British Army Chief Steps Up To Lead His Soldiers Out Of Iraq.

[bigtree]

The Times October 13, 2006

Army chief called in to explain 'quit Iraq' appeal
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor and Sam Coates, Political Correspondent

TONY BLAIR’S foreign policy was in tatters last night after the head of the Army said that the continued presence of British troops in Iraq was responsible for bloodshed at home and abroad.

The scathing comments by General Sir Richard Dannatt directly contradict the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly claimed that the invasion of Iraq played no role in galvanising Muslim extremism in Britain and bringing about the 7/7 bombings.

Sir Richard, who took over as the Chief of the General Staff from General Sir Mike Jackson in August, appeared to give no warning to Mr Browne or the senior hierarchy at the Ministry of Defence before making his comments. In an interview Sir Richard said that the continuing presence in Iraq of 7,200 British troops was “exacerbating the security problems” and said they should come home soon.

He added: “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.”

He said that whatever consent there may have been at the start, it had now largely turned to intolerance on the part of the Iraqi people.

“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.

more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2402108,00.html


related:

A man prepared to speak his mind in support of his 10,000 troops
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2402496,00.html


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[IWantAChange]

1. another possible DNC talking point?

talk about a target rich environment at the moment.

[Kagemusha]

2. "We agree with a traitor in the British Army on Iraq." That'll go well.

Next idea please.

[bigtree]

3. Traitor? What kind of shit is that? Blair is the traitor.

Where will you be on this tomorrow? This is an amazing reversal for this Army chief. He was just recently arguing that Britain had to stay. Now he's calling for withdrawal.

If we lose Britain it's all over.

Traitor . . . sheesh

GENERAL Sir Richard Dannatt:

“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.”

[Kagemusha]

6. If a US general had said this he'd be brought up on charges

of disrespecting the Commander in Chief. He would be called a traitor in Republican circles. His background would be investigated for any association with the Democratic Party. Any such association would be used as a political issue to flag the statements as unjustifiable interference in the political process and attempting to erode civilian control of the military, and proactive harm against his country's military efforts in support of liberating the free people of Iraq. (Edit: And if it did not exist, it would be invented.)

I'm not exaggerating in the slightest, so why should I back down from what I said?

[bigtree]

7. I disagree. He's telling the truth as he sees it on the ground.

He's a patriot. He's looking out for his men, as he should. Bush says all the time that he's listening to his generals. I hope Britain listens to their military leaders who stand up and tell the truth.

[Kagemusha]

8. Oh. I'm not saying I think he's a traitor. I'm saying he's radioactive

and there's no way this talk of the DNC supporting this guy is gonna get anywhere in real life.

[bigtree]

9. It all depends if his objections reverberate or signal a trend

which overwhelms a beleagered Blair. If Britain pulls out it's all over for us in Iraq.

[Peace Patriot]

10. They can quote him, though--along with a whole lot of generals and

others in the military, or associated with the military, and intelligence professionals, on this side of the pond, who have also scathingly criticized Bush's war. His "kicking down the door" observation is very quotable, and nothing more than what public opinion polls in Iraq show: 70% want the U.S. out now.

The DNC will never say this, but not for the reason that you aver--that this British general is "radioactive" (for which you offer no evidence--his opinion parallels that of about 80% of the British public, who feel the same as he does--so, WHO is "radioactive," him or Tony Blair?). The reason they will never say it is that half the Democratic Party in Congress voted FOR giving away their constitutional war powers to Bush, and have repeatedly and lavishly voted to fund this war, even with billions of dollars unaccounted for, and slipping through the fingers of the vice president's own company. They LIKE Bush's war--some for corrupt reasons, some for economic reasons (ours is a war economy and has been since WW II--we never demobilized and have needed periodic wars to keep it all pumped up)--and some foolishly believing that a Bushite-controlled military ensconced in the Middle East will protect Israel. Do you forget the Democratic Party rah-rahing Israel as it bombed Beirut and killed thousands of innocent Lebanese? The party is very pro-Israel. I am, too, but in a different way. I think the only way Israel is going to survive, after what the Bushites and their Democratic enablers have done to Iraq, is by completely severing itself from the Bush Junta, the pariahs of the world. They need to start identifying with their region and thinking in terms of the safety and welfare of all Middle Eastern peoples. The Bush Cartel is extremely bad for the Middle East (including Israel) because of its ill motives. Who are their real buds? The Saudi and Kuwaiti sultans--the super-rich! The Bushites are despised by everybody, including 60% to 70% of the American people. And that also endangers Israel's support HERE--its identification with the despised Bushites.

But many of our Democrats are not wise. They are very, very foolish. And some may have delusions of grandeur--that is, they think they can take over for the Bush Junta and do a better job of occupying the Middle East.

Anyway, the DNC is hogtied to them--the Democratic war lovers, so much so that this British general's very common sense observation will never pass the lips of our benighted leaders. The Iraqis DON'T WANT US THERE! Withdraw NOW, or do Vietnam all over again. And, fools that they are, that's just what some of them may have in mind.

[Horse with no Name]

11. This is where you are wrong

Soldiers are trained to uphold the Constitution. Not the whims of a freaked out dry drunk President.
OUR Generals should be standing up doing this.
To do otherwise, simply stated, leaves their hands stained in the blood of the men they are entrusted to protect. And their hands are mighty stained.

[bigtree]

4. Kick

:kick:

[Jcrowley]

5. K & R

n/t

[bigtree]

12. General gives voice to army's unspoken fears

Officers admit morale affected by task in Iraq

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday October 13, 2006
The Guardian

{snip}

The government's mantra, repeated unconvincingly by military chiefs, has been that their exit from Iraq was "conditions-based": that it will happen when the Iraqi army and security forces can stand on their own feet.

Gen Dannatt's intervention was as much a defence of the beleaguered armed forces as an entreaty for a change of foreign policy. "I am going to stand up for what is right for the army," he said. "Honesty is what it is about."

Senior officers have long since let on that morale has been affected by the wide range of tasks imposed on soldiers, as well as the growing disaffection for the Iraq campaign back at home.

British soldiers were being asked to take on the role of policemen, civil engineers, construction workers, politicians, and diplomats, with little reward and apparently little appreciation back home where their presence in Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1921464,00.html

[savemefromdumbya]

13. uk pulling out won't do GOP any good

[bigtree]

14. Blair battered by army chief's outburst

Sir Richard’s stand will jeopardise Mr Blair’s attempts to secure his legacy, exposing the vulnerability of the Prime Minister over Iraq

Michael Evans and Sam Coates
October 13, 2006

{snip}

Last night Dr Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that Sir Richard’s comments came at a time when the Prime Minister’s authority was already “badly damaged and ebbing away”.

He added: “It has always been the case that our presence has been a recruiting tool for extremists. We have always known that our presence on the ground will be used by fundamentalists and men of violence to recruit people into their ways.”

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said that government policy on Iraq was “collapsing”. He said: “Senior military figures who were always doubtful about action in Iraq and its aftermath are becoming increasingly anxious about our role and the risks involved.”

Major-General Patrick Cordingly, who commanded the Desert Rats during the 1991 Gulf War, said that Sir Richard’s comments were “very brave”.

He added that the Army chief’s opinion was “enormously pragmatic” and may be “welcomed by some soldiers who have served several tours of duty in Iraq”.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20573902-2703,00.html