At Last a Commander Deserving of Command

It was absolutely brilliant to hear that the Chief of General Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt has stood up for his men and made it clear to Tony Blair that British troops should not be in Iraq. For several months, the British military in Basra have candidly admitted that the Iraqi police and the army have been running operations on the ground, even in Basra. As I pointed out six weeks ago, British troops have only stayed around because leaving now would cause George Bush’s Republican Party problems ahead of next month’s mid-term elections.

There has been much talk about the need to remove corrupt elements within the Iraqi police but this is so much guff. Even if we were to successfully remove the Shia militiamen, what would happen once we left? The militias would get back in control. The situation in and around Basra is not the same as that in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. For the British to leave would not be to cut and run. We could have left months ago knowing that we had trained the army and the police. We had done our bit. It is up to the Iraqis now to sort things out. We can no longer be part of the solution, our presence is part of the problem. The only solution is an Iraqi solution.

Just as importantly, until we have pulled out of Iraq, we will not be able to put the numbers of troops and the required effort into Afghanistan. General David Richards, the British commander in Afghanistan, has made it clear that we have six months now to get it right there. He needs a 1,000-man rapid reaction force to help him do his job. This government said the UK would provide this force but John Reid, the then defence secretary, withdrew the offer.

Appeals to other Nato countries to provide the rapid reaction force have fallen on deaf ears, but this is not just due to the pathetic refusal of some countries to allow their troops to face the Taliban. There are only a few Nato armies capable of providing the forces to do the job Richards has in mind. US commanders have even more problems with overstretch than their British colleagues. The two other main contenders, the French and the Turks, are so angry over Iraq they see no reason to help out. Britain must give Richards the troops he needs, finding the necessary numbers by cancelling all further deployments to Iraq and drawing down the numbers there now.

General James Jones, the military chief of Nato, said that the lack of those troops was leading to Nato casualties. The worst casualties have been among the Canadians in Kandahar and our own troops in Helmand. If we had provided the rapid reaction force we promised it would have spent most of its time in Helmand and Kandahar. Put simply Canadian and British troops might not have died. We have been cutting off our nose to spite our face. Blair’s willingness to let the Republicans off the hook by keeping our troops in Iraq at the expense of soldiers' lives is a disgrace. Blair should bring them home now and put all our effort into Afghanistan where, if we move fast, we might just manage to do some good.

Comments

[The 3rd Column]

So, after wreaking havoc on Iraq, we leave them to self-destruct?

I understand the British dilemma - British lives are more important. A post mortem is in order.

Tony Blair bungled everything he touched since he went war wongering with George Bush; he had no business saving George Bush's butt in a conflict that was entirely of Bush's making; he then refused to back off even when number of casualties was increasing even when he was being told that manpower was stretched thin and couldn't sustain troop support for the US. And for what? For a little pat by Bush on the back or perhaps, for a US Congressional Medal of Honor eventually?

Tony Blair had no business sacrificing British lives, spending British funds, putting British civilian lives at risk, for a war he knew was morally wrong from the start; the worst part is he sent the troops to a war knowing that there was an enormous risk they wouldn't win and why.

Tony Blair, be damned!

[The 3rd Column]

Mick,

Having said what I thought of PM Blair's bungling of Iraq earlier on, Sir Richard is right. UK troops should be pulled out immediately - starting TODAY. Iraq is done - lost or won it is irrelevant now.

Afghanistan is the key to the future. If NATO loses in Afghanistan it will be open day for every terrorist or mad regime all round the world. It will be open day for any Islamic or other group around the world. the best the West can offer will have been defeated. If NATO is defeated, kiss our way of life good-bye.

A bit melodramatic I know, and things will not go bad instantly. BUT 5 years ago the US was the undisputed super power in the world - this is no longer the case. Iraq, Sudan, Mogadishu, Afghanistan, Bali, E Timor and a major attack in the USA (9/11) have proved the US cannot do it alone. They are a super power, but they need help. (This is the basis of British support in Iraq whatever the rest of the world thinks - it is unthinkable for our way of life to let the US sink.)

The whole world including most Americans see this quite clearly. Sadly President Bush and his cronies are practically the only group in the world that have not grasped this essential fact.

NATO has been the single entity that has been the focus for international activity in the defence and security field. It has operated successfully in Christian and Moslem countries. It has always acted with international consensus - in fact it cannot do anything else due to the internal need for consensus for any decision. NATO is the North Atlantic Alliance - i.e. US and Europe (sorry, Canada) and does cover Christian and Moslem religions with Turkey. However, in some parts of the world it represents a status quo based on stereotypical concepts such as: "The West", wealth, US controlled, domination of the developing world by rich nations. As such it is not always viewed favourably.

