Here's another editorial that didn't find it's way on to the web:

Originally Posted by The Independent

The general is right: we need to consider our exit strategy from Iraq

Published Sat 14 Oct 2006
Sir Richard Dannatt's concerns expose the lie that conditions on the ground are improving

By all accounts the new head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, was appointed because he was the sort of man who could be trusted to keep his head down; someone who would continue the low-key style of his predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson. And, no doubt, under normal circumstances Sir Richard would have been perfectly happy to do just that. But these are far from normal circumstances. And the fact that a conventional figure such as Sir Richard has felt the need to speak out about this government's disastrous foreign policy is testament to the levels of anger and frustration running through our armed services over the task they have been set in Iraq.

Sir Richard articulates what this newspaper has, of course, been saying for some time. The black history of our intervention in Iraq is set out in blunt terms. According to the general, "the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in", making us not liberators in the eyes of most Iraqis but un- welcome forces of occupation. He also stresses that there was a lethal absence of proper planning for the aftermath of the invasion.

His analysis of the present situation in Iraq is just as forthright. Now, he says, the idea of establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq has collapsed. He goes onto argue that the presence of 8,000 of our troops in the country "exacerbates the security problems". In other words, we are doing more harm than good. He suggests the threat we are facing from home-grown terrorists is connected to our military presence in Iraq, that our participation has made us a greater target for murderous fanatics.

Sir Richard maintains there is no difference of opinion between himself and his political masters. And Tony Blair yesterday claimed to "agree with every word" spoken by Sir Richard. But quite clearly this is not the case. With the best will in the world it is impossible to square the bleak picture Sir Richard presents over Iraq with the optimistic assessment of our Prime Minister. Sir Richard's concerns expose the lie that conditions on the ground are improving, that the invasion of Iraq has done nothing to galvanise Islamic extremism around the world and that Mr Blair's decision to ride pillion on President Bush's "war on terror" has made Britain safer.

There was always a question mark over how enthusiastic the senior figures of the military were for Mr Blair's adventure in Iraq. The former chief of defence staff, Sir Michael Boyce, famously felt the need to demand an unequivocal ruling from the Attorney General that the invasion was legal before ordering troops into battle. Now we have the UK's most senior soldier directly contradicting what the Prime Minister and his ministers have been telling us about Iraq. Make no mistake, this intervention is hugely damaging for Mr Blair and the Government. For it suggests that our government is losing the respect and loyalty of the armed forces.

Normally we would be wary of a military commander getting involved in questions of policy a privilege that properly belong to our democratically elected representatives. But Sir Richard has a right to articulate what his soldiers (and1 indeed, a majority of the British population) are feeling. It is only in the deluded world of the Government that his opinions are transformed to dynamite.

But of all Sir Richard's words, the ones that will prove most politically significant for the immediate future will be his assertion that we should withdraw "soon" from Iraq. This is an important moment. The time has come for a debate about our exit strategy from the blood- bath we have helped to create in that country This most sordid chapter in our nation's history must, somehow, be brought to a close.

i haven't had the time to peruse all the 26! pages of this thread but certainly in the first few pages no one thought about the possibility that Mr Blair isn't "reeling from this rebellion" at all, in fact he encouraged it. I seriously doubt that the CGS would come out with that with some kind of go-ahead...given that he was also flanked by civil servants, and that although the Evening Standard inter alia are writing of "rebellion" etc. Downing St is not denying the CGS' comments go against their policy. If I was Mr Blair I'd have encouraged him to make the comments in order to facilitate an easier exit for UK in Iraq, in order to save as much face as possible. I've seen people do it before...ie. use a separate and credible mouthpiece to give voice to something you yourself want but cant be seen to be personally advocating...thoughts, opinions?dudders

Originally Posted by dudders4w

i haven't had the time to peruse all the 26! pages of this thread but certainly in the first few pages no one thought about the possibility that Mr Blair isn't "reeling from this rebellion" at all, in fact he encouraged it.

Discussed between pages 7 and ???

