British Army Head says pack Iraq in.

Manic Moran

Pigeons, meet The Cat.

Cliff Notes: Leave Iraq, Focus on Afghanistan, Confront Islamic Threat within UK, Treat Troops Better.

NTM
__________________

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...e&icc=NEWS&ct=5

The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk catastophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.

In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt stated explicitly that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Sir Richard also warns that a "moral and spiritual vacuum" has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine "our accepted way of life."

The Chief of the General Staff believes that Christian values are under threat in Britain and that continuing to fight in Iraq will only make the situation worse.

His views will send shockwaves through Government.

They are a total repudiation of the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly insisted that British presence in Iraq is morally right and has had no effect on our domestic security.

Sir Richard, who took up his post earlier this year, warned that "our presence in Iraq exacerbates" the "difficulties we are facing around the world."

He lambasts Tony Blair's desire to forge a "liberal democracy" in Iraq as a "naive" failure and he warns that "whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance."

In one of the most outspoken interviews ever given by a serving soldier, Sir Richard also reveals:

* He was "outraged" by reports of injured soldiers recouperating in hospital alongside civilians being confronted by anti-war campaigners who told them to remove their uniforms.

* He gave Defence Secretary Des Browne a dressing down about the "unaccepatble" treatment of injured soldiers, warning him that the government was in danger of breaking the "covenant" between a nation and its Army and should not "let the Army down."

* He understands why Prince William and Prince Harry want to serve on the frontline but has not yet decided whether they will be allowed to fight in Afghanistan.

But it is Sir Richard's views of the situation in Iraq that will enrage Downing Street.

He says clearly we shoud "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

"We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear."

As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren’t invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.

"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."

"That is a fact. I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

In comments that set him at loggerheads with Mr Blair, Gen Dannatt warns that the good intentions of 2003 have long since evaporated - pitching British troops into a lethal battle that few at home can understand.

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he said.

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."

"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted that British troops must stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to take charge - a forlorn hope as the country has slipped to the brink of civil war.

Sir Richard warned that the consequences will be felt at home, where failure to support Christian values is allowing a predatory Islamist vision to take hold.

He said: "When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country."

"Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind."

"There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in."

"We can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life."

"We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it."

"It is said that we live in a post Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The broader Judaic-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British army."

General Dannatt says he has "more optimism" that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

But he condemned the treatment of injured British soldiers, who have been forced to share wards with civilians in Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.

Sir Richard said he confronted Mr Browne about the "covenant" between a nation and its armed forces.

"I said to the Secretary of State the army wont let the nation down but I don’t want the nation to let the army down."

"It is not acceptable for our casualties to be in mixed wards with civilians. I was outraged at the story of someone saying ‘take your uniform off’. Our people need the privacy of recovering in a military environment - a soldier manning a machine gun in Basra loses consciousness when he is hit by a missile and next recovers consciousness in a hospital in the UK."

"He wants to wake up to familiar sights and sounds, he wants to see people in uniform. He doesn’t want to be in a civilian environment."

He added: "I am going to stand up for what is right for the army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth."

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "When I was in Iraq, soldiers told me the same thing."

"They said the reaction had gone from welcome, to consent to mere tolerance and they said that this meant we didn't have an indefinite licence to be there."

"To have one of our senior military figures speaking out on behalf of those under his commenad is a refreshing change."

"General Dannatt is completely right to say that it's a scandal ro have injured servicemen on mixed wards with civilians."

Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "This is the frankest assessment we have had about Iraq. It illustrates that the government has no clear strategy."

The party's defence spokesman Nick Harvey added: "This drives a coach and horses through the government's foreign policy."

AbusesToilets

It'll be interesting to see how the British government will respond to that,i think it will be difficult for him to keep his position.Have to say i would agree with most of what he said,although withdrawing now would leave them open to accusations of abandoning their responsibilities to the Iraqi people

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote:

Pigeons, meet The Cat.

Cliff Notes: Leave Iraq, Focus on Afghanistan, Confront Islamic Threat within UK, Treat Troops Better.

Moderator mode: NTM, have a read of the last few posts on the "discussion on the rules" thread. I'd like to see more input from you - a more insightful analysis, if you like - when starting a thread with an article, especially a verbatim quote.

Manic Moran wrote:

The Chief of the General Staff believes that Christian values are under threat in Britain...

Ornery user mode: wow. Just wow. That's a pretty slanted position for an officer of such seniority to take.

