Posted on 10/12/2006 2:27:51 PM PDT by Eurotwit
He also is undermining morale at a critical time.
Regards, Ivan
This general should be courtmartialed immediately.
The general should have accompanied his remarks with his signed resignation. He clearly doesn't believe in the mission he's been assigned to carry out.
Actually, the resignation should have come first. Actually, he ought not have accept the assignment in the first place, I doubt sincerely that he came to oppose the war after becoming Chief of the General Staff, he must have known he doubted the mission before he took the job.
If the allies as a whole withdraw from Iraq, the headchoppers will shoot their way back into power within 90 days. The Iraqis who allied themselves with the West will be hunted down and killed. The baddies will logically interpret the withdrawal as a "win" and the west will be in mortal danger.
We worry that Western societies lack the will to defend themselves. When the generals won't fight, the common bloke isn't likely to fight either.
Its odd that the general would worry about the death of Christianity in Britain. He is fighting for the very life and identity of his country and he doesn't even recognize it. Britain is teetering at the brink. When Blair goes, Britain becomes Belgium. As the verse goes, they cry for peace, and there will be none.
Except that he is the current head of the British Army.
And running away from Iraq to the loud acclaim of the Islamists would help this how?
With the greatest resepct that is just not true. Bomber Harris espoused the policy of directly killing civilian populations even though it was officially against UK policy.
Montgomery was not scared to start a fight in political circles.
Even recentl Gen Mike Jackson fought against Wesley Clark and American policies in Kosovo all the way up to the American President.
The best heads of the UK armed forces don't roll over and let their belly's be tickled by short-sighted politicians of all stripes.
I believe I'm right in saying that these were mostly carried out in private turf wars, not played out in public. For the sake of the public, a united front was played out in wartime.
Even recentl Gen Mike Jackson fought against Wesley Clark and American policies in Kosovo all the way up to the American President.
I agree that the barrier between the Army and politics has been weakening as of late.
Regards, Ivan
"They are speculating that he might be fired."
Sounds like a plan.
Well, I hate to correct an Englishman about English history, but the Curragh Mutiny, overshadowed by the Great War belies that.
The British Army Officers refused to take part in any military campaign to put down Unionists who opposed Home Rule for Ireland. Spring Summer 1914.
... 57 out of the 70 British Army Officers based in the Curragh Camp, many of them Irish unionists, threatened to resign their commissions in the British Army rather than enforce the Home Rule Act 1914 in Ulster. This followed the British government's decision to send 800 soldiers to Ulster to enforce the Act and to resupply depots in the province, which was thought necessary since the illegal importation of thousands of rifles from Imperial Germany by the Ulster Volunteer Force. The men were led by Brigadier-General Hubert Gough. The men were not technically guilty of mutiny, as they had not yet refused to carry out a direct order.
http://www.answers.com/topic/curragh-incident
The revolt of the British Army
A major issue was the loyalty of the British army in the event of armed resistance in Ulster. Large numbers of retired and reserve officers were already members of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Sympathy was overwhelmingly pro-Unionist in the officer corps.
In March the government received an unwelcome answer as a very significant event occurred known as the "Curragh Mutiny”.
Sir Arthur Paget, Commander-in-Chief of troops in Ireland, was summoned to London and instructed to move 800 men into Ulster to reinforce depots and arms stores there. It was rumoured that unionist leaders would be arrested. Fifty-nine officers threatened to resign rather than march on Ulster. They were led by Brigadier General Herbert Gough who, like many of them, had Irish family connections. A leading British general, Douglas Haig warned the government that many officers in Britain would resign if Gough was punished. The Government was forced to back down and reinstate Gough. The affair led to the resignation of the Secretary of State for War and two generals.
The British government could not count on the loyalty of its army in Ireland if the Unionists rebelled against Home Rule. As O’Day noted “after the incident it was clear that the military could not be used to impose Home Rule upon Ulster.”
This event convinced many that compromise was essential and strengthened Carson and the Unionists.
The Crisis Deepens
The Unionist leaders organised the purchase in Germany of 25,000 rifles and 3 million rounds of ammunition and succeeded in landing them on the night of 24-25th April 1914, at Larne and other ports in Ulster. The operation was organised by Colonel Frederick Crawford with Carson’s and Craig’s approval. The authorities made no attempt to intervene and the arms were distributed throughout Ulster with total success. Asquith abandoned all plans to cow or disarm the UVF and put his faith in 'masterly inactivity'.
The same month the Home Rule bill passed the Commons and it was due to become law in September. A desperate search for a compromise continued. It was accepted that the four North Eastern counties would be excluded but the main debate centred on Fermanagh and Tyrone both with small Catholic majorities and the length of the exclusion.
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/homerule.htm
We should have never tried. What we should have done was run through Iraq, destroy their military capability and then set up camp in the north in the newly declared nation of Kurdistan (or whatever). The Kurds would have protected us and we could have protected the Kurds. Before leaving the south we should have aimed for basic small arms parity between the Shias and Sunnis. They could have then slaughtered each other for the next 10 years (which is what they are going to do anyway). Air superiority over Iraq would be maintained by us and we would at that point be able to exert great influence in the region from our very large bases in Kurdistan.
This type of policy was used to great effect by Reagan. We supplied intelligence to both Iraq and Iran during their long war and sapped their strength for years keeping them at each other throats. It is cruel and awful but the alternatives are worse - or unrealistic.
Bush was just too bloody compassionate and naive to go down that road. But that kind of compassion is liberal stupidity when the end game leads to a one world Islamic government.
1. We can nation build. Never gonna happen because the process is too long to sustain.
2. Penetrate and target "radical" Islam and liquidate covertly 100,000 "agitators". Might have worked 15 years ago but the religion is too powerful now and they know it. Countries are being rather rapidly assimilated right and left.
3. Kill 100 million Muslims. Effective but I think the West would fall before waging war on that scale.
4. Foment war between Islamic states. Useful delaying tactic but buying time isn't useful for the long term.
5. Foment religious change in Muslim states. How?
Time to wake the F*** up.
That isn't English history! ;)
I know what you are saying, but the head of the British Army should not just be a yes man.
Regards, Ivan
OK, British history, The Empire's history?
Actually, one could make the case that most of 19th Century world history is English, or British history.
Thanks for the correction :>>
Tho the ramifications of this incident may have confirmed the views of the Kaiser's Generals that despite everything, the British would not enter the war on the side of France. Or that they would not fight a fait accompli - the conquest of France, if done quickly nothwithstanding the violation of Belgium's neutrality.
Maybe he tried that?
He also said that he wanted British troops out of Afghanistan.
Well, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were high points for the British Empire's military ventures.
It is British and Irish history, but definitely not history of the Empire or English history. England is not Ireland, nor is it the whole of Britain.
Also it was not Nineteenth Centry history but that of the Twentieth Century.
Sounds like he plans on running for office.
OK, let's say you're correct. Ireland at that time was part of the Empire, or would you say Britain?
But, just to be ornery, the Twentieth Century didn't begin until Versailles, the calendar notwithstanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.