- for us, for the Brits, or for Iraq.

---

Boy you had me hook line and sinker up until the last sentence. I agree Britian should pull out, so should we as rapidly as possible. However Im confused on the "forcing them" part.

As near I can tell the cats been out of the bag on Iraq and the shotty mission for years. Brits seem to be fully aware of this, yet choose to keep supporting a failed policy.

I mean didn labour/Blair and his Iraq policy win again in 2005 with 40%?

Seems the only ones forcing them to do anything is the british public and thier choice of leader and that leaders policy. Again by 2005 the cat was out of the bag on Iraq, Brits own the choice here in 07, there psyche and untenable position are self created at this point.

By all means pull out now ! See spain/italy for tips.... :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Boy you had me hook line and sinker up until the last sentence. I agree Britian should pull out, so should we as rapidly as possible. However Im confused on the "forcing them" part.

As near I can tell the cats been out of the bag on Iraq and the shotty mission for years. Brits seem to be fully aware of this, yet choose to keep supporting a failed policy.

I mean didn labour/Blair and his Iraq policy win again in 2005 with 40%?

Seems the only ones forcing them to do anything is the british public and thier choice of leader and that leaders policy. Again by 2005 the cat was out of the bag on Iraq, Brits own the choice here in 07, there psyche and untenable position are self created at this point.

By all means pull out now ! See spain/italy for tips.... :thumbsup:

---

If only we could vote governments into power on an issue-by-issue basis! Sadly you generally have to accept the least-worst bundle of lies...sorry, manifesto...

Edit:

Meanwhile in fractured, wartorn and tribal land sundered by ethnic and religious differences and occupied by forces far to small for the task everything is going wrong. New warlords rise up as old tensions come to the fore while criminal gangs take advantage of the chaos. Not much of a shock really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

If only we could vote governments into power on an issue-by-issue basis! Sadly you generally have to accept the least-worst bundle of lies...sorry, manifesto...

---

Oh I get it, believe me it was painful having to choose between Kerry and Bush in 04. But the parlimentary system has a little bit more wiggle room... you do have 3 viable (at least getting more then 10%) parties.

I mean Italy managed it, so did Spain and according to my well informed and opinionated brother in law Martin of Surrey the brits have perfected the notion of representative politics.

I personally am grateful for the British participation in the war, the southern theatre was crucial and they held it brilliantly. Its a dam shame that the war itself was a mistake, and poorly conducted on the U.S. end.

I think its admirable that the UK stuck it out this long, I still havent determined in my own mind if it was to safe its own face for Blairs failed Iraq policy, or the hope that the blood shed would somehow influence US policy on other matters.

I lean toward the latter, but that would mean Blair didnt realize he was dealing with a religous extremist government in Washington. Labour is still in, and arent they adhereing to the same platform of "stay the course" in Iraq under Brown?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Boy you had me hook line and sinker up until the last sentence. I agree Britian should pull out, so should we as rapidly as possible. However Im confused on the "forcing them" part.

As near I can tell the cats been out of the bag on Iraq and the shotty mission for years. Brits seem to be fully aware of this, yet choose to keep supporting a failed policy.

I mean didn labour/Blair and his Iraq policy win again in 2005 with 40%?

Seems the only ones forcing them to do anything is the british public and thier choice of leader and that leaders policy. Again by 2005 the cat was out of the bag on Iraq, Brits own the choice here in 07, there psyche and untenable position are self created at this point.

By all means pull out now ! See spain/italy for tips.... :thumbsup:

---

Heh, you should've seen the other guy. Still, Blair lost a lot of votes that time round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Heh, you should've seen the other guy. Still, Blair lost a lot of votes that time round.

---

Which one ? Howard or Kennedy? Dont you have 3 major parties each with over 15% representation?

Thats a far better system then we have, we have been stuck with a 2 party system for a long time. Perot and the reform party looked like they had a real shot at getting some seats in the house/senate but it never shook out sadly.

The other guy(s) may have been horrible but given the opinion polls on Iraq, by 2005 I would have thought the candidate who supported withdraw would have gained more support.

Perhaps the issue isnt as decisive as portrayed here ? I dont know I dont live in Britian I do know that domestic issues are fairly prevelant there and do make up a great amount of the public adgenda.

