British General calls for the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq

In an interview with the Daily Mail, General Dannatt called for the withdrawl of British forces from Iraq. He is quoted as saying that British forces should "get out some time soon". General Dannatt is the Chief of the General Staff.



It must have taken a lot of guts to make such comments public. I am waiting for the American right to make there usual BS claims that such comments undermine the war effort. Such comments arent going to fly this time. General Dannatt is a liitle harder to ignore then your average joe blogs who is grounded in reality.

The coalition needs away out of Iraq that wont automatically gift the country to terrorists and/or other extremists. Partitioning Iraq into tribal regions would be the smartest move at this point . Political leaders should listen to General Dannatt oh wait he is grounded in reality which means the leaders that count wont listen to him.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I've always considered the British to be strong allies, since WWI anyway, but if the British wish to leave Iraq, then let them leave.

It's always nice to have friends to back you up, but sometimes you just have to go it alone.

C'est la vie.

French is an appropriate language in this context, don't you think?

I wonder how many US generals agree with Gen Dannatt? Many retired Military have voiced essentially the same thing.

Are our British alies "cutting and running" or finally seeing the light that being caught in the middle of a civil war is an untenable position.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I've always considered the British to be strong allies, since WWI anyway, but if the British wish to leave Iraq, then let them leave.

It's always nice to have friends to back you up, but sometimes you just have to go it alone.

C'est la vie.

French is an appropriate language in this context, don't you think?

I don't want to accuse you of revisionism, Grady, buut...

In 1917 it might possibly have been the Brits describing you as good allies, now that you'd finally come aboard the good fight.

Again, in 1942 they might have been expressing the same sentiments, after all, they'd been fighting Hitler since 1939.

That's twice the British and Commonwealth had to go it alone without you...

(Not to mention the French, whose country was actually invaded twice, partially-occupied once and fully occupied the second time.)

I notice your French is perfectly literate

Wellll--

I kind of figured that it would only be a matter of time before that decision was made.

It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to understand that the War in Iraq is a re-visit of Vietnam. Other than the Invasion itself, we are doing absolutely nothing differently, which means we didn't learn a thing between 1954 and 1975 in 'Nam. The British, who seem to have always been able to base Tactics on good Common Sense, have aparantly realized the, if one continues to beat his head against a stone wall, not only will he bleed all over the place, he will eventually kill himself from fracturing his own skull. That, my friends, is what Insurgent Warfare IS, and Wars of Attrition are about.

On the US side of it, we should follow the Brits. Why? Because the truth is we are making no progress in Iraq, and are not likely to make any. Example: Is the IZ secure?
NO, and it never has been; and just forget the rest of the country entirely. Right now, Baghdad can be compaired to Hue in '68. At the outset, Iraq is a pi** poor example to use for "Encouraging New Democracies in the Middle East". The reason is obvious.

'Nuff said.

I see on the news this morning this General is coming in for a bit of flack over his comments. It should be remembered though that it's not the military who start wars, it's the politicians. The Military are better placed to assess the situation on the ground and if a high ranking officer makes these comments then there's a good reason for it.

It's likely to be a career limiting decision to speak out though

Well put.
What do the officials in the capitals know about the crisis on the ground in Iraq.
When our men speak saying saying how bad it is, they are dismissed or gagged.
This fello's decision to come public with his beliefs is probably a career ending thing, But thumbs up to him.

Maybe they truley believed the threat posed from WMDs
Maybe the truley believed america had undeniable proof of these wmd's.
but now they truley know the REALITY of the situation.

hopefully Brown will have more brains than blair.
If america, and the american population are so dedicated to peace in Iraq.. go right ahead.
but if other countries fail to have your optimism about the undertaking.. let them chose there own fate.

I doubt Gen Dannatts career will suffer much, isn't he in about as high position as one can be in UK military and probably close to being retired...

I respect an officer who will speak out in the interest of his troops (being punished myself after stepping up to demand fair treatment for my own squaddies)

I hope this will atleast lead to some strategy changes, if not a withrawal...

More and more military leaders are standing up to the politicians saying no more!

After all, they ARE responsible for the lives, safety and well being of their troops.

