By Jessica Reed
I said to the Defence Secretary (Des Browne) that the Army won’t let the nation down, but I don’t want the nation to let the Army down. - Sir Richard Dannatt.
Everyone seems to agree: the situation is not getting any better - it's on what course of action to undertake that US and UK Army chiefs disagree on. In an unexpected move, the head of the British Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, told the Daily Mail that the presence of British troops in Iraq are making the situation worse, and wants them to withdraw. He called the Prime Minister's policies 'naive', but denies rift with the government.
Meanwhile the US Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker declared last Wednesday that as he projected the needs of the armed services, he had to plan on "there being 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through 2010". If nothing is official yet, there is a real possibility that US troops won't leave Iraq anytime soon - nor they can afford to according to G. W. Bush's speech last Wednesday:
If we were to abandon that country before the Iraqis can defend their young democracy, the terrorists would take control of Iraq and establish a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America.
So the UK Chief of staff thinks the presence military troops is aggravating, and it makes no doubt that Blair's gradual loss of popularity -coupled with his upcoming retirement- has led the way for such declarations. Meanwhile, POTUS thinks withdrawing his troops could trigger more terrorist attacks on US soil. With the American midterms elections coming up - and more than half of the American population now considering the invasion to be a mistake - the US government faces a crucial political and military decision.
So far, G.W.Bush showed little flexibility on the issue, but said he was prepared to re-evaluate Washington's strategy in Iraq. Tony Blair has yet to show the same degree of willingness.
