British Chief of Army suggests pulling out of Iraq

myata · October 13, 2006

There were reports yesterday (here's a CBC story) that Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff of the British Army has strongly suggested pullout of Iraq in the near future. Looks like there's less and less will in the coalition of the "willing" to shoulder the mess. Who's next?

jbg · October 14, 2006

There were reports yesterday (here's a CBC story) that Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff of the British Army has strongly suggested pullout of Iraq in the near future. Looks like there's less and less will in the coalition of the "willing" to shoulder the mess. Who's next?

Largely retracted (link). See below:

===================================================================

LONDON — Britain's new army chief has called for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon," warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems, according to a published interview.

But in another interview on Friday, Gen. Richard Dannatt denied any rift between himself and Prime Minister Tony Blair on Iraq, and said that some of his remarks reported by the Daily Mail newspaper had been misunderstood.

He said he was "standing shoulder to shoulder" with American forces in Iraq, and was planning force deployments there for 2007 and into the following year.

"We don't do surrender. We don't pull down white flags. We're going to see this through," Dannatt said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

The British government has not yet set a timetable for the departure of its 7,500 troops from Iraq.

jdobbin · October 14, 2006

LONDON — Britain's new army chief has called for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon," warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems, according to a published interview.
But in another interview on Friday, Gen. Richard Dannatt denied any rift between himself and Prime Minister Tony Blair on Iraq, and said that some of his remarks reported by the Daily Mail newspaper had been misunderstood.

He said he was "standing shoulder to shoulder" with American forces in Iraq, and was planning force deployments there for 2007 and into the following year.

"We don't do surrender. We don't pull down white flags. We're going to see this through," Dannatt said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

The British government has not yet set a timetable for the departure of its 7,500 troops from Iraq.

He didn't deny he said what he said.

KrustyKidd · October 14, 2006

He didn't deny he said what he said.

Wondering where the quote of him saying that they ought to pull out was. Read the article and he only says better planning and how troops may not be heros to the Iraqi people anymore sort of thing.

Links please.

jdobbin · October 14, 2006

He didn't deny he said what he said.

Wondering where the quote of him saying that they ought to pull out was. Read the article and he only says better planning and how troops may not be heros to the Iraqi people anymore sort of thing.

Links please.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.as...m=10&y=2006

There.

KrustyKidd · October 14, 2006

He didn't deny he said what he said.

Wondering where the quote of him saying that they ought to pull out was. Read the article and he only says better planning and how troops may not be heros to the Iraqi people anymore sort of thing.

Links please.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.as...m=10&y=2006

There.

Still asking for the quote. There is none of him saying that. So not there.

jdobbin · October 14, 2006

Still asking for the quote. There is none of him saying that. So not there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

I think the quote is "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

Are you disputing this? The General is not denying he said this.

KrustyKidd · October 15, 2006

Are you disputing this? The General is not denying he said this.

Nope. Just want the context of the whoel thing. For example, when our officers say that "we cannot defeat the Taliban militarily" many take that to mean it is unwinnable when in effect, it means that social and economic aid also has to flow into the situation. That, enabled by the military portion.

So, I would like to see the article thanks, or at least the transcript from the interview.

jdobbin · October 15, 2006

Nope. Just want the context of the whoel thing. For example, when our officers say that "we cannot defeat the Taliban militarily" many take that to mean it is unwinnable when in effect, it means that social and economic aid also has to flow into the situation. That, enabled by the military portion.
So, I would like to see the article thanks, or at least the transcript from the interview.

Don't have a transcript. Just what the originating newspaper The Daily Mail has reported and quoted the General on.

His comments seemed pretty clear to most people who read them. He said the British have to get out of Iraq soon, not five years from now, not ten years from now.

KrustyKidd · October 16, 2006

His comments seemed pretty clear to most people who read them. He said the British have to get out of Iraq soon, not five years from now, not ten years from now.

British nins, contractors or what though? I assume it is military but, will they scale down after training Iraqis or flat out pull pin and run? Will they remain in a specialized role or return once they get rested? What? That is why the context is relevent Jobbin, the comment is one thing without the context but may mean something completely different once you have it.

jdobbin · October 16, 2006

British nins, contractors or what though? I assume it is military but, will they scale down after training Iraqis or flat out pull pin and run? Will they remain in a specialized role or return once they get rested? What? That is why the context is relevent Jobbin, the comment is one thing without the context but may mean something completely different once you have it.

I guess you can argue context for anything really.

I suppose it will only matter what is perceived in Britain and abroad. That perception is that Iraq is in a civil war. Republican Chuck Hagel today becomes the latest senator to say that the Iraq operation is not working and needs to change.