The situation in Darfur where the Sudanese president is refusing to allow NATO forces because it is felt they are US-dominated proves the point. That said NATO is tolerated and could become a force for stability, but it is always only as good as its last operation. Every time it has embarked on a new operation we have the same question: Is NATO capable and is this a role for NATO? This is the current status in Afghanistan where NATO has embarked on one of the most ambitious nation building exercises ever seen.

NATO must succeed because failure will lead to anarchy.

Why so melodramatic? The reply is based on the fact that the UN, NATO, the US, Europe and an international coalition of 37 nations will have failed to bring peace to a backward and impoverished country with a population of only some 20 million. If the international institutions fail here it will give any malcontent the idea that they will fail elsewhere. It will give the idea that the international community has lost control and is no longer prepared to make the effort to help the developing world. It will give every megalomaniac, and there are many - N Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran as a start - the idea that they can set-up their own regime. It will tell other potential superpowers such as India, China and perhaps Brazil that the world is theirs for the taking if they have the will.

Perhaps this is OK if you are not in the world's top 20% of nations for wealth, but for the rich nations this is a disaster and will see the start of a revolution in their standard of living and way of life. Hence my vision of potential anarchy.

This leaves a residual question - what to do with the USA in Iraq? We do not want the USA to lose too much face or they lose credibility and weaken our position in Afghanistan. We do not want Iraq to descend officially into civil war. We want to see Iraq governed by Iraqis. We want a political solution that does not disturb the balance of power too much in the region. I do not know enough to see what this is.

I can see that the UK and a few other nations continue to support the USA while a solution is sought. I see the nations becoming more and more disenchanted and more and more leaving. I see Iraq becoming a real disaster for the USA. This will have knock-on effect on all of us and we need to help the USA to get out. Perhaps the saddest thing of all is that Bush does not see this and he still has over two years in office. Time is running out and having to wait for the next US president may be too late.

The world is more unstable today than it has been since 1914.

[Peter Donson]

During the Second World War Churchill was fortunate that his senior Army commander was the then Sir Allen Brooke. He succeeded in tempering Churchill's wilder schemes and but for him there may have been many more British War Graves around the world than there are now. It is unfortunate that soldiers of similar stature have been absent in these modern times until possibly now.

[Alex]

It is wonderful to see a Chief of General Staff standing up against these spineless labour politicians who are willing to promise the world, yet again and again fail to deliver the goods to our heroic troops. Finally someone worthy of the job, tired of seeing the humble British soldier stabbed in the back.

[John H]

An official that tells the truth - how extraordinarly refreshing! How long can Dannat last once the New Labour machine realises he's not a patsy?

It's time to let Iraqi's shape their own country - I've always thought the solution lies in allowing stable communities to form - i.e. facilitating partition.

[Jim Golightly]

It is gratifying that a general agrees with me!
Tony Blair did not listen to me when he lied and spun his way into Iraq to 'take out' the only 'glue' holding the place together. Now it will split into it's natural components to the detriment of western interests!
We are liable to have a 'Bloody Arnhem' in Afghanistan unless the politicians put aside their squabbling over their bylines in the history books and hollow, embarrassed promises of support and put in the numbers of quality troops with appropriate support now!

Gnr Golightly

[Foley]

That's what you get when you invade someone else's country on a pack of lies. It is not clear to everyone ecept those who have been in a coma for last 6 years that Tony Blair and George Bush have made up false threats and invented all sort of lies to deceive the public. They twisted their own findings of security services and publiched sexy dossiers. We are today seeing the fruits of deception. Over 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed. God knows how many injured. Millions forced from their homes. Iraqi still do not have electricity, safe drinking water, and other promised rebuiling dreams. Billions are being stolen by firms and companies. How can Blair and Bush sleep at night? Today we know that Iraq had no connection to September 11 attacks. It had no weapons of mass destruction. It had no ties with Al Qaeda. But today it is admitted that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism. Extremists have no better recruting tool than policies Bush and Blair. These two leaders should be taken before war crime court and tried for genocide of Iraqi people. History will not forgive Britian and US just as it does not forgive Germany for what Hitler 60 years ago. General Sir Richard ought to be congratulated for his bravery. He has guts to speak out for his boys who are risking their lives on foolish adventures by Blair and Bush.

[Angus McFarlane]

If the British troops are not required around Basra because the Iraqis are capable of doing the job without their help, deploy them to another part of Iraq where there are still problems. Simple. No point in going on and on about it.

