They will probably get home before our own troops do!
The Daily Mail’s interview with General Richard Dannatt spread quickly throughout the world. John’s original post, came from China.
Online, today, to see what response there was to withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, one of the first things I bumped into was the General backpedaling. Later, his interview at the Ministry of Defence gave him another opportunity to speak in more detail about the original interview — and he did.
In comments to journalists gathered outside the Ministry of Defence this morning he added: “Hardly anything I said during the interview constituted news.” However, he insisted: “I am not backtracking and I have withdrawn none of the comments I have made.”
In his later statement, Sir Richard said: “The point that I’m trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy.
Sir Richard received overwhelming support from across the ranks. Senior officers said he should be “saluted” for his honesty, while frontline soldiers praised their commander for “telling it how it is”.
“Telling it how it is”? Our own political stiffs screw up slang badly enough. British journalists should just leave it alone.
More to the point, the Daily Telegraph concluded their roundup article with quotes and emailed comments from frontline solders:
Capt Ali Wigham, Queen Royal Hussars, on the deteriorating situation in the south: “When I was last here (in 2004) you would just go down to the local police station and talk to them while travelling in two Land Rovers. Now it is three to six armoured vehicles.”
Three cheers for General Dannatt!!! We certainly did in the Mess this morning. At last, a boss who will stand up for us!
Posted by Andy on October 13, 2006 3:04 PMI am a serving Army officer and I am delighted that the CGS has spoken out. We need more senior officers like him – not afraid to speak their mind and not hankering for a knighthood or Field Marshal’s baton at the expense of the troops they are supposed to look after. Well done sir.
Posted by Major P on October 13, 2006 3:01 PM
Often, it takes more bravery (foolhardiness?) for an officer to confront and contradict his political bosses — than to face down the enemy on a battlefield.
Nowhere did is see a direct quote from Sir Richard that he wanted to pull out. He simply reported on their grim situation. Example..
” Dannatt also said that although the original intention of invading Iraq was to put a pro-Western liberal democracy in place that “might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East,” he did not think “we are going to do that.”
“I think we should aim for a lower ambition,” he said.
Wow, you know how all the war supporters are claiming the soldier body count is accurate?
What about Camp Falcon? Officially no one died there, but that is the end of the story according to western media. Alternative media outlets are claiming 30 tanks were destroyed there, 5 Chinook helecopters, and nine plane loads of casulties. By Golly, I cant even find a western media story about what happened there after the initial reports of a large explosion.
Good find on the links Uncle Dave. But where are the links that point to the “nine plane loads of casulties”? I see discriptions of wrecked vehicles but none about the casualities?
Quotes from, First link:
“Withington said there were no reports of casualties among soldiers on the base or Iraqi civilians in neighbouring districts.”
second link:
no mention either way of casualities
last link
“No injuries were reported by late Wednesday.”
Didn’t find any. GregA said he found one.
Nine plane loads of casulaties would have been an unavoidable media circus.
GregA, I have no comment – you proved your worth with your posting.
And it’s real important to “prove your worth” to Matt H
Of course he’s backpedaling. Otherwise he’d lose his job, and should. If he disagrees, then he should resign. I assume Britain also keep civilian control of the military. Shame on Tony Blair for not firing him, as Truman did with MacArthur.
I tend to go with AB CD on this one. No matter how right he is(and he is right), in England, just a here, the military must follow the lead of the civilian goverment. If he disagree’s, then he’s supposed to do so in private, not in an interview in one of the most anti-goverment papers in Britain.
Many have called for his being sacked, not because of his feeling’s, but for airing them in public while still a commander of troops. They are correct. Tony Blair has shown once again that he hasn’t the guts to stand up to anyone.
He caved to the polls that show the public agrees with the General. I wonder how the public would like Generals making all their govermental decisions for them? Maybe they need field trips to places like Pakistan, or Indonesia to remind them why we English speaking nations have made a big point of emphising civilian control over the military.
This isn’t about casualty numbers, or correctness of stance, this is about the military’s proper place in a democratic society.
joshua — the problem with your analysis is that the Brits and the US government both encourage our generals to have press conferences and do interviews with the press. In that context, you’re only left with encouraging the generals to lie.
McCarthur’s famous beef with Truman came exactly from a general going off on his own and deciding to make his opinion known. That’s not the case with Dannatt, numerous retired military staff in the US — and many serving officers who gave interviews as ordered to journalists.
It’s very difficult to know what’s going on over there. There was a study done on Iraqi deaths recently, which Tony Blair has discounted. “There has rarely been a scientific report so easily verified or discarded.”, says author of the report Les Roberts…
http://tinyurl.com/yabdtw