KrustyKidd · October 16, 2006

I guess you can argue context for anything really.
I suppose it will only matter what is perceived in Britain and abroad. That perception is that Iraq is in a civil war. Republican Chuck Hagel today becomes the latest senator to say that the Iraq operation is not working and needs to change.

"Needs to change" Ok, once again, no context. Do you mean he thinks there ought to be more troops, less, pull out yesterday or what? You need the context or it's meaningless as it is not a known.

jdobbin · October 16, 2006

"Needs to change" Ok, once again, no context. Do you mean he thinks there ought to be more troops, less, pull out yesterday or what? You need the context or it's meaningless as it is not a known.

Here is what the news had today.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/15/hagel-out-of-iraq/

There's a transcript too.

I think he is leaning to withdrawing. Is that what your take on his interview is?

KrustyKidd · October 16, 2006

I think he is leaning to withdrawing. Is that what your take on his interview is?

Great, now I get to show you what context is all about. No, he is not talking about withdrawing. The aim of the US has always been to withdraw, when the Iraqis get their act together. What he is talking about is changing the present strategy (or seemingly visible strategy) to push Iraqis to do more for themselves so that withdrawl can occur.

jdobbin · October 16, 2006

Great, now I get to show you what context is all about. No, he is not talking about withdrawing. The aim of the US has always been to withdraw, when the Iraqis get their act together. What he is talking about is changing the present strategy (or seemingly visible strategy) to push Iraqis to do more for themselves so that withdrawl can occur.

Whatever context you want to put it, it shows division in the Republican party about strategy in Iraq. No one has an answer for it and it has hurt them politically. That division can only grow if there is no change leading up to the Presidential election in 2008.

KrustyKidd · October 17, 2006

Whatever context you want to put it, it shows division in the Republican party about strategy in Iraq. No one has an answer for it and it has hurt them politically. That division can only grow if there is no change leading up to the Presidential election in 2008.

I read that to be a normal political process unlike what Cretien had in place for twelve years. Discussion on what to do with a situation rather than just up and pulling out en masse overnight is not revolution in a party but rather healthy and, still acknowledges that the US is commited. You seem to pull stuff out of the press for pure sensation and read whatever into it based on a quote or, simple headline. Not your fault as that is what the press does to sell papers but wish you would get into the issue more before you place this as some sort of poof of something.

Borg · October 17, 2006

Whether he said what he said, or meant what he said, or was misquoted - I would suspect his life is rather interesting at this time.

Politicians have ways of disciplining folks who get out of line while serving in the military.

I wonder how close he is to retirement?

Borg

jdobbin · October 17, 2006

I read that to be a normal political process unlike what Cretien had in place for twelve years. Discussion on what to do with a situation rather than just up and pulling out en masse overnight is not revolution in a party but rather healthy and, still acknowledges that the US is commited. You seem to pull stuff out of the press for pure sensation and read whatever into it based on a quote or, simple headline. Not your fault as that is what the press does to sell papers but wish you would get into the issue more before you place this as some sort of poof of something.

When political leader and military leaders are talking about how bad things are in Iraq and that the present strategy isn't working and talk about some form of withdrawal, I don't think I am reading it as being sensational.

Even Bush has been recently saying that things are not going well because of sectarian violence.

The Republicans are headed for one of the worst spanking if Charles Cook's analysis is correct. And he keeps saying that it is Iraq and not financial or sexual scandals that is taking the biggest toll. Top Republicans like Warner, Hagel and James Baker are saying things are a mess in Iraq.

Is it not a mess? Is it looking more and more like civil war? Can the U.S. protect the country in its present situation? What is the solution in your opinion? Will the next President face the same situation we are seeing today? Will it bettter, worse, the same?

Frontline has a documentary this Tuesday to show Iraq went the way it did.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/

KrustyKidd · October 18, 2006

When political leader and military leaders are talking about how bad things are in Iraq and that the present strategy isn't working and talk about some form of withdrawal, I don't think I am reading it as being sensational.

I sure do as the strategy was to withdraw right from the very beginning. It is in what way and under what conditions and what state the Iraqis are left in that is the point. That is provided by reading the quotes in context rather than the sensational headlines that always say somethibng similar like "General says: US withdrawl imminent' or whatever.

Even Bush has been recently saying that things are not going well because of sectarian violence.

Of course there is no denying that Iraq is not going the way he had hoped.

The Republicans are headed for one of the worst spanking if Charles Cook's analysis is correct. And he keeps saying that it is Iraq and not financial or sexual scandals that is taking the biggest toll. Top Republicans like Warner, Hagel and James Baker are saying things are a mess in Iraq.

So, other than just saying something in general, what are their suggestions?

Is it not a mess? Is it looking more and more like civil war? Can the U.S. protect the country in its present situation? What is the solution in your opinion? Will the next President face the same situation we are seeing today? Will it bettter, worse, the same?

