UK's military votes for political change in the U.S.
Friday, October 13, 2006 at 6:31AM Just watching CNN and seeing that the Brit army chief of staff, General Dannatt, calling for a pull-out of UK troops and declaring the decision to try and bring democracy to Iraq "naive."
The story can be found at CNN.com.
This is a stunning bit from the Brits, but I think it's the equivalent of American generals turning on Rumsfeld: they're tired of fighting this war under the worst conditions possible and to see some changes.
So why come out now?
Why the hell not influence a shift to the Dems in the U.S. on the eve of the election?
Especially when you have James Baker speaking openly of proposing direct dialogue with both Syria and Iran to close those borders and get their help on settling Iraq?
When I was in CENTCOM last year, you could really touch a nerve whenever you mentioned dialogue with Iran. Officers wouldn't say as much, but you could tell that it really bugged them that the local player making it hardest for them to succeed (Iran) was off-limits in terms of any direct interactions. That's what I mean by operating under the worst possible circumstances.
We learned in Vietnam: one thing to do counter-insurgency inside the South, but another thing to seal the country off. If you can't do the latter, the former is really hard.
To me, this is the Brit Army voting with their mouthpiece, and it's telling.
I really liked Peter Beinart's bit on Kudlow a couple nights back, saying that the perceived GOP-v-Dems split on Iraq would dissolve right after the election, with many conservatives joining Dems to get Bush to change policy. The only way that can work--namely, a significant drawdown of U.S. forces (don't kid yourselves, we won't leave fully, as we never leave anywhere fully)--is for us to enlist a lot of local help, to include first and foremost Iran.
Reader Comments (15)
I'm sure UK domestic politics are playing into this as well, with the run-up to the Gordon Brown vs. Tories showdown on the horizon.
"To me, this is the Brit Army voting with their mouthpiece, and it's telling."
Yes. If you read the full Dannatt interview in the Daily Mail you will see that Dannatt is a fierce partisan for protecting the integrity of the British army which he feels is being threatened by overstretch and disrespect by the politico's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410175&in_page_id=1770
I don't believe the timing was aimed at the American election. We tend to think the world revolves around us over here. Dannatt has apparently been campaigning for some weeks to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, and may have only gone public because he was losing/lost that internal battle.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009587.php
The rest of the world watches out elections more than people realize, even our midterms. Our POTUS is arguably the most powerful single person on the planet. So anything that affects him, affects the world.
Here I think the example of recent American generals is strong.
That whole thing before was really about my increasing awareness of and bafflement at your willingness to carry water for the Republicans. By minimizing the human cost of the war you were seeking to justify it in retrospect. This helps Republicans. Period. Your strongest argument for the justifiability of this war is that it trains our military and political establishments to be ready for change.
Unfortunately, that is not true. The military seemed ready for change, and could have easily been changed by the political leadership, especially Republican political leadership. If this Republican leadership actually listened to military professionals like Shinseki and yourself instead of firing them we would be well on our way to transforming part of our leviathan force into a successful nation building apparatus.
The fact is that these Republicans care only about political survival. They are convinced, and rightly so, that they can crap all over your policy agenda, just like they crap on the crazy fundies, because you are both afraid of wimpy hippies. I cannot fathom why you continue to insist on supporting, albeit obliquely at times, a political leadership that may have irreparably damaged the prospects of your policy proposals being implemented. Your support is rewarding the actions most antithetical to your goals.
It is hard for me to imagine how anyone could do anything more to reduce the chance for the creation of an American nation building force then what has already been done by the Republicans over the past four years. And in case I haven’t made my point, I am arguing that you should support Democrats (at least tacitly) if only to punish that bad behavior.
to all,
the forces of change are reaching the tipping point against the inertia of people, hope we accelerate towards a better future than what seems to be the future now
theJew,
i don't speak for Tom, but i'll venture my opinion: your approach is way more political than his.
Tom was not trying to justify the war in retrospect because he has supported it since before it began. he believed and still believes that the war in Iraq was the best way to transform our military toward the SysAdmin that can help to shrink the Gap.
your political perspective is leading you to extreme conclusions about Tom, at a minimum. Tom constantly writes about how the military is changing for the better. See, eg, his major articles for Esquire, Old Man in a Hurry (Rumsfeld) and The Monks of War. you can disagree with Tom, but his opinion is clear.
your demonization of the Repubs gives them too much credit and too little. they do listen (some) to military professionals. they do not care *only* about political survival (and i'm plenty cynical).
i cannot fathom why you are projecting your political opinions onto Tom. again, you give the Repubs too much credit. they have not 'irreparably damaged' Tom's anything. indeed, Tom's vision is bigger picture than 'policy proposals'. he's describing reality that will bring politics into line, barring something truly catastrophic (like cold or hot war with China). the Repubs, for all their errors and incompetence, have not derailed globalization.
one final limb for me to edge out on: Tom will never support one party to 'punish' the other one. he supports the Dems more than tacitly and votes for them. but the grand strategist must see a bigger picture than American partisan infighting.
