"saying Britain would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the Americans adding: "I'm a soldier. We don't do surrender"
now if the West, particular the whole US that is Democrat and Republican parties would unite instead of this bikering at all costs just to get elected, there would be less confusion and quicker and better results. we are fighting the war on two fronts,one with the enemy and one within our own countries. Democracy can be established at the expense of islam, no one said it would be easy, although Hugh has made points otherwise.
I am disgusted this war cannot be fought to win like the Allies did during WW2, and so results will be painfully slowed. The generation that are currently fighting for our countries will be the next great generation, The curent powers that be come from mainly of the Vietnam era, the me generation, baby boomers of which l am part of, are too selfish to want to fight for this country and culture. l will be glad for one when the next greatest generation takes over reign of power.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 15, 2006 3:52 PM

For someone so high up the food chain to speak any sense regarding islam is most certainly a rare and welcome occurrence. It does make you wonder if he speaks for a significant proportion of the military establishment. I personally find it hard to believe that high ranking officers in general are closet Eurabians.

But what will the situation be, one generation from now?

Posted by: anti-uffe at October 15, 2006 4:00 PM

Zena, interesting, I only read your post after posting mine, and we come to opposite conclusions. My pessimism is based on the coming top hierarchy having grown up with the multicultural ethos and moral relativism, not to mention Muslim officers eventually reaching these levels of the military.

Posted by: anti-uffe at October 15, 2006 4:05 PM

I'm shocked that General Sir Richard Dannatt hasn't been placed in leg-irons yet! Will Bush or Blair ever come to their senses?

Luckily for Dannatt, he hasn't been charged under the "incitement to religious hatred" laws so many Muslims were seeking for in Britain.

Yes, there is still hope... but only if we can get more Richard Dannatts into public office. We've much work to do.

Posted by: Dr. Zirus at October 15, 2006 4:07 PM

Interesting man, very interesting

Posted by: Franze at October 15, 2006 4:13 PM

anti-uffe actually l am more positive with the younger generation. l can even see it within my family. for instance my older sister is totally pc, liberal, appologiist for muslims.. you know the poor PA people are just fighting back the only way they can, on and on.. now her 3 children, now married, are totally against muslim immigration, understand that islam is evil, and are not PC one bit. l know this is anedotal, but you see the rank and file who are recruiting in the military, it is up in Canada. They are not the peaceniks flower children of the 60's. This upcoming generation understands the work involved in keeping our freedoms. Bush did say in a speech this fight will go on past his term. perhaps by then people are armed with knowledge and can destroy the cult of islam if the muslims do not reform.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 15, 2006 4:17 PM

First, if that 2003 ‘No’ article hasn’t caused a camouflaged Blackhawk helicopter to snatch our host and whisk him away to the basement of the Pentagon, the powers that be are in denial. From Robert’s essay:

Certainly he will find proponents of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere. But the primary opponents of these democrats will not be terrorists, but those who hold that no government has any legitimacy unless it obeys the Shariah. Even if they lose in the short run, they will not disappear as long as there are people who take the Koran and Islamic tradition seriously. And that spells trouble for any genuine democracy.

....

If General Dannett has any political aspirations, he just hit a home run.

Posted by: limes at October 15, 2006 4:21 PM

Democracy is anti-Islamic. Islam is, of course, deeply and fundamentally anti-democratic. Bandung Style anti-colonial nationalism and the strong men it produced in the third world after ca. 1960 set the style for the Islamic World till now. Strutting cock generals and military elites, tribal and clan domination etc.(Alawi in syria, Sunni in Iraq etc) is as modern as the Islamic world will ever get.

When we take apart this 'Bandung Style' strong man government we get chaos and sharia. The best we could hope for is bribe-able strongmen to play our game.

