General Sir Richard Dannatt's interview with the Daily Mail's Sarah Sands has been greeted with excitement by the anti-war press and it certainly offers ammunition to the critics of the Iraq operation. Sir Richard worries that British troops might be exacerbating the security situation (but only in certain parts of Iraq), he complains about the treatment of injured soldiers and reflects on inadequate post-invasion planning. He also casts doubt on the central Bush doctrine that democracy can be successfully planted in inhospitable terrain.
At the root of Sir Richard's interview appears to be the simple truth that Britain's armed forces are being asked to do too much with too little. There are certainly criticisms of the Iraq operation in Sir Richard's remarks but his main concern appears to be the mounting consequences of overstretch. He is concerned for his troops as every military leader should be. Overstretch has been a long-standing concern of Liam Fox.
Earlier this week the Tories launched a campaign against NHS cuts. A campaign to rebuild Britain's armed forces might be more appropriate given the global security perils.
Editor's comment: "Most important in all of this is that Britain does not fall for what David Brooks recently described as 'The Grand Delusion'. Here are some extracts from Brooks' New York Times article:
"The Arab world, though famous for its bazaars, has not defined national glory economically... Instead, the rising radical groups today define greatness negatively through acts of anti-Western defiance... To his eternal credit, after 9/11 George Bush quickly understood that the terror threat was fundamentally an ideological threat, a product of deep historical consciousness. To his eternal discredit, he didn't commit enough resources to successfully defeat and discredit that ideology. The chance to deliver the sort of blow that the Six Day War delivered to an earlier version of Arab nationalism may now be lost...
As a result, as the National Intelligence Estimate makes clear, the West now faces a diverse and metastasizing set of foes. The report also makes clear that while the Iraq war has so far enhanced the prestige of the terrorists, Iraq remains the crucial battleground where they will either gain glory or face humiliation. If we lived in a serious political culture, we'd be discussing what we've learned from Iraq and how to proceed. Instead, all of Washington is involved in a juvenile game of gotcha...
Voters now confront a Republican Party that understands the breadth of the threat but has bungled the central campaign, and a Democratic Party that is quick to criticize but lacks an understanding of the jihadists and a strategy for confronting them. Worse, more and more people are falling for the Grand Delusion -- the notion that if we just leave the extremists alone, they will leave us alone...
Perhaps it's understandable that many Americans would fall for this Grand Delusion. The Israelis, who have more experience with Islamic extremism, recently did. They imagined that they could build a security barrier and unilaterally withdraw from their historical reality. It took the war in south Lebanon to make them see there is no way to unilaterally withdraw. There is no way to become a normal society. Even if they pulled out of Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, they would still have to confront an existential foe, so long as the forces of political Islam continued to wage their competition for anti-Semitic glory all around.""
Any Chief Of the General Staff will seek to encourage government to spend more on defence but this interview was much,much more than that. He makes a strong distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. In the latter he still believes we can still win but in Iraq he believes that the presence our army 'merely exacerbates the security situation'.
The key question is whether the army in Iraq are actually achieving anything worthwhile or are they risking their lives to preserve the dignity of the politicians who sent them there in the first place.
If it is just the latter they should come home and if that makes life difficult for Blair and/or the Conservative party.... tough.
Having said that Gen Dannatt has broken the convention of the Army never commenting on political matters. That is an extremely serious matter and I can only imagine that he is either a very desperate man whose entreaties have been ignored by the MOD or very, very naive.
Posted by: malcolm | October 13, 2006 at 10:59
I think it would have been in this country's and our military's interests that if top military brass were going to speak out that they should have done so much earlier during the Blair administration.
Posted by: Esbonio | October 13, 2006 at 11:02
"That is an extremely serious matter and I can only imagine that he is either a very desperate man whose entreaties have been ignored by the MOD or very, very naive."
I would say you are right, and add that I doubt very much that someone who was that politically naive could become head of the army...
