More British Memos

"Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos."

"John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth"."

These memos point to the fact that the Bush administration was warned that their lack of post invasion troop strength was inadequate. It shows that neither our military nor our government had any interest in dealing with Iraq properly, after the invasion.

This adds to the belief that our leaders are clueless when it comes to conducting war and its' aftermath, or, I believe, they knew exactly what they were, and are doing, in the handling of Iraq. They knew that by not only maintaining too small a force themselves, but also disbanding Iraqs' military and police, that there would be the problems we see there today. I also believe we're deeply involved in causing the violence by much more than just being there. I think we allowed and incited radical elements to grow strong and cause violence, to suit our purpose of maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq to use as a staging ground to strike at other countries in the region. We never had any intention of leaving. As long as the violence continues, we're justified in staying, which is why the President keeps insisting that any withdawl will be determined by "conditions on the groud". Whenever things do calm down, if ever, little if anything will be said about our permanent bases, after we make a big deal about the majority of our troops coming home. That's what happened in Saudi Arabia after we "defended" it from Saddam in the first Gulf War, we're still there. The big difference was we didn't have to "regime change" them first, to get bases there.

We don't want a strong, democratic and independant Iraq. It's far too strategically importatant to leave to the Iraqis. It's essential that their government be obedient puppets, totally dependant on us. One look at a map shows just how important it is in seizing control through force and intimidation, all the oil in the region.

And by the way, we're never going to leave Afghanistan either. We're planning on protecting oil pipelines there.