Blair 'expected war to last four months'

The Observer (U.K.) ^ | 07/06/03 | Kamal Ahmed

[Pokey78]

Tony Blair has revealed for the first time that coalition forces in Iraq believed the war against Saddam Hussein would last for 125 days, suggesting why the military were so ill-prepared for the post-conflict situation. In an interview with The Observer, the Prime Minister said he had spoken to General Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces in Iraq, who had said the war was likely to last four months.

In an admission that raises the question whether military intelligence understood the state of the Iraqi armed forces - which crumbled in the face of the American and British 'shock-and-awe' campaign - Blair said criticisms of the post-conflict situation were premature.

'When I was talking to Gen Franks the other day, he reminded me that under the original timetable for the conflict, it was going to take 125 days after the ground action began to complete the conflict,' Blair said. 'Well we are still within 125 days now, so I think it is possible to exaggerate the problems and difficulties.'

The Prime Minister said Britain would retain a military presence in Iraq for as long as necessary. He pointed out that Britain still had armed forces in Kosovo and Afghanistan, years after the wars there had ended.

'This was never going to be a situation where you could just go in, invade a country, topple the government and walk away afterwards. And therefore I don't think that it is in the least surprising that it will take some time. But it is very important people realise this, we have still got a military presence in Kosovo, in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, but it is a fraction of what we had at the time of the crises in those countries.

'Already today we have got only a third of the troops we had at the height of the [Iraq] crisis. We have got 5,500 foreign troops coming in the next few weeks. So having a troop presence there is not the same thing as having the same number of troops as we had during the conflict, or even now.'

Deaths of British and US troops at the hands of forces still loyal to Saddam Hussein and others angered by the tactics of coalition forces have led to questions about how much planning there was for rebuilding Iraq.

The violence in Iraq continued yesterday when an explosion outside a police station killed seven recruits to a US-backed Iraqi police force and wounded dozens in a town west of Baghdad.

The blast, believed to have been caused by fighters loyal to Saddam Hussein, came a day after a broadcast accredited to the deposed Iraqi dictator calling for an uprising against US and British forces, and warning against 'collaboration with the invaders'.

Many areas of Iraq are without reliable water and power supplies and there is growing resentment among many Iraqis that there is still an 'occupying force' in the country. Lawlessness is also rife.

Paul Bremer, the US chief administrator in the country, revealed last week that the preparations for what would happen after the war were inadequate. He said the imposition of law and order remained the priority.

'We will stay and make sure we get the job done,' Blair said.

Downing Street has said it is well aware of the criticisms that the lack of discovery of Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction was creating difficulties.

The Prime Minister pledged he would publish information on what evidence the Government had in an orderly way.

'I think the important thing is to do this, not in bits of information coming out, but in a proper disciplined way and then share the stuff with people,' he said.

'The intelligence that we received was intelligence replicated in intelligence services right round the world, and, given the record of Saddam, I have got no doubt it was correct.

'Remember I was raising the issue of weapons of mass destruction way before these issues [came up]. We bombed Saddam in late 1998 because of this, so when the intelligence evidence comes to you from our security services that are the best in the world, you don't turn round and say well I have got a hunch that it is wrong, so I am going to ignore it. You have got to act on it.'

[McGavin999]

The UN in Kosovo STILL does not have the power up and running full time. I think it took them several years to even get it operational. The people were only getting 1 to 2 hours a day if they were amoung those fortunate enough to get any. Yet, a month and a half after the main war in Iraq and everyone expects everything to be running like New York City.

It is the most disgusting bias I've ever seen.

[Cicero]

NATO was said to have done $100 billion in damage to the infrastructure of Serbia. Clinton deliberately destroyed all their dams, factories, railroads, bridges, power plants, and many hospitals and apartment buildings. Very little of that has been fixed either.

In contrast, Bush tried to avoid damaging the Iraqi infrastructure. Where clinton bombed the TV station in Belgrade and killed a number of workers there, Bush didn't even try to hit their power supplies although Baghdad Bob was broadcasting every day.

As you say, the bias is disgusting.