Manic Moran wrote:

He was "outraged" by reports of injured soldiers recouperating in hospital alongside civilians being confronted by anti-war campaigners who told them to remove their uniforms.

Frankly, that would piss me off too. Some anti-war campaigners need to grow up and learn the difference between the people who make wars, and the poor grunts who are left to fight them - especially those who get hurt in the process.

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote:

It'll be interesting to see how the British government will respond to that,i think it will be difficult for him to keep his position.Have to say i would agree with most of what he said,although withdrawing now would leave them open to accusations of abandoning their responsibilities to the Iraqi people

They've dismissed it according to 5 live just now.
He tells it like it is.No bull which is refreshing.

AbusesToilets

It's definately about time that those in charge are starting to publicly face up to the problems at hand.Hopefully this wil lead to some clearly and more inspired thinking in how to surmount the present challenges.
It must have been quite difficult for such a high ranking currently servering officer to speak out like that,if only a few more in the US would do the same...:rolleyes:

mike65

I think this could be more chorographed than it might appear.

Say something shocking, have it repudiated, lots of talk about "what if we did pull out? well Afganistan is more pressing internationaly" etc.

Then quietly the government via various sources starts to let it be known that a pull out is going to happen at some point sooner rather than latter.

Before you know it Pulling Out is the new Going In.

Mike.

Hope so Mike.
(Congrats on 20k posts btw,yesterday you were under 20k-thats nearly a 100 posts in 24hrs :eek: )

mike65

Your version of boards must be slow, I hit 20,000 on Monday

Mike.

Manic Moran

Moderator: Apologies. I was still digesting the information and had not yet decided what I think about the issue yet. Although aware of the requirement, and the reason behind it, I think the surprise resulted in it slipping my mind. Mea Culpa Maxima, I hope my history here in some way indicates that I usually am a bit more thoughtful.

Indeed, I'm still not entirely sure what I think about it.

Initial thoughts now I've had some time to do some digesting:

1) Did the Daily Mail take any of his remarks out of context, or selectively edit? Will they release the complete tapes?

2) Should the senior General of the Army be making political statements? My thought is "No." Even if on this occasion his sentiments are popularly echoed, it's a poor precedent for the future. The few retired officers that I heard on the BBC so far are in general agreement with this principle.

3) After looking quickly on ARRSE, his comments are receiving pretty general and rabid support from the troops. (Just the occasional chap pointing out point #2)

4) The Iraq experts the BBC has been interviewing are not in full agreement with him: The bit they are questioning pertains to the effect of the British Army on the local Iraqi security situation. Whilst they accept that the locals are fed up with having the Brits around, and that there is increased resentment, some advocate that removing the troops would result in a large upswing in violence. The representative expert from London University called the General's remarks "At best made out of anger and frustration, and at worst downright reckless" (See point 6)

5) The effect that this will have across the pond. If we are to presume that the General's remarks as published are completely correct in all aspects where the British Army are currently patrolling, there will be a natural inclination to paint the entire country, with its different problems, with the same brush and increase the clamour for the American troops to be removed as well. The question: If one works on the premise that the troops in Basra are on balance causing more harm than good, does it automatically follow that the same is the case in Ramadi or Baghdad? I submit that it does not. (It may coincidentally be that way, but I dispute that it is a given)

6) Even if point 4's premise 'The General was incorrect about the local stabilising/destabilising influence of troops' is true, from the Coalition's point of view, do they care? After all, what skin is it off Joe American's nose if the people of Baghdad go into outright civil war? Should they care?
Personal comment: I came to know a lot of the Iraqis in my area, I would be rather upset if I discovered that Ali, the barber of the town of Al Shahabi (Or anyone else I know) got caught up in any increased violence that would result in a premature pullout.

7) Alternatively, it is still generally considered that Afghanistan can yet be brought properly into line. Is it worth doing as the General says, and increase the risk of 'losing' Iraq in order to concentrate properly on Afghanistan?

I'm sure I'll come back to this thread.

NTM

lostexpectation

sounds like the guy wants to come back to Britain and deploy the army in bradford.

Jimboo_Jones

Some of his views about Christian values etc seem quiet scary to me. It wouldn't suprise me if he would like the army to frog match me to sunday service every week o_0

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote:

1) Did the Daily Mail take any of his remarks out of context, or selectively edit? Will they release the complete tapes?

Sky News reports this morning that he's standing by the comments.

Manic Moran wrote:

The question: If one works on the premise that the troops in Basra are on balance causing more harm than good, does it automatically follow that the same is the case in Ramadi or Baghdad? I submit that it does not. (It may coincidentally be that way, but I dispute that it is a given)

I may be misreading you, but doesn't that imply that British troops are somehow more inflammatory than American troops?

