Anti-War Ireland welcomes British Chief of Staff's remarks

by . Mon Oct 16, 2006 00:26

Victory to the Resistance!

... are being displaced by the RPG's of reality

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Oct 15, 2006 20:26

As the debate in the UK re: Dannett's interview continues, here is some very new material from the US.

According to a poll conducted during the first 10 days in October, by the Institute for Southern Studies and the School of Public and International Affairs at North Carolina State University, [www.southernstudies.org] despite strong early support for the Iraq war in the South, the region’s opposition to the war now matches national levels –- and by some measures frustration is higher in the South than elsewhere in the country.

The national survey, which included a larger poll or "over-sample" in 13 Southern states, offers one of the first in-depth looks at Southern attitudes towards the Iraq war since the Bush Administration pressed for military action four years ago. The survey reveals that Southerners, after showing disproportionate support for the war early on, now doubt U.S. policy in Iraq just as strongly as people in other regions of the country, and in some cases more so. Among the findings:

*** 57% of Southerners believe the U.S. "should have stayed out of Iraq," compared to 44% who think the U.S. "did the right thing" by taking military action. Nationally, 58% of the public believes the U.S. should have stayed out and 43% now agree with military action.

*** Southerners are skeptical about the goals of the Iraq mission. 29% of Southerners agree with the Bush Administration’s position that "Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism," compared to 25% nationally. But 30% in Southern states –- the same as the national average –- believe the main reason the U.S. is in Iraq is "to ensure access to oil."

*** By at least one measure, Southerners are more frustrated with the war than their counterparts in other regions. Asked if they were "proud" or "sad" about Iraq, a surprising 62% of respondents in the South said they were “very sad” about the course of the war, compared to only 56% in other regions of the country. Only 10% of those surveyed in the South say they are "somewhat proud" or "very proud" of the Iraq mission –- slightly less than those polled in other states.

*** 30% of those polled in Southern states say the U.S. should "withdraw completely" from Iraq. Those in non-Southern states were less likely to call for a total withdrawal of U.S. troops (26%), but more likely to think U.S. troop levels should be decreased "some" or "a lot" -- 34% in non-Southern states, compared to 26% in the South. Put together, 56% of Southerners and 59% in other regions support a decrease or withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The results signal a shift in Southern attitudes towards Iraq. As recently as July 2005, a Pew Center poll found 53% of Southerners believed using military force against Iraq was "the right decision," the highest level of support in the country. Most polls since 2002 have shown support for the Iraq war in Southern states rating higher than, or even with, national attitudes.

"The depth and strength of anti-war sentiment in the South is eye-opening, given the region’s high level of military pride and early embrace of U.S. policy in Iraq," says Chris Kromm, director of the non-partisan Institute based in Durham, N.C. "The current Washington leadership has counted on Southern states as a bastion of support on Iraq, but clearly that support is deteriorating."

by . Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:08

if the Iraqi Resistance Armies continue in their present trend of increasing recruitment and military successes against the crusader insurgents, and unite to avoid the civil war trap laid out for them, then Iraqi Security can be established by soundly defeating the Brit+Yank Armies. It would be a great pity if they escaped now, just before suffering an historical kicking.

More power to the Resistance!

Quote from Yahoo News, 12 October 2006 - "U.S. commanders have declared the fight for Baghdad as the main effort of the war, demoting the longstanding counter-insurgency fight in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency. Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon said there has been a gradual increase in overall violence since the first year of the war as the insurgency grew in strength and sophistication. But spikes in violence, he said, have been driven primarily by U.S. actions like the current operation in Baghdad. On the current surge in casualties, O'Hanlon said: "We're not winning and we may even be starting to lose. That's what it should make you conclude."

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker (personal capacity) Sat Oct 14, 2006 22:44 087 918 4552 (after Thurs Oct 19th.)

It's been a weird war and we are only at the beginning of it!

The war in Iraq will really kick off once the most reckless administration in U.S. history bombs Iran in the months ahead. British and Australian troops in the south will begin to take heavy casualties once this happens. The U.S. empire, like all empires that have preceeded it, is in decline. The decline ain't going to be pretty. They are trying to assert their military strength to compensate for the loss of economic strength and influence in the world. The ecological free fall and the possibility of the U.S. fighting on four fronts (the are presently losing on two!), while maintaining the daily grind of low intensity conflict www.soaw.org to sustain the empire in other regions is real. The possibility of entering a dark age of barbarism is also there.