Mubarak ruthlessly tortured, killed and arrested the Moslem Brotherhood for years and it worked. He had to,it was a threat to his personal power. The pressure for 'democracy' has given the Ikhwan more breathing room than it ever had before and they are growing ever more powerful and nationalism weakens.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 15, 2006 4:34 PM

You know they had to try the democracy in the middle east thing , that they reject it was a given but they had to try before they smoked them

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 15, 2006 4:48 PM

Now if we can just get them to deport and smoke them .

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 15, 2006 4:49 PM

The most sensible people in Britain's elites have been the senior military people, for many a long year.

This is not a recent thought of mine. If General Dennatt, or General Jackson were to join the Tories and stand for parliament, one of them would be Prime Minister in no time at all.

Trouble is, they're not slyly devious enough for the lying game that is modern politics.

PS On another thread, Dominic said that This Blair government was elected on less than half the vote. He wasn't wrong, but grossly understated the democratic deficit in this country. Actually, Blair and his crew were elected to 100% of the power with only 22.8% of the registered electorate, and something like 33% of all who voted.

Zena - You're spot on about the generational differences - you go speak with any bunch of teenagers and they'll all tell you that Islam has got to be sorted. I talk with youngsters quite a lot - that's always what I hear (I go to college one day a week to learn properly how to use this computer of mine, which drives me hair-tearing nuts sometimes. Who said computers are clever?). And despite my high education, I'm what you Americans call "blue collar", and down here at this level of British society we nearly all think it.

The reason the Blair government (e.g. Straw and the veil)has recently started talking about the problems with Islam is because they're reading what their private polls tell them, which is that huge numbers of people are swinging over to the BNP, who are the only political party really addressing the issue. That's all it is - they're just trying to make sure they don't lose their well-paid jobs, that's all. Otherwise they couldn't care less.

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at October 15, 2006 4:50 PM

So, Sir Henry, do you think Blair and Co. are actually capable of reversing their radical multiculturalist policies, or are their recent anti-Islamic signals just so much pre-election hot air?

Posted by: Mr. Spog at October 15, 2006 5:04 PM

The Shariah law. When this was placed as the foundation of Iraq's new government, it was ,and is doomed to fail as a democratic nation. The two oppose, and will never meet in a way to support all. Not within islam, never.

My support for this conflict ends with islam as the law of the land, and just turn on the tv to see why. It will fail (Democratic) as it is underway now.

It is yet to be a total loss, who knows what will happen over the next year or two? I think Hugh says much with wisdom , but his thoughts are looking at the status of now, not where it may go. We shall have to see.

As long as we are there, it can be adjusted, with force if need be, along with the vision of a islam free country, in the middle of the east.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 15, 2006 5:12 PM

While democracy and Islam is not compatable, one allows freedom and the other doesn't, there is another reason for the war in Iraq. That reason being that it keeps the terrorists from attacking America on American soil. It also allows the government to track, using whatever method necessary, the enemy. The enemy being anyone of the muslim/islamofacist type.

It is better to fight on the enemy's soil than on American soil. It is better to kill their people than have them kill ours.

Posted by: ranger2 at October 15, 2006 5:34 PM

Finally! A new avatar for sanity has burst upon the world stage.

This calls for a toast to Sir Dannatt *and* HRM, of course!

Posted by: Malinois at October 15, 2006 5:54 PM

When the Iraq conflict began in 2003 I favored it because Saddam was a long standing nuisance in the region, that he probably had WMD, and most importantly it seemed inevitable that sooner or later he'd get into bed with terrorists. Saddam is gone, the WMD are gone(if they did exist) and Iraq is a mess. It is time to phase out of Iraq. Those people don't want us there and the original intent was not to occupy the place. Expecting a democracy to work there that's brought about by outsiders is foolish. The best we can probably hope for is a pro-Western strongman who hopefully won't be as outrageous as Saddam was. The military is not designed for nation building-it is designed to destroy the enemy's war making capabilities and the way things are going we will need the military to carry out its true function in Iran and/or Korea soon enough.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 15, 2006 6:16 PM

Sir Henry:

It seems that American Indians had to obtain their chiefs by conscription because it was thought to be dishonarable to want or petition for the position.