Posted by: Mike Christie | October 13, 2006 at 11:29
There has been a lot of disquiet within the armed forces (particularly the army) about how they have been "abused" by the government.
I have lost count of the number of times that soldiers of various ranks have asked "when will one of the defence chiefs put their pension and seat in the Lords on the line for the troops doing the fighting?" or words to that effect.
Sir Richard has put himself squarely in the political firing line and I applaud him for doing so.
Military overstretch and the dismissive attitude that Labour demonstrate towards the armed forces have been issues that I have blogged about for years. Up until three or four months ago it was a political non-issue. I think that it could be a huge issue between now and the next general election.
Posted by: James Cleverly | October 13, 2006 at 11:35
Frankly, the General should be stripped of his military rank and dishonourably discharged.
There is absolutely no place for the army leadership to be questioning a political decision. If he is allowed to stay in post, then we are heading into very dangerous territory, akin to some third rate tin pot dictatorship, where the army can seize power.
It is no use using his comments to justify any opposition to the war in Iraq or its aftermath, no matter how convenient that may be. Consider how outraged we would have been had the army leadership spoken out against the retaking of the Falklands or the first Gulf War.
It is an unacceptable position and constitutionally dangerous.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 11:47
It must be noted that it was the Tories who first started cutting our regular and reserve forces as they sought to cut government spending under the overly optimistic guise of the peace dividend. Labour simply continued the cuts but made things worse with Blair's Wars. IMO the Tories (if they could have remembered that it was their job to oppose and knew how to do it) and the top brass could have complained more. Do the Tories have the will to increase defence spending in terms of equipment and manpower? Somehow I doubt it?
Posted by: Esbonio | October 13, 2006 at 11:51
The unspoken fact is that Iraq is lost. It's better to admit it and quit than waste further resources there. Had we gone in with enough troops and equipment from the beginning, we could have held the situation.
The situation is Afghanistan is going the same way. The middle classes are moving out of Kabul. And they know what they're doing.
We should not fight wars we don't intend to win. We need to increase defence expenditure as does the USA to 6% of GDP from 2.4% (here) and to get enough troops we will need a Draft.
The experience we have from Iraq and Afghanistan will be useful for whatever comes around next. But the country's in for a financial shock. Forget about tax cuts. The next invasion of Afghanistan or wherever it has to be, in three or four years time cannot be a bungled affair.
This is 1940. We need a Churchill - not a Gordon Brown. Liam Fox is able to read the situation best.
Posted by: Tapestry | October 13, 2006 at 11:54
Tapestry - We did win the war, it is the peace that is the problem.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 12:11
You can have a small army if you have low commitments. You can have a lot of commitments and a big army. What you cannot have is a small army with lots of commitments.
Seeing soldiers in their mid twenties with two rows of medal ribbons is not good.
Posted by: James Cleverly | October 13, 2006 at 12:24
My first reaction was shock that a CDS would go public with anything as political as that.
His predecessors, however, were VERY political, but in another way: they "went bush" in Whitehall and behaved like Sir Humphreys instead of Generals. Guthrie springs to mind, and even "the soldiers' soldier" Jackson, who applied the coup de grace to our cherished regimental structure in his drive to make ends meet on a tiny budget. The shortage of correct equipment for the jobs undertaken in the last few years seems to be his responsibility.
Dannatt will have raised morale with his comments, and has given the impression that he won't allow the Army to be dicked about whilst he is in charge. He is unlikely to make a mistake like this again, so I say good for him.
Posted by: Og | October 13, 2006 at 12:46
Hear hear James. I fear Tapestrys opinion is more right than wrong, if we are going to send our armed services on large scale operations we are going to have to pay for them. Tax cuts may become a pipe dream.
Posted by: malcolm | October 13, 2006 at 12:51
Maybe we should consider exactly what our national interests are before we start thinking up new international commitments.
We also need to review our approach to the military. The US are moving from the silo mentality of the three services into a much more intergrated flexible approach. A more sensible approach to modern warfare I suspect.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 13:13
A serving Colonel I know has quite a high opinion of Dannatt's ability as an officer and manager judging by his previous postings.
