Britain takes notice of Illinois race
Britain takes notice of Illinois race
By Tom Hundley
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published October 24, 2006
LONDON -- Normally a midterm election in the Illinois 6th Congressional District would not attract the notice of the British media.
But after Democrat Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs while serving in the military in Iraq, said she agreed "absolutely" with Gen. Richard Dannatt, the British army chief who recently declared that the presence of coalition troops is making matters worse in Iraq, The Sunday Times wrote an admiring story about her campaign.
Britain is America's most significant ally in Iraq. But the war is deeply unpopular in Britain, and Dannatt's comments seemed to crystallize the disillusionment and frustration on both sides of the Atlantic with the Bush administration's "stay the course" policy.
"We're attracting more people to terrorism than ever before. We really need to be thinking about drawing down," Duckworth told The Sunday Times.
"I want the secretary of defense to come before Congress and tell us how many Iraqis are fully trained. If two guys can do traffic control in Kirkuk, I want to bring two Americans home," said the 38-year-old candidate who was injured two years ago when an enemy rocket hit the Black Hawk helicopter she was piloting.
Duckworth and Republican state Sen. Peter Roskam are in a close race for the seat that will be vacated by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill). As unusual as it is for the British media to cover a Midwestern congressional contest, it is rarer still for senior British military officers to publicly question their political masters.
But Dannatt broke ranks this month when he said the idea of installing a liberal democracy in Iraq is "naive," that planning for the postwar phase has been "poor" and that British troops should be brought home "soon."
The chorus of doubt grew louder over the weekend when The Observer newspaper published comments from Field Marshal Peter Inge, a former head of Britain's armed forces, who said the coalition risked failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I don't believe we have a clear strategy in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I sense we've lost the ability to think strategically. Deep down inside me, I worry the British army could risk operational failure if we're not careful in Afghanistan," Inge said during a conference last week at a London think tank.
Also over the weekend, William Hague, shadow foreign secretary from the Conservative Party, which has generally been supportive of the war, said Britain could benefit from the kind of policy review that is now being carried out for the Bush administration by former Secretary of State James Baker.
"That work should be happening in Whitehall as well, and we should be able to fully debate it in the House of Commons and know that there is British influence in the decision, not just solely an American decision," Hague told the BBC.
Britons are paying unusually close attention to the Baker study group and the U.S. midterm elections. There is a growing sense--and a deepening frustration among Britain's top military officers--that the major decisions affecting the lives of British service members are being made in Washington, with little input from London.
That frustration may explain Dannatt's remarks, which under normal circumstances would have gotten him fired.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose approval ratings last month dipped to 26 percent, is in no position to dismiss a popular general. Instead, Blair said he "agreed" with Dannatt that the presence of coalition forces could be seen as a provocation in Iraq but insisted it was still the government's aim to establish a liberal democracy in Iraq.
Dannatt also issued a statement denying any rift with Blair's policies and saying that he had not intended to cause "this hoo-ha."
Speaking in the House of Commons last week, Blair hinted that significant numbers of British troops could be withdrawn from Iraq within 16 months but that they wouldn't leave until the job was done.
Blair, however, has said he will leave before then. One of the main reasons he will step down early as prime minister has been his party's dissatisfaction with his seeming willingness to toe the Bush administration's line. Yet his expected successor, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, has pledged that Britain will continue to "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the United States.
----------
thundley@tribune.com
By Tom Hundley
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published October 24, 2006
LONDON -- Normally a midterm election in the Illinois 6th Congressional District would not attract the notice of the British media.
But after Democrat Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs while serving in the military in Iraq, said she agreed "absolutely" with Gen. Richard Dannatt, the British army chief who recently declared that the presence of coalition troops is making matters worse in Iraq, The Sunday Times wrote an admiring story about her campaign.
Britain is America's most significant ally in Iraq. But the war is deeply unpopular in Britain, and Dannatt's comments seemed to crystallize the disillusionment and frustration on both sides of the Atlantic with the Bush administration's "stay the course" policy.
"We're attracting more people to terrorism than ever before. We really need to be thinking about drawing down," Duckworth told The Sunday Times.
"I want the secretary of defense to come before Congress and tell us how many Iraqis are fully trained. If two guys can do traffic control in Kirkuk, I want to bring two Americans home," said the 38-year-old candidate who was injured two years ago when an enemy rocket hit the Black Hawk helicopter she was piloting.
Duckworth and Republican state Sen. Peter Roskam are in a close race for the seat that will be vacated by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill). As unusual as it is for the British media to cover a Midwestern congressional contest, it is rarer still for senior British military officers to publicly question their political masters.
But Dannatt broke ranks this month when he said the idea of installing a liberal democracy in Iraq is "naive," that planning for the postwar phase has been "poor" and that British troops should be brought home "soon."
The chorus of doubt grew louder over the weekend when The Observer newspaper published comments from Field Marshal Peter Inge, a former head of Britain's armed forces, who said the coalition risked failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I don't believe we have a clear strategy in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I sense we've lost the ability to think strategically. Deep down inside me, I worry the British army could risk operational failure if we're not careful in Afghanistan," Inge said during a conference last week at a London think tank.
Also over the weekend, William Hague, shadow foreign secretary from the Conservative Party, which has generally been supportive of the war, said Britain could benefit from the kind of policy review that is now being carried out for the Bush administration by former Secretary of State James Baker.
"That work should be happening in Whitehall as well, and we should be able to fully debate it in the House of Commons and know that there is British influence in the decision, not just solely an American decision," Hague told the BBC.
Britons are paying unusually close attention to the Baker study group and the U.S. midterm elections. There is a growing sense--and a deepening frustration among Britain's top military officers--that the major decisions affecting the lives of British service members are being made in Washington, with little input from London.
That frustration may explain Dannatt's remarks, which under normal circumstances would have gotten him fired.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose approval ratings last month dipped to 26 percent, is in no position to dismiss a popular general. Instead, Blair said he "agreed" with Dannatt that the presence of coalition forces could be seen as a provocation in Iraq but insisted it was still the government's aim to establish a liberal democracy in Iraq.
Dannatt also issued a statement denying any rift with Blair's policies and saying that he had not intended to cause "this hoo-ha."
Speaking in the House of Commons last week, Blair hinted that significant numbers of British troops could be withdrawn from Iraq within 16 months but that they wouldn't leave until the job was done.
Blair, however, has said he will leave before then. One of the main reasons he will step down early as prime minister has been his party's dissatisfaction with his seeming willingness to toe the Bush administration's line. Yet his expected successor, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, has pledged that Britain will continue to "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the United States.
----------
thundley@tribune.com
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 2:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home