[continued from previous message] 
  
 detectable, harder to find, and harder to attack. These types of units can 
 also easily disappear and vanish or dissolve similar to an advantage 
 possessed by guerrilla forces. 
  
 The area(s) the British troops are abandoning are heavily pro-Iranian and 
 probably have Iranian operatives and intelligence assets reporting on the 
 activities and locations of the British forces. If one is expecting a war 
 with an Iranian military which is able to strike various targets with an 
 advanced missile force then mobility and fast movement vis-`-vis rapid 
 deployment ground units is necessitated. British troops, especially if they 
 are located near the Iranian border, are in a position where they are 
 obliged to be mobile if they are expecting future hostilities, especially 
 from a larger Iranian force that can overwhelm the border(s). 
  
 Also if a war is to be waged against Iran, British units can not only stay 
 immobile in bases unless protecting highly important, strategic resources or 
 points, such as the Green Zone in Baghdad, but would need to be mobile with 
 offensive capabilities to engage Iran in combat. The mobility of troops 
 and units signifies offensive action and not the defensive role or 
 security role that stationary troops or units in military bases symbolize. 
 Speed, flexibility, mobility, and the ability for offensive military 
 action(s) will be significant in any possible future campaign against Iran. 
  
 British Cover-Up in Southern Iraq 
  
 The British Army unit, the Queens Royal Hussars on August 24, 2006 
 abandoned their base near Amarah (Al-Amarah) the capital city of the 
 province of Maysan. Incidentally the Queens Royal Hussars are a light 
 cavalry unit. Their base like many other British and Coalition troops bases 
 in Anglo-American occupied Iraq has been under heavy attack and this is 
 something that has continued from the onset of the entrance of British and 
 American forces into Iraqto be frank these attacks are not in essence 
 anything new. 
  
 There seems to be a cover up of the events leading to the dissertation. 
 Muqtada Al-Sadr and many other Iraqis hailed it as a defeat of the British. 
 The British military dismissed extensively the widely believed reports in 
 Iraq and the Middle East that British soldiers were forced out by southern 
 insurgents, but this seems to be very doubtful in light of the severe 
 pillaging of the abandoned British bases property and supplies only hours 
 after the British left the base. According to the CBC, Rifaat Taha Yaseen of 
 the Iraqi Armys 10th Division told Associated Press Television News that 
 "The British forces left Abu Naji [their base] and the locals started 
 looting everything," and that "They [the locals] took everything from the 
 buildings."9 The British equipment and apparatus were scheduled to be 
 transported elsewhere, but this did not materialize because the base was 
 stripped naked in hours with the British military unable to do anything. 
 Iraqi forces also said they were not informed of the spontaneous desertion 
 of the British base, something that the British military rejects by 
 asserting that the hand-over of the base to Iraqi authorities was 
 co-ordinated with Amarah administrators in advance. It is transparent that 
 the base was abandoned without delay and that there is some sort of cover-up 
 or media spin of events underway in regards to the British desertion of 
 their positions in Maysan. 
  
 Major-General Charlie Burbridge, a British military spokesmen tried to 
 downplay the looting of the British Army base and the Iraqi resentment 
 towards the occupation of Iraq by foreign troops. The Major-General said 
 that the looting of the British base "was more of an attempt to improve 
 ones [meaning the Iraqis] quality of life by making off with an air 
 conditioner," and that "the crux of the issue is economic, its not malice 
 [against British troops or the occupation]. Call it a peace dividend." 
  
 Iraqi Accusations that Britain is mobilizing for an attack on Iran 
  
 British commanders have conveniently cited the attacks on the army base10 of 
 the Queens Royal Hussars as motivation for the light cavalry regiments 
 departure or desertion. What is noteworthy about the abandonment of the 
 British base in Maysan is that British troops have been redeployed onto the 
 Iranian border. The unit has also simultaneously downgraded to even lighter, 
 more flexible, and quicker equipment by "giving up their Challenger tanks 
 and Warrior armoured fighting vehicles in favour of stripped-down Landrovers 
 armed with machineguns and "will remain constantly on the move and be 
 re-supplied by air drops."11 
  
 Concerned leaders of Iraqi society are accusing the British and American 
 forces of getting ready to attack neighbouring Iran from Iraq. As a result 
 of these accusations and the military movements themselves, British 
 officials including Dominic Asquith, the British Ambassador to Iraq, have 
 stressed that the redeployment of British troops on the Iranian border are 
 not British preparations for military attacks or an invasion of Iran, but 
 rather a crack down on smuggling and the entrance of weapons into Iraq from 
 Iran. 
  
 While British officials are maintaining no desire or preparations for a 
 conflict with Iran, more British troops are being mobilized and deployed to 
 Iraq at the same time. The Light Infantry of the 2nd Battalion, another unit 
 with rapid deployment capabilities, is deploying to the southern Iraqi 
 border with Iran. The 2nd Battalion is being sent to Iraq under the pretext 
 of working in the Rear Operations Battle Group which will provide escorts 
 for military convoys and security for British forces and bases in Basra.12 
  
 Why are Italian troops leaving Iraq? 
  
 Furthermore, the Italian government has plans to pull out its 2,700 troops 
 within September, 2006. It is alluding to the move as part of Italys 
 commitment to provide more than 3,000 Italian troops for an international 
 force due in South Lebanon, after the Israeli siege of Lebanon. There is 
 also an alternative explanation for the departure of the soldiers of certain 
 nations such as Italy from occupied Iraq. That explanation is that if there 
 is a possible war with Iran or Iran and Syria, then Anglo-American occupied 
 Iraq will be a theatre of war under which all Coalition troops will come 
 under Iranian and Syrian fire. In such a case the populations of countries 
 such as Japan or countries in Europe such as Italy who are fiercely anti-war 
 in their perspective(s) will hold their own government, the United States, 
 and the British government accountable for the deaths of their nationalsin 
 other words there would be ferocious opposition to a war with Iran and Syria 
 if these nations faced national casualties that incited domestic outrage. In 
 this scenario the Anglo-American war effort would be greatly impaired and 
 most covert or overt support by foreign governments could be endangered 
 because of their publics. 
  
 British military positions in Iraq & the Iranian oil fields in Khuzestan 
  
 The province of Maysan is north of Basra and borders the important Iranian 
 province of Khuzestan. What is strategically important about the Iranian 
 province of Khuzestan is that it is where most of Irans oil is produced. 
 Khuzestan is conveniently next to Iraq and would be one of the firstif not 
 the firststrategic objectives or goals to secure if Iran where to be 
 invaded and vital Iranian oil supplies kept on the market.13 Its vast oil 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)