Best place for the views of soldiers on this - AARSE. If you think the comments threads on here are frank...
Posted by: Deputy Editor | October 13, 2006 at 13:14
Not everyone agrees with James Cleverly's opinion of Sir Richard Dannatt's article (@ 11.35):
"Sir Richard has put himself squarely in the political firing line and I applaud him for doing so."
I do as well. I know it is easy to be wise after the event but it has become abundantly clear that the Hutton Inquiry was a whitewash, that it was not a full independent enquiry at all and that the Bush/Blair adventure in Iraq has exacerbated the dangerous situation in the Middle East.
This article deserves greater prominence; Sir Richard will no doubt be hauled over the coals for it and might even be sacked but, read in its entirety, it is a very insightful article into a number of important issues.
A good commander always has the good of his troops in mind and he will wish for the minimum number of deaths and casualties from now on.
Blair, Browne et al have little idea of what services life is like in theatre (whereas a few tory MPs like Desmond Swayne and Andrew Murrison do).
It will be interesting to hear DC and Liam Fox's reactions.
Posted by: David Belchamber | October 13, 2006 at 13:19
James Cleverly | October 13, 2006 at 11:35 said:
There has been a lot of disquiet within the armed forces (particularly the army) about how they have been "abused" by the government.
I have lost count of the number of times that soldiers of various ranks have asked "when will one of the defence chiefs put their pension and seat in the Lords on the line for the troops doing the fighting?" or words to that effect.
Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 11:47 said:
Frankly, the General should be stripped of his military rank and dishonourably discharged.
There is absolutely no place for the army leadership to be questioning a political decision. If he is allowed to stay in post, then we are heading into very dangerous territory, akin to some third rate tin pot dictatorship, where the army can seize power.
As a mere civilian 'erk' I permit myself the following observations.
(1) As a serving or former Officer in the TA with relatively recent experience I would imagine Mr Cleverley knows whereof he speaks.
(2) With the greatest respect, Mr Mackie, in which of Her Majesty's Armed Forces have you served, at what rank(s) and how recently?
(3) The General's comment just after his appointment had been announced was, for a senior officer, quite astounding. When asked whether the British Army could cope in Afghanistan, he is reported to have said:
"We are running hot, certainly running hot.
... "Can we cope? I pause. I say 'just'."
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5311544.stm )
Coming from a senior 'mandarin' I would take this as meaning "We are at breaking point".
Whether Sir Richard's remarks to the Daily Mail are courageous, naive, or treasonable is perhaps not for me to judge. However, that he chose to make them publicly at all indicates to me that the "normal channels" are blocked. Either previous incumbents of the post have failed to express the gravity of the situation in sufficiently unambiguous language, Senior MOD officials have been failing to express the seriousness of the Army's situation to our political masters, the masters are not listening, or a combination of some or all of the above.
The bottom line is that we cannot go on asking the Armed Forces (and especially the Army) to do what is being asked of them without a considerable increase in resources, both financial and in feet on the ground. If these are not forthcoming, we have to scale back our commitments.
Posted by: The jabberwock | October 13, 2006 at 13:20
I am surprised no-one else has mentioned this, but from General Dannatts comments on the BBC news this morning it was clear (to me anyway) he thinks his remarks have been 'misinterpreted' by the media.
He said he had ministerial approval, and an MOD advisor with him during the interview and no-one thought it very ground-breaking, and that there "wasn't a cigarrette paper" between his views and the govt policy.
And see:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ChiefOfGeneralStaffSpeaksOnBritishPresenceInIraq.htm
Posted by: Jon Gale | October 13, 2006 at 13:34
The next Conservative government needs to massively invest in our armed forces - sign up new recruits and properly train and equip them. I seriously doubt if we could win another Falklands given how overstretched, ill equipped and demoralised our few remaining troops seem to be under this Labour administration.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | October 13, 2006 at 13:38
missed bit off:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/
ChiefOfGeneralStaffSpeaksOnBritishPresenceInIraq.htm
Posted by: Jon Gale | October 13, 2006 at 13:38
Jabberwok - As I chose not to join the armed forces I cannot have an opinion. Your logic defeats the purpose of an opinion blog. Equally it suggests that anyone making comment on any subject at all must have first hand direct experience of the subject. A typical snide way of closing down debate. I could list many many areas where I have direct expertise where I have debated with others, but I have never questioned their right to have an opinion.
It really is tiresome, to listen to people such as yourself, who suggest that those nice army officers with their good manners and stiff upper lip have the panacea to all our ills in Iraq.
The armed forces are a voluntary organisation, thankfully. He chose to volunteer and has risen up the ranks. In our constitution the army submits to the political control of the MOD, the Secretary of State and ultimately Parliament. To abandon that balance of powers is very very dangerous.
You may not like Blair's policy in Iraq (I don't) but he did have parliamentary support and did subsequently win an election. If the General wishes to discuss the political issues of the war in Iraq, then he should step down and do it from a private position.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 13:57
"the Grand Delusion -- the notion that if we just leave the extremists alone, they will leave us alone..."
The Islamists want to kill or convert us and take over our countries. It's true that leaving Iraq will not alter that. The problem with the failure in Iraq though is that it drains our resources, makes us look weak and incompetent, and seems to be inflicting terrible misery on the Iraqi people. Plus it was waged under false pretences against an (evil) Arab state that unlike Afghanistan had never attacked us, the West.
For all these reasons Iraq does help the extremists to recruit more followers. Leaving Iraq and adoption of a more humble, reality-based foreign policy would give us a chance to refocus our efforts where the real battle is taking place - the home front.
As for Afghanistan, it doesn't look like our forces there are achieving anything very worthwhile, but the al Qaeda and Taleban they're fighting there did actually directly attack us on 9/11, and again on 7/7, so our fighting there at least has some moral justification, which I think many Muslims can appreciate.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 13, 2006 at 13:57
" In our constitution the army submits to the political control of the MOD, the Secretary of State and ultimately Parliament. To abandon that balance of powers is very very dangerous. "
That's certainly true, but the oath of allegiance he took (I did too when I joined the TA) is wider than that, being an oath to the monarch and her successors as representative of the British people (and head of the Church of England). That oath may not always be best served by blind obedience to the government of the day. The military should be subject to civilian control; but Germany would have been a lot better off if the Wehrmacht had deposed Hitler before WW2. Not that Blair is Hitler, but perhaps if they could foresee what would happen the military ought to have opposed the Iraq venture to start with, just as military support for the Falklands expedition was decisive in Thatcher's decision to go to war.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 13, 2006 at 14:04
esbonio is right. Gen: Darratt's predecessors -esp Gen Jackson - should have said this earlier with the threat of resignation and should have talked to the Leader of the Opposition too. More responsible too than going public. (The time to go public should be AFTER resignation)
Did he talk to either party? Or is this merely encouraged by the MoD as more Blair kite-flying??? The more I look at it the less I can accept it at face value. And talking to Sands too - Her wot wrecked the sunday Telegraph till she was sacked!
It's another thing that worries me about Cameron is that he appears to be taking defence for granted and ignoring the under equipment.
Dr Richard North in his (mistitled?) EUReferendum blog http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2006/10/march-of-amateurs.html
lists equipment after equipment cancelled or down graded and the excess costs of each shambles. It's devastating reading and totally unacknowledged by all parties and all parts of the media. We and our troops are being led like lambs to the slaughter.
