What Brits are saying about the war in Iraq (great letters!)

[theHandpuppet]

The BBC posed the following question to the readers of its website:

Has presence of UK troops in Iraq exacerbated problems?
Do you agree with the head of the British Army?

Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt has told the Daily Mail that planning for the period after the invasion of Iraq was "poor".

Sir Richard added that Iraqis have become intolerant of the military presence there and that UK forces should "get out some time soon."

Do you live in Iraq? Have you served in the forces there or are you serving there now? Do you agree with Sir Richard's view? What is the future for UK forces in Iraq?

Follow the link to the responses they received:

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4262&&edition=1&ttl=20061013131057

Well worth checking out. There were many great letters so I didn't pick out just one or two for posting.

[Kagemusha]

1. Jonathan Turley, writing in The Guardian:

"And yet, it's hardly good news. For Sir Richard has just violated a principle central to a democracy: that the military stay well clear of politics. In a democracy, soldiers are meant to be servants of the elected leadership: they follow political decisions, they don't make them."

Just like I said would come up on a previous thread. Even if he's right, he's wrong to say it, and will now be roundly condemned and kicked downhill as a traitor to democracy, freedom and righteousness.

[theHandpuppet]

2. You singled out one letter from many others...

... that supported the General's comments and condemned the war and Blair/Bush. Odd.

[Kagemusha]

4. Letter? It's an op-ed in a major western liberal paper...

Er, if you're interested, and I admit I was remiss to not include this:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_freedland/2006/10/post_509.html

Guy's point is that he actually agrees with the General's comments and himself condemns this war, BUT the General is absolutely wrong to say it and is undermining democracy and freedom in a western nation and that is completely unacceptable.

I don't have to agree with that, either. But I do not want Americans to be unaware of the belief, which is pretty fervent even among numerous liberals.

[theHandpuppet]

7. Oh, okay. The reference would have helped.

Since my OP was about the posed question and the comments which followed, I was a bit confused.

[Kagemusha]

8. Sorry, didn't wanna hijack a thread or anything either.

Just could've been a few times clearer.

We'll see if this guy has a job by dinnertime.

[theHandpuppet]

14. But you've succeeded, nonetheless

In hijacking my thread, that is, which was supposed to be about the Brits' "man on the street" reaction to this news.

[Kagemusha]

15. I've informed the mods.

What I did isn't right.

[theHandpuppet]

16. Oh get off it.

I'm just pointing out that you said it was not your intention to hijack my thread but then you continued to do just that. If you sincerely didn't intend to hijack my thread then just stop doing it.

Now, back to some of the letters which prompted this thread (just a sampling):

WHAT A MESS!!! I don't believe that keeping our lads out there will resolve anything. I don't have a clear understanding of the politics involved but as an ordinary person with a little common sense I can see this situation going on and on. I have no faith in Blair or Bush whatsoever, Blair is weak and Bush is ignorant. How can we let our lads risk their lives on the decisions made by these 2 men? Congratulation to the General for his honesty. Bring our lads home.

Carol Carter, St Albans

Added: Friday, 13 October, 2006, 13:17 GMT 14:17 UK
Does no-one remember that this is about Oil and just who controls the flow of it? I would love to see the army leave Iraq for humanitarian reasons as I believe letting them sort themselves out is more productive in the long run. However, until the US is satisfied that the oil supplies are safe, there will be a presence there. I hate to be cynical but what UK politician is going to pull out and let the US go it alone with so much of the worlds resources at stake?

Gareth Gullick, Great Bookham, United Kingdom

BTW, I've noticed that since I posted this thread the comments have taken a more hawkish turn. But I'm sure some British DUers here might have something to say, as well.

[Broadslidin]

3. Are You Promoting Blind Allegiance To The Imperial U.S. Empire?

[Kagemusha]

5. I'm drawing attention to an important issue.

Everyone asks, well why don't serving flag rank armed service members speak up? Because it's considered treason against the state to undermine the primacy of civilian rule and whatsoever promote the idea that in a western democracy, as opposed to a fascist dictatorship, that it is EVER correct for a military to say no to a civilian government. Take Kosovo - generals wouldn't be allowed to say no to a humanitarian intervention in that country even though there was no direct threat to Britain, or the US, whatsoever from that conflict. They'd either resign or be forced out. The idea that any general can make these kinds of statements is considered, to liberal interventionists everywhere, to be MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE and DANGEROUS to civilian democratic rule.

I'd like people to be at least aware of the issue before charging blindly towards the machineguns.

[CJCRANE]

10. That's the whole point - democracy is broken

in both the UK and USA. We've been hijacked by a couple of delusional nutters - Bush & Blair - who are acting against the wishes and best interests of the majority of their populations.

[Kagemusha]

13. And opening the door to cries of "mlitary coup!!" is gonna help?

That's what they're gonna say, you know. Conspiracy to overthrow the government! Military subversion of civilian rule! Attempt to repeat the Thai outrage in London itself! The clock's ticking. I'm sure I'll be hearing these lines thrown back in my face by breathless Blair aides any minute...

Not looking forward to it either.

[CJCRANE]

17. It's not quite a coup..

The media has sensationalized the General's comments quite dramatically to make it seems as though he deliberately set out to bait Blair. That's not the case if you read his comments in context and listen to him in interview.

What's more, if it was possible to have a military coup in the UK or US Blair and Bush would've been gone a long time ago. It's not going to happen. These guys hopefully will be kicked out by the slow grinding gears of our respective political systems.

[bigtree]

6. more reactions

Reaction: the Iraq troops row

October 13, 2006

Colonel Tim Collins, one of the most senior British Army officers in Iraq in 2003 said General Dannatt had given a “refreshing and very honest insight into what the army generally feel”, remarks which soldiers in the field would welcome. He said: “He is not a politician and he is not given to spin, so what you hear from him is absolutely ground truth.”

Sarah Sands, the journalist who conducted the interview for the Daily Mail, said she did not believe Sir Richard had deliberately set out to be controversial. "He is an honest soldier. He was giving an assessment which wasn't intended to be political. It was the truth as he saw it."

Major General Patrick Cordingly, who commanded the Desert Rats during the 1991 Gulf War, said: "I think it is a very brave thing for him to say. I do agree. I think there comes a time when you have got to let Iraq get on and look after its own security. Training has gone on to get the police and army forces working, there has to be a time when we do pull out. Maybe the General is thinking that if we had a few more troops in southern Afghanistan we might tip the balance there."

George Galloway, Respect MP and outspoken critic of the war: "Mutiny in the ranks is one thing, but this is a declaration of mutiny by the very shiniest of the top brass.

"Britain's top soldier says that this war is at best naive and at worst a disaster, and that it is certainly untenable - in which case why should British soldiers risk leaving their bones in Iraq? If they listen to their Commanding Officer, they must surely conclude that now is the time to collectively demand that they return home."

more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2402605,00.html

[mr blur]

9. Of course the Daily Mail is a sleazy right wing tabloid,

owned by a porn baron, so they might just have exaggerated things a bit. Anything to get at Blair who, although no Socialist, is still "the enemy" of all they profess to hold dear.

On the other hand, the soldier chose the Mail, so presumably he knew what he was doing and the effect his words would have on them.

[CJCRANE]

11. I heard an interview with the General

this morning and it appears he chose the Mail because it was a "middle of the road" newspaper (I suppose it is for those who fit the "Middle England" demographic). He also seemed to think that his opinions were nothing new and surprised at the fuss he's caused.

[theHandpuppet]

12. My OP was more about the posted comments to the question

The vast majority of which were highly critical of the Iraq War, Blair and Bush.