[continued from previous message] 
  
 liberation of Kuwait by the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations till the 
 ground was fertile enough for an invasion force. 
  
 It is in the same manner that the ground for confrontation with Iran is 
 being paved under the pretext of accusations that Iran desires to produce 
 nuclear weapons. As with Iraq, the road towards confrontation with Iran will 
 be paved in steps including the demonizing of Iran and a military build-up 
 alongside Iranian borders. The use of sanctions would help brake down the 
 strength of the population and cause internal friction. Internal discord 
 could be used as a trump card to have fifth columnist forces, based along 
 party, ethnic or sectarian lines working from within Iran. 
  
 Scott Ritter, a former American U.N. weapons inspector, has written in a 
 widely published article titled U.S. war with Iran has already begun,that 
 the United States has already started paving the path for a conflict with 
 Iran: The reality is that the U.S. war with Iran has already begun. As we 
 speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using 
 pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities. 
  
 The decision was made to invade Iraq in July 2002 and through the execution 
 of a presidential authorization in August, 2002 before the actual offensive 
 in 2003. What are the chances that such a decision has also been made in 
 regards to Iran already? Mobilization for war could be underway by all sides 
 and all other activities a mere act. There is already a set precedent for 
 this type of action on the part of the United States and the British 
 government. The mobilization of British troops that are configured to 
 execute offensive operations only strengthens this premise. 
  
 British Commanders: "Protecting the Investment" 
  
 In practice, British troops will either be officially or formally handing 
 nominal power to the Iraqi military, police, and security forces, while 
 still keeping real authority. This process is a continuation of the existing 
 one in Iraq, but under a new name. The British military will either continue 
 current operations or change or expand the focus of British military 
 objectives in Iraq. The mobilization of light, flexible rapid deployment 
 British forces near the Iranian border that can quickly move at an instant 
 notice is the new function that the British are now undertaking. This 
 metamorphosis is taking place under the mandate to fight smuggling and the 
 alleged entry of weapons into Iraq from neighbouring Iran. 
  
 The false premises for renovation of practice in Iraq that the British 
 forces are supposedly undertaking is even compromised by the British 
 statements that Britain, along with the United States, will protect their 
 "investments" in Iraq by not absolutely withdrawing. This is highlighted by 
 an article written by Kim Sengupta of the British paper The Independent. 
  
 >From the British daily, The Independent7: 
  
 "A force of around 4,000 British troops will stay behind in Iraq for an 
 indefinite period, even after all provinces controlled by the UK are handed 
 over to the Baghdad government in nine months' time, senior defence sources 
 said yesterday. The soldiers will be positioned at a base in Basra ready to 
 act to "protect the investment" made by U.S. and British forces in the 
 country, it was disclosed." 
  
 At first one might assume that the "investment" is inclusively indicating 
 Basra or Iraq and/or Iraqi oil resources, but after careful scrutiny one can 
 not rule out plans for the configuration of an Anglo-American New Middle 
 East (formerly termed the Greater Middle East) or even what lies west of 
 Basra and Iraq8 
  
 The announcement(s) of British troop level reduction are firstly misleading 
 and secondly could be made in anticipation of future events only known to 
 British and Coalition political and military plannersplans that the public 
 are in the dark about. Once again, the political considerations of the 
 operation are apparent from the stated objective of satisfying "political 
 appetites." 
  
 British Rapid Deployment Units 
  
 There is already a shift in operations and troop mobility underway in Iraq. 
 British troops will no longer be stationary, but be mobile and patrolling or 
 roaming Iraqi territory in mobile formations with rapid deployment 
 capabilities. 
  
 Rapid deployment capabilities are qualities that allow a unit or sub-unit to 
 move ahead of an invading or defensive force for diverse missions; they are 
 characteristics of light infantry, including para-troopers, and light 
 cavalry units. Lighter forces are flexible on account of their quick speed 
 and light formation. Rapid deployment capabilities also allows a unit to 
 conduct reconnaissance work into enemy territory, sabotage, infiltration of 
 enemy territory and installations, perform raids, impede enemy movement(s) 
 and advance(s), attack behind enemy lines, and execute ambushes. 
  
 Rapid deployment units can also be used to capture and secure vital 
 installations or strategic points such as oil refineries or airfields, where 
 an advancing force can create a bridgehead or supply point or secure vital 
 resources. In particular, light infantry and light cavalry units are ideal 
 rapid deployment ground units for performing seek and destroy missions, 
 and patrolling operations, in coordination with other military units, to 
 prevent enemy infiltration or enemy forces from invading. If there were to 
 be a major war between two neighbouring forces of almost equal strength the 
 probability of the use of light units of infantry and cavalry with rapid 
 deployment units would be indispensable. A war between Iranian forces and 
 the American-led Coalition forces would be one employing such units on its 
 frontiers. 
  
 There are also approximately 2,500 British troops stationed in the Persian 
 Gulf many with rapid deployment capabilities, that are ready for instant 
 deployment or to engage in military operation concerned with Iraq at an 
 instant notice. 
  
 Under what circumstances are Rapidly Deployable Ground units Utilized? 
  
 The use of light and quick ground units is one that corresponds to an 
 operation or mission that can be very volatile and quickly changing with 
 many unexpected events. These types of units are very flexible in their 
 operation(s). A war or conflict with Iran and or an Iranian reaction to 
 aerial bombardments of its nuclear energy facilities could be an operation 
 of unpredictable characteristics because of the largely unknown nature and 
 capabilities of the Iranian Armed Forces. Using mobile, rapid deployment is 
 a strategy which is ideal when an army is in territory heavily concentrated 
 or with the potential to be heavily concentrated by enemy forces. When in 
 enemy territory where you can be easily surrounded it would be a grave 
 mistake to stay stationary in such places like a military base where you 
 could face a siege and be targeted by an enemy that knows where to find you. 
 That is why a mobile and light unit that can rapidly deploy and redeploy on 
 multiple operations and missions is ideal. One of the objectives is not to 
 let the enemy forces know where you are located; therefore your units will 
 constantly be in movement or prepared for rapid movement(s). Also, light 
 units can disperse easily under enemy fire and they can also secure enemy 
 facilities at a rapid pace, avoiding enemy forces or air power to an extent. 
 In addition to their flexibility, lighter military units are less 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)