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

He also said planning for what happened after the initial successful [...] military offensive was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning".



He went on to say
I would have made my point sooner, but there were literally millions of people ahead of me in the queue .... and although I've only been head cheese for two months, it took me about thirty seconds to realise this was a completely avoidable fiasco of unprecedented proportions

A genuine case of military intelligence at work.

This man is now on Bartfarst's hit list.

Pull out og iraq but we need more in Afghanistan.

Downing Street has said:"It's important that people remember that we are in Iraq at the express wish of the democratically elected Iraqi government, to support them under the mandate of a UN resolution."
So the puppet government that they put in want us there? I think it is only a matter of time before even they let go of the apron strings and tell us to leave.

As for having the mandate of the, UN when nearly everyone opposed the invasion, it would be laughable but for all the death and misery that has been inflicted.

General Dannatt may have waiting until he got the top job before speaking out but at least he has done it now.

Downing Street has said:
So the puppet government that they put in want us there? I think it is only a matter of time before even they let go of the apron strings and tell us to leave.
.

So a democratically elected government are puppets unless they happen to agree with you? They held elections and formed a government. That government realize that they need help from the US and UK to avoid even more deaths from terrorists. Once they have improved the situation then everyone can come home and everyone will be happy. Leaving the people of Iraq to be murdered by terrorists who didn't take part in an election but still think they should run the country would be cowardice.

He went on to say


A genuine case of military intelligence at work.

Well so far every officer who has made similar comments has ended up being derided as being "a middle ranking officer". Well, now we're also hearing it from the head cheese.

I do personally believe that the leadership of the British Army is quite astute. They have been trying to pull out of Iraq for a while now, I certainly recall a story where they wanted to "shift" more troops out of the Iraq theatre into the Afghan theatre.

Why ? Well when you read between the lines of reports, Iran seems to be more or less in control of the many shia militia's in Iraq. Also, Israel is probably going to go ahead and bomb Iranian sites in the next couple of months. They have been laying all the media groundwork out now for a while, and now that North Korea has tested a nuke, it is a perfect opportunity for the Israeli's to say that they will not tolerate ANOTHER nuclear power in the middle east.

The British military brass are well aware that once Israel bombs Iran, the coalition troops in Iraq will be caught right in the middle and frankly thats the last place they want to be.

Unfortunately, their political masters are tied in with Washington, and if they were to pull our troops out, it would leave washington in abit of a lurch as our pulling out could be used by their opponents politically.

I'd also go on to say that Israel has been quite clever in this whole episode. In an ideal situation, they would like as many international troops between them and the Iranians to act as a buffer. Well, after the Lebanese war, there are another 15,000 international troops in Lebanon aswell as military vessels off the coast.

Watch for an Israeli attack on Iran.....

This is what really ****** me off about wars. We bomb the **** out of a place, completely destroy it, then realise maybe it's not such a good idea after all, realise we aren't able to help these people, and in fact some of them don't want change.

So a democratically elected government are puppets unless they happen to agree with you? They held elections and formed a government. That government realize that they need help from the US and UK to avoid even more deaths from terrorists. Once they have improved the situation then everyone can come home and everyone will be happy. Leaving the people of Iraq to be murdered by terrorists who didn't take part in an election but still think they should run the country would be cowardice.
They are puppets because of the strong US influence.

If things were getting better, or even beginning to stabalise, then I'd agree we should stay in Iraq. However, things are getting worse every day and most people recognise that our presence there is making things worse.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/10/16/soldiers_stand_up_for_their_general.html

79% of soldiers in poll back their General.

Executive authority, of course, lies with the government of the day, but is it frightening to think that this authority is invested in such a collection of self-seeking moral bankrupts, for the majority of whom the personal courage taken by CGS [chief of the general staff], and the respect that he enjoys across the forces (and I suspect now the nation), are characteristics that they find so wildly incomprehensible. And yet they have the right to send us to fight, and to die, on their behalf, without even a whimper of comment.

another poster on an earlier thread said that if the general was removed "it's time for a coup".

A book written by insiders, on the lead up to war. I have nearly finished it, and its pretty disgusting how our troops were sent in to this war with the "planning" that was (or wasn't) done.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/explorer/0743272234/2/ref=pd_lpo_ase/102-6654927-2080124?

Peoples heads need to roll. There was no intellegence on WMD, and thats coming direct from the mouth of the man assigned to find them.

Its interesting to note the silence of certain posters who have on numerous occasions derided other military officers who aired similar views.

They were lambasted for being nothing more than "personal secretaries" and "middle ranking" officers.

Now that the head honcho himself has come out and said the same, they are noticably absent in their own interpretations!

A book written by insiders, on the lead up to war. I have nearly finished it, and its pretty disgusting how our troops were sent in to this war with the "planning" that was (or wasn't) done.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/explorer/0743272234/2/ref=pd_lpo_ase/102-6654927-2080124?

Peoples heads need to roll. There was no intellegence on WMD, and thats coming direct from the mouth of the man assigned to find them.

From reading the newspapers and watching Sky News this last weekend, it appears the "Unofficial Army Site" on the Web has had lots of "hits" from the public and serving Forces Personnel supporting the remarks of General Sir Richard Dannatt.

The site make for interesting readiing generally. I found it this morning, and was impressed with it. I shall visit it, as a reader only, from time-to-time.

Link below:-

Unofficial Army Site (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php)

i cant understand why the west havent used weapons of mass destruction .
they pay zillions of£££££££££££££s and then risk troops being killed in long drawn out wars .????????????

i cant understand why the west havent used weapons of mass destruction .
they pay zillions of£££££££££££££s and then risk troops being killed in long drawn out wars .????????????
Why?

Who are they going to target? An entire country?

I don't think the average Iraqi deserves nuking. Just as the average Britain doesn't deserve being blown up on a bus.

And I'm sure you will agree with my last comment.

And America has used WMD. Remember Hirosima and Nagosaki?

i cant understand why the west havent used weapons of mass destruction .
they pay zillions of£££££££££££££s and then risk troops being killed in long drawn out wars .????????????

pk. please exercise some restraint. This thread will get locked, or worse, and it's an important subject worthy of open discussion. :)

no your missing my point, why pay all this money for weapons if your not going to use them . america in vietnam how many troops lost

no your missing my point, why pay all this money for weapons if your not going to use them . america in vietnam how many troops lost

We are straying off topic, pk. But please remember WMD's are not "General Purpose" weapons. It took years of work to achieve a non-proliferation treaty between the major Powers after WW2.

We retain them in the West and China only as the ultimate deterrent, and try to limit the less stable regimes from acquiring them.

That is, like it or not, as it should be. Unfortunately, once having been acquired by Humanity, they cannot be un-invented.

Rightly, they are the ultimate DEFENCE OF A NATION and not toys to be used to kill other Nations should our "Political Masters" lose grip on reality!

The General is absolutely right, and should be sacked immediately. He has no business speaking out on policy.

Policy is for Government to decide, not the armed forces. He gives advice in private, and then either does what he is told, or resigns. His position now is completely untenable.