British General say Iraq is worse because we're there
|But did General Richard Dannatt really say that?|
First off the Daily Mail is well known for its opposition to the conservative government’s policies… Think New York Times…
Second, what’s he really saying here? Is he discussing Britain’s popularity around the world or the current climate of unrest in Iraq? Sounds like the former, but regardless, is that really true? Will things around the world get better if foreign troops leave Iraq? The Iraqis don’t think so, and I don’t think Muslims around the world will all of a sudden be at peace as soon as we leave Iraq. They flew planes into the WTC long before we were in Iraq. They bombed the USS Cole long before Iraq. They bombed 2 American embassies in Africa long before Iraq. And here’s a host of others’ opinions on the necessity of the Brits (and our) presence in Iraq.
And now the good General has come back out and clarified his comments that appear to have been taken out of context saying that the troops should come home soon,
And again the paper tries to take his comments and infer ulterior meanings from them, but all he’s doing is looking out for his troops, and acknowledging commonly held beliefs that we’re not going to be in Iraq forever, but while we’re there, we’re there to win.
These are hardly that inflammatory.
We’re there. We’re needed. And we’ll be there for several years, but not at the same troop levels we have now. Use your heads people. The Iraqi army and police force are growing and quickly become more and more capable. We’ll get there…. It’s just a matter of when.