» Tuesday, January 31, 2006


Asked for the Prime Minister’s reaction to the 100th British casualty in Iraq, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that first and foremost the Prime Minister was deeply saddened by this death, as he had been by all the deaths of those members of the armed forces who had been killed in Iraq.

His thoughts, and those of the Government, were with the families and their loss. No life was worth this sacrifice, but in terms of why we were in Iraq, we had now had three democratic elections in a country which had been brutalised for decades. It was a tough struggle to make progress, particularly because there were those who were determined to stop democracy in Iraq, but the Prime Minister believed it was worth persevering with that struggle because we were making progress. We now had the various democratically elected groups in Iraq discussing how to form a new Government. That would not have been possible without the presence of British troops and the troops of our allies as well.

Asked how long our troops would remain in Iraq, the PMOS said that they would remain for as long as was necessary and as long as the democratically elected Government in Iraq wanted us to remain. As we had seen just before Christmas, when we were in Basra, there was a growing confidence in the process of Iraqization. We could see the growth of the quantity and quality of Iraqi personnel now able to look after Iraqi security in certain areas. That process would continue and it would be the speed of that process which would decide when our troops could be deemed no longer necessary.

Asked how he responded to those who said there should be a timetable for withdrawal in place, the PMOS said that the problem with a timetable was that it inverted what the priorities should be. The priority should be to ensure that the democratically elected Government of Iraq was in a position to defend that democracy. That should determine the speed at which we lower our profile, rather than an artificial deadline which would effectually say that no matter what the state of security in Iraq, we would pull out. That would only act as an incentive to the insurgents to step-up their campaign in tandem with any timetable.

Asked if we were not concerned by the tactical implications of this particular attack, given that it had taken place in an area which had previously been secure, the PMOS said that we should not do the terrorist’s job for them by over-hyping this kind of incident. We should recognise that any death was deeply sad and deeply regretted. However it would be for those making the operational decisions on the ground to decide how to respond to this kind of attack and prevent further attacks. It was not for us to second-guess the operational commanders on the ground.

Asked how these casualty figures compared to casualties in other conflicts, the PMOS referred journalists to the MOD. He stressed that one death was one death too many and therefore although comparisons might be useful in terms of analysis in some ways, for the families concerned it was obviously their loved one they had lost.

Asked if the Prime Minister had visited any injured servicemen who had returned from Iraq, the PMOS said that he believed he had.

Briefing took place at 13:00 | Search for related news

1 Comment »

  1. Usual pretentious PMOS patronising claptrap. ‘No death etc etc’. How disgusting, predictable and crass.

    The deep sadness felt by Blair and his cronies is for other reasons entirely than the death of the 100th young British man in Iraq. It’s more to do with the political implications and fallout.

    Now Blair et al are sending more of our troops -our people, not America’s – into severe danger in Afghanistan as well. This is a Prime Minister who has involved his (our) country in more wars than any of his predecessors this century, blindly arrogant, convinced of the ‘rightness’ of his many causes.

    As for the comments about ‘operational commanders on the ground’, well yes indeed. It’s altogether better that they take charge, God knows what would happen if Whitehall attempted to manage things.

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 31 Jan 2006 on 5:22 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


January 2006
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Dec   Feb »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh