Did the General tell it like it is?

[anotheoldgit]

What is the opinion of the Daily Mail bashers now? Should the Mail have published the recent interview they had with the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt? Or should all this have been swept under the carpet, keeping us in the dark once again to appease their critics, who somehow do not like the truth to be published.

Sir Richard stated that ' the troops are making the security situation in Iraq worse and they should be withdrawn soon, because we are turning tolerance into intolerance.'

He also said that ' we are in a Muslim country and Muslims views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. '

Back to the Daily Mail Bashers, if the Daily Mail is not fit to wrap your fish and chips in, then why did a person of Sir Richards calibre choose the Mail to interview him?

[Dom Tuk]

If a democratically elected leader goes down the path of genocide (650,000 in 3 years is just that) then it is the moral duty of the army general to sepak out against it. Are you suggesting that army has no say when the democratic leaders policies amount to genocide. It may be a difficult concept to get around but you will have to seriously consider the fact that this british Pm is the closest to a despotic genocide war monger we have had. 650,000 lives is your proof. Accepting that our civilised nation was capable of doing it is the big problem. Mass denial is what keeps them in power.

[suffragette]

I disagree Dom Tuk. I do not believe it is the job of generals to decide which wars are fought. Any serving officer who felt the war was illegal should have resigned his commission, stopped accepting a salary and then made his views public.

I do believe serving generals should ensure that political leaders are more aware of the consequences of war and insist upon an adequate exit strategy and reconstruction programme for the post war scenario. The allies were perfectly aware of the importance of not deconstructing the entire army and police force of defeated nations back in WWII when Japanese forces continued in their policing roles, post surrender, so it's not a radical, new idea.

[johnlambert]

the cgs is only saying out loud what his soldiers are saying in private, what's wrong wirth that?

[suffragette]

johnlambert. I totally accept your point about him raising the concerns of his men to politicians, but he should be doing this in face to face meetings with the PM.

Generals should remain subservient to their political masters because it is the politicians that we the public can remove from office if we do not like their decisions. We do not get the opportunity to vote generals from their positions regardless of their ability or behaviour.

I doubt a general would be happy if a captain made public statements about his competence and tactics and I'm sure he would remind the officer of the correct procedures for complaining and the importance of not bringing the chain of command into disrepute.

[Dom Tuk]

suffragete would another 600,000 require to be slaughtered in Iraq before it is Ok for a general to stand up and say what the whole world is saying. or will you still stick to your theory that .....see above post.

[suffragette]

I marched against the war in Iraq Dom Tuk and have never supported it. The question is about the responsibility of generals to the elected political leadership of this country.

I have absolutely no problem with the general voicing his concerns to the PM every minute of the day in private, but I will not support serving officers making political statements in public.

Military leaders felt they knew better in Thailand recently and overthrew the elected government. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs on the matter, but my answer is related to the state of democracy in this country.

Do I believe we should remove our forces immediately? Yes!
Do I want political decisions being made by unelected military personnel? No!

[jno]

hang on, Dom Tuk - I think the Lancet report says, hesitantly, that only about a third of the Iraqi deaths are due to allied action. 200,000+ is a lot but well short of genocide (if you accept the figure, and I'm not sure I do). The rest are caused by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence... suicide rather than genocide, perhaps? At any rate, Iraqis are far busier killing Iraqis than Blair and Bush together are.

[johnizere]

Whether Sir Richard is right or wrong in his opinion, ie stating his views, is to me irrelevant. He is, after all, a serving member of HM forces, even generals have to follow the rules. The old saying "yours is not to question why, yours is but to do or die" is still applicable even today.
This is almost like a policeman choosing which parts of the job he wishes to do during a day at the office.....same rules apply in my book.