However, I have questions to you about the BNP. As an American I have visited their sight and looked at some of their proposals. Most of it seems right on especially regarding the threat of Islam. Some of their perceptions I do not agree. However, this General seems to have hit upon the very perceptions that the BNP have proposed. Why go fighting any enemy abroad when your own society and its moral fiber are collapsing from within. What is a greater threat: the Islamists in Iraq and Muslims who will never compromise their anti Western views, or the Islamists within Britain who are entrenched in the political and religious fibres of the country seeking its demise both culturally and ideologically?

I see the BNP as an immediate answer to the Islamist threat along with the dhimmis in power and in control of the media. I agree with you, that most of the political parties you talk about have no platform except for continuing to be elected. I feel the same way with the so called party system here in America. No one has the view of this General and no one party of political personna in the US has any real view of Islam. That is why I have no real choice as an American except for voting the against the worse of two evils.

Posted by: Briars at October 15, 2006 6:54 PM

We can,t create Democracy in the middle east it is a pipe dream,Iraq is lost and Afganistan is a waste of time.

i believed in the Afganistan operation until the man who converted to Christianity was going to be killed and was only saved by political pressure i knew then what a waste of time it was.

We need to stop wasting our resources and people and prepare for the real battle for our freedom which will come in our own lands.

Once the muslims increase there numbers and turn this into political power they will look to push Islam into first place and when they don,t get what they want we all know what will come next,all the talk of Islam being attacked and not respected and then the war will start.

If European countries don,t do something about there birth rates amd muslim immigration they are heading for war.

Posted by: stevenz at October 15, 2006 6:56 PM

Sir Henry -- It occurs to me that even if the British political establishment is getting serious about changing its policy on Islam, the kind of change it seems to have in mind is an enforced integration of Muslims into British society (or the establishment's vision of British society) -- rather than the erection of fences between the two cultures -- and this is likely to meet with strenuous resistance from Muslims.

I think the election-by-lot idea has some merit, but perhaps this isn't the place to talk about it...

Posted by: Mr. Spog at October 15, 2006 6:58 PM

I posted most of this on another thread 3 days ago but it is worth re-posting.

It is sensational that he should say this and I would bet he would not keep his job for long. It will probably cost him the post of Chief of all Britain’s Armed Forces - a job a retired Chief said he is exceptionally well qualified for.

To make matters worse the General is a committed Christian, but he may be trying to tell us something.

The Blair Government has hacked the British Forces to pieces to get money for its great social projects. At the same time it has committed them to more theatres than any government for 30 years. Last year in yet another round of cuts it proposed to reduce the infantry and even its Blair’s own MP’s thought that was crazy. 300 years ago a Spanish ruler said "In war you need 3 things - money, money, money". Blair's men will spend money on anything but armed services. Let me give you a few examples of what the British Army has to put up with,

1) Tony Blair switches between 3 convoys of armoured limousines for security reasons – British soldiers were killed in Iraq because they had to patrol in lightweight Land Rovers left over from Northern Ireland. It was only when some officers told the Press last month that they got the proper vehicles.

2) In the interest of “Diversity” the Army was told to recruit its quota of ethnic minorities and it had to reach its target by a given date without increasing its size and without reference to normal personnel turnover. So they kicked out men who wished to re-enlist to make places for their minority quota. Small problem – the minorities did not want to join so they went to the West Indies and Far East to recruit the necessary men. Stupid because it is just making the figures look right to the PC crowd.

3) The men in Iraq do not have the right equipment or enough of it. One man would have lived had he not been ordered to send his body armour to a unit that needed it more. Meanwhile tens of thousands “asylum seekers” get fully furnished flats, welfare, lawyers and everything else without limit. In this case "Without limit" is a ministerial statement.