To try and flesh it out a bit for you. The only political party consistently against the war was/is the liberal democrats. The only people who vote for them eat muesli for brekky and wear sandals in the winter. So no chance there then. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

To try and flesh it out a bit for you. The only political party consistently against the war was/is the liberal democrats. The only people who vote for them eat muesli for brekky and wear sandals in the winter. So no chance there then. :laugh4:

---

Well thats odd considering the tone here from Brits and there dissatisfaction with the war, and apparant opinion polls. I know I might be simplifying it slightly be taking the tone "change your government, change your policy" but if there is only 1 party that is consistant on getting out, whats the problem then?

I know the UK isnt as liberal/socialist as the continent (yet) but didnt Kennedy have nearly 25% in the election? Thats hardly a few crackpots, considering labour had 40% Thats within striking distance for one decisive issue to breach the gap.

Yet, perhaps the UK system has progressed further that the overall adgenda of a party decides the vote, not a couple of bulletted sound bites like the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Which one ? Howard or Kennedy? Dont you have 3 major parties each with over 15% representation?

Thats a far better system then we have, we have been stuck with a 2 party system for a long time. Perot and the reform party looked like they had a real shot at getting some seats in the house/senate but it never shook out sadly.

The other guy(s) may have been horrible but given the opinion polls on Iraq, by 2005 I would have thought the candidate who supported withdraw would have gained more support.

Perhaps the issue isnt as decisive as portrayed here ? I dont know I dont live in Britian I do know that domestic issues are fairly prevelant there and do make up a great amount of the public adgenda.

---

InsaneApache summed it up. Whatever the viewpoint on Iraq, the Conservatives simply weren't believeable under Howard (and aren't now under new boy Cameron, but I digress), and the Libdems are just hopeless beyond saviour and have been for ages; there's no way enough people think they could realistically govern the country. Besides, the Conservatives haven't ever really been against the war, just the way it has been handled. I guess that does sound familiar across the pond, doesn't it?

So what you've got is two very similar parties and another one most sane people would never vote for. No, the majority of Britain doesn't like being in Iraq, but until anyone can show that they know how to handle it better it won't significantly damage the Labour party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Well thats odd considering the tone here from Brits and there dissatisfaction with the war, and apparant opinion polls. I know I might be simplifying it slightly be taking the tone "change your government, change your policy" but if there is only 1 party that is consistant on getting out, whats the problem then?

I know the UK isnt as liberal/socialist as the continent (yet) but didnt Kennedy have nearly 25% in the election? Thats hardly a few crackpots, considering labour had 40% Thats within striking distance for one decisive issue to breach the gap.

Yet, perhaps the UK system has progressed further that the overall adgenda of a party decides the vote, not a couple of bulletted sound bites like the U.S.

---

FYI, the party currently in government was the party that had the most MPs voting against invading Iraq. More Labour MPs voted against the war than there are LibDem MPs in the Commons. Had the Opposition Tories voted with the Labour rebels, Blair might not have achieved a majority in favour of the war. As it was, 100+ Labour MPs voted against the war, but 150+ Tories voted for it (there are around 60 LibDems).

Quote:

---

Leaving doesn't make the mission accomplished.

---

It most certainly does, they have handed over all their regions apart from the final one which is in the transition phase , once that transition is complete it is mission accomplished and they can bugger off home (or more probably Afghanistan) .
Or are you on about some crazy pie in the sky mission that has nothing to do with handing over power and leaving when the Iraqis want you out . Remember the local and provincial governments have made it very clear that the British presence is not welcome anymore .

Quote:

---

I don't think you know what you're talking about- feel free to prove me wrong though.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
lets refresh your memory then , it involved getting local tribal and religeous leaders to take more power , run things themselves and get rid of "al-Qaida" elements , it involved getting their own little militias to become the new police force . You said it was good news . Hey you even linked a video .
That is exactly what the Brits had done from the start , now it is the tribal and religeous leaders who are having their militias..sorry ...police attacking the Brits , the Brits have tied to fix it , they have gone back and disbanded the security forces , but since the same people run them when they are reformed it doesn't make any difference .
Hey they could get rid of the leadership , but thats a bit of a bugger what with "democratic" elections and the fact that there are no other leaders to deal with of any influence , and even if there was any alternative leaders they would bring their own little militias and do exactly the same .
So Xiahou like I said at the start , take a good look at the shape of things to come .


