uk army chiefs comments and all that

[Mr. Hand]

well im sure you are all aware of the recent comments made by sir richard dannatt, the uk's army chief, if not where you been? this is the current events forum, dont you keep up with events?

so now that we're past that let's see how the troops have reacted to these comments, uk troops of course...

In their own words: soldiers' views on Iraq

Col David Labouchere, commander of British forces in Maysan province, on hostility of local people to their presence: "When we arrived in 2003 they said 'what are you bringing?'. We said we can bring reconstruction and new police forces and democracy. That was all very well three years ago … but if we cannot deliver the goodies then you are excess to what is needed. Just because we are the hardest tribe here does not matter much to them."

Capt Ali Wigham, Queen Royal Hussars, on the deteriorating situation in the south: "When I was last here (in 2004) you would just go down to the local police station and talk to them while travelling in two Land Rovers. Now it is three to six armoured vehicles." He continues: "Being here is very wearing on the nerves as we are under regular incoming fire. At the worst we had 56 mortars in one day (into Camp Abu Naji)."

Cpl Kevin Douglas, in Basra earlier this year: "Often you go out on patrol and talk to people and then come back, and you sit down and think, 'What did I really achieve today?’. But you have got to dispel that thought. There is no point thinking about whether we are doing good or bad, what the people back in Britain think or what we are actually achieving. We have to do our job and you have got to do the best you can. But it is very frustrating."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...10/13/uarmy.xml

Soldiers salute General's comments on web forum

The call from General Sir Richard Dannatt that British forces should leave Iraq "sometime soon" has met with overwhelming support on the unofficial Army Rumour Service website, which includes forums where officers can air their views anonymously.

Many express shock about the frankness of his words and there are several references to Sir Richard’s "moral" courage in speaking his mind, as well as calls for the Prime Minister to take heed of his remarks.

"...I am thoroughly heartened by this and have the beginings [sic] of a thaw in the cynicism which has dogged my service thinking since 2003," admits Jim_P_Pulfrew.

"I hope Blair is listening," says user Nigegilb. "Sir Richard has made the call and said it how it is. Good on him. Stand by for incoming. Getting out of Iraq is essential if [Afghanistan] is going to work in the long run. God knows what will happen to Iraq, not sure it will be any worse though. He made the point that we were never invited in we kicked the door in.

Nigegilb asks: "Can someone close to Sir Richard tell him that if he gets sacked he should run for office against whoever is the PM at the time. He will win by a landslide."

"Sir Richard, I'm saluting you right now!," says Purple_Flash. "It's about time someone of your standing actually lived up the Values & Standards that we so often pay lip service to. They are what should make us a breed apart; thank you for walking the walk rather than talking the talk."

Some are less diplomatic in their praise for Sir Richard and criticism of the Government. "He's [sir Richard] got a hell of a pair of moral b***s on him, I'll give him that! I imagine B'liar is in a bit of a cold sweat/hot rage now," says 303SMLE.

"Politicians can't grasp the idea of someone telling the truth, they'll all just assume he is chasing some kind of agenda. (Arguably, pursuing the truth and bringing the boys home is his agenda!) This might turn out to be one of those moments when the world turns and Governments fall; I certainly hope so!"

Brewmeister adds: "I think even Teflon Tony is going to find it difficult to weasel his way out of this. If Sir Richard goes it's time for a coup."

Stooge notes: "I don't think his comments will 'fall on deaf ears'. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of people in Whitehall who have by now heard about his comments and panicing [sic]. At the very least some of them will have a sleepless night trying to make this seem less ‘bad’.

"Also, this isn't someone with a political agenda. He's looking out for his own men. Even the public will see that."

It is not just the Government which comes under criticism over Iraq. Hereward says: "A real leader of men has spoken for once. Forget the feeble Mr Cameron and the non-existent Mr Campbell, the general is indeed the true moral voice of opposition in this country."

Many say the comments were long overdue and call for the Army to gather in support of Sir Richard should his position come under threat. "After years and years, AT LAST someone at the top, who makes the headline on the news, has had the b***s to stand up and be counted," says Brandt. "If he gets the sack, watch out for fireworks- If he has had the balls to stand up for us, we should do the same."