!item =Scimitar replacement cancelled to buy (not yet produced EU version) - Cost £131m
±item = Panther - useless vehicle for purpose - Cost £146m
±item = Cobra radar cost £178m - US version available for £100m EXCESS COST £78m
±item = Trigat EU anti-tank missile for infantry FAILED at cost of £314m (Bought off shelf replacement from US)
±item = Multi-role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV) EU produced. Too heavy for air transport so pulled out - LOSS £46m
±item = Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) - First Phoenix and then Watchtower - not delivered - COST $345m AND having to buy US Predators for £60m
±item = 22 Augusta transport EU design Helicopters @£30m each - high maintenance problems Chinooks (easy to maintain) £25m each - Loss at least £110m
±item = Eurofighter @ £60m each - no role now and no ground attack capability Total cost £14 Billion US ground attack aircraft available @ £20m each
±item = Storm Shadow air launched cruise missile cost £1million EACH for 1,000 = £1BILLION. US JASSM costs 17% less.
±item = Eurofighter (obsolete see above) is to be equipped with EU designed air-to-air missiles at cost £1.4 billion - not yet available so have bought much cheaper Raytheon pro tem. If Raytheon had been standard equipment saving would have been £900m
±item = Pulled out of Horizon EU standard frigate but not until costs of £537 m
±item = 5 EU designed Type 45 destroyers @ £1billion each due to expensive EU missiles. Australian navy is buying better and cheaper US destroyers for £600m each
Then there's also Galileo satellite costs and the free gift we made to the EU of British designed sonar
WHY OH WHY does this have to be disclosed in a blog? If I were Gen Darratt I'd resign NOW.
Posted by: christina speight | October 13, 2006 at 14:09
Christina, please stop using capitals and start using new paragraphs. Your postings make my eyes sore!
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | October 13, 2006 at 14:18
I don't think Dannatt should be resigning (of course the government can sack him if they wish), he's only been in the job a few weeks. If he needs to go public to prevent the British army being 'broken' in Iraq the way the US army was by Vietnam, I think he's simply doing his job. No one wants to see British forces lose a battle (I think that last happened during the Korean War), which could conceivably happen if this keeps up.
I do think it's worrying that the Conservative leadership seems wilfully oblivious to the crisis. That the sanctity of the (now) over-funded, under-performing NHS is Cameron's top priority says more for his concern over his media image than his sense of what the real problems facing Britain are.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 13, 2006 at 14:22
Soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen are professionally non political, when presented with a huge task and not enough to tools to do the job we just get stuck in and somehow make it work. The government knows this and has abused the trust and loyalty of the armed forces.
You may feel that Sir Richard’s comments are unwise or even unconstitutional but they are not untrue. Labour has been warned, quietly, by a number of people that something needs to be done and they have ignored it. Bair’s desire to keep the British at the heart of the world stage is admirable but his unwillingness to support the people who pay for this position with their lives is contemptible.
Posted by: James Cleverly | October 13, 2006 at 14:34
"If the General wishes to discuss the political issues of the war in Iraq, then he should step down and do it from a private position." - Jonathan Mackie
This is not simply a political matter - it also involves operational and practical issues which the General is paid to advise on. I agree with Malcolm - the indications are that the General is a very desperate man whose entreaties have been ignored by the MOD.
This arrogant Government has made a habit of ignoring advice and ploughing on regardless. The taxpayer has paid for plenty of expensive mistakes but the Government just moves on. Ministers rarely suffer from the consequences of their actions.
But this isn't just money. The conduct of war is a matter of life and death for real people and if the Government is not listening to the experts, I for one am glad that one General has had the guts to speak out.
Posted by: deborah | October 13, 2006 at 14:35
Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 13:57 said:
Jabberwok - As I chose not to join the armed forces I cannot have an opinion. Your logic defeats the purpose of an opinion blog. Equally it suggests that anyone making comment on any subject at all must have first hand direct experience of the subject. A typical snide way of closing down debate. I could list many many areas where I have direct expertise where I have debated with others, but I have never questioned their right to have an opinion.
It really is tiresome, to listen to people such as yourself, who suggest that those nice army officers with their good manners and stiff upper lip have the panacea to all our ills in Iraq.
