Iraq - what now?

ndicki · 10-14-2006, 02:39 AM

Bearing in mind that this is our Chief of the General Staff speaking, this bears reading and thinking about:

Telegraph | News | We must get out of Iraq soon, says Army chief

mkloby · 10-14-2006, 06:44 AM

Must say - absolutely shocked a service chief would say such things. Granted, it is a valid argument - but I don't believe in coming out and publicly saying that. That makes it seem like politics. Biggest reason is that, as noted in the article, it has caused much dissent in the ranks, and is sure to squash morale. I think it's actually irresponsible to make comments like he did - again not for his opinion, but he's there to lead his men, and his actions will not benefit them. Better to formulate a sound strategy with the other leaders, and keep comments like that away from the troops. If the Commandant of the Marine Corps made comments like that, it would be very divisive, and my feelings would be the same.

ndicki · 10-14-2006, 07:57 AM

I'm pretty torn over what to think - one question is, is his primary loyalty to the men he commands, or to the government he serves? If he does have problems deciding on the correct course to take - morally as well as militarily and politically - I can understand his comments, if not the way in which he made them. But, like you, I wonder if he did the right thing to say so so publicly. It may be the last move of a man who has already tried and tried to go through the back door, and failed.

Any commander who feels his men are being wasted pointlessly does, I believe, have the responsibility to try to put an end to it. How he goes about that is another matter. And whether he sees the full picture, yet another. As the politicians rarely ever seem to.

You see what I mean by "torn". And how the squaddies up the sharp end must feel...

davparlr · 10-14-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

I'm pretty torn over what to think - one question is, is his primary loyalty to the men he commands, or to the government he serves? If he does have problems deciding on the correct course to take - morally as well as militarily and politically - I can understand his comments, if not the way in which he made them. But, like you, I wonder if he did the right thing to say so so publicly. It may be the last move of a man who has already tried and tried to go through the back door, and failed.

Any commander who feels his men are being wasted pointlessly does, I believe, have the responsibility to try to put an end to it. How he goes about that is another matter. And whether he sees the full picture, yet another. As the politicians rarely ever seem to.

You see what I mean by "torn". And how the squaddies up the sharp end must feel...

It depends on what motivates the comments. If it is an honest assessment of the situation, and men are indeed being wasted, e.g. WWI, then he should comment. If it is for political reasons or to justify personal opinions, it is very demoralizing and dangerous to the men in that it incourages the enemy to fight harder. What many people fail to realize is that, if we redistribute the troops out of Iraq, there a high probability that chaos would insue including civil war with massive foreign influence from Iran, Syria, both are not friends of the West, Saudi Arabia et. al. And considering that this region contains a large percentage of oil in the world, the people of the Western world would demand that we also get reinvolved because we all like the oil-run world we have created. Until we learn how to wean ourselves from oil, we are tightly tied into the middle east whether we like it or not.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-14-2006, 10:19 AM

I agree completely Dave, it depends on his motive with what he said.

Iraq is on the verge of a civil war and I dont know if we can stop it from happening or not but pulling out now would only mean complete utter chaos there beyond control.

ndicki · 10-14-2006, 12:14 PM

If the Iraqis want that civil war to take place, it's perhaps not such a good idea to get caught in between them, though, is it? If they really wanted Western democracy, they've had plenty of time to say so. I'm not convinced that they all do.

Dazed · 10-14-2006, 01:22 PM

Stay the course! We have no other choice right?

ndicki · 10-14-2006, 02:48 PM

Like good money after bad? I honestly don't know any more. I was always 110% in favour, but recently, it's been getting to look like we mis-evaluated the thing. We hoped to be welcomed as Liberators, and by-and-large, that is what happened. But the post-war period was not managed in a way which kept the enthusiasm of the people. It may not have been possible to do otherwise, but I'm really not sure now. You want to listen to what the Arabs are saying - there are a lot of them here in France - and it is not complimentary. That in itself is unimportant, but it does seem to echo what (as far as I can tell) the Iraqis are thinking. Like I said, difficult to force people to adopt Western democracy if they "vote" against it...

