http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/12/dannatt-blair.html
History will certain judge Tony Blair as a naive poddle.
British army chief says Iraq pullout needed soon
- Thread starter catman
- Start date
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/12/dannatt-blair.html
History will certain judge Tony Blair as a naive poddle.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6144852,00.html
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Huge support for 'frank' Army boss[/FONT] [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Press Association
Friday October 13, 2006 11:38 AM[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The head of the British Army has received overwhelming support from across the ranks over his call for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq "sometime soon".
Senior officers said General Sir Richard Dannatt should be "saluted" for his honesty while frontline soldiers praised their commander for "telling it how it is".
Their comments came after Sir Richard, who became Chief of the General Staff in August, gave an interview to the Daily Mail warning that we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".
Sir Richard's frank remarks were seized on as a major broadside at the government's foreign policy. They caused widespread astonishment but appeared to be widely welcomed by his troops, opposition MPs and anti-war groups.
Colonel Tim Collins, one of the most senior officers in Iraq in 2003, said Sir Richard had given a "refreshing and very honest insight into what the Army generally feel".
"That is that the political shortcomings and the shortcomings in the planning for the occupation of Iraq have made the job of the Army very much more difficult," he told the Today programme.
"And there comes a time when the realisation on the ground is that the people of Iraq do resent foreign intervention and there comes a time when we have got to look forward to when we can hand it over to the Iraqis for them to sort out."
He added: "I think we have to salute the honesty of the Chief of General Staff and understand that he is reflecting the beliefs of the Army, the people on the ground. He is not a politician and he is not given to spin, so what you hear from him is absolutely ground truth."
Unofficial military internet forums were inundated with praise for Sir Richard from serving soldiers. Messages posted on the Army Rumour Service website included: "The most impressive comments I have heard from someone of his seniority for a long time" and "I am thoroughly heartened by this and have the beginnings of a thaw in the cynicism which has dogged my service thinking since 2003."
However, the general played down his comments claiming they were neither "substantially new or substantially newsworthy".
I note how none of Bush's supporters on this forum had much to say about the initial post here.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Huge support for 'frank' Army boss[/FONT] [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Press Association
Friday October 13, 2006 11:38 AM[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The head of the British Army has received overwhelming support from across the ranks over his call for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq "sometime soon".
Senior officers said General Sir Richard Dannatt should be "saluted" for his honesty while frontline soldiers praised their commander for "telling it how it is".
Their comments came after Sir Richard, who became Chief of the General Staff in August, gave an interview to the Daily Mail warning that we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".
Sir Richard's frank remarks were seized on as a major broadside at the government's foreign policy. They caused widespread astonishment but appeared to be widely welcomed by his troops, opposition MPs and anti-war groups.
Colonel Tim Collins, one of the most senior officers in Iraq in 2003, said Sir Richard had given a "refreshing and very honest insight into what the Army generally feel".
"That is that the political shortcomings and the shortcomings in the planning for the occupation of Iraq have made the job of the Army very much more difficult," he told the Today programme.
"And there comes a time when the realisation on the ground is that the people of Iraq do resent foreign intervention and there comes a time when we have got to look forward to when we can hand it over to the Iraqis for them to sort out."
He added: "I think we have to salute the honesty of the Chief of General Staff and understand that he is reflecting the beliefs of the Army, the people on the ground. He is not a politician and he is not given to spin, so what you hear from him is absolutely ground truth."
Unofficial military internet forums were inundated with praise for Sir Richard from serving soldiers. Messages posted on the Army Rumour Service website included: "The most impressive comments I have heard from someone of his seniority for a long time" and "I am thoroughly heartened by this and have the beginnings of a thaw in the cynicism which has dogged my service thinking since 2003."
However, the general played down his comments claiming they were neither "substantially new or substantially newsworthy".
I note how none of Bush's supporters on this forum had much to say about the initial post here.
[/FONT]
It's clear Iraq is already embroiled in civil war. It has been for some time. It's also clear the US and the Brits are well armed but well armed isn't enough anymore. They've lost this war. It's a huge embarrassment for western intelligence agencies and all those who claim special knowledge of these challenging situations. No amount of planning would have created a different outcome. The initial decision to invade was wrong.
The problem remains the world is getting more dangerous. If the US and Britain are forced out, tail between their legs, what must be the newly set level of provocation that would induce their re-involvement and return?
The problem remains the world is getting more dangerous. If the US and Britain are forced out, tail between their legs, what must be the newly set level of provocation that would induce their re-involvement and return?
The guy has to be fired immediately. It is unacceptable for a military commander to undermine his political masters in public, regardless of if he is right or not. That said, I admire the guy for having the balls to say it, and I hope the British public is paying attention. This is a guy who would know, much more than self-serving politicians unable to admit a mistake.
It is unacceptable for a military commander to undermine his political masters in public, regardless of if he is right or not.
This is precisely what Hitler's supporters said during the Operation Valkyrie trials.
When a war is unjust it is the duty of military personnel to question and to refuse to obey the political commanders who are violating the law. This was the legal determination made during the Nuremburg Tribunals. Therefore Commander Dunnatt is doing the proper thing.
This is precisely what Hitler's supporters said during the Operation Valkyrie trials.
When a war is unjust it is the duty of military personnel to question and to refuse to obey the political commanders who are violating the law. This was the legal determination made during the Nuremburg Tribunals. Therefore Commander Dunnatt is doing the proper thing.
No. I am glad the Commander was able to say that and british soldiers support his decision, and probably most of the iraqi and British publics. Since his comments, it has been in the paper over and over the ****es in Basra want the british out.
However, who knows what happens after, will it be mass killing or whatever. All we do know it was a major U.S and british failure that will collapse at some point in time when Americans are just to tired of seeing body bags.
And the Iraqis are the ones who are going to suffer either way because of the ethnic divisions this new government and the previous Saddam government caused. I don't see Iraq lasting too much longer and several hostile smaller states may be created. The ****ies don't consider themselves Iraqi and neither do the Kurds, how can you have a state.
However, who knows what happens after, will it be mass killing or whatever. All we do know it was a major U.S and british failure that will collapse at some point in time when Americans are just to tired of seeing body bags.
And the Iraqis are the ones who are going to suffer either way because of the ethnic divisions this new government and the previous Saddam government caused. I don't see Iraq lasting too much longer and several hostile smaller states may be created. The ****ies don't consider themselves Iraqi and neither do the Kurds, how can you have a state.