Sgt. Sensible

He's right about the war, what annoys the military people I know is that there don't seem to be any clear objectives. But I don't get the whinging about post christian society. It sounds like he's stuck in some pre swinging sixties timewarp. It's not as if British society has ever been one big happy family, tories and labourites have always hated each other.

RedPlanet

Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory
http://www.nysun.com/article/41371?page_no=1

"A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft."
"the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped."
"The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go."
"Both option papers would compel America to open dialogue with Syria and Iran."

I don't know how reputable the NY Sun is, however realities being what they are in Iraq, Bush is probably pressured to do something, anything really.
Sounds like the "Stability First" read: "Stability" in Baghdad, Chaos Everywhere Else is probably the least poor option that is reasonably attainable. Whilst still allowing enough wriggle room to spin it as "success" back home.
I wonder could releasing Saddam be part of the 2nd option for "representative" governance? I can't think of any other Sunni types that would command as much respect within their respective communities.
(actually i'm joking there's no way the USA could swallow their pride to that degree)
Isn't Iraq looking a lot more like Afghanistan now?
Karzai's "government" inside Kabul, everywhere else abandoned to Warlords.

Frederico

Who was the US General that was showing pictures he took of Iraq with a black smudge on them and saying it was a mark of Satan, I presume he still has his job?

Also anyone else notice that for an ongoing war/conflict very VERY few troops ever seem to be interviewed on TV.. its only spokesmen now, thats how it seems to me.. I mean we do still have a free press don't we..

I'm glad this guy has spoken out, prehaps the Government will secretly see it as a mixed blessing. I am very glad Afghanistan is recieving more attention now, its a worthy cause, however we all know its just politics to shift attention away from the mess in Iraq.

AbusesToilets

The reason you're not seeing more troops being interviewed is because the Coalition wants to keep the media as controlled as possible,which is nothing new in itself.
As for the General's point about Christian values,i think the context that he's speaking about is european societies have been very toothless of late in the face of Muslim "outrage".Allowing the possibility of causing upset to the Muslim community to stop them from performing actions that previously were considered normal.It's to the point where every week there is something new that is selected as grossly offensive by "Muslims",which is an excuse for their various leaders to wring yet more concessions from whatever society they're in.Usually at the expense of something insignificant,for example freedom of speech re:Dutch cartoons.

Sgt. Sensible

AbusesToilets wrote:

As for the General's point about Christian values,i think the context that he's speaking about is european societies have been very toothless of late in the face of Muslim "outrage".Allowing the possibility of causing upset to the Muslim community to stop them from performing actions that previously were considered normal.It's to the point where every week there is something new that is selected as grossly offensive by "Muslims",which is an excuse for their various leaders to wring yet more concessions from whatever society they're in.Usually at the expense of something insignificant,for example freedom of speech re: Dutch cartoons.

This was covered in another thread. The cases where Christians get things banned and protest (sometimes violently) against perceived insults to their religion tend to be conveniently ignored.

Memnoch

oscarBravo wrote:

Frankly, that would piss me off too. Some anti-war campaigners need to grow up and learn the difference between the people who make wars, and the poor grunts who are left to fight them - especially those who get hurt in the process.

strongly disagree. There is no such thing as a poor grunt. They are responsible for their actions. Regardless of who is ordering them. They obeyed orders to prosecute and illegal and immoral war, countless civilians have been murdered as a result. Any abuse they get is too little.

Sgt. Sensible

Memnoch wrote:

strongly disagree. There is no such thing as a poor grunt. They are responsible for their actions. Regardless of who is ordering them. They obeyed orders to prosecute and illegal and immoral war, countless civilians have been murdered as a result. Any abuse they get is too little.

Anti-war protesters were completely unwilling to put their bodies on the line to try prevent the illegal and immoral war so they have no moral authority to abuse soldiers like that. However, those who ordered the war and the idiots who supported it from the comfort of their armchairs deserve as much abuse, ridicule and scorn as possible.

Frederico

Memnoch wrote:

strongly disagree. There is no such thing as a poor grunt. They are responsible for their actions. Regardless of who is ordering them. They obeyed orders to prosecute and illegal and immoral war, countless civilians have been murdered as a result. Any abuse they get is too little.