And on the other hand, you don't want it all to have been in vain.

Propwash · 10-14-2006, 11:58 PM

Send more troops. If we send enough troops surely we will win.

Glider · 10-15-2006, 01:46 AM

Basic reaction for those outside the UK who may not have seen the response. All sides (except Goverment) is that it was very well received. The troops have been delighted to see a senior officer speaking up on something that they know has been going wrong for a while.
The papers are full of reports of troops feeling supported.

What I find interesting is that the White House seem to be getting ready to bend. There was a quote yesterday that 'if the Strategy isn't working, we will fix it'

Lets see. This has a while to go yet I suspect.

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Propwash

Send more troops. If we send enough troops surely we will win.

And of course, you then have to LEAVE THEM THERE!

If the natives do not wish to be colonized, then they will not be colonizable. There are enough examples of that over the last 200 years or so. If you do not commit your entire armed forces to the area, it will not be tenable unless the locals comply.

Britain has considerable experience of that sort of problem, and British troops are probably the best trained and most experienced in the world for dealing with such situations - hence the US Government request for the deployment of British troops to the Baghdad area.

The whole point of what Sir Richard is saying is that our military presence is making the political and social situation worse, not better.

It is not a question of a short-term military win; it is a question of bringing long-term stability to an area which does not seem to want it.

One of the most important things in the eyes of the British soldier, believe it or not, is knowing that the job he is doing is morally correct and justified. The degree of cynicism after the First Gulf War was already shocking - many soldiers felt that the job was bungled or that the real reasons were not the ones they had been given. There was a re-orientation of attitude on the part of many soldiers which has still not been put right, and the present to-do in Iraq is not helping.

We have come a long way since the period of the Falklands War, when every member of the British Armed Forces could feel justifiably proud to serve in an organisation which supported Right against Wrong, wherever and whenever necessary.

And that is the most important thing an Army can say.

mkloby · 10-15-2006, 08:58 AM

We'll see - except if we all pulled out of Iraq - obviously it would go to hell in a handbasket. Iran would continue to strengthen its hand there in favor of a friendly gov't there - then we would likely have two Irans. I think that is the big fear with regard to pulling out. What do the Brits think will happen if we all just up and leave?

Also, brit politics are different than here, but if it is true that a comment like that is fairly well received throughout the british military (and i don't go off newspapers they will skew any opinions to suit their needs) then it seems like there are problems with discontent widespread throughout the mil.

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 09:06 AM

Mkloby, just read the last two paras of my last post - I think that says what a large part of the problem is.

Do not forget that we were originally fed with the "Saddam's got NBC weapons" stuff, and that seemed to justify a lot of options. Then that played out, and the tune changed. Now the tune has changed yet again. Tony Blair and his mates, the feeling goes, have been spooning out the spin and the bullsh*t to such an extent that they are no longer trusted.

I have relatively little contact with British Forces these days, but I remember that some of the soldierly virtues which we admired were telling the truth, saying what you believed, and living accordingly. This government does not seem to share these values, and I firmly expect our people to feel unhappy about that. It is a measure of the excellence of the British fighting man and woman that their performance remains as high as ever.

evangilder · 10-15-2006, 09:37 AM

You have to keep in mind that these people have lived for decades under a malevolent dictator. They have live in fear and oppression. Fo a lot of the Iraqi people, it is all they know. To suddenly introduce freedom and democracy is risky. People who have been oppressed for as long as they have may feel that they need to opress or be oppressed. It will take quite some time to change the mindset from oppression to freedom. Will it ever take hold? To be honest, I doubt it. What will likely happen is that Iraq will get carved out into ethnic chunks, like Yugoslavia and more people will die, regardless of whether or not we stay.

Definitely a catch-22.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-15-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Propwash

Send more troops. If we send enough troops surely we will win.

And where do you plan on getting the troops from?

As a US Army soldier who speant 14 months in Iraq I can tell you our Army is getting depleated slowly. We can not affored to send more troops.