The war was mishandled for political and business reasons.

It's not up to our troops to take sides in a civil war.

too right we should get out of there, its not our war.

americans would be saying the same thing, what happened if we dragged them into the falklands war conflict for 3 years, the american public would be like "what are we doing here!"

i don't believe in all that 'war on terrorism' BS aswell, if george bush really wanted to have a massive effect on the war on terror he would have targeted iran first and stopped north korea joining the nuclear club ^LONG BEFORE^ they even tested a nuclear weapon.

(summary) us brits have done out part in iraq and afghanistan, we fought in the invasion and taught the iraqis how to fend for themselfs (iraqi national security force) time to get out

[edit on 13-10-2006 by st3ve_o]

The head of the army has the right idea.He is speaking from experince just like the many US servicemen who have voiced critism at this insane illegal war.
It not exactlly about my county stopping being friends with your country Grady,of course we stay friends even if we leave Iraq.
Would you tell a friend that hes drinking to much or drives to fast?
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.Dosen`t mean you break the frienship.
The general was just stating the obvious-we have cocked up big time in iraq.Most of the population in the UK agree with him and guess what?So do most Americans who have an ounce of sense.

Finally, someone who is in a position of authority who is willing to accept the reality of the situation and has the guts to stand up and tell it how it is. It is a shame that these people have to be extraordinary in this day and age.

I doubt anything will come of this though, the generals are simply lapdogs to the political process, the party line will be tightened and the doublethink sloganizing will re-start with a vengeance.

"We are winning the War on Terror!"

From the article
Sir Richard told the newspaper: "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear.

How very true.


I understand his position. Why should British forces be in Iraq when they have 100k Colonials to serve and protect Her Majesty's interests.

American Generals have been saying the same thing. The career military (not the armchair generals) know only too well they are fighting a losing battle, the objectives are unsound, there was no real 'plan' to begin with and it's a virtual civil war with mounting casualties especially among civilians and the 'allies' are effectively confined to the Green Zone and their own bases. It's a mess. The services themselves are strung on after having been rotated in and out 3 or 4 or more times. The UK army is pretty small and there is very little slack in it to take the strain, worse still not that Afghanistan is kicking off for real.

US Generals have had their own studies and reports buried. Politicians running wars is bad news. Hitler did that (not that I am equating anyone to him) and messed around down to company level in WW2 against the advice of all his battle hardened generals and commanders on the ground and they were wiped out.

The UK Army forums are full of posts from officers and men standing and up and appluading the General who made these comments. He is clearly speaking for the men on the ground.

Britain's army chief, who set off a political storm by calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq "soon," said Friday he meant a phased withdrawal over two or three years, and denied that he was attacking government policy.

On Friday morning, he insisted Britain stood "shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, and their timing and our timing are one and the same."

"We'll probably reduce our soldiers over the course of the next year or two or three let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon," Dannatt said in an interview with Sky News.

"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.

abcnews.go.com...

There, that sounds a lot better. I'm not in favor of timetables for withdrawal, because the coalition helped to cause the current conditions in Iraq and we owe it to the Iraqis and the world to see this thing through. The General's stated commitment to both the US and the cause in Iraq is reassuring.

[edit on 2006/10/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Well of couse he toned it down now,he been threatened with the sack by now surely...

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Well of couse he toned it down now,he been threatened with the sack by now surely...

I dont think so, Blair said he "agreed with every word" of it.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I wonder what would happen if Bliar had said he disagreed?
Mutiny perhaps?So of course he says he agrees and is trying to help.He does not want to disagree with what he knows most people in the UK armed forces know...

Originally posted by yanchek
Why should British forces be in Iraq when they have 100k Colonials to serve and protect Her Majesty's interests.

Geeze, Gibraltar must have got an awful lot bigger since HK was handed back. Or has there been a bit of a population boom in the Falklands since your little stoush with the Argies (when Invincible was sunk ).

edit: flipping emoticons...

[edit on 16-10-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]

It's likely to be a career limiting decision to speak out though

Not likely. He is new into the job as Army Chief of Staff. He also appears to have Blairs support.

Good on him for saying this. Everyone I know in the forces has been against this mess since day one.