American Forces pull out of London

  • #1
374
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

After the London Bombings, American Forces have been told not to venture near the Capitol:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm

Is this the first sign of 'Defeat' against terrorism?..or am I reading it wrong, maybe it's the first sign of Terrorism gaining the upperhand?

If London is not safe for American Soldiers, where next Iraq?..Afghanastan? Baltimore?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
Its been 5 friggen days.... Maybe the US military thinks we need to wait longer then 5 freaken days to make sure everythings ok... The brits i know are barely getting back to criticizing the French! :D
 
  • #3
Art
  • #4
374
0
Pengwuino said:
Its been 5 friggen days.... Maybe the US military thinks we need to wait longer then 5 freaken days to make sure everythings ok... The brits i know are barely getting back to criticizing the French! :D
Yes!..it does seem that an 'over-protective' commander issued the 'pull-out' orders in a different context. I am certain that American Soldiers would never follow so obvious irresponsible orders, in fact anywhere there is a chance of a 'Melee-attack' (I got that from a friends son, playstation I think?)..then American Forces would surely want a piece-of-the-action, and this is stated in admiration of all forces.
 
  • #5
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
Oh there all of a sudden "In a hurry"?
 
  • #6
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
Spin_Network said:
Yes!..it does seem that an 'over-protective' commander issued the 'pull-out' orders in a different context. I am certain that American Soldiers would never follow so obvious irresponsible orders, in fact anywhere there is a chance of a 'Melee-attack' (I got that from a friends son, playstation I think?)..then American Forces would surely want a piece-of-the-action, and this is stated in admiration of all forces.
they better follow that order! lol. Thats what soldiers do, follow orders :wink:
 
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
19,546
5,825
That ban was for soldiers not on duty.
 
  • #8
Art
The ban has now been lifted;

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13385130,00.html [Broken]
US TROOP BAN LIFTED

The ban on US Air Force personnel entering London following last Thursday's attacks has been rescinded, the US embassy has confirmed.

The move followed criticism from police, politicians and tourism officials.


The order involved around 5,000 servicemen and women based at RAF Mildenhall and a further 5,000 based at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.

They were told not to go inside the M25.
Also;

Police are searching 5 houses in Leeds in connection with the attack on London based on intelligence reports and in a separate anti-terror operation armed police have surrounded a house in Burley, Leeds.

ps Seems the house is where the suspected bus bomber lived with his family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
russ_watters said:
That ban was for soldiers not on duty.
If I may conjecture, this is in response to the OP's last line (which clearly misses this point).
 
  • #10
Mercator
Spin_Network said:
Yes!..it does seem that an 'over-protective' commander issued the 'pull-out' orders in a different context. I am certain that American Soldiers would never follow so obvious irresponsible orders, in fact anywhere there is a chance of a 'Melee-attack' (I got that from a friends son, playstation I think?)..then American Forces would surely want a piece-of-the-action, and this is stated in admiration of all forces.
Is self abuse legal in this state?
 
  • #11
isn't this over-reacting a bit?

It is not unusual for the US govt. to protect off-duty solidiers by informing them of regions of possible heightened terrorism against US citizens. And it was rescinded, as expected, in any case.

This is hardly a 'Defeat' as claimed by the OP, but just simply common-sense personnel management.
 
  • #12
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
quetzalcoatl9 said:
It is not unusual for the US govt. to protect off-duty solidiers by informing them of regions of possible heightened terrorism against US citizens.
It looks like the Air Force imposed a ban though. That's going a little further than "informing"...but it still does not seem like an extremely unreasonable thing to do. Perhaps not too well thought out, but that's about it.
 
  • #13
russ_watters
Mentor
19,546
5,825
Gokul43201 said:
If I may conjecture, this is in response to the OP's last line (which clearly misses this point).
Well actually, the title of the thread and the last two lines. But yes - I was a little lazy...
It looks like the Air Force imposed a ban though. That's going a little further than "informing"...but it still does not seem like an extremely unreasonable thing to do. Perhaps not too well thought out, but that's about it.
That type of thing is very, very common. Ie, when a ship pulls into a foreign port, the captain has a list, prepared by NCIS and applying to the entire Navy, of places that are off limits to sailors. That can be specific bars/clubs or entire sections of towns/towns. Those rules are enforced.
 
  • #14
374
0
russ_watters said:
Well actually, the title of the thread and the last two lines. But yes - I was a little lazy... That type of thing is very, very common. Ie, when a ship pulls into a foreign port, the captain has a list, prepared by NCIS and applying to the entire Navy, of places that are off limits to sailors. That can be specific bars/clubs or entire sections of towns/towns. Those rules are enforced.
My 'Tabloid' post heading is regretfull. Also I want to state, that I think the whole saga is, under the already stressful condition of those many who are around the clock, being made to shoulder a heavy burden of security.

The current link has been updated, and I made the posting, under shock-horror and disbelief, I knew it had to be a major booby, and it turns out exactly that, but it does not relieve me of the original heading, which was purely my rash and irresponsible action, I do appologise if it was taken out of context.
 
  • #15
27
0
Spin_Network said:
Is this the first sign of 'Defeat' against terrorism?..or am I reading it wrong, maybe it's the first sign of Terrorism gaining the upperhand?
So in your view American commanders shouldn't exercise control over the travel of servicemen and women during an emergency so as not to encourage the terrorists? Seems like terribly empty gesture and a dangerous one at that.