Anyhow , as to the subject , attacking their allies ,.
Well I suppose its all they have left to attack now ,they blamed the UN , the French , the Russians , they blamed those that opposed the lunacy from the start , they blamed those that changed their minds about the sanity of the adventure , they blamed the Spanish electorate , they blamed the media .
Its about time all the blame was put right where it belongs , with the brainless politicians who went ahead with this idiocy .

But hold on , maybe they could blame Luxembourg , perhaps it was them again .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

FYI, the party currently in government was the party that had the most MPs voting against invading Iraq. More Labour MPs voted against the war than there are LibDem MPs in the Commons. Had the Opposition Tories voted with the Labour rebels, Blair might not have achieved a majority in favour of the war. As it was, 100+ Labour MPs voted against the war, but 150+ Tories voted for it (there are around 60 LibDems).

---

Forgive my ignorance but the tories are conservatives right? thats always been what I thought, but Im a touch off today.

This is part of Parlimentary system that always throws me. In the states the constitution has article I that says congress can declare war, and article II that says the president is commander in chief (essentially he conducts the war).

How does this operate in the parlimentary system? Blair is the head of government by default of his majority. the majority votes to go to war so you now have a binding law? At that point who is in charge of its execution? (IE Commander in chief, please dont say its the monarch....).

Now once we are off the ground, how does the authorization get revoked? Another vote and another law? If yes, is it then binding on the Commander and chief to recall forces or adhere to the terms of the law?

See here the president has the veto, and then there is the 2/3 majority rule needed to override the veto, essentially this is why the dems cant end the war for us, they dont have the 2/3rds to override a bush veto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Forgive my ignorance but the tories are conservatives right? thats always been what I thought, but Im a touch off today.

This is part of Parlimentary system that always throws me. In the states the constitution has article I that says congress can declare war, and article II that says the president is commander in chief (essentially he conducts the war).

How does this operate in the parlimentary system? Blair is the head of government by default of his majority. the majority votes to go to war so you now have a binding law? At that point who is in charge of its execution? (IE Commander in chief, please dont say its the monarch....).

Now once we are off the ground, how does the authorization get revoked? Another vote and another law? If yes, is it then binding on the Commander and chief to recall forces or adhere to the terms of the law?

See here the president has the veto, and then there is the 2/3 majority rule needed to override the veto, essentially this is why the dems cant end the war for us, they dont have the 2/3rds to override a bush veto.

---

AFAIK the PM can order the troops into action at his whim, but any PM who does so on unreasonable grounds can expect a prompt vote of (no) confidence on his ability to head HM's government. Seeking some kind of mandate for his war, and with the general populace clearly against, Blair opted for the House of Commons, which can be more easily controlled (especially as he counted on the support of the Tories/Conservatives). He got that support, but around a quarter of the Labour MPs voted against the party line. While there are no clear rules for establishing authority, Blair fed off the mandate of that vote for the rest of his Premiership.

Authority is revoked when the PM can no longer count on a workable majority, and an election is called to establish a clearer mandate, or the PM resigns and allows a replacement to take over who can command that workable majority. This was what happened to Chamberlain, who could no longer count on the support of Labour, and with enough Conservative MPs also against him to embarrass him. A compromise candidate was found, Churchill, who could gather enough support to form a workable government. Sometimes a PM, on his own initiative, calls for a confidence vote to reestablish his own authority, as Major did with the Conservative party in the 1990s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

AFAIK the PM can order the troops into action at his whim, but any PM who does so on unreasonable grounds can expect a prompt vote of (no) confidence on his ability to head HM's government. Seeking some kind of mandate for his war, and with the general populace clearly against, Blair opted for the House of Commons, which can be more easily controlled (especially as he counted on the support of the Tories/Conservatives). He got that support, but around a quarter of the Labour MPs voted against the party line. While there are no clear rules for establishing authority, Blair fed off the mandate of that vote for the rest of his Premiership.

