Top General Says Britain Should Cut and Run From Iraq

[onedomino]

Unbelievable. Quite apart from whether General Dannatt’s Iraq assessment is correct, where does he get off going over the heads of elected civilians by trying to make UK foreign policy in the media? Generals are supposed to follow the instructions of elected civilians, period. If they cannot do that, then they should resign. What does this do except give hope to the insurgents and smash the moral of the troops on the ground? If Tony Blair does not immediately fire this guy, then I guess we must assume that the Generals are running the show in the UK. When MacArthur appointed himself King of Asia and tried to make foreign policy in the media during the Korean War, Truman fired him and justly so. It made no difference that MacArthur was probably right about the need to press the Chinese to the Yule River. The point is that military officers report to the elected civilian leadership, not the other way around. And they certainly do not jump over their CIC’s head and make foreign policy in the media. Dannatt has only been in his position as head of the British Army since August and what a mistake that appointment was. In a remark that could have just as easily been authored by Al Qaeda, Dannatt actually said that his troops in Iraq make the security situation worse. If Tony Blair is going to retain any credibility, Dannatt should be immediately fired.

Top General Urges Britain to Leave Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/world/middleeast/13general.html

ST. ANDREWS, Scotland, Friday, Oct. 13 — In a surprising challenge to the government, Britain’s most senior military officer was quoted Friday as saying the British Army should leave Iraq, where it is America’s main ally, “sometime soon.”

The remarks, in an interview with The Daily Mail, contradicted policy enunciated by Prime Minister Tony Blair that British troops should leave Iraq only when Iraqi forces can take over security duties from them.

Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, who took over as the army commander this year, has emerged as a contentious figure, challenging various policies. The new comments were his most outspoken and seemed likely to revive not only the debate about Mr. Blair’s decision to join the United States in the Iraq invasion in 2003 but also a passionate discussion about how long British troops should stay there.

The Daily Mail quoted Sir Richard as saying that Britain 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,” he added. “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.”

“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 said, alluding to the question of whether Britain’s deployment in Iraq has made it a target for Islamic terrorism. Whatever consent British troops may have enjoyed after the invasion “has largely turned to intolerance,” he said.

Britain has about 7,000 troops based primarily around Basra in the south of Iraq. Sir Richard drew a distinction with the 5,000 British soldiers under NATO in Afghanistan.

“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,” The Daily Mail, a right-of-center newspaper, quoted him as saying.

 

[onedomino]

Britain's Army Chief Clarifies Remarks on Troop Withdrawal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301455.html

LONDON, Oct. 13 -- Britain's top army commander, who ignited a controversy by saying that British troops should withdraw from Iraq "sometime soon," clarified Friday that he wants a pullout but not until "the mission is substantially done."

Gen. Richard Dannatt had been quoted in Friday editions of the Daily Mail as saying that British troops should leave Iraq "sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

"We weren't invited" into Iraq, he said, but rather "kicked the door in," and "whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance."

Dannatt said he had "much more optimism that we can get it right in Afghanistan."

In television and radio interviews Friday, Dannatt said he was not "backtracking" but expanding on his remarks and putting them in context. He said there was no "rift" between him and Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose office reportedly was engaged in a flurry of phone calls with the Defense Ministry over the issue. Blair recently has said a British withdrawal from Iraq would be "a craven act of surrender."

Military experts on both sides of the Atlantic have said they believe that many British military officials are eager to find a way to withdraw from the unpopular war in Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan. Britain has 7,200 troops in Iraq and 5,600 in Afghanistan, according to the Defense Ministry. According to ministry figures, 119 British soldiers have died in Iraq and 40 in Afghanistan.

Dannatt, echoing a statement put out by Blair's office, said in a statement issued Friday that "I am on record publicly saying we're standing shoulder to shoulder with the Americans." (Yeah, right. Sounds like it. Your comments about leaving Iraq "soon" notwithstanding.)

In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Dannatt believed his comments had been "largely taken out of context." (Sweet spin, Tony.)

"He's saying there may be some times when the Brits no longer are necessary -- they're there, they're seen as an occupier, that may exacerbate some of the tensions. And that's the context in which he was discussing it," Snow said.

Amyas Godfrey, a former British army officer at the Royal United Services Institute, said officials have responded to public pressure to set a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq by saying that it will come "when the job is done." So it is significant, he said, that the army chief has said: "We should be leaving."

"Right or wrong, there is a feeling we followed Americans into Iraq," Godfrey said. As the security situation worsens in Iraq, he said, there is a feeling of "it wasn't our idea in the first place, so why are we still there?" (This is getting ugly. If these guys are saying this stuff publicly, imagine what they are saying to themselves privately.)

In interviews Friday, Dannatt, who took over as head of the army in August, continued to speak more candidly than previous military leaders. He said that in some parts of Iraq, the "mere presence" of British troops exacerbates violence.

"I am just saying, 'Come on, we can't be here forever at this level.' . . . I have got an army to look after (Not if Blair fires this media hound), which is going to be successful in current operations, but I want an army in five years' time and 10 years' time. Don't let's break it on this one. Let's keep an eye on time," Dannatt said.

"Let's face it, we have been there three and a half years," (This guy's got the patience of Job; he should look for a job in the American media, he'd fit right in.) he said. "We have an interest in getting on with this."

-