General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal

[Team Infidel]

Media: BBC News
Byline:n/a
Date: October 12, 2006


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."

Sir Richard, who took on his role in August, also said planning for what
happened after the initial successful war military offensive was "poor,
probably based more on optimism than sound planning".

'Not invited in'

He said: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the
world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in
Iraq exacerbates them."

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

"As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we
weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time."

He added: "Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have
turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."

 

[bulldogg]

"Run away, run away!" to paraphrase Monty Python

 

[warhappy100]

If they meaning the Iraqis don't want us there lets respect there wishes
there are two nut jobs in Iran and NK who need to be reminded where they are in the global pecking order.

 

[The Cooler King]

As soon as Blair goes, I don't see the UK sticking around in Iraq. And I don't see them being as friendly with the US either.

 

[bulldogg]

I fear you may be very correct CK.

 

[Kirruth]

Well, Mr. Blair's likely replacement, Gordon Brown, is even more pro-American than Blair, so that won't lead to a change in the relationship.

The real issue is not one of courage, more one of overstretch: the British military view, as expressed by the CGS, is that Afghanistan is a war that must be won and the troops in Iraq need to be redeployed to make that happen.

As we've noted here before, the Iraq forces are Britains heavier units, whereas the current deployment in Afghanistan are airborne/light infantry. There's a need to do what the Canadians have done and send it more tanks.

 

[Warwick]

Interesting to see if he gets into much poo for voicing his opinions so openly to the media. we even got it down here in oz!

 

[LeEnfield]

What the General said was in fully in line with the Governments Policy and that is once they have quietened things down enough to hand over to the local authorities then they will do so and leave. Already in the South two provinces have been handed over to the locals with out any reported problems. So what is wrong with that, troops from there would then be allocated to Afghanistan where far more are needed

 

[The Cooler King]

Well, Mr. Blair's likely replacement, Gordon Brown, is even more pro-American than Blair, so that won't lead to a change in the relationship.

How does that whole PM thing work anyway? You guys vote him in or what?

 

[Kirruth]

How does that whole PM thing work anyway? You guys vote him in or what?

Well, in a Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is whoever can command a majority in the lower house (in the UK, the House of Commons). So, you vote for your Member of Parliament, and the MPs choose the Prime Minister: he is not directly elected.

 

[The Cooler King]

Well, in a Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is whoever can command a majority in the lower house (in the UK, the House of Commons). So, you vote for your Member of Parliament, and the MPs choose the Prime Minister: he is not directly elected.

Ok, so that would mean that the Labor Party commands the majority in the House of Commons right now. So if Blair weren't to resign, he could stay in office forever as long as no other party gains the majority right? Is there any way the party could elect a new PM if they don't like the current one?

 

[bulldogg]

"Off with their heads in the name of Christ"

 

[Kirruth]

Ok, so that would mean that the Labor Party commands the majority in the House of Commons right now. So if Blair weren't to resign, he could stay in office forever as long as no other party gains the majority right? Is there any way the party could elect a new PM if they don't like the current one?

Yes, he could stay in office until he loses his majority: throwing him out without bringing down the Government is next to impossible...but he can lose the power to achieve things, and that would cause him to step down (pretty much where he has got to right now).

 

[The Cooler King]

Yes, he could stay in office until he loses his majority: throwing him out without bringing down the Government is next to impossible...but he can lose the power to achieve things, and that would cause him to step down (pretty much where he has got to right now).

Thanks for the explanation. :cheers: