Comments on: Ban on U.S. Military in London Lifted

By: LJD

LJD — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:23:18 +0000

A post about protecting American citizens in the U.K., then somehow, a fast-forward to Iraq? I thought this post was about London, not Iraq, but oh well...

Due to his hysterical barrage of frothing-at-the-mouth criticism, I fail to really get Anderson's point. The following is telling though:

"...our policy of gunning down Iraqi civilians on a weekly basis..."
"Our mission would be better achieved with drastically fewer innocent civilians shot up by our troops, even if that means more U.S. dead."

Let's get this straight:
1.) We have a "policy" of "gunning down" iraqi civilians.
2.) To protect them (iraqis), you would rather see more U.S. military casualties?

During what part of your long, illustrious military career was force protection not a primary mission?

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:15:44 +0000

If it's too dangerous for American servicemen, why wasn't a warning issued to American tourists as well? Our highest goal for our military, to judge from this and from our policy of gunning down Iraqi civilians on a weekly basis, would appear to be "making sure as few as possible get killed." That is a secondary goal for any military force. The primary mission comes first (hence "primary"), and I'm afraid we've been forgetting that in Iraq. Our mission would be better achieved with drastically fewer innocent civilians shot up by our troops, even if that means more U.S. dead. (Personally, I wouldn't have favored sacrificing a single American life to "liberate" the Iraqis; people who deserve liberation can generally do it themselves. But, for better or worse, we're there and we've got a mission.)

By: Richard Gardner

Richard Gardner — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:57:35 +0000

The original restriction was valid. I'd say much of the intent was to keep out of the way when the overall status wasn't known, and to stop a little "disaster tourism."

Most of the USAF personnel are stationed at RAFs Lakenheath and Mildenhall, under 2 hours by train away, and many of the servicemembers would normally be heading into London for the Summer weekend (largely junior folks going clubbing).

I can imagine the alternaive statement, "they came here to gawk (or party) and got in the way of emergency services."

After things settled down, and more was know, the order was lifted.

By: JACK ARMY

JACK ARMY — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:28:23 +0000

There's more to this than simple fear. They are in the military, after all, an institution designed to fight wars. However, Air Force personnel have missions to accomplish and the leadership has a responsibility to ensure that they are capable of performing those missions. Getting several members of the USAF killed in a London bombing could severely degrade the ability of a unit to perform. This is about unit readiness, not fear.

I didn't see anything in the articles about non-military US citizens being restricted from London. I did see the US offering all possible assistance, though.

Let's be sensible in this emotional time. What wasn't said in those articles is that those USAF personnel would fight and die in battle if the UK was attacked. Allies do that for each other.

By: John Bull

John Bull — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:12:55 +0000

If the US military are so terrified, I suggest they should clear off out of the UK and back to the US.

A disgusted Brit

By: PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » Outside The Beltway : Ban on U.S. Military in London Lifted

Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:07:19 +0000

[...] The ban on travel to London by US military personnel and their families (as noted in the previous post) has been lifted. James Joyner has the details. [...]