It's a weird war expressed by this statement of the Chief of Staff. It's weird because, the war has never had any popularity, less so now, but there is little visual civil opposition to it. More nvda resistance is coming from the rank and file within the U.S. & British military than from outisde from the U.S. & British peace movements (eg. refusal to deploy, Vets speaking out and acting up, the grief given to the state by the grieving family members of military families and now this statement by one of the heads of the British military....unequalled by most social democrat/Labor Party leaders in Britain, Australia, Ireland etc. There is more anti-war sentiment expressed in the rank and file of the military than in the moderate left parties - top and bottom. We have to support the resistance in the military whereever it breaks out and in civil society should it break out eg. Raytheon 9, the NVDA coming up at Shannon and Northwood. Listen to the 3 U.S. veterans coming to Dublin in the next few weeks and ask how we can show solidarity with their people before the courts and in brigs. Come to Shannon On Oct 28th.

Maybe this has been the case for a while. I was the longest serving civilian resister in the U.S. of the first Gulf War. I did 13 months jail for my troubles. Meanwhile there were over 400 military resisters who served sentences between 6 months - 6 years. Most of these guys and women were working class and multi ethnic. They had been called upon to resist, to refuse orders & not to go to war by a largely middle class white peace movement, which quickly evaporated when the bombs started to fall on Iraq in Jan '91 and abandoned the military resisters to face their court martials and jail time alone.

Whatever we do, we should make sure this doesn't happen again. We should proactively stand by all our nonviolent resisters before the courts, in jail & military brigs for resistance to this war.

Check out the fine documentary. "Sir, No Sir!" about reistance in the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. Dublin Catholic Worker has a copy if you wish to organise a screening.

by PaddyK Sat Oct 14, 2006 22:32

Im inclined to agree with the previous comment from seconder. Regardless of how , when , or why the thorn has to be pulled out , it has to be done. Yes the wound will continue to bleed and possibly get infected but that's treatable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...&ct=5

Here is a summary of his comments. I dont see much in this that does not sound like a Christian, British, Army General shooting from the hip. I find it very hard to believe that he was put up to it, as part of a mind bending operation to prepare us for anything in Iran. The guy seems more interested in getting a fair deal for his soldiers.

These are the man's own words :

"I am going to stand up for what is right for the Army. "Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth. Leaking and spinning, at the end of the day, are not helpful."

I think you are reading too much into the picture when you say Blair agrees with his sentiments , as though Blair is doing an about face. It seems to me that he is using the only ploy left to him and that is to agree with Dannatt, and in doing so automatically diffuse the uproar i.e. Well if Blair agrees with him then there cant be much to get excited about. Blairs agreement is very precarious in that he says "Oh yeah, of course we must get out if Iraq, And in areas where the "job is done" the presence of our soldiers in incendiary that is why we should not go back into such places - It's meaningless drivel. I dont see anywhere were Blair agrees with Dannatt on his idea that british actions in Iraq will excacerbate problems for Britain. It was Blairs bullshit after 7/7 that Iraq has nothing to do with this. He wont row back on that, its too precious to his "that wasnt my fault" stance.

I dont disagree with your view that Iran could be attacked very soon but I do disagree that this statement should not be taken as a clear sign that major cracks are appearing in the British support for the US at top level in the British army. The same is happeing in the US, and has been for a whiile and that was not construed as a prelude to anything underhanded. Its just healthy dissent.

I dont know exactly what you are implying with the date of the release of the Lancet report and the Interview coming twelve hours afterwards. Is it realistic to believe that this man, could be so efficiently choreographed in such a short space of time? And that they would engineer to leave so much poopoo on their very own doorstep.

With all due respect, Methinks you have compiled a conspiracy theory too far.

by seconder Sat Oct 14, 2006 22:23

I don't disagree with you when you say we ought to be suspicious. That goes without saying, but the fracture in the British ruling class on this particular issue does have to be welcomed and highlighted. And it is a fracture, or else very poor PR, because it's clear that Blair has had to struggle to try to regain control of the situation...and nobody's buying his line that the general hasn't embarrassed him. The use of the word 'soon' in relation to military withdrawal and the acknowledgement that things are fucked up for the British army in Iraq are serious and damaging for the Blair project.

Yeah, maybe we don't differ as much as I thought when I read your earlier comments, but I would still warn against playing down this admissions by the British general. These admissions should be highlighted as further evidence of the ineptitude of British political and military policy in tailing George W. and his every imperialist whim.

