Iraq, as it stands

Quincey SG

I still remember the vivid scenes that replayed itself on television time and again of Iraqis wrestling down the staue of their then newly deposed leader. It spelled so much hope, it meant for everyone then, 'the trimuph of freedom over tyranny and oppression'. That was in 2002.

4 years on, Iraq - the symbol of America's new freedom march is a utter quagmire. Secterian strife, Islamic fundamentalism, dysfunctional administration, crippled infrastructure, not to mention the daily litany of roadside bombs. The price to pay for freedom - more than 2000 U.S soldiers killed, more than 600,000 civilians(disputed by the Bush administration) sacraficed. What is the baston and impetus to spread 'freedom' to the Middle East is now just a magnet for terrorists across the world. As if things could get any worst, the British Army Chief had this to say:

Report: British Army chief calls for Iraq pullout

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The chief of the British Army has called for a pullout of British troops from Iraq "sometime soon" and said that post-invasion planning for that war was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning."

Gen. Richard Dannatt told London's Daily Mail newspaper that he had "more optimism" that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

Dannatt said that Britain's continued presence in Iraq had made the country less secure.

Britain should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates security problems," he told the newspaper in an interview published Thursday.

"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."

Dannatt, who took over as the Army's chief of general staff in August, said the U.S.-led coalition's plan to establish a democracy in Iraq that would be "exemplar for the region" is unlikely to happen.

"That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naive hope, history will judge," he said. "I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

Dannatt's views directly contradict the position of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is a staunch supporter of the war and U.S. President George W. Bush's closest ally in the fight.

Blair and Bush both insist that troops must stay in Iraq until Iraqi security forces are able to stand up on their own.

But with the country edging nearer to civil war -- if not already immersed in it -- Dannatt said the strategy for implementing an Iraqi democracy was ill-prepared.

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial, successful war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he said.

Dannatt said that Britain had essentially overstayed its welcome in Iraq.

"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in," he said, noting that was a far cry from being invited into the country.

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

-----

This isn't a deranged or disenchanted former commander speaking, but an active commander of America's top ally in Iraq. It seems like the situation is getting from bad to worst.

So should the coalition retreat? Can they afford to? Retreating now would just spell victory for the insurgents as the fate of Iraq hinges oo the 120,000 American troops present in the country. However, what is the price of keeping troops there. A rising coalition toll, growing disillusionment amongst Muslims, a rising current account deficit, rising oil prices.

It isn't just a quagmire, it is an impasse.

qpicanto SG

It take alot of courage to speak up for the interest of his men and provides the side of story that politicians cannot accept and insisted on staying the course.

All suffer in the war zone when military action is politicised.

abao SG

Actually, its not just staying or leaving Iraq anymore.

By staying, they face opposition from various forces such as the terrorist and anti-foreigner factions in Iraq.

But if they leave, they stand to lose Iraq altogether to civil war and the terrorists.

Both sides of the coin says "lose" for them Laughing

MohamedF SG

It took them 4 years, 2000+ soldier lives, 600000+ citizen's lives and millions of dollars for them to finally figure out the war was a bad idea...

And they say the westerns are smart... Confused

abao SG

Latest News from the BBC
Army chief defends Iraq comments

The head of the British army has defended his comments that UK troops "exacerbate" security problems in Iraq and should withdraw "sometime soon".

General Sir Richard Dannatt said he backed "what is right for the Army" and denied a "chasm" with the government.

Downing Street said the general had Tony Blair's full support, and the Iraqi government wanted troops there.

A spokesman for the Iraqi president said the departure of multi-national troops now "would be a disaster".

'See this through'

In a Daily Mail interview, Sir Richard, who took on his role in August, said UK troops should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

He also 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."

And he said planning for what happened after the initial successful war military offensive was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning".

He later told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that when he talked about pulling out of Iraq "sometime soon", he meant "then when the mission is substantially done we should leave".

"We don't want to be there another two, three, four, five years. We've got to think about this in terms of a reasonable length of time."

He said the view that the presence of UK troops "exacerbates" the problems was "not right across the country", but in parts of it.

And he later said in a statement: "I'm a soldier - we don't do surrender, we don't pull down white flags. We will remain in southern Iraq until the job is done - we're going to see this through."

'Still needed'

Downing Street queried the way the chief of the General Staff's original statements, in the Daily Mail, were presented.

A spokesman said Sir Richard was "actually saying what government policy is.

"We don't want to be there any longer than we have to, but ultimately that is a decision for the Iraqi government."

The spokesman for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Kamran Karadahi, said: "They are still needed very much to help Iraq. The British troops in the south have done a very good job and are still doing so."

He added: "We do not believe the presence of multi-national troops is really the reason for the violence. It is the insurgents, terrorists, al-Qaeda etcetera."

"We - the Iraqi government, the British, and the multi-national forces (MNF) have the shared goal of helping democracy to succeed in Iraq, and this is very important."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said Britain had "a clear strategy" and worked with international partners "in support of the democratically elected government of Iraq, under a clear UN mandate".

The former Conservative Defence Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, said: "What he said was actually blindingly obvious and what the vast majority or people would also agree with".

Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, called such an intervention by a senior military figure "unprecedented" and said the government had an "overwhelming obligation" to listen to him.

Anti-war campaigners welcomed Sir Richard's comments.

Rose Gentle, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, said: "I'm just really delighted that Sir Richard Dannatt has stood up and spoken out. He is protecting our boys."

There are currently more than 7,000 British soldiers in Iraq, based largely in Basra in the south of the country. Since the invasion in 2003, 119 British troops have been killed, most of them in southern Iraq.

fudgester SG

It was an extremely serious error of judgement on their part to have invaded Iraq when things at Afghanistan were already on the rocks. The way I see it, to keep a big b*stard like Saddam in power is the lesser evil compared to letting it slide down into neverending violence and potential civil war.

It's not a case of 20/20 vision on hindsight - analysts have already been warning of this scenario even before the bullets started flying.

But while invading Iraq was a big mistake, leaving it would be an even bigger mistake. The Coalition troops are the only reason why Iraq has yet to descend into full anarchy. They made a mistake invading Iraq, and they are forever stuck with this mistake.

Pull out the troops, and Iraq goes into chaos - the way Afghanistan did after the US abandoned them following the Soviet pullout in the late 80s.