PDA

View Full Version : General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal



Tsavong
10-13-2006, 00:51
The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm

KukriKhan
10-13-2006, 02:23
Holy smokes Batman! UK's #1 soldier says "pull out".

One word: extraordinary.

Q's:

He is 6 weeks into the job - is he simply a fellow unused to having his words have resonance, i.e. does he not know that his words to Daily Mail questions affect policy? or

Are his opinions on this matter so pronounced that he felt moved to take this extraordinary step of recommending a rapid redeployment?

Will he keep his job very long?

Whether he is fired or not, will the weight of his views force a discussion of UK's commitment to Iraq?

What does this do to the average squaddie's morale?

Papewaio
10-13-2006, 05:30
Depends on what his job is seen as:

a) Political and therefore to prop up the government of the day by being a lapdog.

b) There to maximise the ability of the army to perform missions and to minimise waste of resources.

The politicians should set the mission and the boundaries, the should also set achievable, realistic goals so that the mission can be accomplished. They also should allow high level generals to have input to make sure a single theatre does not overstretch/negative impact the overall ability of the military... something that could have serious repercussions on the civilian population.

Once a mission has been accomplished it is a bit pathetic to waste lives standing around waiting for the politicians to stop grandstanding.

Banquo's Ghost
10-13-2006, 07:00
His job is to promote the best interests of the Army. He is standing up for the soldiers under his command.

It's about time someone spoke up, though this is constitutionally remarkable.

Kukri, General Dannatt is very experienced and knows exactly what he was doing. There is no way Tony Blair, a lame duck PM now with now powers of patronage, can fire him. This is a message to the next Prime Minister.

Of course, I agree with the general. I'm fairly sure that the majority of the army in Iraq also agree with him.

macsen rufus
10-13-2006, 18:05
He is 6 weeks into the job - is he simply a fellow unused to having his words have resonance, i.e. does he not know that his words to Daily Mail questions affect policy?

It's not the sort of job you're likely to get if you're stupid, blinkered or unaware of the prime importance of the Daily Mail in British political life... he sounded a very erudite and rational man when I listened to his interview this morning. He certainly made a good case that the whole post-war scenario was simply not thought through beforehand and was not prepared for in any serious way, and was under-resourced. Now I wouldn't expect him to make any comment on the legitimacy of the invasion, but his judgment from a military perspective must carry some weight. Apparently his predecessor also shares his analysis.

Some of what he said sounded like code for "why the hell did we ever let the US talk us into this?" He also made it clear he considered Iraq to be a diversion from the real priority which is Afghanistan.



What does this do to the average squaddie's morale?


Judging by the comments on this morning's news from a representative of the soldiers' families, they're glad someone is "finally talking some common sense".

More surprising, though, is this:

Tony Blair has said he agrees with "every word" the new head of the British Army had said on the Iraq war. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6049126.stm)

Beginning to sound like the coalition is getting less willing by the day....

BDC
10-13-2006, 18:33
Actually this is all rubbish. Usual media frenzy over absolutely nothing.

He said British troops were a target, and should be brought out as soon as possible, when Iraqi troops could take over.

Nothing very controversial there. He even had a gov press secretary with him in the interview...

spmetla
10-13-2006, 18:35
Well if the head of the British ground forces believes withdrawal is nessasery then perhaps they should withdraw. Perhaps a drawdown over 6 months or something.

I'd of course prefer the Brits stay but it's supposed to be a coalition of the willing not the obliged.

BDC
10-13-2006, 19:13
Well if the head of the British ground forces believes withdrawal is nessasery then perhaps they should withdraw. Perhaps a drawdown over 6 months or something.

I'd of course prefer the Brits stay but it's supposed to be a coalition of the willing not the obliged.
He said to pull out as it's viable for Iraqi troops to take over.

InsaneApache
10-13-2006, 22:53
but, what would be the consequence if, we (the UK) did leave?

An untenable situation, would become, well, untenable. :sweatdrop:....

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-13-2006, 23:10
The important thing is that he acknowledges that British troops are targets and that they should leave as soon as possible. That's a bit different to Mike Jackson's arse licking.

It's also important that he feels able to speak out. It's very hard to fire the Chief of Staff for anything less than gross incompetance.

To those who believe politicians should have any imput beyond setting the objective, I say this. They do not understand war and their interference usually prolongs the mission and increases casualties and collateral damage.

I.e. the interference in Iraq.

KukriKhan
10-14-2006, 16:49
So, 2 days on, and he has "clarified" what he meant:


...But Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, said Dannatt's position was "diametrically different" from government policy. If Dannatt says "soon," Campbell said, "should that not now be measured in a matter of months rather than years?"

Not so, Dannatt said, insisting Britain stood "shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, and their timing and our timing are one and the same.

"We'll probably reduce our soldiers over the course of the next year or two or three -- let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon," Dannatt said....


From London Free Press (http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/International/2006/10/14/2024347-sun.html)

Is this back-pedalling?

InsaneApache
10-14-2006, 18:18
Yes, You see he got the full support of Blair. The kiss of death if ever there was one.

Justiciar
10-14-2006, 23:53
Saw Galloway talking, or rather ranting on the subject. Turned over three seconds later. Did anyone acctually have the stomach to listen?

The_Emperor
10-15-2006, 01:06
British troops are currently stationed in many countries and overstretch is a big thing.