Jonathan, I was in no way wishing to prevent you from expressing an opinion, nor to shut down debate, snidely or otherwise. neither was I wishing to imply that British Army officers have a monopoly on wisdom. I simply choose to believe the word of this particular officer against those of his political and bureaucratic masters.
I was expressing the view, admittedly rather abrasively, that Mr Cleverly's experience and contacts made me give more weight to his opinion than yours.
But enough of my opinion. If anyone cares to know what a cross-section of serving soldiers actually feel on the matter, they can toddle along to one Forum thread at the aptly named ARRSE (the British Army Rumour Service). An overwhelming majority (79%) of comments support him:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=48836/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=60.html
Posted by: The jabberwock | October 13, 2006 at 14:48
There is an interesting post on Nick Robinson's blog, seemingly from an ex-colleague of Dannatt. Might be a spoof but it looks authentic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2006/10/how_soon_is_soo.html
(comment 10)
Posted by: deborah | October 13, 2006 at 14:56
Debroah - you hit the nail on the head when you said he was paid to "advise" on the issue of prosecuting the peace in Iraq.
He is free to advise within the confines of the MOD and not outside. If he doesn't agree with Government policy and cannot work under it, he should resign, not pressurise the Government of the day. In doing so he entered the political arena.
I am all for putting Blair under pressure for the disaster of the aftermath of the Iraq war. But no way should that be done from within the armed forces.
If you join the forces you cannot pick and choose which elements of a government's policy you support. It is exactly the same principle that was abused by the Muslim police officer in refusing to guard the Isreal embassy.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 15:08
" It is exactly the same principle that was abused by the Muslim police officer in refusing to guard the Isreal embassy." -Jonathan Mackie
It is nothing of the sort. The general has not refused to do anything, he has simply spoken openly about the current situation. Good for him.
Perhaps it is worth noting that blind obedience leads to war crimes.
Posted by: deborah | October 13, 2006 at 15:16
Jonathan,
Sir Richard is not refusing to serve.
Posted by: James Cleverly | October 13, 2006 at 15:16
No but the principle of questioning government policy is the same.
Deborah, get a grip - war crimes? Are you seriously suggesting that Blair is pushing for the army to commit war crimes. Behave yourself will you.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 15:21
"No but the principle of questioning government policy is the same"
No it's not.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 13, 2006 at 15:31
"Are you seriously suggesting that Blair is pushing for the army to commit war crimes"
Of course not - you are twisting my words. But are you seriously suggesting that blind obedience is always appropriate?
Posted by: deborah | October 13, 2006 at 15:42
Since the main failure and certainly the main gripe of the troops is of Equipment deficiencies I am surprised at the complete lack ok reaction here to the list of catastrophes which (at vast labour!) I precised here and which the media seem as ignorant about as are the political parties.
British soldiers are dying because the MoD has loused it up and done so to "integrate" with our European partners. So nobody here cares and just want to talk about the General's constitutional position despite it being made quite clear that the MoD had approved the statement and that the General had an MoD adviser in the Radio studio. So his part ignores the failures and gets on with the government's spinning.
=-=-=-=-=
Justin - Sorry you find it difficult to read. It was difficult to write too! I spent two hours doing it and since I felt it was vital new information I went ahead even though it "ma(d)e my eyes sore" and my head ache. I won't bother in future
Posted by: christina speight | October 13, 2006 at 15:57
Deborah & Simon really you are saying that you agree that any official and I count Officers in this bracket,are allowed to be critical of the Government and a decision of Parliament when they feel like it.So for instance the head civil servant in the Foriegn Office is allowed to critise the Foreign Secretary on policy. This leads to anarchy. We have a Constitutional Monarchy in Britain and Parliament is supreme so all this nonsense of the taking of an oath to serve Her Majesty allows an Officer in the Armed Forces to critise a decision of Parliament. That is absolute nonsense and if it were taken to its extreme,the Army could take over and overule Parliament.Then we would really be in big trouble. Think about it now and don't be supportive of the Chief of Staff,a person who should know better.
