Army chief defends Iraq comments
Sir Richard took on his role in August
Army chief on Iraq
The head of the British army has defended his comments that UK troops "exacerbate" security problems in Iraq and should withdraw "sometime soon".
General Sir Richard Dannatt said he backed "what is right for the Army" and denied a "chasm" with the government.
Downing Street said the general had Tony Blair's full support, and the Iraqi government wanted troops there.
A spokesman for the Iraqi president said the departure of multi-national troops now "would be a disaster".
'See this through'
In a Daily Mail interview, Sir Richard, who took on his role in August, said
UK troops should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems" .
I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them
General Sir Richard Dannatt also said: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."
And he said
planning for what happened after the initial successful war military offensive was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning".
He later told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that when he talked about
pulling out of Iraq "sometime soon", he meant "then when the mission is substantially done we should leave ".
"We don't want to be there another two, three, four, five years. We've got to think about this in terms of a reasonable length of time."
He said the view that the presence of UK troops "exacerbates" the problems was "not right across the country", but in parts of it.
And
he later said in a statement: "I'm a soldier - we don't do surrender, we don't pull down white flags. We will remain in southern Iraq until the job is done - we're going to see this through."
'Still needed'
Downing Street queried the way the chief of the general staff's original statements, in the Daily Mail, were presented.
A spokesman said Sir Richard was "actually saying what government policy is.
"We don't want to be there any longer than we have to, but ultimately that is a decision for the Iraqi government."
The spokesman for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Kamran Karadahi, said: "They are still needed very much to help Iraq. The British troops in the south have done a very good job and are still doing so."
He added: "We do not believe the presence of multi-national troops is really the reason for the violence. It is the insurgents, terrorists, al-Qaeda etcetera."
"We - the Iraqi government, the British, and the multi-national forces (MNF) have the shared goal of helping democracy to succeed in Iraq, and this is very important."
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said Britain had "a clear strategy" and worked with international partners "in support of the democratically elected government of Iraq, under a clear UN mandate".
The former Conservative Defence Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, said: "What he said was actually blindingly obvious and what the vast majority or people would also agree with".
Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, called such an intervention by a senior military figure "unprecedented" and said the government had an "overwhelming obligation" to listen to him.
Anti-war campaigners welcomed Sir Richard's comments.
Rose Gentle, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, said: "I'm just really delighted that Sir Richard Dannatt has stood up and spoken out. He is protecting our boys."
There are currently more than 7,000 British soldiers in Iraq, based largely in Basra in the south of the country. Since the invasion in 2003, 119 British troops have been killed, most of them in southern Iraq.
---------------------
A chasm impossible to close?
Analysis
By Nick Assinder
Political correspondent, BBC News Website
Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt claims there is not a cigarette paper's gap between him and Tony Blair over Iraq.
And, in comments following Sir Richard's controversial Daily Mail interview, it certainly appears that the two men are in complete agreement - as the prime minister insists.
However, neither has referred to the original remarks which sparked the row, and which Sir Richard later explained.
And it is that newspaper article which still represents a significant difference of emphasis, to say the least, from the prime minister's views on Iraq and its future.
Just imagine that Sir Richard's original comments had come from the prime minister. They would have been explosive.
Imagine the prime minister had suggested - no matter how obliquely -
that British troops were exacerbating security problems in Iraq and elsewhere.
That their withdrawal should start sometime soon, that ambitions for the country's future should be lowered and that the invasion's political aims may have been naïve.
And that is what Sir Richard stated. Had the prime minister put things as bluntly as that, it would have represented one of the greatest reversals in recent political history.
Long-term presence
Tony Blair and his defence secretary, Des Browne, continue to use very different language -
suggesting the British presence in Iraq may last for years, that there will be no hint of withdrawal until the country can be handed over to Iraqi forces, at the country's request, and that the whole point of the exercise is to ensure the creation of a well-governed, democratic state.
So there is clearly more than a cigarette paper's gap here and, even in the light of Sir Richard's and Tony Blair's later apparent consensus, it is a chasm that will remain difficult to entirely close.
Opponents of the war have seized on the sections of Sir Richard's interviews which appear to support their demands for troop withdrawal, and the belief that the British presence in Iraq is exacerbating the security situation both there and elsewhere in the world.
The latter is a criticism that has been thrown at the government since before the invasion and which, it is regularly claimed, has since proved tragically accurate.
To have the man in charge of the Army apparently confirming the view is about the most powerful boost possible to those arguing it is time to start bringing the troops home.
Anti-war campaigner Reg Keys, for example, has welcomed the comments, has spoken of Sir Richard's integrity and courage in speaking his mind, and has repeated his own demand for an exit strategy from Iraq.
'Misrepresented'
And the prime minister appears to have been equally selective in the remarks from Sir Richard that he has highlighted as evidence of their agreement.
None of that, however, will do anything to diminish the impact of Sir Richard's Daily Mail interview, which has re-opened all the old wounds over Iraq - the issue that, as each day passes, seems more likely than ever to be Tony Blair's lasting legacy.
Demands for a detailed exit strategy will now grow.
Tony Blair has once again found himself being forced back onto the issue he has been attempting to draw a line under for months - most notably by hardly mentioning it in his final Labour conference speech.
And,
perhaps, it will even add to the view that the only way there can be some sort of "closure" to this issue will be through a change of prime minister "sometime soon".
Mahdi-Miliz erobert irakische Stadt
+++