[john gregory Flinn]

I wonder, does Sir Richard Dannatt have any plans to holiday in Thailand ... or has he already been there?

[Stan Rosenthal]

What a relief! I woke up today fully expecting tanks to be surrounding No 10.

[Randal]

Agreed, General Dannatt's comments were somewhat refreshing, though it appears from subsequent press reports he has trimmed somewhat from the outspoken spin put on his comments overnight.

Yes, we should get out of Iraq ASAP. Yes, we are only there for the political benefit of the US and UK regimes (don't underestimate Blair's ever more desperate need to avoid the perception of cutting and running, no matter the cost in the lives of British servicemen or Iraqis).

Amusing to see you making the same error on Afghanistan as so many made over Iraq. In a few months or at most years, we will be confronting the futility of trying to impose our cultural assumptions and political will on Afghanistan, too.

This is all of relatively little interest, since it is essentially outside our control and inevitable.

The only domestic political question of real importance for the future, is what price will be paid by those responsible for the twin catastrophes of Iraq and Afghanistan. As for Bush, the Republicans and the US defence establishment, that is for the Yanks to worry about. What about Blair and those members of his cabinet who colluded in this war? What about the MPs who voted for the attack on Iraq? Incompetence or evil are the only available explanations for their performance.

They all evidently lack any proper sense of shame or self-respect, because otherwise they would long ago have resigned. Our system relies on either an proper individual sense of shame to trigger resignations, or a collective Parliamentary willingness to force such resignations if they are not easily forthcoming. But our executive cleverly made the majority of MPs complicit in their decision to attack, thereby protecting them against forced resignation. The establishment will not allow proper trials of those responsible to take place, through procedures designed to prevent any court oversight, and (if this should be overcome) a willingness to accept the kind of contorted self-serving rationalisations put forward by the Attorney General.

How are we to make Blair, the rest of his cabinet, and the MPs who were their willing dupes, pay the proper price for their actions?

I see little hope, at present, and yet it is vital they pay a proper price, in order to ensure that future Prime Ministers, Ministers and MPs exercise the proper caution before such interventions in the future.

[John Maynard]

All a bit overheated "the 3rd Column" ?
Lets wind back a bit.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US had two choices :
1) It could become even more reasonable and internationalist, engage even with "difficult" countries, and become the admired world leader, or
2) It could use it's unchallenged "might" to bully the world, be "self-sufficient", go on crazy, self-indulgent idealogical crusades, and just blank "difficult" countries, adding them to a "to do" list.

Clinton started down path number 1), but was soon distracted into domestic "issues".
Bush (with the company he kept) was tending towards path 2) and this was confirmed in spades after 9/11.
The US could have chosen to use 9/11 to ride the wave of sympathy by ennobling itself with a response of humility, openess and fairness (including punishment of the trasgressors).
Instead, it (Bush) deliberately chose path 2) again, using the excuse of 9/11 to tick off the first item on the "to do" list - Iraq.

US credibility is at an all-time low, and they/we desperately need a fresh start under a new president.
The historical opportunity presented by the fall of the Soviet Union has been lost for ever (another item for Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly"), but much repair work is still possible.

The world is not about to dissolve into anarchy.
Get a grip ! "The 3rd Column".

[Mark]

Britain has since WWII decided that its security is best served by alliance with the US. That seems to be in question now in Britain. The quid pro quo is that if the UK supports the US then the US would come to the UK's defence and eveyone will know it. When Bush sent tropps to Kuwait in late 2002 Britain could have declined to send troops there too and "gone semi-French" Blair decided to send troops and once he did backing out would have essentially terminated would have put the UK in the same class as France, hardly and ally but not quite a foe. Please make up your minds. The cost of being defended by the US is to be with us when things get rough. The only free-riders are the Canadians for geographical reasons. They will be defended whether they like it or not.

[Tucker]

As an American, allow me to say, that the majority of we American's "NEVER" wanted this Iraq war. Like the rest of the western world, Bush & his cronies forced it on us.

The Afgan war should have been finished off before anything. With Bin laden captured, or killed.

Now, before anyone says, that war was wrong. It wasn't wrong. Why? Because Laden attacked a soverniegn nation, and the Taiban protected & hid him from us.

They were given several chances to turn him over, and they justlaughed at us.

That's one reason, come November, that you will more than likely see the begining of the end for Bush & his guys.

Many of us fully intend to vote Democratic, and "yes" we want out of Iraq also, "PERIOD"!!!

Our men, like the British men, are dieing in Iraq daily, and for what reason? I ask?? It's sickening.

Many of us, in the USA, would like to go to a Isolationist position, as we know, that we Amercian's are despised & hated by you Europeans, British & Asian's.

