Thursday, April 26, 2007

Major General Julian Thompson: Supporting our troops does not mean supporting the war.

It's fascinating to witness the myriad of ways that either serving or former UK Generals have sought to distance themselves from British politicians and their decision to invade Iraq.

Major General Richard Shirreff has said that British forces have been underfunded for the last ten years - the precise time that Labour has been in power - and warned that the covenant between the UK and its service personnel was "seriously out of kilter".

General the Lord Guthrie in his first interview since quitting as Chief of the Defence Staff has described Britain's campaign in Afghanistan as "cuckoo".

General Sir Richard Dannatt has argued that our presence in Iraq is actually making the situation worse and that we should leave "soon".

I can think of no other campaign in which the army have been in almost open revolt with the British government.

And now, today, Major General Julian Thompson - a veteran of the Falklands war - asks us not to forget why our soldiers are dying, and reminds us:

The Iraq war is unpopular, but our forces are there because they were ordered to go there. They know they have friends, even relations, who oppose the war, and some of them have reservations themselves. Yet they go off quietly to serve and do their duty. Some of them come back injured. Some of them die.

He admits that the war is unpopular but points out that the soldiers "were ordered to go there" and that "some of them have reservations themselves." This is far cry from the claims of John McCain that American troops are enthusiastic about the campaign. Perhaps the British troops are simply more cynical than their American counterparts, although I suspect that McCain is simply using the troops to bolster his argument. I would certainly accept the claims of a British General concerning troop morale before that of a man seeking Presidential office on the back of a failing military campaign.

He then delivers the same message the Democrats have been arguing for the past couple of years:
Because of Iraq we took our eye off Afghanistan, and that is why we are back in Afghanistan now.
Now, of course, the Republicans have long argued that this is not the case. Indeed, they have sought to portray Iraq as the natural progression from Afghanistan in the War on Terror. Here, General Thompson makes quite clear that by ignoring Afghanistan in the rush to invade Iraq, a situation has been created in which we are having to fight portions of the Afghanistan war all over again.

He then makes sure that we are under no illusion about who the army blames for the predicament that they now find themselves in.
Iraq raises all kinds of moral questions as well as questions about how public policy is decided. Questions must be asked, and are being asked, about why Iraq is the mess that it is now. How did our leaders make so many mistakes?
I can't think of another war where a British General would so openly criticise the leadership in a national newspaper. However, Iraq has become such a disaster that a British General speaking in this way is almost taken for granted. For him to pretend, as the Bush administration do, that success is simply around the next corner would be greeted in this country as almost delusional behaviour.

He ends by asking that the British public continue to support our troops, whilst pointing out that in order to do so one need not even support the war.

The public may well be fed up with what is going on in Iraq. But it would be a great shame if we forget what our forces are facing out there on a daily basis. Taking an interest in them does not mean supporting the war. It means acknowledging that they are there in our name.

I think the General sums up the liberal stance on this conflict perfectly. Of course, we all support the troops, and we support them whilst being appalled at the situation into which our government's sent them.

Many on the right have sought to portray supporting the war and supporting the troops as if they are one and the same, wrapping themselves in the flag whilst sending young men and women to die. Telling themselves they are being brave whilst they watch a war from the comfort of their front rooms.

I am very glad that a British General has stepped up to make the distinction. One can support the troops whilst not supporting the war and still be a patriot.

As the General says, "They are there in our name." And that's why many of us are looking for sensible ways to bring them home.

Click title for full article.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

This is far cry from the claims of John McCain that American troops are enthusiastic about the campaign.

The American military is not the British military. The US military is better trained, better equipped, and from all accounts (including direct first hand accounts) morale is good and the troops are motivated. Also, the mlitary overwhelmingly supports their Commander-In-Chief.

Kel said...

More anecdotal evidence. Why am I not surprised?