I disagree with that. With the exception of soldiers who are out of line (torturing/war crimes/murder) or soldiers who are part of SS style death squads, I believe they should be respected and not subjected to anti-war protests. Its the politians, generals and policy makers who should suffer, they make the decisions, not the average grunt in the field.

gandalf

Well my take on this is there must be something going on in the background. We all know the British and US forces are stretched very thinly at the moment. I would say the British Cabinet are preparing more cuts and this is a pre-emptive strike by the Head of the British Army to make that extremely difficult or impossible.

I would also assume he has been saying this to the powers that be for a while but has gotten no-where.

It will be interesting to see how long he lasts in the job after this as well.

Manic Moran

Sky News reports this morning that he's standing by the comments.

He does indeed, but that doesn't necessarily follow that his comments are being properly portrayed. It's not 8am here yet, and so I've not had time to properly digest overnight events, but it appears that the full recordings of the interview have been released, and some are questioning whether he really said what the papers are reporting he said. For example, "We must get out of Iraq soon" is being interpreted/publicised as "It's time to get out now," which in fairness is an entirely different situation. Similarly, some are viewing it as an attack on Blair, which it is not.

I may be misreading you, but doesn't that imply that British troops are somehow more inflammatory than American troops?

In absolute terms, no. In relative terms, possibly. Let's assume it pisses off a Ramadi resident just as much to see an American on his streetcorner as it does a Basran to see a Brit. It creates a certain amount of resentment. However, this must be balance by the perceived need: The South has been generally quieter than the centre, there is a greater need for a presence. "It is highly unfortunate that they are here, but we need them anyway"

This appears to be corroborated by this, more complete statement:

"We have been in Southern Iraq for three and a half years and we have made significant progress, with two of the four provinces now handed over to Iraqi control and our responsibilities are much reduced in one other province. The point that I'm trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy.

"Currently Operation Sinbad is trying to make Basra better and a lot of British soldiers are doing a really good job. In that regard, their presence is helping but there are other parts where our mere presence does exacerbate and violence results.

Note he distinguishes between places where the troops help, and places where they are more a liability. He actually went on to give an example of an Aussie patrol attacked in one of the regions that had been handed over. Note also that he's directing the 'exacerbates violence' comments from "those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy," not the Iraqi people as a whole. i.e. They provide an opportunity and target for people who already have a resentment, not that they create even more.

NTM

banaman

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=11169

this article is about Aghanistan, but it confirms what those of us who don't buy the bull**** and get our news from more than just our poodle press have been saying for years. Namely whatever the given reasons for the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan the reality is one of callously inflicted suffering and incompetence.

Whatever we were told the plan was at NO time have they(our leaders) committed the required resources to acheive what they said they were going to do.
Ergo their aims were not what they said they were.

Question is what were the aims of the "coalition of the willing"?
It appears the aim was a strike against fundamentalist Islam, and strong, independent arab leaders, plus the slaughter and collective punishment of those peoples unlucky enough to live under them. Thus providing a deterent effect to any country in which Fundamentalist or independent ideas were growing to ascendency.
Who benefits?
Not Iraqis, Afghanis, Lebanese or Palestinians. Only those who make their wealth from war.
I believe that due to this Bushist jihad the world is less safe for all of us, my kids and yours. It is for this reason that I am against this lunacy and believe that those who planned and implemented it MUST be called to account.

Fair play to the Chief of Staff but all I see is the Brits getting ready to cut and run leaving a murderous situation to descend into all out war.
I was against the war(and the sanctions preceding it) but having gone in there we owe it to the vast majority of ordinary Iraqis to leave them safer not less safe.

Manic Moran

banaman wrote:

I see is the Brits getting ready to cut and run leaving a murderous situation to descend into all out war.
.... but having gone in there we owe it to the vast majority of ordinary Iraqis to leave them safer not less safe.

On those sentiments, I am in wholehearted agreement. At this stage, Al Qaeda, WMDs, even Regime Change are water under the bridge. There are still good people in Iraq that deserve better than to be abandoned to their fates.

NTM

mike65

gandalf wrote:

It will be interesting to see how long he lasts in the job after this as well.

Indeed it should be straightfoward - if he was speaking out of turn as the commander of the UK military he should be fired for going against his elected superiors. If not then he is speaking the thoughts of the government.

Mike.

Memnoch

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Anti-war protesters were completely unwilling to put their bodies on the line to try prevent the illegal and immoral war so they have no moral authority to abuse soldiers like that. However, those who ordered the war and the idiots who supported it from the comfort of their armchairs deserve as much abuse, ridicule and scorn as possible.

i don't get it, why should anti-war protesters be putting their bodies on the line? makes no sense

Memnoch

Frederico wrote:

I disagree with that. With the exception of soldiers who are out of line (torturing/war crimes/murder) or soldiers who are part of SS style death squads, I believe they should be respected and not subjected to anti-war protests. Its the politians, generals and policy makers who should suffer, they make the decisions, not the average grunt in the field.

