Source:
Asharq Alawsat ...
Bob Ainsworth, the British minister of state for the armed forces, has explained that the British forces' stay in Iraq is going to be "a matter of years rather than months" but stressed that "this depends on the Iraqi government and our ability to stay. But this is a continuing relationship."
Speaking in an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, he said: The British government is today negotiating with Iraq to conclude a new bilateral agreement which includes details of the British forces remaining there. On the British forces' role in Iraq today, the British minister of state said: "We are in the stage of switching from practical deployment to continuing relationship with the Iraqi government and people. This is what is happening at present." He explained that this switch "is from having 4,000 persons in Iraq who are doing too much in terms of training with the 14th Division and the deployment of some of our elements in the city with the Iraqi army units to the stage where there are 400 persons training officers, coordinating, and doing some training with the navy."
...
In reply to a question about the British interest in keeping its forces in Iraq because of its strategic location, Ainsworth said: "Iraq is important for us and the relationship is important for us. We lost many young men in liberating Iraq and much has been invested in the country and we want it to come out in the best possible shape." He refrained from specifying the financial cost of the war saying: "There are different ways for measuring the cost of the military operation but there is a greater cost, especially in the lives we had lost." According to Reuters, the war cost the British 847m sterling pounds between 2002 and 2003, 1.3bn between 2003 and 2004, and around 910m the following years until 2008 when it cost 1.8bn pounds.
...
On what Britain has gained from its participation in the war, the British minister said: "No one is saying that mistakes were not made in Iraq. I personally voted in favor of the operation in 2003 and I really believed then that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and a clear intention to use them" if the former Iraqi regime had possessed them. He added: "When we went to Iraq, we thought that there were WMD and that we were liberating a country and not staying long. We therefore did not plan for the post-operation stability stage to the required extent. When thinking about this issue in terms of operating and the need for resources, it means that we keep these matters in our minds before moving to a similar scenario."
Read more:
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=16160
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