The US is not intent on protecting the country but rather keeping it alive long enough so that they can do it themselves through training . The solution in my opinion is to do exactly what the US is doing, putting the Iraqi government on notice that they willnot be there for eternity but rather withdrawing and scaling down bit by bit so they know they have to get it toghether whatever way they can. I have no idea of what the future will bring however, it won't be a complete withdrawl as that would be virtual capitulation in the war on terror as well as spelling out to the nations of the middle east that the Viet Nam syndrome is still alive in the USA and that nothing has changed.

jdobbin · October 18, 2006

I sure do as the strategy was to withdraw right from the very beginning. It is in what way and under what conditions and what state the Iraqis are left in that is the point. That is provided by reading the quotes in context rather than the sensational headlines that always say somethibng similar like "General says: US withdrawl imminent' or whatever.
Of course there is no denying that Iraq is not going the way he had hoped.

So, other than just saying something in general, what are their suggestions?

The US is not intent on protecting the country but rather keeping it alive long enough so that they can do it themselves through training . The solution in my opinion is to do exactly what the US is doing, putting the Iraqi government on notice that they willnot be there for eternity but rather withdrawing and scaling down bit by bit so they know they have to get it toghether whatever way they can. I have no idea of what the future will bring however, it won't be a complete withdrawl as that would be virtual capitulation in the war on terror as well as spelling out to the nations of the middle east that the Viet Nam syndrome is still alive in the USA and that nothing has changed.

According to Jay Garner, the thought was that as soon as Iraq was liberated in May, the troops would be gone by July. They had plans to bring back the Iraqi Army and no plans to go after the majority of the Baath Party. Paul Bremer came in and the first two things he did was disband the Iraqi Army and go after the Baath. Looting started, followed by bombing. There were not enough troops to patrol and no police either.

Iraqi Army and Baathist disappeared, some became insurgents.

Most of the Green Zone civil servants from Washington were Republican campaign workers and party loyalists. They had no idea how to run the country and were planning tax cuts as a populist measure in Iraq.

Within a short time, Bremer was dealing with full out war in places like Fallujah.

Iraq is not only going a little off track from what Bush wanted. It is off the rails. It is getting worse. Ten U.S. soldiers killed Tuesday, one today. It is as bad as early 2005. Four die a day. Iraqis are dying in huge numbers now.

There hasn't been a gradual withdrawal. Numbers have actually grown.

James Baker is supposed propose something shortly. He is probably horrified with what is happening there right now. It could lead to a huge Republican defeat.

KrustyKidd · October 19, 2006

There hasn't been a gradual withdrawal. Numbers have actually grown.

Yes, agreed. Mistakes occured and problems had to be rectified in the best way possible. However, if you have noticed, the whole plan has remained the same - train Iraqi troops, support Iraqi government until they can fend for themselves. No matter what party is in charge or whomever speaks out.

James Baker is supposed propose something shortly. He is probably horrified with what is happening there right now. It could lead to a huge Republican defeat.

Whatever. It will not be a withdrawl that is immediate leaving Iraq to insurgents. It will be a gradual withdrawl with the timeline dependent on the Iraqi capability to govern and defend themselves, same as the origional plan only with different window dressing.

jdobbin · October 19, 2006

Yes, agreed. Mistakes occured and problems had to be rectified in the best way possible. However, if you have noticed, the whole plan has remained the same - train Iraqi troops, support Iraqi government until they can fend for themselves. No matter what party is in charge or whomever speaks out.
Whatever. It will not be a withdrawl that is immediate leaving Iraq to insurgents. It will be a gradual withdrawl with the timeline dependent on the Iraqi capability to govern and defend themselves, same as the origional plan only with different window dressing.

And those people who are being trained are often absent, killing people on the street and being fired by the government or simply not doing their jobs in favour of American soldiers having to do policing and enforcement.

Bush said today that he is losing patience. I don't think he or the next president will have any choice. At some point they'll have to admit this is a civil war and start leaving.

Many see no hope for resolution at this point. It simply gets worse every day.

KrustyKidd · October 19, 2006

Many see no hope for resolution at this point. It simply gets worse every day.

That's why the phrase 'stay the course' has meaning that so many don't understand.

jdobbin · October 19, 2006

That's why the phrase 'stay the course' has meaning that so many don't understand.

I think that is what the captain of the Titantic said. Full steam to the bottom.

KrustyKidd · October 19, 2006

I think that is what the captain of the Titantic said. Full steam to the bottom.

No. From what I understand, he had no orders to give as he was in shock so the other officers had to take over.

Jobbin, as you seem to think errors have occured. please tell us exactly what you think should happen right now in Iraq if you were in charge of the whole show?