Sir Richard Dannatt’s comments about British presence in Iraq are welcome and overdue in public debate.

On the issue itself, Sir Richard is doubtless right that ‘coalition’ (Anglo-American) forces in Iraq are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Seen as a hostile occupying force, our troops are increasingly counter-productive to the stated goal of founding a united, peaceful, liberal democracy.

However, the problem is, who will replace them? The Iraqi civil war is clearly so advanced that peacekeeping forces will be necessary long into the future. Withdrawal of British and American forces is now vital, but we need international support to do so. No matter how much the invasion of Iraq was a grave error, only the most irresponsible detractor would support an action that made its future even worse. The attrocity of invasion is a national sin, and the long-standing opposition of millions of Britons cannot erase our communal responsibility for the future of Iraq; that means that we should be unfaltering in our genuine committment to rebuilding Iraq, but our troops no longer contribute to that goal.

Our moral responsibility to Iraqis now needs to be repaid through direct aid and the indirect subsidy of international peacekeepers – ideally from muslim nations – to help deliver Iraq from a state of lawlessness. Having snubbed international protocol and the international community in their gallop to war, Britain and the USA must now apologise and look for help in putting right their catastrophic error. That is vital anyway, in beginning to make amends for the implosion of British prestige and honour in the eyes of the world. But the inclusion of the world community, and the “coalition’s” continued financial liability for the war it started, are now vital to avert the worst of outcomes for post-war Iraq.

If maintaining British forces in Iraq could be part of the solution, then we should doubtless keep them there, as awful a possibility as that is, because we owe to Iraqis a national obligation that must last for decades to come. So, the withdrawal of British troops is not a question of our selfish national interest (and it should not be), but – as Sir Peter indicates – a pragmatic decision about how best to stabilise that country. The fact for supporters of the war is that this pragmatism is politically unacceptable.

Will the Lib Dems back this position, and endorse Sir Peter’s view? I hope so. Sir Menzies Campbell himself outlined troop withdrawal in the Times, 18 months ago, alongside Robin Cook and Douglas Hurd (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1461008,00.html) and the same sentiment was described by the other candidates in the recent leadership race.

However, while I think Sir Peter is right, and a valuable ally in our cause, I think we must be cautious about the precedent this sets for political comment by serving officers. If a Lib Dem government had been criticised by the head of the British army for not invading Iraq, we would be rightly incensed. We correctly criticised the way Sir Ian Blair allowed himself to be used publicly and privately to coerce Labour MPs’ waivering over how to vote on recent civil liberties issues. Sir Peter’s intervention is extraordinary, and one cannot begrudge him a right to speak out if he disagrees so fundamentally with a British policy he is duty-bound to pursue. Army officers have a duty to their men to ensure their orders are legal; we know now how much they interrogated the Attorney General’s legal opinion on the war when it started.

But doesn’t such a robust public opinion make it hard for him to continue in his post; isn’t this sort of intervention one that necessarily requires him to show his lack of faith in his departure? How does this square with precedents about military involvement in politics? I don’t know enough of the history myself, so I’ll end by encouraging anyone who does to e-mail Rob and offer such a piece.