Posted by: Sandbagger | October 13, 2006 at 16:18
Sandbagger,
Yet more nonsense, but I do agree with you on one thing
"the Chief of Staff,a person who should know better."
I suspect he does.
Posted by: deborah | October 13, 2006 at 16:29
Interesting comments from a former colleague of Gen Dannatts on Nick Robinsons blog.According to this chap Dannatt knows exactly what he is doing and is very experienced at dealing with politicians. I would hope that the leadership of the Conservative party will take Dannatts comments with the seriousness they deserve and that policy on Iraq will be announced shortly. I do wonder if this will involve eating very large amounts of humble pie.
Posted by: malcolm | October 13, 2006 at 16:43
Christina - I think Justing was just requesting a space below each item.
Nonetheless, your point is well made. Her Majesty's Loyal(?) Opposition should be hammering home that the "Europeanisation" by stealth of Britain's Armed Forces is costing a significant slice of the whole Defence Budget - money which could be better spent on more cost-effective equipment.
Unfortunately, exposing this and other shocking wastes of taxpayers' (our) money is not in harmony with the 'mood music' that DC et al consider all important at the moment in trying to re-brand the Conservatives as the 'nice, human and caring' party. Economics doesn't get a look-in. But then most people don't begin to understand economics, as I suspect they simply couldn't cope with the maths. Try explaining the price elasticity of demand to someone who cannot understand graphs...But don't get me started on that one.
Posted by: The jabberwock | October 13, 2006 at 16:47
Although certainly I'd agree with his comments on the laughable lack of post-war planning, and sympathise with the obvious pressures he must have been under to make such a public statement, this simply isn't an area of public debate a serving army officer should get involved in - let alone the head of the army.
If he disagrees with government policy and feels the need to express it, he should resign. The very fact he hasn't been sacked is pretty telling of the weakness of the Blair government.
Posted by: Andrew | October 13, 2006 at 17:04
The wars fought so far in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be the end of these kind of wars. Dannatt is not saying the war's over. He's saying the battle for Iraq is over. He's saying the army needs to be preserved and resourced to fight Islamists again.
Get your cheque books out. Be prepared for a Draft to recruit a larger Army, is the unspoken message he's giving.
We have a enough experience from Iraq to get it right next time. It would be nice to imagine it won't be necessary to fight again, but the pattern of events over many years shows a rising level of threat. The non-Moslem world from China, Japan, India and the English speaking countries on will have to dedicate resources to winning this war.
We must concede Iraq to the Islamists to sort out their own way. It will be presnted as a spectacular victory across the Moslem world. War is a dangerous business to play at Blair/Brown style. It's shit or bust, all or nothing - not part of the PR spin game which is the only reality NuLab have permitted for 9 years.
As reality dawns, and the PR clarity of Blair/Brown era passes into fog, Cameron will be challenged to become more than a PR phenomenon. He will need to engage, show teeth and take control.
Posted by: Tapestry | October 13, 2006 at 17:10
Tapestry - "We have a enough experience from Iraq to get it right next time."
We may have the experience but we haven't got the hardware, and we won't have the hardware and soldiers will die because we haven't got the hardware. And nobody gives a damn and all the money's gone down the drain and buckets of it have gone to prop up the EU for political reasons and to get 2nd rate hardware which we won't get anyway and soldiers will die.
It's criminal and Cameron's silent (or ignorant?) and bloggers here can't see the whole General's demarche was set up to divert attention from the fact that we haven't got - and will not get - the hardware Soldiers' lives don't matter to anybody it seems
Posted by: christina speight | October 13, 2006 at 17:55
This may be a first but I agree with Christina Speight. The ridiculously poor arming of our troops is nothing short of criminal. Although I wouldn't lay it at the door of the EU our own needs should take precedence.
Regarding Dennett, surely he must be acting with some agreement from his colleagues. Whilst I agree that a military should not be politicised a government which endangers the military can expect them to be so. Labour only have themselves to blame.