4) Last week an officer serving in Afghanistan went public saying the RAF was “Bloody useless” and without the USAF they would be finished. A woman pilot (Must make our PC quota) strafed the wrong place and almost shot up his unit. To be fair to the RAF they have had to buy clapped out aircraft from the Luftwaffe to carry out even routine duties in the UK.

5) They have called up the part time Territorial Army for the first time in 50 years. The local defence of British bases in Iraq relies on 19-year-old kids on a 6-month break from filling shelves at the supermarket.

6) A former soldier said when he served in Northern Ireland 20 years ago the army had 20,000 men there. What use are 8,000 in Iraq?

In this situation something has to give but this is a re-run of when the British first occupied Iraq in 1920. Then the cost in men and material could not be sustained and one regiment alone had 50% casualties in 18 months.

The then Colonial Secretary recommended the army be pulled out and the job of maintaining order be left to local forces. All the British would do was keep an air base in Iraq and help out with air transport and a little bombing now and then. This seems to have worked until the 1950's.

The Colonial Secretary in 1920 was a man called Winston Churchill.

Posted by: Fred at October 15, 2006 6:59 PM

General Dannatt is a wise man.

Posted by: Foehammer at October 15, 2006 7:02 PM

Bush and his cohorts had a plan for the middle east that did not take into account islam. Or the arabs for that matter. They thought they were dealing with some eastern european dictatorship that just needed to be removed and then everybody would be free and dancing in the streets.

They had no clue that freedom and democracy and human rights, all the things that Bush said he wanted to bring to Iraq, and the rest of the mid east, are in fact, all antithetical to islam as a religion. And totally foreign to, and unwelcomed by, arabs as a creed.

Essentially, what Bush tried to do, by staying after Saddam was toppled, was the impossible. Unbeknownst to him, he was sending troops to try to change the cultural disposition of a billion people.

How sad and naive.

And for this naivete, 600 billion dollars have been squandered. Money the US does not have. Money the western world does not have. As a financial debacle, it is the greatest in the history of the world, certainly the greatest by any president. The World Trade Center could have been rebuilt 60 times. Or 60 times higher. We could have built a settlement on the moon. Or built the infrastructure to turn our economy from gasoline to hydrogen. We could have changed ourselves with that money, and by doing so, change the world.

But no, we pissed it all away into the dry air of the desert.

So far, the lives lost are about 2100 and counting. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but 2100 people that should not be dead, for they died AFTER Saddam was toppled. And what is worse, is that they didn't die killing the enemy. They didn't die in battle. They died from assassination. They died handing out candy and building schools. They were killed when their backs were turned. Truly, the final insult from Bush's ignorance.

But Bush, being Bush, is a very proud man. He has never admitted to making a mistake. Refuses to do anything that would even amount to an admission of making a mistake. So he has said that for the rest of his term, those soldiers will stay there.

And since inertia is the primary force that acts on politicians, I predict that the incoming president in 2009 will do nothing significant to remove them. The die has been cast, the game is in motion, it will be forced to run its course now, however long that takes, 5 years or 50.

Posted by: August22 at October 15, 2006 7:09 PM

So true August22 all western leaders not just Bush have no idea of the people they are dealing with but they will find out soon enough,Europe is primed for a civil war muslims against non muslims before this century is out with the way things are going.

Posted by: stevenz at October 15, 2006 7:16 PM

Dannatt is right. Iraq is a lost cause. Given the growing crisis at home, due to third world immigration and multiculturalism, it's more sensible to bring the troops home to deal it now. Why fight a sideshow war abroad, when your homeland is under increasing attack from an Islamic Fifth Column, hostile third world settler populations, and left-wing collaborators? Better to fight the REAL enemy at home than waste precious blood and treasure on stupid wars abroad.

Vote for the BNP!!!

Posted by: meharistes at October 15, 2006 8:15 PM

Wow! I've been lurking this site for more than a year but this article made me actually register and want to post and say two things.