We have our own problems here at home, and we Americans are tired of aiding & helping the world. It's time that it stops.

Hopefully the next President will realize this, and listen to the people wishes.

I agree 100% with the British General, we he says, It's difinitley time to leave Iraq!

[Randal]

3rd Column:

"So, after wreaking havoc on Iraq, we leave them to self-destruct?"

Say rather, we cease interfering and leave them alone to sort out the huge problems they face. To the extent those problems were caused by our foolish and/or criminal actions, our responsibility is to punish properly those of our leaders who were responsible, and pay suitable reparations once the Iraqis have sorted out the problems and have a reasonably stable state again.

As for Afghanistan, allow me to suggest that your analysis is based upon some erroneous (in my opinion, obviously) assumptions.

Primarily, you assume "our way of life" is dependent upon the continuation of global US dominance. This is very unlikely to be the case, unless by "our way of life" you mean our interventionist habits of global interference and our belief that there must be a global policeman (so long as it's someone on our side who gets the job, of course). Since failure in Afghanistan is basically inevitable, this is just as well. We will pay a price for our collaboration in the US attempt to impose control by military force, of course, but life will go on.

Failure by the US to impose global control will not lead to "anarchy" in any meaningful sense, but will lead to a return of some force to the all but destroyed concept of national sovereignty. The spread of nuclear defence forces will reinforce this change.

Insofar as this limited return to national sovereignty might encourage national politicians to mind their own country's business rather than others', this will be overall a good thing.

Several errors flow from your unsustainable assumptions. There is no reason for the UK to support the US in its attempt to secure and enhance its position of dominance. In fact, in doing so we are making the kind of strategic error made by Mussolini, in attaching ourselves too strongly to what seems to be the unstoppably rising power of the day. NATO, far from being something upon whose success we depend for our well-being, is typical of any bureaucracy that has outlived the purpose for which it was created and lives on as a tool in search of a task. It serves merely as a platform for our leaders to strut on the global stage, and a standing temptation for them to attempt interference in other nations' affairs, with murderous results. It should have been wound up in 1990, with celebratory parties and medals all round. Payment of the first installments of the blood price for our failure to do that has been made in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.

The world is far bigger than just "the west", and nations are far, far more complicated than our politicians are competent to grasp. We are not our brothers' keepers, and non-intervention is the right way forward.

[Alasdair Chubb]

Mick,

At last! I was begining to despair that our senior soldiers had sold their souls to the on message New Labour machine (although CDS has remained lamentably silent). The most encouraging thing about General Dannat's courageous stance however seems to have been overlooked most of the commentary so far. It is his motivation that is so invigorating. I sense he driven by a desire not to humiliate Tony Blair, although Lord knows he deserves it, but to ensure our troops are used in what is in the best interests for Great Britain. Also to try to protect our army, without a doubt the jewel in the crown of our public institutions, from being run into the ground but the disgraceful collection of self-interested, hypocritcal ingrates that pass for politicians in all the parties.

[The 3rd Column]

Mick,

I just read the full statement released today by General Sir Richard Dannatt.

It was very different from what he said in the interview with the Daily Mail.

It was bound to happen. General Dannatt was told to wind his neck in and clearly, it meant he had to retract.

Well, he's made a statement - very brave of him but bottom line is he's still receiving the Queen's shilling.

[Chuck Unsworth]

The clear and vociferous support for Dannatt on the various Military websites and elsewhere is heartening. One has to admire his courage and timing - a shrewd tactical move - but there is a very long way to go.

Time and events will show if this was a lucky strike or whether Sir Richard has real strength in depth and is capable of following through. It is plain that he can not let things rest and he must now capitalise on the element of surprise and expand out into the political arena.

Blair's ludicrous, if highly entertaining, response - that he agreed with every word of Dannatt's further comments (without endorsing the original article) - does indicate that he's been pushed off-balance. But no one should underestimate Blair's determination to retain control.

Even so, this intervention 'could' provide the opportunity for a rapid British withdrawal from Iraq, giving Blair a 'chance to listen to the advice of' his senior military and thereby save a certain amount of face. My fear is that Blair is so crass that he'll fail to grasp this opportunity. What he has not yet understood is that it is in his own interests to disassociate himself from the equally discredited Bush regime.

Dannatt has boldly articulated the sentiments of very many. It is unlikely that he'll be fired immediately, but his political masters have repeatedly shown themselves to be petty and remarkably vindictive. He should treat any overtures from these people with extreme caution. They are not to be trusted under any circumstances.

