British Army Chief of Staff Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt has spoken out forcefully in favor of a swift withdrawal of British troops from Iraq:
- Sir Richard’s lead in shining a light on the Armed Forces extends to the mission in Iraq. He says with great clarity and honesty that “our presence exacerbates the security problems”. “I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.
“History will show that a vacuum was created and into the vacuum malign elements moved. The hope that we might have been able to get out of Iraq in 12, 18, 24 months after the initial start in 2003 has proved fallacious. Now hostile elements have got a hold it has made our life much more difficult in Baghdad and in Basra.
“The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East.
“That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition.”
Sir Richard adds, strongly, that we should “get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems”. “We are in a Muslim country and Muslims’ views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. “As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren’t invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let’s face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.
“That is a fact. I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.”
He contrasts this with the situation in Afghanistan, where we remain at the invitation of President Hamid Karzai’s government.
“There is a clear distinction between our status and position in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which is why I have much more optimism that we can get it right in Afghanistan.”
There is a logistical as well as a moral reason for concentrating on the mission in Afghanistan. Sir Richard talked last month of the Army “running hot”. Our troops are stretched to capacity. We have only one spare battalion. Almost everyone is going to end up serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The whole interview there is worth reading. Ditto these later clarifications to the BBC.
The resurrection of Oliver Cromwell?
Time to start thinking about whats happening in Great Britain. Many of the British elite are near revolt against their political establishment. When the head of the general staff , Sir Richard Dannat, openly challenges the authority of government to protect society and the nation, that is rebellion. The entire British Army is fed-up not just with Blair, but with the whole lot of corporate politicians. Mind you, the medical elite are in rebellion also– look at The Lancet. And let us not forget the Law Lords.They have been saying the roll-back of civil freedoms is a treasonous attack on the state. Time to think about what it means to have an authoritarian, corporate, warrior state. That was Hitler and Mussolini. This sort of state need not be a single party, iron fisted dictatorship. Ask yourselves: what is the proper name for such a state? No proper republican, conservative or liberal, can accept it. Churchill fought them! Its time for Oliver Cromwell!
A BBC reporter in Baghdad said on the Today programme this morning that 1) Donnat’s bombshell reflects the view of the senior British officers in Iraq; and 2) were it purely a British decision, purely a military decision the Brits would have got out a long time ago.
So why haven’t they? Again, in the phrasing on the Today programme this morning, that “would leave the Americans without their wing man”.
Blair was up in Scotland last night concerning himself with the Northern Ireland intransigencies. So much for his stiff brandy and chance to put his feet up. Radio 4’s political reporter Nick Robinson said on the Today programme that the government was thrown into such a tizzy by the Dannat bombshell that the hastily arranged [damage limitation] teleconference went on late into the night…and that – and this may be the most important point of all – “the Americans wanted to take part in the teleconference but had to be dissauded from doing so.”
Now, think this one through. There is no question at all that the Brits would have contacted the White House to tell them that they were going to have a late night, emergency teleconference. It will have been the other way around. The Bush operation will have jumped down Blair’s throat about this – “what’s all this shit about, what are you going to do about it?” Wetting himself, Blair would have squeaked out something about his “teleconference”…the Americans would have tried to “kick that door in”, as in “we’re gonna take part in that teleconference”…and somehow, it’ll be a first, needless to say, Blair found the cojones to say no to them. “Dissauded them”.
What also needs to be highlighted is Donnat’s use of that word “break”. In the sense that the British army is so overstretched that it is in danger of breaking. The BBC report said – and I’m quoting – what was in question was “the survival of the British army if it stays too long in Iraq”.
As the Today programme said shortly after 8 am, in its interview with the Lib Dems leader, the bombshell “goes right to the heart of the mission”. The Lib Dems leader, needless to say, hit that one out of the park: “exactly, on every count: the circumstances in which it began, the preparations not made for the aftermath, and the fact that we are today very much part of the problem.” Game. Set. Match.
Update. In the News at One the General is now saying that he and the Prime Minster are in full agreement. In other words, he’s been got to. But the damage has already been done. No way they’re going to be able to spin this one. It’s not unlike the Walt-Mearsheimer paper: the levee’s been breached. Disastrously so.
Well put A.C.! The issue now is if Blair can squash a rebellion (stanch the breech as it were). Its rather exciting.
…and then Blair replied by saying that he agrees with ‘every word’.
Which is an interesting approach. I can see that what he’s trying to do is claim that Dannatt was just propagating the government line in a really bizarre way, but wtf?
Also: hello again. Realise I’ve not commented here for many, many months, but I am still reading everything. Keep on at ’em, Helena!
American military force is evidently an inappropriate tool in Iraq which cannot end the insurgency. There are no good military options in Iran or North Korea. Of what use are our gold-plated forces?
Say, I thought Britain was a parliamentary democracy. If the whole country side was as fed up with the Iraq gambit as you suggest here, then why, pray tell, hasn’t this government “fallen?” Pardon me if that seems naive, but what exactly keeps these chaps in power? Lack of a credible alternate party? Lack of serious dissent within the ruling party? If the latter, why? (Is the state of democracy THAT bad in Britain?) Can you refer us to any good reports on the “state” of British politics of late? Thanks.
PS: Its rather pathetic to see the way CNN et.al. are whitewashing this “bombshell” – running apparent edited interviews with him where it appears that he’s considerably toned down his remarks. (such that the average US citizen and neocon propagandist can say, ah, no matter, Tony Blair is on his “throne” – nuttin’ to worry about, no British “cut ‘n run” afoot here…. )
Scott
The Brits have a strange system where they can generally only throw the prime minister out at an election every five years.
Of course if he loses the confidence of the members of his party somone else can challenge him for the leadership.
The new leader of the party becomes the prime minister.
People can also call for a vote of No Confidence in the government and if they get a majority they can call an election. But that isnt going to happen, because the government party want to put off the day that they lose power as long as possible.
The last election was in May 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4523201.stm
“American military force is evidently an inappropriate tool in Iraq which cannot end the insurgency.”
Quite the contrary, in fact. American military force is the cause of the so-called “insurgency”* and feeds it well every day, day after day, helping it to thrive and grow. How, then could American military force be expected to end it?
*a very inaccurate word – there are a lot of things going on in Iraq but insurgency isn’t one of them
So, Shirin, the accurate word is ‘resistance’? That is the one I would use. Wardog.
Update from our veneerable Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1016/p06s01-woeu.html?s=hns
Pardon my earlier dark sarcasm re. the King’s parliamentary system….. :-} (I’m still sore at Senator Warner here from Virginia and his deferential (and astonishing!) reference to “the King’s army” back during the American Revolution (but that’s another story and post!)