DigitalGeek adds: "The General has laid down the gauntlet to the Government. It is now time that we stood behind him." Drop_Short adds: "It is about time that our senior generalship actually stopped being part of the government and stood up for what is in the best interests of the Service. Bring on the revolution"

Even the few users critical of Sir Richard are keen to acknowledge that they agree with his apparent stance on Iraq. PassingBells writes: "Accurate and welcome though these comments are, they are not the sort of remarks that should be made publically [sic]. They are exactly what the CGS [Chief of the General Staff] should be saying privately…I fear that this smacks of naivity [sic] of his behalf and a serious lapse on behalf of his minder(s)."

Most users though, are wholly supportive of the General’s comments. At the time of writing, an ongoing poll on the site claimed that of 126 users, 78 per cent think he is "absolutely right", while only three per cent voted "he had to resign first before making such a statement".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2402666,00.html

and since we already know what the iraqis think i dont see the need to rehash that old topic. so it seems that if you really support the troops, the uk troops in this case, you would listen to them and their boss when they say their presence isnt helping and it is time to wrap this mess up, let the iraqis deal with saddam and themselves how they see fit and bring the troops home. or get behind the stock market warriors, who pretend to 'support the troops' by ignoring what they say. oh this just in tony blair says he agrees with "every word" dannatt said. i imagine except for the whole 'making the violence worse' and 'leaving soon' part, spin, duck, dive tony. dont worry about the troops worry about politics and votes and looking good on tv "support the troops", now duck again, dive, spin tony more flak comin at ya!

edit to include 'sir' richard dannatt, he deserves it.

Edited October 13, 2006 by Mr. Hand

[ohio tsunami]

I agree, I've been saying ever since Saddam's capture the U.S. and it's allies need to pack up and come home. We don't have the resources or finances to stay over there for decades and completley overhaul Iraq. I do whole heartedly support not only American troops but all of the Allied troops, now it's time to truly do something for them. BRING THEM HOME!!!!

[Shaftsbury]

It's really unfortunate, but I think it was Colin Powell (but don't quote me) that told George Bush before they even invaded Iraq that if the allies went in they'd basically "own" that region meaning that they would have to supply all the infastructure required of that country.

If they can't live up to their obligations then they shouldn't be there, it's not doing them or anybody else any good.

[Raptor Witness]

WE have no solution, because the only thing that can keep the peace in Iraq is

Good Tyranny.

[Mr. Hand]

oh this just in tony blair says he agrees with "every word" dannatt said. i imagine except for the whole 'making the violence worse' and 'leaving soon' part, spin, duck, dive tony. dont worry about the troops worry about politics and votes and looking good on tv "support the troops", now duck again, dive, spin tony more flak comin at ya!

oohh the story must have died down a little, tony's starting to tell the truth....

Sir Menzies targets Iraq strategy

For the first time since the general made his explosive comments, the prime minister was forced to admit he did not agree with him on everything after all.

Ever since the row erupted, the prime minister has taken every opportunity to explain what the general actually meant when he said troops should be withdrawn "sometime soon" and that ambitions for the country should be lowered.

First, Mr Cameron rightly pointed out that the prime minister had never said ambitions for the country's future should be lowered - so was that now his policy?

That got an unequivocal "no" from Mr Blair who appeared more like his usual, confident self rather than the distracted, stumbling character we were presented with last week.

No ambiguity there then. That is what the general had said, without caveat, and, unsurprisingly, that is not what the prime minister believes.

Stinging rebuke

The second question brought a more fuzzy answer

Mr Cameron asked if Mr Blair agreed with Sir Richard's claim that the presence of British troops "exacerbated" problems in Iraq.

That at least got the prime minister to accept that, on occasion, the troops may prove a "provocation".

But it took Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell to deliver the most stinging rebuke - to both men.

Complaints about Iraq would come better from those who opposed the war in the first place he told Mr Cameron.

He then asked the question now top of the agenda in both London and Washington - the current strategy in Iraq has failed, so is it not time to change the strategy or get out?

It is the question the prime minister cannot and will not engage in public. To do so, he suggests, is to offer a propaganda victory to the terrorists.

What politicians on all sides should be doing, he declared, was to stand up to the extremists.

But, once again, the question of Iraq's future is not going to go away and the prime minister almost certainly knows he will be facing them regularly from the despatch box until he finally leaves Downing Street.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6062250.stm

so how many here are suprised by the daily news of fractures in alliances, talk of policy changes, generals questioning the stock market warriors? all it takes is one guy with some balls to come out, everyone watches the reaction, if he doesnt get fried then everyone starts pouring out. the tides have changed, policy will change with it, we might actually get somewhere with this mess. good thing i got here and got some peoples feet wet with the idea before leaders started changing their minds, could have missed the wagon lol!