At the same time the US Airforce admits that they did not have sufficient Firefighters at RAF Fairford during the war last year, an issue they are now addressing through the creation of a new air base group that will include Fairford, under the command of U.S. Air Force Col. J.R. Smith. During the war, the B-52s flying from RAF Fairford flew 122 missions, a total of 1,600 flying hours in 33 days. They dropped 3.2 million pounds of munitions. (source Stars and Stripes) This is 1600 million tons of high explosives that were transported though Swindon roads by lorry from the arms base at RAF Wellsford on the M4 near Newbury.
The following is our press release to the local paper - which is why it elevates the safety of Swindon to being the main issure - but it is a relevant point. Given that the war was widely advertised in advance, the Iraqi army could have landed a commando group in the UK prior to hostilities. Given the way peace protestors were able to get in fairford, ot tail the arms convoys, imagine what the republican guard could have done!
Secretary of Swindon Stop the War Coalition, Andy Newman, comments. “I think many people will be alarmed to learn that the US Air force did not have enough firefighters while they were flying 1600 million tons of high explosives out of Fairford! The safety of Swindon was never considered during the war, all of these high explosives were transported though our streets by lorry during the war. What would have happened if Iraqi soldiers had attacked these convoys, something they were legally entitled to do during a war? Was Tony Blair prepared for Swindon to be “collateral damage”!
Swindon Stop the War Coalition also opposes the refuelling tankers being moved to Fairford The US air force is spending £15 million pounds expanding Mildenhall – they would only be doing that if they are planning more and bigger wars in the future. That money should be spent on reconstruction for the shattered countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.”
By the way – The swindon evening advertiser poll showing 88% opposition to war in Feb 2003 was read in the Whitehouse, because it was reported in Stars and Stripes, distributed to all serving US forces personnel, all congressmen, and the Commander in Chief!
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=12856&archive=true
Stars and Stripes - 5 March 2003. From that article: More B-52 bombers arrive at British air base. “Their arrival suggests there is an imminence of war,” said Andy Newman, a resident of nearby Swindon and a war opponent. … The arrival of the planes — as symbolic as it is significant — has brought out hundreds of protesters, according to British media. … "We’re quite upset about it,” said Newman, a member of the Stop the War Coalition. “Support for the war is very low here.” Newman said a local newspaper polled readers last month to gauge residents’ support for the war. The poll found that 88 percent of respondents are opposed to war with Iraq at this time.
check my sources:
How much stuff got dropped from Fairford
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=19113&archive=true
Stars and tripes admits there were insufficient firefighters at Fairford!
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15844&archive=true
Original story about relocation of Midenhall in 2002, Cambridge News (courtesy CAAB)
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/caab/articles/mildenhall1202.htm
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
correction on numbers- cut and paste error
16.02.2004 15:06
That was a cut and paste error,
should be 32 million pounds or 1600 tons
It is still a lot!
Andy again
Iraqi commando raids ?
16.02.2004 17:51
I agree it's shameful that the US Air Force did not have suffcicient fire protection (although I'm not sure what would be "sufficient" for that much explosive) but that idea that a Republican Guard unit could have been a threat is laughable. They were far more likely to apply for asylum !
David
Don't be complacent
16.02.2004 22:41
President Hussein probably would have been reluctant to send troops overeseas for the very reason you mention. However, armed action against Fairford would nevertheless have been a genuine possibility, from militant groups opposed to the war. Nor was it impossible for Hussein to have used troops perosnally loyal, perhaps from his own tribe and family.
Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between your argument and the argument being put forward by the Americans in Iraq today that foreign fighters comprise the backbone of the resistance. Although the Americans are undoubtedly exaggerating the numbers of non-Iraqis fighting today in Iraq, there ceryainly were Fedayeen travelling to Iraq to fight the Americans before the war - many of whom were killed during fighting in Baghdad. You seem to rule out the possibility that militantly anti-US groups would have been prepared to take military action. This does not seem a realistic poistion since 11/09/01.
We know that in the lead up to war MI5 advised Tony Blair that participation in an attck on Iraq would increase the chances of a terrorist attack on the UK. This intelleigence advice was not shared with MPs voting for war, and only came out afterwards.
Andy
Your Joking
17.02.2004 17:29
I don't see why you have a say on Fairford anyway unless your a US citizen or a figure in the UK military.
Mick
USAF did not admit insufficient fire fighters
17.02.2004 21:47
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15844&archive=true"
Where do they say anything of the sort? It says nothing at all about firefighters.
Lewis
ooops wrong article
18.02.2004 00:16
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=19113&archive=true
and I quote:
“The first staff meeting of the new group was held Wednesday. Smith said one of the issues was the number of firefighters on hand at RAF Fairford,”
andy again
British Sovereignty
22.02.2004 20:22
Peter Jones