#1 General Dannatt is way cool. Hopefully he'll be the pebble that starts the landslide among public figures talking truth about what is so obvious.

#2 August22 Why would we want a settlement on the moon? Even if it only cost $600 billion? I think you might be a big Star Trek fan, thinking the whole human race would be a big loving family in the future. Especially if your "hydrogen infrastucture" dream came true. Maybe the Saudis will make you Captain of their first starship...

Sorry, it's a late post that no one will read. I'm just bored and mean nothing personal.

Posted by: Stabmaster G at October 15, 2006 8:59 PM

A settlement on the moon for Americans, by Americans, is a hell of a lot smarter, and a better investment than trying to win the hearts and minds of savages. The point being that even that extravagance is a better use of 600 billion, because any use would be.

What does hydrogen infrastructure have to do with Star Trek? Indeed, what does a lunar presence have to so with Star Trek?

Posted by: August22 at October 15, 2006 9:39 PM

Well, just 2 cents from an average joe. Words cannot express the disappointment I currently feel over the situation in Iraq. At it's inception I was skeptical because I did not feel that the American people had the stomach for a prolonged involvement should our fortunes take a turn for the worse. This belief is being born out as I write this. The current struggle simply requires more blood, sweat and tears than the US or the west is willing to endure. The really really sad thing here is this. A general withdrawal from the middle east will embolden our enemies to step up the tempo with more aggresive action throughout the US, Europe and wherever liberal western values are cherished. With Iran now heading toward membership in the Nuclear club I believe the west is going to face some very very serious challenges in the near future. More so than anyone is willing to admit to. What to do about it all?.... I'll be damned if I know.

Posted by: Madeuce36 at October 15, 2006 10:01 PM

Sir Henry, I won't pretend to understand British politics but I love to watch the British Parliament in action on C-Span. I know Tony Blair isn't too popular in Britain right now and I must admit that he is an enigma to me, but he is a wonderful orator and was definitely blessed with a silver tongue. The boisterous outbursts by members of Parliament are amusing and so different from the way our own Congress conducts business. I find it very entertaining.

I have listened to Tony Blair's passionate allocutions to Parliament and I find him absolutely mesmerizing. His politics are entirely too left-wing for me yet he has an uncanny ability to evoke my empathy, not for his bleeding-heart liberal proposals, but for his impassioned pleas! Anyway, every time I listen to Mr. Blair's long and eloquent oratories, I hear one recurring theme----change. He seems obsessed with change, almost frantic. He wants Britain, the U.K., to be entirely revamped from top to bottom, but he does not clearly elucidate what he wants it to look like when the transformation is complete.

From what I have read, Tony Blair is a staunch E.U. advocate. Perhaps the change he is always pontificating about is related to closer E.U. ties and the E.U. agenda. I have never understood why he has been such a close ally in Bush's Iraq follies. Blair's inexorable support for the Iraq debacle is a paradox and seems to me to be a contumacy of his own political ideology. Why does he support the war in Afghanistan and Iraq against islamic fanatics when he allows them to live, thrive, and operate with impunity in Britain?

Rumors are that when Blair is gone, Britain will become more committed to the E.U. agenda and distance itself from the U.S. I hope that does not happen but it appears to be what the British people want.

Posted by: Susanp at October 15, 2006 10:59 PM

To allow an Iraqi government to institute Sharia-law was the beginning of the end: Its either democracy or Sharia, but never a 'democratic Sharia'- same in Afghanistan: Hopeless!

Disengagement, non-support, no further immigration or technological assistance to any Mohammedan nations should be the first priority. We must assert ourselves, they should fear us, (yes: Why not? ) The cargo-cult must end.

Our interests must guide our policies, nothing else.

Poverty, disease and the whole caboodle is not our problem, let them stew in their own juices!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 15, 2006 11:43 PM

Madeuce36 said

The current struggle simply requires more blood, sweat and tears than the US or the west is willing to endure.