[Robert Holton]

General Dannatt has revealed Mr Blair's weak possition by going public. A secure premier would have had him dismissed.
Further the General must be confused.If what his troops are doing is counter productive (arresting insurgents etc)why not organise their duties on a non aggresive basis?

[Richard]

I am very impressed with
Chief of General Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt has stood up for his view of the current situation. Very brave!!!

In today's danger worldwide situation we need BRAVE, SENSIBLE and HONEST leaders like Sir Richard Dannatt in order to create peace and order.

Sir Richard Dannatt would be a good Chief Commander for US - This "man" is what US administration and military need at the moment - an honest & brave man. I think it could be a great potential opportunity for Sir Richard Dannatt in US...I hope so.

It would create peace and order.

[Toby Woolrych]

It has been said that General Dannatt should have either resigned if he felt the government´s policies to be unacceptable where the Army is concerned or soldiered on, expressing his views privately to the Prime Minister but otherwise doing his job as best he can.

As a former Army officer myself, I would normally sympathise with this view. The British made it virtually a breach of the Constitution for soldiers to take a public stand on political issues after their experience with Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army; it certainly became a point of military protocol. However the times they have a´changed, and just maybe this view is outdated.

I don´t believe there is anyone in Britain who seriously disagrees with what the General has said: it is the manner in which he said it which is the issue. So far as referring his misgivings to the Prime Minister are concerned, I understand he has done that "ad nauseam", to absolutely no effect. So, should he now resign? Well, there´s the rub, for it is not beyond the bounds of possibiliity that no-one would be willing to succeed him. If that happened, the Army´s upper echelons could well unravel faster than than an old pullover, leaving Mr Blair with the legacy not only of having been the most bellicose Prime Minister since Lord Salisbury commited us to the Boer War, but also of being the one which lost us our Army as well.

Perhaps General Dannatt realised this, and chanced his arm to make the points he has in the way that he has, knowing that the P.M. dare not publicly disagree nor sack him. Perhaps he is simply not prepared for the Army to take it all "lying down" any more. Either way it is high risk stuff and one must hope that he achieves concrete results, even if his legacy may be similar to that of Oliver Cromwell!

[Brian Jones]

'At Last a Commander Deserving of Command..' yes indeed. How refreshing it was to hear the General speak - a remarkable demonstration of the democratic profess, the very thing that (apparently) lies at the heart of action in Iraq. However, my fear is that this will not go without some form of retribution. The signs are not good for anyone who dares to express any views which are out of kilter with the ruling, and oppressive political elite resident at 10 Downing Street. Has the General effectively signed his own 'death warrent' at least as far as his ongoing career is concerned. Probably so! Whatever else the Blair Government may (or may not have achieved) since being in office, of this we can be sure - it has set in place one of the most repressive and authoritain regimes in British Parliamentary History (War time governments excepted). Object at your peril is the clear signal from No 10! I will not be surprised to read in the next few days that the General has been moved from office. If that happens we should all lament, because it means that the democratic process in this country would effectively, be dead and buried. We may try and promote these principles elsewhere, but here we will have to live by a different set of rules and standards. Hypocrasy rules - OK?

[Brian M]

The idea that Blair can carry on until the Summer, having lost the army, never mind the argument, is increasingly surreal. Blair wants to go out, as was recently leaked, with an orchestrated long goodbye, no doubt with Alastair Campbell scattering rose petals for him to walk on. In the real world, history has now cocked its leg on his 'legacy'. He will be consigned to the same political dustbin as Bush, appropriately enough. Well done, General Dannatt for helping him on his way. May his departure take the form of the third class political funeral which he deserves.

[Ron P]

putting aside the hatred for Blair & Bush for a just a minute. What is troubling is that a senior member of the military is challenging the civilian head of state. If General Dannatt feels strongly about the state of affairs in Iraq, then resign. Lets not cheer this act of defiance of elected civilian authority. All those who are against the war cheer this man for his alleged bravery in speaking out. Would those same individuals who cheer the General today be of the same attitude when a senior member of the military criticizes a PM they agree with? We cannot tolerate the notion of a military junta. The solution to this crisis is for the PM to demand Dannatt's immediate resignation. Once that is achieved Mr. Blair should himself resign.

[Bill Keyes]

When is the UK, France, Germany et al going to invade the US and free us from this evil dictator?

I can guarantee his regime would fall as fast as the twin towers did on 9/11.

Put troops in Canada lined up at the border and,give the Bush Administration 24 hours to step down. If they don't march across the border towards Washington.

The cheering in the streets here which be a roar heard around the world. Millions of Americans will join in a massive march on Washington.

WE ARE WAITING

By the way you owe us remember what we did for you in WWII ?