Rev Prez
 
  • #16
27
0
Art said:
Seems Britain and the US might also be in a hurry to leave Iraq and leave it to the Iraqis to sort out the mess;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671747.stm
Still not reading your own sources, huh? This article talks about hopes to draw down American and British troop presence, not to abandon the mission.

Rev Prez
 
  • #17
Art
Rev Prez said:
So in your view American commanders shouldn't exercise control over the travel of servicemen and women during an emergency so as not to encourage the terrorists? Seems like terribly empty gesture and a dangerous one at that.

Rev Prez
I wouldn't just say his view, every British broadcasting station, politicians, the British public and even tourists have criticised the American commander for giving the order to his men and their families to stay out of London.
 
  • #18
Art
Rev Prez said:
Still not reading your own sources, huh? This article talks about hopes to draw down American and British troop presence, not to abandon the mission.

Rev Prez
You are being rude again :rolleyes: However I'll explain. This article refers to a memo discussing the desire to reduce troop numbers significantly in the near term and comes a couple of days after a US gov't report showing a 9 fold increase in insurgency attacks in Iraq (not even counting attacks against military targets).
 
  • #19
russ_watters
Mentor
19,546
5,825
Spin_Network said:
My 'Tabloid' post heading is regretfull. Also I want to state, that I think the whole saga is, under the already stressful condition of those many who are around the clock, being made to shoulder a heavy burden of security.

The current link has been updated, and I made the posting, under shock-horror and disbelief, I knew it had to be a major booby, and it turns out exactly that, but it does not relieve me of the original heading, which was purely my rash and irresponsible action, I do appologise if it was taken out of context.
Color me impressed. :smile:
 
  • #20
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Art said:
You are being rude again :rolleyes: However I'll explain. This article refers to a memo discussing the desire to reduce troop numbers significantly in the near term and comes a couple of days after a US gov't report showing a 9 fold increase in insurgency attacks in Iraq (not even counting attacks against military targets).
It also speaks of a desire to reduce numbers dependent upon the training of Iraqi forces to keep the peace themselves. It's a little misleading of you to say they're simply pulling out, or even that they're in a hurry, since this is a target for a year from now. Also, the article makes it pretty clear that not all in the military, particular the commanders on the ground, are in favor of this. It also mentions that Spain has completely withdrawn and Italy plans to do the same, so it's odd that you would single out the UK and US when they are only reducing their numbers.
 
  • #21
374
0
Rev Prez said:
So in your view American commanders shouldn't exercise control over the travel of servicemen and women during an emergency so as not to encourage the terrorists? Seems like terribly empty gesture and a dangerous one at that.

Rev Prez
No its definately not my view, see my later posting.

I was trying to convey what had been headlined here in the UK, and was starting to gain momentum of sensationalism..shock horror...
 
  • #22
27
0
Art said:
YHowever I'll explain. This article refers to a memo discussing the desire to reduce troop numbers...
Yes, it does talk about relieving a deployment rate that is hard on the country fiscally and the warfighter personally. What does that have to do with dropping the mission?

...comes a couple of days after a US gov't report showing a 9 fold increase in insurgency attacks in Iraq...
Which is why better than a brigade of force is deploying on top of the normal rotation. We've seen this before, and in the end we always draw down to 130 thousand or better. Either way, none of this has anything to do with your ridiculous claim that the Bush Administration intends to cut and run.

Rev Prez
 
  • #23
Art
Rev Prez said:
Yes, it does talk about relieving a deployment rate that is hard on the country fiscally and the warfighter personally. What does that have to do with dropping the mission?
The mission I believe is 'the war on terror' and as Bush and his administration has said many times;
"We will fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"
so does this mean Bush (and you) think the war against terror is won or will be shortly? If not has Bush and co. decided to let the Iraqi security forces fight the 'war on terror' for them?


Rev Prez said:
Which is why better than a brigade of force is deploying on top of the normal rotation. We've seen this before, and in the end we always draw down to 130 thousand or better. Either way, none of this has anything to do with your ridiculous claim that the Bush Administration intends to cut and run.
Your usual straw man tactics :zzz: . Please show me where I said "the Bush administration intends to cut and run?".

The point I was making was simply that it seemed somewhat incongruent that the contents of this leaked memo suggests the 2 major elements in the 'war against terror' are looking to substantially reduce their military commitment in Iraq at a time when there are more 'terrorists' operating there than at any time previously. And as it was the military intervention in Iraq that stirred up this hornet's nest it seems, to me at least, a little unfair to expect Iraqis to shoulder most of the responsibilities (and resulting casualities) in cleaning up the mess.
 
  • #24
Art
Seems if this article is correct then the coalition forces will be in Iraq for quite some time yet...

Corruption threatens to leave Iraq with a 'ghost army'


By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad

15 July 2005
A tidal wave of corruption may ensure the Iraqi army and police will be too few and too poorly armed to replace American and British forces fighting anti-government insurgents. That could frustrate plans in Washington and London to reduce their forces in Iraq.

The Iraqi armed forces are full of "ghost battalions" in which officers pocket the pay of soldiers who never existed or have gone home. "I know of at least one unit which was meant to be 2,200 but the real figure was only 300 men," said a veteran Iraqi politician and member of parliament, Mahmoud Othman. "The US talks about 150,000 Iraqis in the security forces but I doubt if there are more than 40,000."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=652547 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on American Forces pull out of London

Replies
31
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
250
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
13K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
195
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
Top