chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Unprecedented criticism....Britain's new military commander, Gen Richard Dannatt, has pointed out something most people have been aware of for years..... the continued presence of uninvited foreign forces on Iraqi soil is simply compounding the security problems... Dannat, who took over as Army commander in August, described Blair's Iraq policies as "naive". He also described the rationale behind the invasion as flawed. "I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial war fighting stage was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning." He also emphasised that the Britain's presence in Iraq was also exacerbating security problems domestically (i.e. in Britain) "I dont say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them." Of course Blair has responded by claiming the comments were taken out of context..... Well he would say that wouldn't he? |
||
|
echo3 14-Oct-06, 03:09 |
Deleted by echo3 on 14-Oct-06, 03:09.
|
||
|
echo3 14-Oct-06, 03:10 |
Deleted by echo3 on 14-Oct-06, 05:33.
|
||
|
leo_london 14-Oct-06, 05:17 |
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Tories' defence secretary from 1992 to 1995... "What he said was right (!!!) but it's not for a general any more than it is for a civil servant to express what are, in fact, political views, he should be sacked if he strayed into politics again ". Rifkind went on to say " What he said was blindingly obvious ( !!! ) and there's nothing controversial in what he said, other than the fact that it didn't coincide with the government's policy." Going back to Dannatt's comments yesterday, there seems no doubt that he said "The mere fact that we are still in some places (in Iraq) exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilize Iraqi democracy,".. that seems pretty unequivacle to me. He is backtracking because he knows the severity of the outcome that may come as a result of his remarks. What this really comes down to is the constitutional principle, most of us might agree with every word Sir Richard said about Iraq and about the Government’s treatment of wounded servicemen, but did he have the right to say it ? So, if our leading general thinks the aims of government policy in Iraq are unachievable to the point of folly...should he remain silent ? |
||
|
echo3 14-Oct-06, 05:54 |
Bloody hell.... Ahem... quite right Leo. Ok, the military perspcective. Dannatt is right in what he says about the western military prescence aggravating the situation on the ground. He is stating the plainly obvious. You can't have a fight without someone to fight with. What is wrong here is the "logic" that the media extrapolate from his comments. His comments are not (as he himself says) new or newsworthy. The British presence in Ulster exacerbated unrest there in exactly the same way because it presented an irrestible target to those who wanted to take control of their turf. Any policing of civilian unrest creates it's own problems (poll tax riots/miner's strike). The major problem in civil unrest & terrorist situations is that the enemy (that is the organisers, the planners, the generals) are hard to find, difficult to identify and, because of your superior firepower, reluctant to engage in like for like fighting. In order to beat your enemy in such situations you use two methods, one is intelligence led strikes by special forces on known suspects, another is to attempt to generate greater public desire for democratic freedom (ballots not bombs), another is to draw your enemy to you and destroy them. Not forgetting of course that whilst this is going on one is hoping to protect civilians of one caste from the murderous intent of another caste. In Iraq, it's the price that's paid in order to try to support the fledgling democracy. Take aaway the democracy, reinstall saddam and his killing squads and all goes quiet again, no doubt about it. But this is not what Dannatt is suggesting. As for whether he should have spoken at all. It's a sign of the times. Judges used to judge. Now they make political statements on how they'd like law to evolve. Should he have spoken publicly? No. Is he the right man for the job in Iraq. Yes. Over to the politicians now! |
||
|
MIlitary Leaders That said, if a military leader cannot agree enough, with the current administration, to complete their job and executue administration directives in an enthusiastic and professional manner, then they should resign the position. The problem is that miltary leaders are career people and administrations come and go... it is unlikely any military leader will agree with every administration and it would be "unfair" to make them resign (and unlikely to happen) if they disagree with any particular administration. The military leader should have (does have) the right to speak out but it should be clear that he/she is speaking out as a civilian with rights rather than as a military employee or as a spokesman, for or against, any administration. As military people, they should be neutral. And, no matter their personal views, they need to be able to follow the directives and complete their jobs enthusiastically and professionally, neutrally. The hard part for them is to make speaking out to be seen as being in the civilian role, not the military or employee role. And, of course, if they don't get it right, the administration can always show its' displeasure by reassigning or firing the person. |
||
|
leo_london 14-Oct-06, 06:35 |
echo.. The difference there is that it was still " British turf ". Deep down ( or maybe not so deep ) no Iraqi wants us there, even those who wish to be part of this fledgling democracy. I always think it helps to try to put yourself in someonelse's shoes, its not always easy. Imagine foreign troops in armoured vehicles driving around our cities, even if they were there with the best of intentions, the majority would resent their presence very quickly and that would soon turn to outright hostility. Perhaps its time to let them decide their own destiny, short term it may turn into a bloodbath, but that may happen anyway...perhaps we are just delaying the inevitable ? One question, again from your knowledge. If the Americans had continued in 1990, gone on to depose Saddam..would they have needed to stay to establish democracy ? It just strikes me that getting rid of Saddam would have been " mission accomplished "...I suppose you would have made sure " friendly " factions were armed to the teeth, given them continued support, watched the outcome from a oil distribution perpective etc..but would an occupation force have been necessary. If not, why have things changed ? or is it an impossible question to answer ? |
||
|
leo_london 14-Oct-06, 07:40 |
softaire.. |
||
|
|
||
|
echo3 14-Oct-06, 08:58 |
Leo Yes. Everyone regrets with hingsight that we didn't finish what we started first time around. However, the same troubles would have erupted. In any dictatorship there are rival factions. Dictatorships divide and rule. Once the rule has gone everything divides, it's natural. In the case of an army of occupation, people keep their heads down and wait for an opportune moment to stake their claim to power, well, as long as their patience holds. As for Ulster, there was a difference to us but not to the Republican movement, we were enemy aliens to them. You don't say, but perhaps infer, that an army of occupation can never be welcome. I don't agree. In fact isn't that what the UN peacekeeping force does? It can help stabilise, take the weapons out of a community, weed out the worst of the troublemakers, leave a flat playing field. If every Iraqi wanted us out of Iraq we could never maintain our presence there. |
||
|
echo3 14-Oct-06, 09:08 |
Officially, about..... |
||
|
echo3 14-Oct-06, 09:09 |
btw that's less..... |
||
|
echo combat units. Im sure the SAS and these types are there, special operators are always around, but are normal ground troops also fighting there? |
||
|
echo3 14-Oct-06, 12:26 |
Main mission? |
Log in 