The problem is not that it requires blood, sweat, and tears. The problem is that the goal is unrealistic and incomprehensible. If our goal was to protect the West from Islamic attack, that would have made sense. But our goal is to create a healthy democracy in Iraq while they are trying to kill us, and that doesn't make any sense.

When Churchill gave the "I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat, and tears" speech, he was talking about defending the existence of the U.K. from German aggression. The blood, sweat, and tears we are expending in Iraq are for the benefit of the Iraqi people. They are a particularly ungrateful bunch.

Iraq is merely a diversion from the true source of the jihad.

I like what General Dannatt said. Including

I think we should aim for a lower ambition.

Yes, like defending ourselves from the jihad in all its forms. If we could just do that much, that would be very good. Give up on tilting at windmills and saving the Islamic world from itself; just focus on protecting ourselves. If the jihadists start building up weapons, then destroy them. If the jihadists strike us, hit them back tenfold, a hundredfold. But stop trying to "help" them, stop trying to make them think like us.

Posted by: special_guest at October 16, 2006 1:18 AM

"A woman pilot (Must make our PC quota) strafed the wrong place and almost shot up his unit. "

Fred, you seem to be implying that she made the mistake because of being a woman? Thus, women shouldn't be in the RAF? One could just as well mention hundreds and thousands of mistakes in the armed forces made by, wait for it... MEN, and imply that thus men shouldn't be in the armed forces.

Oh you're probably right, she probably had PMT and just couldn't cope. Should have stayed home knitting socks for the real pilots...

Posted by: Lili at October 16, 2006 1:47 AM

Lili

Your right not fair - but I was quoting the man she nearly killed so I suppose he was biased. Men have been killed by their own side long before women joined in.

The trouble is that once you set a PC quota for any group be it gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation it becomes the major factor in the selection. Consequently any shortcomings in ability are often overlooked to fill the "quota". I have seen people promoted over the heads of better candidates to fill a PC "quota".

This is not to imply that those of certain gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation are not qualified only that good ones have probably not applied for the job.

Sir Henry Morgan

Agreed about the harriers and ONE extra! What a laugh! But you have to agree with one poster above, Blair is the bu****** king to end all bu****** kings. Like all laywers he could not run a p*** up in a brewery but they convince you that you had a good time anyway.

Posted by: Fred at October 16, 2006 4:27 AM

General Donnat spoke ( for the prosecution ) in the Krle trial at the ICTY. Although I disagree with his conclusions in the General Krstic trial , he was a very credible witness on all military matters , and was obviously a most respected and able officer.

So the fact that he's talking sense on Iraq and Afghanistan is no surprise to me.

fwiw , I think he knows there was no order to execute all muslim POWs and also the 8,000 number was a travesty too.

For any fellow war nerds, I'll post his testimony.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 16, 2006 5:59 AM

General Donnat spoke ( for the prosecution ) in the Krle trial at the ICTY. Although I disagree with his conclusions in the General Krstic trial , he was a very credible witness on all military matters , and was obviously a most respected and able officer.

So the fact that he's talking sense on Iraq and Afghanistan is no surprise to me.

fwiw , I think he knows there was no order to execute all muslim POWs and also the 8,000 number was a travesty too.

For any fellow war nerds, I'll post his testimony.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 16, 2006 5:59 AM

Curses, the double posting curse strikes again.....

Posted by: ewha1 at October 16, 2006 6:00 AM

Ranger2 I like your reasoning.

Posted by: mustang65 at October 16, 2006 6:24 AM

I know it's a little off topic, but it does show a guy ( General Dannat ) who knows his military stuff, and speaks SO well.His expertise was about the organisation of the VRS, general ( GEDDIT? ) military structure, etc, and he didn't tackle the the evidence, or lack of it, concerning what happened after the fall of Srebrenica. He simply echoed the official line regarding Srebrenica and was unable to give any logical reason for the supposed "executions". That's because they didn't happen in anything like the numbers talked about and were carried out by local lads in defiance of VRS orders. ANYWAY, read and enjoy.....

