Take UK troops out of Iraq, senior military told ministers
As I reported yesterday British military commanders feel that the "British armed forces are effectively held hostage in Iraq" and are anxious that British troops should be withdrawn from Iraq and moved to Afghanistan where it is felt they would be of much more use.
British troops are complaining about the length of time it is taking the new Iraqi army to stand up and take over in it's own role of protecting the Iraqi people. And it's hard not to sympathise with their point of view. I know Bush and Blair like to talk about "staying the course" but it is now over three years since the invasion, just how long does it take to train an Iraqi soldier?"What is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq?" a senior defence source asked yesterday. "There is a group within the Ministry of Defence pushing hard to get troops out of Iraq to get more into Afghanistan."
Military chiefs have been losing patience with the slow progress made in building a new Iraqi national army and security services. Significantly, they now say the level of violence in the country will not be a factor determining when British troops should leave.
The debate has been raging between different groups in the MoD and has involved the chiefs of staff as well as the permanent joint headquarters, based in Northwood, north-west London, defence sources say. Army chiefs have expressed concern about opinion polls showing the increasing unpopularity of the war and the impact on morale and recruitment.
Political arguments, including strong US pressure against British troop withdrawals, have won, at least for the moment. US generals in Iraq privately made it clear they were deeply unhappy about British talk of troop reductions and complained that the British seemed interested only in the south of the country.
Meanwhile, US commanders who have previously denied that Iraq is on the brink of civil war, have now complained that the new Iraqi government is failing to deal with sectarian death squads and that this failure may lead to.... civil war.
It's taken long enough, but it's now possible to detect some distancing between the Bush and Blair government's official positions and that of their armed forces, just as yesterday we saw the same distancing between both governments and their respective intelligence agencies.Other senior US officials have begun warning that if the Iraqi government does not take a lead in disarming the militias, the US military might have to do so.
Despite a massive military effort in Baghdad to clear no-go areas of militants, much of the effort has focused on strongholds of Sunni fighters, and has so far had no impact on the slaughter. Instead, a record 7,000 Iraqis have died in the last two months alone. To add to US gloom it was revealed yesterday that the Bush administration is spending $2bn (£1bn) a week on the campaign in Iraq.
The British Army may be giving Afghanistan as the reason for wanting to leave Iraq - and that alone is unusual enough - but beneath this reasoning is an admission that they no longer appear to believe that the Iraq war is winnable.
It is a testament to the training and discipline of both the US and British armies that it has taken this long for any dissent in the ranks to break into the open.The debate within the MoD is unusual: arguments about the size and shape of the defence budget are common, but arguments about the merits of military deployments overseas are much rarer.
The fierce debate at the highest military and political levels in the MoD is reflected in a passage of a leaked memo written by a staff officer at the Defence Academy, an MoD thinktank. It reads: "British armed forces are effectively held hostage in Iraq - following the failure of the deal being attempted by COS [chief of staff] to extricate UK armed forces from Iraq on the basis of 'doing Afghanistan' - and we are now fighting (and arguably losing or potentially losing) on two fronts."
However, the cracks are now discernible, just as they are amongst the intelligence communities.
Bush and Blair, it is now clear, have no plan to offer other than to "stay the course". A meaningless phrase that simply offers "more of the same".
It is now that we really see the folly of both men entering Iraq without a UN resolution. Recently, Blair went on an offensive asking for Nato to step up to the plate and meet it's responsibilities. The rest of the world stared at the table and offered zero support.
Bush, having declared that the US "doesn't need a permission slip from the UN", now finds it impossible to encourage other nations to join them in the battle. Britain and the US are, effectively, on their own out there.
Losing two wars on two fronts.
And, as far as I can see, neither Bush nor Blair have any real plan that will help their armed forces. "Stay the course" is not a plan, it is an attempt to turn stubbornness into a virtue.
The brave young men and women who volunteered to defend their respective countries from maximum danger deserved better than this.
No comments:
Post a Comment