Authority is revoked when the PM can no longer count on a workable majority, and an election is called to establish a clearer mandate, or the PM resigns and allows a replacement to take over who can command that workable majority. This was what happened to Chamberlain, who could no longer count on the support of Labour, and with enough Conservative MPs also against him to embarrass him. A compromise candidate was found, Churchill, who could gather enough support to form a workable government. Sometimes a PM, on his own initiative, calls for a confidence vote to reestablish his own authority, as Major did with the Conservative party in the 1990s.

---

So technically, the PM does not have to go to parliment to declare war. Blair chose to. Here in the U.S. the president must get congressional approval under the constitution.

I understand the PM can be revoked at anytime by vote of his party, but the actual business about going to war, concievably can be done by one person in the UK system of government

Quote:

---

AFAIK the PM can order the troops into action at his whim

---

.

I know there is probably a lot more involved, but im getting to the bottom line here. If your right (i understand its as far as you know) the PM has soul discretion under the mandate of his majority, thats a powerful position indeed.

Chuck Norris could fill all the portajohns from here to Buqah from too much shrubbin' mai.

Britain's army is simply too small and meagerly funded to continue a fight on two fronts.

it is better that Britain concentrates on one, and the one might as well be the front with the most public backing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

How does this operate in the parlimentary system? Blair is the head of government by default of his majority. the majority votes to go to war so you now have a binding law? At that point who is in charge of its execution? (IE Commander in chief, please dont say its the monarch....).

---

Just to further illuminate what Pannonian has already written, the power to declare war is a royal prerogative - that is, a power retained by the monarch but invariably exercised by the Prime Minister (who supposedly shares the decision with Cabinet, but not necessarily in recent regimes). The Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, but since by definition, he/she is the leader of the largest party, the PM can usually rely on their support. (To hold the PM accountable would, as Pannonian notes, lead to them putting their own seats at risk via the inevitable general election).

Tony Blair asking Parliament to support his action before taking it was a fairly major breach of convention. Oddly, he never actually needed to make up dossiers to convince MPs - he could just have gone ahead anyway.

In brief, for this and several other purposes, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has monarchial powers. They also own several kinds of fish.

I was not being facetious.

If they do not wish to continue supporting this mission, then they should be allowed to leave.

We should not unduly exert ourselves to persuade them to remain.

Sorry, "force" was a poor choice of phrasing.

Well, anyway, if the new French President carries on his way, US will have the Foreign Legion and the Chasseurs Alpins soon as the British troops will be leaving…:furious3:

I believe that Gordon Brown has given up the power to be able to use the Royal Perogative. Damn good thing too.

The British Armed Forces needs massive investment. I would suggest a large slice of Social Security budget gets given to them. With the money wages, equipment and personnel numbers can be increased, as well as encouraging people to go for the jobs in the first place.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I believe that Gordon Brown has given up the power to be able to use the Royal Perogative. Damn good thing too.

---

Have you a link to that?

As far as I recall, he has agreed to allow Parliament a prior vote (and to be bound by its decision) should there ever be a need to declare war - but that's his choice only. In my understanding of the constitution, he cannot give up any aspect of the Royal Prerogative because it is not a power he has unto his office. The power belongs to the Crown, and as PM he merely exercises it on her behalf (by advising Her Majesty to go to war).

Thus a future PM is not bound by his decision.

In that case I might be misinformed... So he's promising us that he'll choose to ask... unless he doesn't want to for reasons such as they might say no... :wall:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Well, anyway, if the new French President carries on his way, US will have the Foreign Legion and the Chasseurs Alpins soon as the British troops will be leaving…:furious3:

---

I'd rather France send excellent units like that to Afghanistan to reinforce their current troops there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Have you a link to that?

As far as I recall, he has agreed to allow Parliament a prior vote (and to be bound by its decision) should there ever be a need to declare war - but that's his choice only. In my understanding of the constitution, he cannot give up any aspect of the Royal Prerogative because it is not a power he has unto his office. The power belongs to the Crown, and as PM he merely exercises it on her behalf (by advising Her Majesty to go to war).

Thus a future PM is not bound by his decision.

---

I don't know, he's also said he's going to hand over the power to create Bishops to the Church. That probably has something with the previous holder of his office being as Catholic as Charles II.