From page 5546

http://www.un.org/icty/transe33/000724ed.htm

and continues on the next day too

http://www.un.org/icty/transe33/000725ed.htm

As I've already said, this guy knows what he's talking about, and I'd listen to ANYTHING he said with regards to military matters.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 16, 2006 6:26 AM

ewha1:

What is interesting about what the General said, is the part that the media have left out or, perhaps distorted altogether.

Fortunately, Melanie Phillips has taken a second look. I don't agree with her sermisal that the General is playing politics, though. I think he's just plain frustrated by the extent to which the social order is sectarian to the point of absolute nihilism. Note in particular the closing reference to the Afghanistan-Iraq-Darfur connection. Why General Dannatt left out Chechniya, Kashmir, Israel, the Phillipines, Somalia and Thailand, I cannot say.

The turbulent soldier

General Sir Richard Dannatt, Britain’s Chief of the General Staff, has spent today trying to extricate himself from the political hole he has dug for himself. His remarks in an interview in the Daily Mail that the presence of British troops in Iraq is exacerbating the violence there, that the Iraqis want the British out because they never invited them in and that the Brits should set a date soon for coming out of Iraq, have provoked uproar, with the anti-war crowd crowing that Britain’s top soldier has told it as it is and blown a hole in the government’s foreign policy. In a later statement, General Dannatt softened what he was reported as saying, and on the BBC Today programme (0732) this morning he stressed that he thought the Brits should stay until the job was done and that they had had successes in two of the provinces they had been attempting to pacify, and that it was only in some places that the presence of British troops was making things worse.

It was still a very strange thing indeed for him to have said. The coalition troops may not have succeeded in pacifying the country - but actually making things worse? When there’s effectively a civil war going on, with Iraqis knocking hell out of other Iraqis? He was correct in his assessment that post-invasion strategy was a mess, but quite wrong to suggest that the Iraqis didn’t want the Brits to be there because they hadn’t invited them. Indeed, this was a bizarre claim to make. It’s true that the original invasion was hardly by invitation of the Ba’athists, but the Iraqis subsequently said they most certainly did want the coalition to remain to help them settle the country, as the Iraqi government has confirmed again today.

In any event, whatever happened to the convention that the military top brass never criticise their own side during a war for fear of demoralising their troops and giving succour to the enemy?

However, in his Mail interview Sir Richard also talked about the

…

decline in Christian values in Britain that has allowed Islamic extremism to flourish.

He most certainly DID NOT say, however, what the Times attributed to him:

In the interview, Sir Richard even linked the presence of British troops in Iraq with the growing Islamic extremism taking hold in Britain.

But he didn’t link these things at all. What he actually said, as the Times immediately went on to report, was entirely different:

He said that failure to support Christian values in Britain was allowing a predatory Islamic vision to take hold. ‘When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country.’

On the Today programme he was even more explicit, saying

…there’s a considerable body of opinion that would like to change the nature of this society

and referring also to the ‘pervasive nature of the Islamist threat’ linking Afghanistan, Iraq and Darfur. Darfur, eh? Now there’s a linkage you very rarely hear from anyone. On this, at least, and the way in which Christian values at home are opening the way to predatory Islamism, he’s right. But why is this general playing politics?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 16, 2006 1:25 PM

I have news for General Sir Richard Dannatt: he's on the right track, but just barely so.