The commitment in Iraq is expensive to maintain for sure and we need to enter a phase where the Iraqis themselves can take over more of their own security so our troops can leave.

econ21
10-15-2006, 03:37
Off-topic - wow, The Emperor, long time no see. :wave: How's things? Coming back in time for M2TW, are you? It's looking good. Why don't you pass by the Throne Room?

On-topic - I had come to the same view as the general a while back. British and American troops are not welcome in Iraq by the Iraqi people. TV footage of the reaction of locals to roadside bombs is symptomatic of things having gone terribly wrong - they cheer when Coalition troops are casualties; they hysterically protest against the Coalition when innocent Iraqi civilians are casualties.

Iraq is nothing to do with Saddam or WMDs any more; it's certainly not about Al Qaeda; it never was. It's a local power struggle with no clear good guys or even bad guys (are the Sunnis necessarily the bad guys just because they supported Saddam?). It's not clear we should be in the middle of it. Let the country reach its own modus vivendi. A mere 7000 British troops are irrelevant anyway.

The American presence is more significant, obviously, but even then I am not sure how much they are really achieving. And I think their presence may be a crutch that prevents the Iraqis from taking the responsibility and hard decisions needed to save their country from the mess the Coalition have made of it. I mean, so many years on and the Iraqis have still not formed an army that can keep internal security?

spmetla
10-15-2006, 05:04
I hope that the Brits are able to withdraw before the US. Seeing as Basrah province is fairly peaceful it'll be quite an experiment and possible showing of how at least that part of Iraq is peaceful. I'm glad that he doesn't mean in months though, at least one more year would be nice.

Justiciar
10-15-2006, 05:11
Seeing as Basrah province is fairly peaceful it'll be quite an experiment and possible showing of how at least that part of Iraq is peaceful.
Sadly it seems to be getting worse in the South, not better. :no:

Tribesman
10-15-2006, 12:19
I hope that the Brits are able to withdraw before the US. Seeing as Basrah province is fairly peaceful it'll be quite an experiment and possible showing of how at least that part of Iraq is peaceful.

As Justicar noted , it was peaceful for a while , until about two years ago .
There was an interesting statement from the senior Iraq army officer liasing with the Brits in Basra , saying that if the Brits buggered off there would be an 80% reduction in attacks around town .
Then again he is the local bloke , and the party running the locality just happens to have offices in its party headquarters for Hez'Ballahs "diplomatic mission" .
So you can see what a great success in destroying terrorism the coilition of the stupid will have achieved when they finally decide enough is enough .

BTW did anyonesee the other British general saying they had to remain in Iraq shoulder to shoulder with their main partner until that partner would be able to declare that they had managed to secure Baghdad ........which means they are going to be there ......errrrrrrrr.....well forever really .
Unless of course they come up with a really cunning plan to call somewhere else Baghdad , secure that and then declare it mission accomplished .

KukriKhan
10-15-2006, 12:38
Heh. If I told Mrs. Kukri that we would be buying a new car "sometime soon",

There she'd be, purse-in-hand, standing in the doorway, in less time than it took to type this post.

If I then explained: "...over the course of the next year or two or three -- let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon." , I'd fully expect that purse to be flying at my head, with deadly accuracy.

I guess I have again failed to fully grasp the nuances of Brit English.

Pannonian
10-15-2006, 12:52
Heh. If I told Mrs. Kukri that we would be buying a new car "sometime soon",

There she'd be, purse-in-hand, standing in the doorway, in less time than it took to type this post.

If I then explained: "...over the course of the next year or two or three -- let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon." , I'd fully expect that purse to be flying at my head, with deadly accuracy.

I guess I have again failed to fully grasp the nuances of Brit English.
A better analogy might be if you told your missus you would be getting a new car soon, then your financial advisor has a quiet word with you, and you "clarify" "soon" to mean "...over the course of the next year or two or three -- let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon." It would be an even better analogy if your financial advisor was also your employer.

Tribesman
10-15-2006, 12:59
I guess I have again failed to fully grasp the nuances of Brit English.
Yes it can be difficult sometimes , when the CinC described the policies as Naive he was actually 100% in agreement with Blair and his policies , and Blair wasn't naive at all which is why he agrees so strongly with everything the general said that he didn't really say , or if he did say then he was misinterpreted .
And anyway the public are naive so and don't understand policies even if those policies made sense which they didn't but they do , but its all going swimmingly and everyone is in agreement about how well Iraq is going and what a good idea it was , and anyone who says otherwise isn't really saying that at all .


If I then explained: "...over the course of the next year or two or three -- let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon." , I'd fully expect that purse to be flying at my head, with deadly accuracy.

perhaps Mrs. Kukri should draw up policies for Britain , it appears she is able to identify the target correctly , and hit it accurately :2thumbsup:

KukriKhan
10-15-2006, 14:06
... but its all going swimmingly and everyone is in agreement about how well Iraq is going and what a good idea it was , and anyone who says otherwise isn't really saying that at all .


Prezactly!

:laugh4:

Incongruous
10-16-2006, 09:17
Ahh, as always Tribesman uhum you, uhum clarify things wonderfully. He did seem to loose his spine from the neck down the other day. I was so dissapointed, because it seemed that someone was finally talking something other than complete rubbish. I wonder if he will push for more change in the non-existent Iraqi policy (well i mean apart from illegally invadinga country and tuening it into JB's playground).