The British and US are not going to pull out very soon (I agree with you on that), but the fact that they are even publicly musing about it is very important and may (and I say 'may') presage a pull-out by UK troops rather sooner than we expected.

by MichaelY - iawm Sat Oct 14, 2006 21:44

Seconder,

This is not an argument between you and me, or my old friend PaddyK, or between the AWI and the IAWM. There is no question that a Brit General admitting they're fucking up big time in Iraq and that their presence there is cvntributinhg to the worsening of the situation is to be welcomed. And more power to the AWI for stating that.
You're asking me what is my point? It's very simple.
Just because a military man, and a high ranking Brit at that, makes a statement reflecting facts, a view shared by many of his colleagues and almost all other 'independent' observers. should not make us, in the anti-war movement, think that the game is over....
Don't know if the General had or had not checked out with his political bosses....what I find extraordinary is that his statements displaced the report on the Iraqi deaths big time ......
Secondly, we all know that they will have to leave sooner or later....the soon, the how soon, and under what circumstances makes me a bit more wary than you.....
Don't think we disagree seconder.....perhaps I'm a bit more cynical or suspicious of their designs and statements than you.....particularly of military hacks.

But as I said, let the debate continue.....and my comments here, as you well understood, are personal comments. They don't reflect an IAWM 'position'. That much of it should have been clear.

by seconder Sat Oct 14, 2006 21:24

MichaelY, you've got a conspiracy theory and it sounds fine and dandy, but it's still nothing more than a theory. I can link up a bunch of things as well and come up with z. Let's face it, you can assert as much as you like, but what you say is still nothing more speculation.

Bertie Ahern claimed the February 15th demo as his own back in 2003. Tony Blair is clearly in similar damage-limitation mode with regard to the general's comments and it would seem that the general has come under pressure to row back some bit. Now, you might think that this is all some carefully choreographed plan by Whitehall, but as things actually stand the British army chief of staff has undermined the British presence in Iraq.

The remarks he made apart from that reflect his own prejudices - those of a solid member of the British establishment. Do you think he's a Trotskyist or an anarchist or something??? He's a conservative with a lot of obnoxious views. That said, his specific comments where he admits that the British presence is only making matters worse and where he promotes a withdrawal 'soon' are to be welcomed. Do you think they shouldn't be? And why? Because you have a conspiracy theory that suggests this is part of clever plan to attack Iran? OK, so should the anti-war movement demand that UK and US troops remain in Iraq (in order to protect Iran)? That seems to be the logical outcome of your argument.

Does the IAWM welcome the general's withdrawal call and his admission about the negative role of the UK occupation forces, or does it not? Or do you now want the UK troops to remain?

The AWI statement above is very clear about the aspects of the general's statement that it welcomes; there is no support offered for his crazy Judeo-Christian worldview or anything else he has said. Does the IAWM have a problem with that? Apart from peddling a conspiracy theory (which may be factual - but who knows?), what is your point?

by MichaelY - iawm Sat Oct 14, 2006 20:24

1. The reality that Dannett's call, with all the 'good' and the 'bad' that is in it, came almost 12 hours after the Lancet published the damning report on the huge number of Iraqi deaths is NOT speculation.
2. The reality that Blair came out and said he agreed fully with Dannett is NOT speculation - with or without the element of hindsight and political opportunism.
3. We can speculate whether the General's comments were 'impromptu' or 'not OKeyed beforehand by his political superiors'.....bottom line there that what he says is Government policy and NOT some honest military man breaking ranks. Check his remarks about the Christian-Judaic ethic and the like.
4. The fact that they're planning to attack Iran and that the existence of the Shiite militias in the South of the country is a major headache, and most likely a big-time target, is NOT speculation.

So, yes, as mentioned above, the military situation in Iraq for the Brits, and the Yanks, is not great. Their Iraqi collaborators are in shit and only today we read that 3,000 civil servants have been fired because of "corruption". The fact that they're all Shiites is NOT speculation. A number of Commanders have been moved around....that is NOT speculation.

So before you, and all of us in the anti-war movement, congratulate ourselves that the end is near......because a Brit General, interspersed in a lot of bull, said a few things we always believed and thought.....think further. The war in the region and the Empire's plans for "a new Middle East" are not about to end.

Let the debate continue.....

by seconder Sat Oct 14, 2006 18:39

To start speculating like Diversion and MichaelY are doing is interesting but misses the point here, which is that the top British general has admitted that they're causing a mess and should withdraw. This should be welcomed as a rocket into the side of Tony Blair and his occupation policy. The fact that the general has since come under pressure and that Blair has attempted to twist what has been said is the simply the British establishment trying to re-form their ranks in the wake of an embarrassing admission.

What are Diversion and MichaelY saying? That this could all be part of some clever strategy (proof please!) and, hence, shouldn't be welcomed? The general called for withdrawal! Of course it should be welcomed. Diversion and MichaelY are pushing an interesting conspiracy theory, but it's kinda beside the point at this stage.