The truth is absolutely EVERYTHING the world has done in response to Islam so far has been naive in the extreme. Islam is, in case this general hasn't figured it out, DESIGNED TO SLAUGHTER HUMAN BEINGS EN MASSE whether the rest of the world likes it or not. Islam is also designed to destroy democracy and all else that is non-Islamic and that is how and why Islam has managed to destroy at least nine civilizations to date, with others on the way, including Dannatt's own Britain. Islam has massacred hundreds of milliojns of people to date, and all this in the age before the advent of weapons of mass destruction (so imagine what might be coming down the pike... just for us!). We'll see how apathetic Americans remain after another episode like 9-11 (and it's definitely coming, I think we can all see that).

America's only option, if it wishes democracy and sanity in earth to prevail, is to wipe the entire islamosphere off the face of the earth. All one point four billion killer-Zombies and their zombie-Masters. Another 9-11 will unleash America's latent dark side and that may help save the world as Islam, if left to its own devices, WILL certainly drive humanity right into extinction if something does not check its onslaught and soon.

My money by the way is on America. And if those other enemies of democracy (the Commies) don't watch their step, they may force us to do the same thing with them too.

ISLAM: playing al-lah's favorite tune, "Six billion people screaming at once as the Earth goes dark."

Posted by: pythagoras at October 16, 2006 2:17 PM

memo to poetcomic 1: Mubarak's repression of the Muslim Brotherhood did NOT 'work'!

The Muslim Brotherhood relocated to Pakistan where it morphed into al-Qaeda (in 1988) and gave rise to the global jihad we are fighting today.

The Muslim Brotherhood is believed to have recently purchased large tracts of real estate in the United States and it has in so doing placed the country in imminent of a devastating attack from within its own borders (the Muslim illegals can build AND hide weapon-making labs in those houses they covertly bought under aliases and fake US citizenship papers). They have also been doing this in Europe.

If only the Muslim Brotherhood had stayed in Egypt...

You DESPERATELY need to rethink that comment.

Posted by: pythagoras at October 16, 2006 2:26 PM

Hello all,

I am a Brit who is new to this forum and I'd just like to add a few comments...

Firstly, I am currently in a job in which I associate much with the 'common man' as it were, which is a refreshing change after years in academia. I can honestly say there is a massive gap between the people I work with (most of whom left school at 16) and the people I have rubbed shoulders with during my years at university. While the latter live in a dream world of pacifism and multi-culturalism (a hangover from the 60s I'm sure), the former see the situation in this country for what it really is and would whole heartedly agree with the comments made by the good General (who should be given another medal to add to his well-earned collection for such wise and courageous comments). Many of my colleagues tell me how they are sick of one rule for muslims and another for everyone else, they tell me horror stories of women in desperately unhappy marriages, they tell me how many times they've been accused of racism for daring to speak out about any of this.

These people are true Britain. They are proud of their country, their culture and their history and unlike the stalinist academics would like to see it continue and prosper and they see Islam for what it really is - a threat to our society.

Posted by: Claudius Mercy at October 16, 2006 4:28 PM

personally, i don't think that it was right for a serving officer to say in public much of what General Dannatt has been reported to have said.
however, i am glad that he said it.
successive British governments have cut our armed forces to a level where the army, navy and air force combined are now outnumbered by the USMC. although they include some elements which the USMC lacks, they are losing other elements which will not be replaced for years (the Sea Harrier, for example), without which an independent Falklands-style campaign would be impossible.
it may be that Tony Blair has been doing his best to ensure that the paratroopers, Ghurkas and others at the sharp end get what they need to fight and survive, but a single bad day in Iraq or Afghanistan could be very hard to recover from for forces that are stretched so thin. and to what purpose would we struggle to find the trained men,heal the wounded and care for the bereaved ? in the today's world, there has to be a reason why, and it seems like we cannot remember what it is.
so, someone had to say something, and General Dannatt has.
regarding the younger generation question, how we have failed them ! i hope that they can see how they been betrayed, and that if they are not to become a people without a past or a future they will need to be 'well hard'and fight,literally if it comes to that, to have a place in the land of their ancestors.

Posted by: M Al-Content at October 16, 2006 5:36 PM