Now a serving general, the head of the British army, no less, has said that our presence in Iraq is counter-productive now and we should pull out soon.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff [that is, he is currently the acting chief of the army,the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force ]has been interviewed by the Daily Mail. [Outsiders should be made aware that this newspaper is to the right and has hitherto been in support of the war].
When acting officer holds these views who now would say that such opinions are confined to people with books to sell and,or, who are disaffected in retirement? This man has only recently been appointed to the top job.
I notice the Beeb calls his remarks "quite extraordinary". That's surely a careful BBC understatement. When was the last time the head of the army said that the presence of that army someplace was making things worse?
'...it is Sir Richard's views of the situation in Iraq that will enrage Downing Street.
He says clearly we shoud "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 in a country, but we weren’t invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.
"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."
"That is a fact. I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."
In comments that set him at loggerheads with Mr Blair, Gen Dannatt warns that the good intentions of 2003 have long since evaporated - pitching British troops into a lethal battle that few at home can understand.
"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," he said.
"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."'www.dailymail.co.uk
I wonder what a realistic lower ambition might be? 'Not a failed state'? 'Not as bad as Afghanistan under the Taliban'?
And I thought the 'original intention' was to save us from that dreadful arsenal of WMD?
An invasion in order to set up a model of our preferred form of government in the region would have been clearly illegal, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Fred, what was the general feeling of the public before his statement? And after?
The statement was only published this morning so it's too soon to say what effect, if any, it has on public opinion.
Have no current or very recent poll but back in April this year a YouGov poll showed that 57% thought that Bush and Blair were wrong to take military action. And 55% wanted the British troops to be withdrawn immediately (24% ) or within 12 months i.e. by April 2007 (31%). Furthermore, then 42% agreed that the continuing presence of US and British forces was the major cause of trouble and that peace could only be achieved by the Iraqis on their own. They were balanced by 39% who thought that we should stay, because our presence was helpful, until the Iraqis could do the job themselves.A poll taken now would surely show an increase in those whose view was negative, even without the General's statement.
Interestingly, in August 2002 a poll here showed that only 19% would support the UK taking part in any military action. And 58% said any war would not be justified.
We know the effect on the government's opinion Downing Street put out a statement saying that we were in Iraq at the request of the democratically elected government (i.e.they didn't know what to say ). Then they tried the line that the General's comments were to be taken in context and were still in line with Mr Blair's views (i.e. let's pretend that the rest of the interview says the opposite, if you read it right: if only the paper had published it all ). Then we were told that the General was to have a meeting today with a Defence Minister (What? So soon? )
Update: No wonder Downing Street abandoned the 'context' line. Today's full edition of the paper gives the whole interview The online version is a fair and accurate account of what was said. The rest of the piece covers other topics of much less interest and of a more conversational nature such as whether the army is a good place for Princes to be learning.
The General himself was interviewed by the BBC this morning. He comes across as a very astute and intelligent man. He is no publicity seeker.He cannily suggested that what he said would have come as no surprise to the government and he expressed some surprise that anyone should seek to make a big deal of it.He pointed out that he had obtained the necessary permission to give the interview and it was attended by a press officer from the Ministry of Defence.The interview was taped in full. In other words, he was hinting that Mr Blair knew and accepted that the position in Iraq was as he, the General, described it , though it may be that Mr Blair had not yet made this knowledge absolutely clear to the world just yet All in good time, eh?
The General's main point is that we are deploying troops to no good effect in Iraq.In fact the benefits are far outweighed by the negative. Their presence now is an annoyance or irritation to the local people who, understandably, see them simply as a foreign force in Iraq and who therefore make them a focus of attack and resentment. Remove the troops and we remove that focus.(If the Iraqis wish to pursue sectarian violence, so be it, but that is no reason to give locals some extra target) We are stretched and have limited resources. We should be deploying our troops in Afghanistan. It is there that the big and urgent problem lies. It is there that we have a prospect, given the resources, of winning. As it is, in Iraq, we British had been engaged in four areas and two of them were now being policed and controlled by Iraqi forces. So we are now a serious presence in only two.We have already reduced our numbers from about 30,000 to about 8,000 troops. We should get the remainder out and off to Afghanistan at the earliest practical opportunity.
One striking feature of the BBC interview, one pointed out by commentators, was that the General was giving none too subtle hints that the Army feared that it was being kept in Iraq indefinitely and for some political purpose and that political purpose was not entirely a British political purpose
Mr Blair will be gone in a few months. The General may have been addressing and preparing the ground for Mr Blair's successor rather than Mr Blair himself. We expect that Mr Brown, whom everyone assumes will succeed him, will take the hint, even if Mr Blair plays out time without seeing a withdrawal.Certainly Mr Brown will feel no obligation towards any American administration.
We may add to that that Mr Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, has not minced his words when talking of the alliance between the USA and Britain. We know where he stands and doing anyone in the current Administration any favours or feeling any loyalty to it, do not feature in that position.Mr Brown faces the prospect of a General Election in a couple of years or so, though he may choose to call one much sooner after becoming Prime Minister, and still being in Iraq will not play well with the electorate.
More seriously: The British have already handed over two of 'their' four provinces for Iraqis to deal with. The Armed Forces Minister has just said that we shall hand over a third 'at the end of this year or early next year' (what was that about not giving a timetable because it would help and encourage the enemy? ). So we are going, declaring 'job done', and soon. No indication is given yet about the fourth province ( we can't give a timetable lest we help or encourage... )but it must be under consideration.
Tony Blair has said today in Parliament that he knows that our continuing presence in Iraq is, in itself, sometimes a cause of trouble there. Not that he has much choice when our commander there says that is so and he himself has already stated that he agrees with everything that general has said.(He claimed that the general had said what the government already thought and that there was no disagreement.Hmm )
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
We note that the President has said that he will do whatever General Casey says is necessary and if the general says there should be more men deployed or a change of strategy then that shall be done.This has a resonant air. What was it that Mr Blair said (above )about agreeing with his general?
We are getting leaks from the bi-partisan Commission too, of course, plus the hints about what it is thinking coming from Mr Baker. Plainly the Commission will say that 'staying the course' is not an option (unless changing the definition of 'staying the course' is ).
'...this is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who‘s relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq.
Sadly, we‘re missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There‘s no unity of effort between the agencies.
It—the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we‘re wasting our time...'General Batiste
Downing Street put out a statement saying that we were in Iraq at the request of the democratically elected government (i.e.they didn't know what to say ). Then they tried the line that the General's comments were to be taken in context and were still in line with Mr Blair's views (i.e. let's pretend that the rest of the interview says the opposite, if you read it right: if only the paper had published it all ). Then we were told that the General was to have a meeting today with a Defence Minister (What? So soon? 
)
All in good time, eh?
