Breakin’ Up that Old Gang of Mine
George Bush’s most steadfast backer in the March 2003 preventive war invasion and occupation of Iraq has been Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The Bush-Blair “Dynamic Duo” act is, however, about to end as Blair is committed to resigning his post in favor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Secretary in U.S. terms) Gordon Brown.
Exactly the month, day, hour, minute, and second the hand-over of #10 Downing Street will happen is – like the date British, U.S. and all other foreign occupation troops in Iraq will leave that country – undeclared.
But pressure is sure to mount for some declaration on both points because of remarks by the UK Chief of the General Staff (CGS – the equivalent of the U.S. Army Chief of Staff) General Sir Richard Dannatt. Sir Richard, who became CGS only last August, said in an interview with London’s Daily Mail (October 12) that UK forces should leave Iraq “soon” because the very presence of foreign troops in Iraq “exacerbates the security problems” there. Sir Richard also drew attention to the swift change in the level of tolerance of the Iraqi public towards the foreign occupation. “The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever tolerance we may have had in the first place…has largely turned to intolerance” after 42 months. Dannatt also opined that planning for the occupation phase was “poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.”
Within 24 hours, Sir Richard was again speaking to the British press, “clarifying” what he meant by “soon” and refuting the media’s contention that his original interview represented a break with the government’s position. He did not call for a time–table for withdrawing all troops, yet he expressed concern that morale in and recruiting for the ground forces have been damaged by the war and the loss (to date) of 119 UK serving personnel. The demands of occupying Iraq have caused “a fair pressure on ourselves…We don’t want to be there two, three, four, five years. We’ve got to think about this in terms of a reasonable length of time.”
Dannatt’s “revisions” strike a distinctly discordant note when put beside the most recent comments by the Pentagon hierarchy. On October 11, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker, told reporters that the Army had contingency plans for staying in Iraq through 2010 with the same number of deployed combat troops as now. In an October 12 Pentagon press conference featuring Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General George Casey, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, Casey revealed that he had been prepared this past summer to recommend that some of the then 130,000 U.S. troops could be withdrawn. But the increased sectarian violence, particularly in Baghdad, over the past four months actually has required extending tours for some units and repositioning others – and this even before the usually bloody month of Ramadan started.
For his part, Secretary Rumsfeld reminded the press that General Schoomaker is not in the command chain that sets the troop levels for Iraq (and for Afghanistan). The chain in Iraq runs from the ground commanders to General Casey to U.S. Central Command commander, General John Abizaid to Rumsfeld and Bush. And only last month General Abizaid stated that there would be no reduction of troops in Iraq before next spring – at the earliest.
Dannatt professed to be “puzzled” by the stir following publication of the original interview, contending the same or even harsher criticism had been leveled earlier by other, well-known UK officers. Indeed, in early January 2006, retired General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded all UN forces in Bosnia in 1994, called for impeaching Tony Blair. And Dannatt’s predecessor as CGS, General Sir Michael Jackson, who was Deputy NATO commander in the late 1990s under U.S. General Wesley Clarke, had earlier called for withdrawing UK troops from Iraq. After Sir Richard’s original remarks became public, retired Major General Patrick Cordingly, who commanded the UK’s “Desert Rats” in the first Gulf War in 1991, commended Dannatt for speaking out. (Dannatt is to date the only active duty senior officer in either the UK or the U.S. to have even come close to an explicit call for removing foreign troops.)
It seems noteworthy that neither Downing Street nor the Ministry of Defence (MOD) publicly challenged, let alone attacked, Sir Richard directly as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz did when, just before the U.S.-led invasion took place, then-U.S. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress that “several hundred thousand” troops would be needed to occupy Iraq. Blair’s office said foreign troops were in Iraq “at the express wish” of the Iraqi government and under a UN mandate, while a MOD spokesperson said the military “had a clear strategy.”
So what comes next? Some are waiting for the other shoe to drop – Blair will force Dannatt to leave or the CGS will “resign” on principle. One long-serving MOD civilian, in a private communication, observed that Sir Richard’s stand caused “a bit of a stir” and that “most opinion is with him although there may not be many that speak out.” UK public opinion is increasingly supporting the proposition that “now that the Iraqis have their own democratically elected government, it’s time to let them use it and take responsibility for their own country.”
Alternatively, the MOD could declare substantial progress – two of the four Iraqi provinces that were once controlled by the UK contingent have been “handed back” and are being run by Iraqis – and withdraw some troops. Blair will want to leave on a “high,” and he’s not got much to crow about other than the two provinces turned back to the Iraqis.
One thing seems certain: even though the signature “B-B” relationship will survive the coming “regime change” in the UK when Brown replaces Blair, the intensity of UK enthusiasm for staying on in Iraq will diminish. With casualties mounting, with the generals beginning at last to criticize the war and the effects of combat, Brown will find himself under enormous pressure to set a timetable, declare an exit strategy, and bring the UK troops home.
And should the Republicans lose control of the House or Senate in next month’s election, George Bush may have to declare “victory” and follow the UK out that door that was kicked in March 19, 2003.
This
analysis was prepared by Col. Dan Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.). Dan,
a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is FCNL's Senior
Fellow on Military Affairs.
Reviewed:
10/17/2006
More on Alternatives to War |