Dudders, my tin-foil has firmly in place and I have to agree with you (though I WANT it to be true more than I BELIEVE it to be so!).

Perhaps its just a case of not having any suitable politicians to say it as they are all to foppy and wet and the public loss of face would see an end to their cocktail partying rounds, so why not get a big hardened soldier to do it for him - theres no loss of face as he's just being a hard man doing a hard job, but, it gets the point out without anyone (especially the government) having to do cartwheels in the press afterwards. (Not that there aren't a few cartwheels going on, but thats just cos they made such an arrse of it in the first place that's lead us to this point)

I voted in the poll that Sir Richard Dannatt is perfectly correct in what he said, and I also beleive its about bl@@dy time someone did!

I've seen people do it before...ie. use a separate and credible mouthpiece to give voice to something you yourself want but cant be seen to be personally advocating...thoughts, opinions?dudders

As Merkator mentions ,we discussed this possibilty back on Page 7 onwards...

Originally Posted by Auld-Yin

Originally Posted by smithy749

What he said was factual but the forum sadly wrong. This is a democrocy (freedom of speech accepted) but it is the Governments job to make decisions. We cant have Martial law or a coup! Extreme I know but his job is to inform the ministers who will then make informed judgements and decisions.
You cant run the country through the Daily Mail.

It would be interesting to see his mid term appraisal!! Must learn to engage brain before opening mouth!

Smudge - you really must engage brain prior to posting.

Dannatt has, as has his predecessor, told the gubment that enough is enough. But Tone wasn't listening. Bet he is now.

It is the role of the senior army officer to ensure that his professional view is given and heard. To go away and hide after being told "I hear what you are saying and I fully appreciate that the army is stretched, but can we just send a small BG to Sudan" would have been totally cowardly and I don't think for one minute that the present top dog is a coward. In my humble opinion.

Well said.

Anyone else notice that nearly every paper over the past 2 days has either said, or quoted someone as saying, some crap about how constitutionally it is unacceptable for members of the armed forces to air their views despite the fact we are suppossedly a free democracy and it is the armed forces who keep us a free democracy through their sacrifice and bravery.

That really annoys me. Nearly as much as the morons that keep saying that constitutionally the armed forces are just their to do what their bosses tell them. Their bosses being the current crop of politicians! Have they completely forgotten Brenda or has that little unimportant oath (and the bedrock of a constitutional monarchy where the apparatus of state and government are separated) been recently changed to one were we swear allegiance to our glorious leader and no-one told me?

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

Anyone else notice that nearly every paper over the past 2 days has either said, or quoted someone as saying, some crap about how constitutionally it is unacceptable for members of the armed forces to air their views despite the fact we are suppossedly a free democracy and it is the armed forces who keep us a free democracy through their sacrifice and bravery.

It appears to me that the government have forgotten their side of the deal: the Generals will keep quiet and only complain in private - but only if the government then takes action to address the complaints. It now seems that the government want it both ways - we have to keep quiet and suffer whatever they throw at us.

You have to wonder if Jacko was actually ever speaking-up for the army in private?

Originally Posted by MrPVRd

We've seen what happens when letter-writing to MPs is employed, with the Selly Oak situation.

If there are moves afoot to sack CGS, then a similar letter writing campaign should be encouraged. There should be a vote in Parliament. The electorate will not forgive MPs who acquiesce and allow the sacking of a decorated courageous officer of unimpeachable integrity.

I wrote to my MP and what a waste of time that was, all she was bothered abaout was were I lived as a means to get out of answering my questions. What did I think from one of Blairs Babes. Despite sending two emails confirming my address she still hasnt bothered to reply.

anyone got a link for Gen Dannats MC citation?

Careful lads.......you'll have representatives of the commissariat visiting your unit telling [brain washing] you via the coc that you are the instruments of political establishment. i believe it's already happened vis-a-vis 'your all equal' , 'be nice to girls and poofs' etc., I'm surprised that each unit hasn't got a political advisor embedded!!