Ok, I feel dumb.
On first read I thought he was referencing James Baker as an example of Republican leadership getting ready to change policy, answering his rhetorical question above (why not? Because Republicans, like Baker, are about to change).
However I now see his point. Baker is not exactly Republican leadership; he has mostly been critical of Bush’s Iraq policies, supposedly as HW’s mouthpiece. There are large Republican currents, like Baker, which will join Democrats in calling for change in Iraq policy. I now see that the paragraph should read with this meaning: Why not press for change to Democrats? No good reason not to support Dems, even some Republicans want change.
To tell the truth, my suspicions about Tom’s motive in minimizing the human cost of the Iraq War led me to misinterpret this post. In addition, the Republicans I know really would reason this way, wanting to give Republican Leadership another chance after they have screwed it up so bad. This really is the closest thing to a full endorsement of Democrats that we’re likely to see out of Tom. I feel pretty bad for misinterpreting it.
TheJew: don't feel too bad. Tom's sets a great example on this site of admitting error and moving on.
"Why not press for change to Democrats?" Fairy tale thinking would be one reason. Another? Looks to me as if the Democrat Party has kicked Israel to the curb and the bus is only half a block away.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5876
Sean,
Deftly handled. For my taste, a little "book review" snark would have done nicely. Entertainment value, like that.
GLASR:
The State Department is selling Israel down the drain and this is a Republican Administration.
For what it's worth, I just returned from a 14 days of traveling with a group that was about 50% Brits. That group may not be representative of the UK's political leanings, but I found them almost without exception to hate Tony Blair and despise George W. Bush. Their opinions seemed very anti Iraq War, and even anti the war on terror. When asked if they thought Islamism was a threat they almost all replied, "No." Based on that rather limited survey, I would venture that when Blair steps down we can expect little in the way of support from the UK.
General Dannatt may just be getting out in front of the new parade that's coming.
Perfectly fine debate, mistakes included (I am guilty of bad first reads frequently).
In the end, I'm not political primarily because I don't work for politicians, but really for the military.
They prefer being non-political in that way, and it suits this long-term thinker just fine. I think America is well served by having a military that thinks this way.
I just wish more civilian strategists could.
I was very busy three(3) putting the 448 yard(#1hcp) par four, sixteenth for bogey when I remembered neglecting to complete my comments. The election cycles, including '00, were not, are not about all the failed policies of President Bush's administration, the Republican majorities, the battlefront in Iraq, the GWOT, taxes, surpluses, deficits, healthcare, NorK nukes, Iranian nukes, Sinophobia, loss of civil liberties, domestic spying, tin foil hat conspiracies, Sponge Bob or the fact that Matt Kenseth is a HUGE Packers fan .......... they're all about SCOTUS. Ask Manny Miranda.
Dr. Barnett,
Isn't that what makes us great? The Pentagon takes its cues and orders from civilians. What a country!
davod,
When has the Department of State been cowed by any administration, Republican or Democrat? If you ask me, they're part of the "problem"? Think, Armitage/Plame/Wilson/Fitzgerald/Libby. Picture, Albright in bed with Kim Jong Il. Whitacker(sp?) Chambers? It's a house that defies cleaning. Pesky fifth columnists.
OK, its back to the Dewars and the Fuentes. Yes, that's why we GOLF!
Few points...
Talking with Iran is needed. Overt Iranian influence in Iraq will fuel the Sunni insurgency. So, if we talk with Iran, we need to address at least a part of the Sunni militant movement. They'll have to be at one of the tables too. Not al Qaeda...
The indications are that the general enjoys overwhelming support of the British officer corps.
There will be a US defection like Dannatt at some point soon.
"In the end, I'm not political primarily because I don't work for politicians, but really for the military.
They prefer being non-political in that way, and it suits this long-term thinker just fine. I think America is well served by having a military that thinks this way.
I just wish more civilian strategists could."
Strategy cannot be divorced from political life, and whenever this occurs in our thinking on strategy, the many links which connect the two elements are dissolved, and what remains is something pointless and devoid of sense.
On another note, a political party which devoted 140 hours of Congressional hearings to whether Clinton used the White House Christmas Card List for political purposes and 12 hours to Abu Ghraib has got to be considered useless for any serious purpose.