Well there is pleanty of precedent that shows "I was just following orders" doesn't work.

If you commit or participate in a crime then ignorance is not an excuse. If the soldiers didn't rebel or refuse to carry out these illegal actions then they are culpable. They deserve what they get as the criminals that they are.

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote:

On those sentiments, I am in wholehearted agreement. At this stage, Al Qaeda, WMDs, even Regime Change are water under the bridge. There are still good people in Iraq that deserve better than to be abandoned to their fates.

NTM

They also deserved better than what we have done and what we have allowed to be done to their country as well.

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

Well there is pleanty of precedent that shows "I was just following orders" doesn't work.

If you commit or participate in a crime then ignorance is not an excuse. If the soldiers didn't rebel or refuse to carry out these illegal actions then they are culpable. They deserve what they get as the criminals that they are.

Did you even bother to read the post you quoted? Frederico explicitly said: "With the exception of soldiers who are out of line (torturing/war crimes/murder) or soldiers who are part of SS style death squads, I believe they should be respected...".

The fact that you personally don't agree with the war in Iraq doesn't convey some sort of moral imperative on someone else to desert/mutiny/whatever or else be considered a war criminal.

Memnoch

oscarBravo wrote:

Did you even bother to read the post you quoted? Frederico explicitly said: "With the exception of soldiers who are out of line (torturing/war crimes/murder) or soldiers who are part of SS style death squads, I believe they should be respected...".

The fact that you personally don't agree with the war in Iraq doesn't convey some sort of moral imperative on someone else to desert/mutiny/whatever or else be considered a war criminal.

I read the post. Did you read mine?

The war in iraq is an illegal and imoral invasion. Anyone participating in it is a war criminal.

The whole reason the concept of war crimes exists is to hold accountable those who cannot be held accountable in their own countries. Those who participated in the invasion of iraq on all levels are a prime example of this.

Criminals who declare themselves immune to penalty. It's a moral obligation of the world wide public to point them out for what they are.

The fact that the UN sec general as well as pretty much every human rights organisation agrees with me is enough. Obviously the US and the UK are immune to international law so they will never be officially sanctioned.

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote:

The war in iraq is an illegal and imoral invasion. Anyone participating in it is a war criminal.

You're going to have a very hard time trying to prove that in the Hague against Private 712 Jones. See below.

The whole reason the concept of war crimes exists is to hold accountable those who cannot be held accountable in their own countries. Those who participated in the invasion of iraq on all levels are a prime example of this.

And it's a soldier's place to question the political decisions of his superiors? It's one thing to carry out an order which is of questionable lawfulness, it is another thing entirely to carry out an obviously unlawful one.

The fact that the UN sec general as well as pretty much every human rights organisation agrees with me is enough. Obviously the US and the UK are immune to international law so they will never be officially sanctioned.

If one were to work on the assumption that the war was in fact illegal, the people to be brought to trial would be the political administration, not the troops on the ground. Have a good look at the rules covering the "I was only obeying orders" defense. To say that it is not a valid defense under any circumstances is in fact incorrect.

They also deserved better than what we have done and what we have allowed to be done to their country as well.

This may be true. It also doesn't matter one iota right now given that what's done has been done, and only what happens to them in the future matters at this point. Abandoning them now simply because the administration screwed up in the first place doesn't sound like any form of compassion to me.

NTM

mike65

mike65 wrote:

I think this could be more chorographed than it might appear.

Say something shocking, have it repudiated, lots of talk about "what if we did pull out? well Afganistan is more pressing internationaly" etc.

Then quietly the government via various sources starts to let it be known that a pull out is going to happen at some point sooner rather than latter.

Before you know it Pulling Out is the new Going In.

Fancy that!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6173234.stm

She said she expected Najaf to be the next city to be transferred to Iraqi control in December.

And she predicted that British-controlled Maysan could follow in January.

Mrs Beckett's comments are the most explicit the government has been about the timetable for a reduction in British troops.

According to a defence source, the plan is for forces to leave Basra City and pull back to a base at the airport during the next rotation of British troops in the spring.

BBC correspondent David Loyn, in Baghdad, said sources were describing the proposal as a "real rethink of policy".

Mike.