[Burkeman1]

Umm bias? How about reality? Correct- the services in Kosovo are not even up and running yet nearly as they had been before Clinton's war. And that is by deliberate Clintonian policy. We cut deals with local warlords and crime bosses and left them in de facto power while we hide in rural bases and patrol only in strength with helicopter gunships hovering above. I can't remember the last American killed due to hostile fire in Kosovo and it is all because of Clintonian occupation policy whose number one priority is to avoid any casualties. The downside is that it leaves the people of Kosovo under the rule of feudal warlords with intermittent electricity and the crudest of public services. Bush may chose this path if he thinks casualties in Iraq might cost him in the upcoming election.

[McGavin999]

Regardless, the UN has spent billions to rebuild Kosovo, and they still don't have the power. That doesn't even mention what they did to Serbia. I don't believe the UN has spent a dime on Serbia.

The point I was making is that the liberal media and all the marxist euros are sh*ting bricks because we don't have the power up and running in Iraq after 60 days. Why don't they mention the "fine job" the UN has done when they've been in charge.

[Burkeman1]

Forget the bias. That is to be expected. We all know that. Are you suprised by it?

[GOPJ]

It's the "Clinton-can-do-no-wrong" and "Bush-can-do-no-right" mentality of the media:

The UN in Kosovo STILL does not have the power up and running full time. I think it took them several years to even get it operational. The people were only getting 1 to 2 hours a day if they were among those fortunate enough to get any. Yet, a month and a half after the main war in Iraq and everyone expects everything to be running like New York City.

It is the most disgusting bias I've ever seen.

[GOPJ]

It's the "Clinton-can-do-no-wrong" and "Bush-can-do-no-right" mentality of the media:

The UN in Kosovo STILL does not have the power up and running full time. I think it took them several years to even get it operational. The people were only getting 1 to 2 hours a day if they were among those fortunate enough to get any. Yet, a month and a half after the main war in Iraq and everyone expects everything to be running like New York City.

It is the most disgusting bias I've ever seen.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Forget the bias. That is to be expected."

Pardon me? Let's see, who's agenda are you promoting?

[ChadGore]

[Burkeman1]

Ah. Agenda? If one who calls themselve conservative hasn't been aware of massive liberal media bias for decades and doesn't take it in stride or expect it then I would say they are naive. What is your question anyway?

[chudogg]

We tryed that huh? TRYED??

LOL!

[McGavin999]

Not surprised, I believe disgusted is the word.

[Burkeman1]

I used to be disgusted. I am not any longer. 8 years of watching the press excuse Clinton for everything even if it made them look like fools, liars, and craven power suck up cowards, cured me the disgust you still feel. I am just numb to it now.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"If one who calls themselve conservative hasn't been aware of massive liberal media bias for decades and doesn't take it in stride or expect it then I would say they are naive."

Why should a liberal media bias be taken in stride? I don't understand your thinking at all.

[Burkeman1]

Because if you ponder it too much- it will drive you nuts. Just accept it while reading or watching the news and take it into account. Just don't dwell on it. Otherwise you won't think about anything else.

[A Citizen Reporter]

LOL, I don't think I will be taking your advice. I do watch for it everyday, and filter everything I read with the knowledge that there is a liberal bias. BTW, I also discuss this at every opportunity with my friends or anybody that I happen to meet in the grocery store, the beauty shop, golf course or on the street, because I've found that they don't seem to see the same liberal bias that I do. But the more I talk, the more that changes.

I guess we all cope in our own ways. But I sure don't cotton to your ways.

[Burkeman1]

Well- It is so obvious that I just find the topic boring now. I am not surprised by any hypocrisy of the media.

[A Citizen Reporter]

Well, as a conservative, I hope you don't find it so boring that you no longer consider to bring it to the attention of those people who might not be aware of it. There is still much work to be done. That's why I was so surprised that you would be here on a conservative forum, telling people to forget about it.

[Burkeman1]

I used to be so animated by liberal bias. But quite frankly got worn out. Once my parents and siblings were convereted I had done my job. And that took years of being the only Republican in a Democrat Irish Catholic Boston family. We had some family dinners that almost came to blows a few times!