A call for a British withdrawal has to be welcomed, especially when it comes from within the British establishment.

by . Sat Oct 14, 2006 17:19

If withdrawal is the best thing for the British Army, then I vote they should be forced to stay and take the consequences for their crimes - hopefully they could be completely wiped out by christmas

by PaddyK Sat Oct 14, 2006 14:06

I am a little concerned here. The British army chief gives a clear signal that the occupation should be ended. This is a very good development. For even if he is disingenuous and it is part of a military strategy to prepare for an attack on Iran, it is still the right call. Brits out of Iraq and Afghanistan : that's what is needed. So far so good.
Now he is tiptoeing back from that point and making it clear that he is, in the end, a soldier and will do as he is told. But the word is out.

Compare it to Israel's removal of it's Gaza colony last year. Nobody really believed it was a move for peace. But it was a good thing. Physically, the right thing was being done. OK, strategically it was part of a plan to commit crimes against humanity . Clearing the ground for unanbated bombardment and a siege against the citizens of Gaza. The colonist were simply relocated to a different arena where they are being used as implements for ethnic cleansing. The situation for the average Gazan is far worse now.... BUT the admission that Gaza is part of Palestine and should be free of colonists was utterly correct and it was progress. The implication of the Gaza removal , that all the colonists will one day have to get out of the West Bank as well, is undeniable.

So.. back to the Brits, and their admission that the war is a disaster for England, this is absolutely the right thing at the right ime. If we are to start making a mess of that clear message by implying that it is part of a criminal strategy that should be resisted or attacked then we shoot the messenger, when he brings good tidings.

We throw the baby out with the bath water.

The man is absolutely right , The Brits are causing mayhem in iraq by just being there. They must get out now. Lets support that unequivocally.
Nobody is going to question the tactics of an Israeli army chief who says: "The presence of the Israeli colonists in Palestine is exacerbating the security situation for Israel. We should get out in the near future." Even if he does intend to drop a Nuke on Nablus the next day. The message is still right.

by MichaelY - iawm Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:45

Your handle is odd but your analysis spot on Diversion - This is a movie those of us of certain age remember when it played back in the Vietnam days. They had started yapping about withdrawal and the job being finished and then began bombing Laos and Cambodia.....

On the other hand, what the Generals are saying about the military situation being untenable on the ground is true.....particularly in the South where the pro-Iranian militias run the show..... for whatever is worth, that geographical area would be part of the Iranian expedition. And watch the Israelis getting involved. That's where a good part of the oil is coming from as well.

by Diversion Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:18

Funny how these newsworthy comments come at precisely the same moment the Lancet announces that 655,000 have been killed since the invasion - and pushes what the Lancet has to say from the front pages. Very convenient indeed. A pre-emptive strike I would call it.

I have long since thought that the Brits and the Americans would announce the withdrawal of some troops from Iraq in the lead-up to a confrontation with Iran. They will withdraw troops from Iraq in order to make it look like they're not the aggressors and are acting in good faith and so do not lose public support when a sudden and 'unexpected' crisis looms up over Iran in the coming 12 months (with the troops being immediately sent back to the war zone). I still stick by this prediction.

by omg Fri Oct 13, 2006 14:40

It's hard to see how Blair is going to respond adequately to this. I think he's sunk.

errrr..perhaps you outta climb outta your hole and look around--blair is in his last term and is stepping down soon anyhow as he announced at the labour conference, so i doubt he cares very much, gordon might however

by anon2 Fri Oct 13, 2006 13:29

This statement simply endorses his remarks about the disruptive role played by the British military presence in Iraq and his call for a withdrawal to be considered. It doesn't make ANY reference to any other views he might hold - he's a member of the British establishment for fuck's sake! The point is that his admission that the Brit role is a disaster is a truism worth highlighting.

Read the statement instead of banging off hair-trigger responses.

by anon Fri Oct 13, 2006 13:19

Did you really have a discussion between all 3 of you on this press release and did you read the whole article?

There are many dubious statements by the General in relation to national religion of England and the Army and how his moral compass is virtually the same as conservative Muslims yet not.

by Robyn Wood - Tara Defenders Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:05 peacefulwarriorprincess at yahoo dot com dot au Australia

People in Iraq do not want the British and Americans etc to leave without a peace plan to stop civil war killing even more people.

Send in a proper UN force. Make America, Britain, Australia and all other willing coalition cowards pay . Split Iraq into three states of a federation - northern Kurds, southern Shias and middle Sunnis. The United States of Iraq.

What else do you suggest? Merely pulling out troops and abandoning the population to unbridled and full on civil war is MURDER.

by backpeddle Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:05

by soon, I meant... when the job is done...

ah, taken out of context...

I'm not breaking ranks with the government.

My words were not newsworthy.

==================
Of course...

We should leave soon. They don't tolerate us, our presence is making things worse.... that's literally the same, as We should stay until the end... isn't it?

by antiwar Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:35

It's hard to see how Blair is going to respond adequately to this. I think he's sunk.