Mick Smith - Times Online - WBLG

British Forces Chief: "Why Our Allies Messed It Up For Us in Iraq"

Every Christmas it is traditional for the Chief of Defence Staff to address the members of the Royal United Services Institute. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup did so this evening, and since the media reports seem likely to focus on what he said about Afghanistan and Mumbai, it is worth separating off the Iraq section which is a spirited defence of British operations in southern Iraq, with a sideswipe at our allies who have been so quick to criticise the British efforts. It is well worth a read:

Thank you, chairman, and good afternoon everyone.  It’s a great pleasure to have the chance once again to speak here at RUSI; to be able to share some reflections with you as the year draws to an end, and 2008 has been eventful in so many ways. Since I spoke to you last year, 47 of our people have lost their lives on operations, and many more have been wounded, some very seriously.  2008 has seen some hard fighting, some significant military successes, and the continued development of some significant obstacles to success that will make 2009 particularly challenging. One of the biggest steps forward came early in the year, in Iraq.  Although operation charge of the knights got off to an inauspicious start, its eventual success and subsequent developments have transformed the situation in Basra.  But the operation has also attracted a degree of controversy, particularly with regard to the British role.   

Sorry Jock. The UK Has Failed in Basra!

It is sadly not true to say, as the Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, does in an interview with The Times today, that British troops have not failed in Basra. It was not just the government that was suggesting our troops could do something worthwhile in Iraq’s most southern city, it was British military commanders themselves. Too often, we heard that UK troops were better than their US colleagues at winning hearts and minds and that we could do something in the south that our American allies had no hope of doing further north.

Harry's "job" is to do what he's told!

Senior army officers are apparently reviewing plans to send Prince Harry out on patrol in Iraq’s dangerous Maysan province in a Scimitar armoured reconnaissance vehicle following the deaths of two soldiers there last week. The two soldiers from the Queen’s Royal Lancers died when their Scimitar was destroyed by a bomb. The Lancers are due to be replaced next month by Harry’s regiment, the Blues and Royals.

Blair: How British Officials Conspired to Do Me Down

Tony Blair attempted, in an interview with the BBC's Today programme, to dismiss the claim that he had already agreed to go to war when the infamous "Downing Street Memo" meeting took place in July 2002 as “conspiracy theory”. Even by his pathetic standards this is a novel excuse. But just in case anyone is gulled into believing him, here is an extract from what was to my mind the most important of the eight memos. It was a Cabinet Office briefing paper, dated 21 July 2002 prepared for a key meeting of Blair's war cabinet, which was to take place at 10 Downing St two days later. It was the minutes of that meeting which included the infamous statement by Sir Richard Dearlove, the then head of MI6, that the intelligence was being “fixed around the policy” in Washington.

Is he Just a Fool?

Tony Blair has just announced to Parliament that British troops are to begin withdrawing from Iraq. This was supposed to be a move designed to show that Tony didn’t do everything George Bush wanted, a sign of independence that would help Labour in the polls. But since we are now - temporarily at least - the 51st state of America, the British withdrawal will be much slower than ministers and officials have previously suggested. This is because Bush insists we have to hang around to monitor the vastly over-stated threat from Iran, hence Tony's announcement in parliament that one of the key roles of the British troops would be "securing the Iran-Iraq border".

British General Questions What US Forces in Iraq Are Doing?

General Sir Rupert Smith is reluctant to condemn the dispatch of 20,000 more US troops to Iraq without being certain of what they are going to do, but the very fact that it seems unclear to him ought to suggest that all is not right. Smith is widely seen as the best chief of general staff the British Army never had. He made his name in Bosnia, as a brilliant commander of UN forces in very difficult times, and his book The Utility of Force, published in America this week, is considered a must read for up-and-coming British officers.

British Troops Help a Republican Cause

In the early hours of the morning, President George W Bush confirmed that British troops will remain in Iraq as along as he is president. Yes I know it is at odds with the reports you have seen. I know that Bush said 20,000 more US troops would be going to Iraq, not British. I know some papers are actually running stories claiming that they can “reveal” that several thousand British troops will actually be out of Iraq by May. But the bottom line here is that for the sake of long-term Republican electoral chances the bulk of British troops will stay, and some of them inevitably die, in Iraq until the president finally leaves office.

Sticking Another Finger in the Dyke

My first thoughts on hearing reports of Des Browne’s latest comments on Iraq, were that it was so good of him accept reality and confirm our report a couple of weeks back that British troops are likely to be out of Iraq by the end of next year. Defence ministers seem to spend so much of their time denying obvious realities, that any attempt that gets close ought to be applauded. But a closer look at what he actually said made me realise that it was just another attempt to stick a finger in the dyke holding back the flood of calls for British troops to be pulled out of Iraq.

Are They Really Dying for Their Country?

The spin doctors have done pretty well by Tony Blair over the last few days. The deaths of four servicemen and women on the Shatt al-Arab was neatly edged off the top of the BBC newscasts by the news that the prime minister was going to push for talks with Syria and Iran - actually reported before their dreadful deaths but regurgitated by the BBC’s reliable idiots as if it was somehow new and more important than the loss of four lives in a totally unnecessary fashion. Thereafter their deaths fell swiftly down the bulletins, apparently less important than a series of meaningless government announcements that it was going to do this or that. We shouldn’t of course be surprised. It is all we should expect from the dreadful post-Hutton BBC. They are frankly not alone. The scandal that is the continuing loss of British lives in Iraq is the story that no-one seems able to confront.

Are we staying in Basra to help the Iraqis or the Republicans?

Senior military commanders are concerned British troops will stay in Iraq longer than necessary to protect the political position of President Bush. Senior defence sources rightly believe there has to be a continued British presence in southern Iraq even once security is completely handed over to Iraqi control. But they have expressed concern that the continued presence of British troops in Iraq will depend on the political fortunes of the Republican party in America rather than assessments based purely on the situation in Iraq.