Head of British Army says its time to cut & run from Iraq!!

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Who would have thought the Brits would have cut and run so soon, I think that leaves very few people supporting the establishment of democracy in Iraq and securing the middle east.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm

************************************

Last Updated: Thursday, 12 October 2006, 21:18 GMT 22:18 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
BBC breaking news graphic
The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".

In an interview in the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon".

He also said: "Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003, effectively kicked the door in."

Sir Richard added that any initial tolerance "has largely turned to intolerance. That is a fact."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 671 • Replies: 10

No top replies

Re: Head of British Army says its time to cut & run from

danny_boy wrote:

Who would have thought the Brits would have cut and run so soon, I think that leaves very few people supporting the establishment of democracy in Iraq and securing the middle east.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm

************************************

Last Updated: Thursday, 12 October 2006, 21:18 GMT 22:18 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
BBC breaking news graphic
The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".

In an interview in the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon".

He also said: "Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003, effectively kicked the door in."

Sir Richard added that any initial tolerance "has largely turned to intolerance. That is a fact."

Well, the brits haven't cut and run just yet.

At the same time Sir Richard is not far off base.

Our combined military effort has not, in any way, been an unqualified success.

Certainly it was in the first few weeks when we mowed over Saddam's army and "kicked the door in."

Since then the occupation has been mismanaged.

This doesn't mean we should not have invaded and it does not mean that we should not remain in Iraq (Brits included) but it does mean that we have to make some major changes in the way we are conducting the war in Iraq.

The first change should be Rumsfeld. He did a great job in reforming the military, but he is under seige and leaders under seige do not always make the right decisions. It's not as if his approach is working but needs more time and less criticism. It's not working, and there is far too much activity in the Pentagon attempting to paint black as white.

We can't afford to have presidential loyalty to a cabinet secretary get in the way of victory and preserving American and British lives.

0 Replies

.......and anyway, there's still some oil left.

'Twas the worst decision that a British Prime Minister has ever made, including the Suez crisis.

Since we decided to get involved with this almighty f*ck up, we now bear some sort of responsibility to stay on IF our presence is helping. If it is making things worse, we should withdraw immediately, and apologize to the world for being Bush's poodle.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

.......and anyway, there's still some oil left.

'Twas the worst decision that a British Prime Minister has ever made, including the Suez crisis.

Since we decided to get involved with this almighty f*ck up, we now bear some sort of responsibility to stay on IF our presence is helping. If it is making things worse, we should withdraw immediately, and apologize to the world for being Bush's poodle.

Presence may not be anywhere as effective as it can or should be, but it is foolish to think everything will be honky dory if the Yanks and Brits would just get the hell out.

0 Replies

Yep, I suppose you're right. Gone are the chess players of old, who would have foreseen this situation BEFORE going all gung ho and kicking the door in.

Bush is a moron, controlled by dangerous people who are now showing themselves to be just as dumb.

What does that make Blair?

Oh, the shame.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Yep, I suppose you're right. Gone are the chess players of old, who would have foreseen this situation BEFORE going all gung ho and kicking the door in.

Bush is a moron, controlled by dangerous people who are now showing themselves to be just as dumb.

What does that make Blair?

Oh, the shame.

Who are these chess players of old that you mourn?

Eden?
Chamberlain?
Asquith?

0 Replies

Because those are the only alternatives.

Either we keep feeding bodies into the grinder or we are "appeasers."

RIIIIIGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Because those are the only alternatives.

Either we keep feeding bodies into the grinder or we are "appeasers."

RIIIIIGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT!

You seem to have gotten stuck on Chamberlain. Neither Eden nor Asquith were considered "appeasers."

We "fed bodies into the grinder" when we fought Imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany. We ''fed bodies in the grinder" when we fought the Civil War and our Revolution.

"Feeding bodies into the grinder," is a ridiculously loaded term unless you are are against every war, regardless of the circumstances. Perhaps you are.

The issue does not need to be framed in such colorful language.

Many young men and women are dying in Iraq. Personally, I think it's an insult to them to describe their sacrifices as "being fed into a grinder," but that's just one man's opinion. The fact remains that they are dying, and it is terrible.

We could say "not one more death," and completely pull out, but that would presume that there is no chance of achieving our goals, irrespective of whether or not we make the sort of major changes to our strategy and tactics that some people recommend, or we can make the necessary changes, achieve the goals, and not make the deaths so far be meaningless.

But obviously you have one or more alternatives. What might they be?

0 Replies

You talk of ridiculously loaded terms and then go on to compare the quagmire in Iraq to World War 2 or the American Civil War. Interesting logic, but unfortunately a bungled war of choice can hardly be compared to those titanic struggles thrust upon our nation in your overwrought analogy.

Still, if the term feeding bodies into the grinder bunches your panties, how about "wasting the flower of our country" or "sending our troops off to die or be maimed in what has become a war of a thousand cuts?" No, on second thought, I suspect you'd prefer something akin to "marching our proud troops bravely off to promote freedom" or somesuch jingoistic folderol. I'm not sure the difference will mean a lot to the dead.

As far as my thoughts on a resolution, not that they'll matter a whit or serve as anything other than fodder for more bluster, the situation has been so badly mismanaged as to leave no good choices and certainly no path to victory. The unfortunate best we can do at this point is apparently to effect a phased withdrawal and leave the Iraqis to their own devices. And perhaps learn a lesson on the price of hubris.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

You talk of ridiculously loaded terms and then go on to compare the quagmire in Iraq to World War 2 or the American Civil War. Interesting logic, but unfortunately a bungled war of choice can hardly be compared to those titanic struggles thrust upon our nation in your overwrought analogy.

Still, if the term feeding bodies into the grinder bunches your panties, how about "wasting the flower of our country" or "sending our troops off to die or be maimed in what has become a war of a thousand cuts?" No, on second thought, I suspect you'd prefer something akin to "marching our proud troops bravely off to promote freedom" or somesuch jingoistic folderol. I'm not sure the difference will mean a lot to the dead.

As far as my thoughts on a resolution, not that they'll matter a whit or serve as anything other than fodder for more bluster, the situation has been so badly mismanaged as to leave no good choices and certainly no path to victory. The unfortunate best we can do at this point is apparently to effect a phased withdrawal and leave the Iraqis to their own devices. And perhaps learn a lesson on the price of hubris.

The only comparison I made between WWI, Civil War etc and Iraq is that in each war our soldiers died or as you prefer to call it were "fed into the grinder."

I somehow suspect that those who have been killed and maimed in the war in Iraq, as well as their family members might, if they could, have some difficulty with your sneering dismissal of their sacrifice.

You are right though, your thoughts don't matter a whit. Your preference is to roll your, figurative, eyes and shake your fist.

Oh the humanity!

0 Replies

The humanity indeed. Which is a hot one coming from one more armchair strategist safely ensconsed thousands of miles from the fray but oh-so-ready to throw more lives into the fire for no good reason (but a plethora of bad ones). Rolling Eyes

Have another sip of your chardonnay there General...

0 Replies

Head of British Army says its time to cut & run from Iraq!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know