Posted by: Cardinal Pirelli | October 13, 2006 at 18:13
Jonathan @ 15.08:
"If he doesn't agree with Government policy and cannot work under it, he should resign, not pressurise the Government of the day."
Ideally, that would be correct but Sir Richard, being a good commander, does not want to see any more troops killed and injured, trying to establish peace in Iraq while there is a civil war going on around them.
If the government had thought out a proper exit strategy for Iraq, if the Treasury had made the necessary funding available and if the MOD had provided all the proper equipment, then of course he should not have gone public. However, lives are being lost on a daily basis in Iraq and there really isn't time any more for all the niceties.
We need decisive "action this day".
A bit like Dr David Kelly who should not have talked to the press.
As for calling for Sir Richard's resignation, he can point to the example of Blair, Hoon, Des Browne etc.
Posted by: ddcb | October 13, 2006 at 18:37
ddcb - The constitutional niceties discussion here is totally irrelevant. A smokescreen to whichg you and most here are contributing. The whole charade was set up by the government to distract attention from the fact that our troops are ill-equipped and ill-protected and there is no prospect of anything being done about THAT!
Cardinan P: who "wouldn't lay it at the door of the EU" should re-read the list I sent. There's the EU's hand in almost every item. To construct a political entity which few in this country want, our troops are dying!
Posted by: christina speight | October 13, 2006 at 18:47
"It's criminal and Cameron's silent (or ignorant?)"
No, he and Liam Fox are just more informed than you. We know your dislike of David Cameron is legendery but I would have hoped you could of resisted the urge to resort to "Lets blame everything on David Cameron"
Just maybe if you would actually take the time to listen to David Cameron's conference speech or Liam Fox's you might be better able to comment on the position of the Shadow Cabinet.
IIRC David Cameron's trip to Afghanistan recently was one of his first visits abroad as leader of the opposition.
Also having listened to an interview that Liam Fox gave via telephone last night to Sky news, it was obvious that he was entirely on top of his brief and that clearly showed.
Posted by: Anon | October 13, 2006 at 18:48
Christina @ 18.47:
"ddcb - The constitutional niceties discussion here is totally irrelevant."
You misunderstand my point (not my final dig at non-resigning ministers).
My point is that we have here a thoughtful and caring commander (i.e. a thoroughly good one) who is so concerned for the weelfare of his troops that he ignores protocol entirely - at the risk of his own neck - in order to get something done for them.
Posted by: ddcb | October 13, 2006 at 19:02
“A caring commander”? We could be on the verge of a coup d'état!
The idea of modern warfare, if it has to be conducted as a last recourse, is preferable not to kill anyone and certainly not lose any of your own.
Killing does not improve any situation and makes yet more enemies.
WWI eventually led to the Holocaust for example.
Every war Blair has started - Iraq I, Serbia, Iraq II and Afghanistan have been a disaster.
He should in fact be tried as a War Criminal.
Posted by: Fred Baker | October 13, 2006 at 20:01
ddcb - The General was NOT "is concerned for the wellfare of his troops that he ignores protocol entirely - at the risk of his own neck"
What he did was with the agreemenrt of the MoD and supervised by the MoD. The whole thing was a Blairite stunt to cover up the woeful and criminal way our troops were sent into battle ill-equipped and ill-protected. ALL this done by Blair to curry favour in Europe by trying (and often failing ) to buy their 2nd rate armaments.
=-=-=-=-=
Anon - I doubt if Cameron is as well informed as I am. If you'd read what I wrote and what Dr North wrote you wouldn't say that. Troops at base camp in Kandahar are not in the picture as far as MoD purchases are concerned. (They just know that the Taliban have in some cases better weapons than the Britons "up-at-the-sharp-end" have) AND if he is well-informed why on earth is he not creating merry hell as our troops die for governmental incompetence - and worse - currying favour with "our partners" in the EU? Cameron is only interested im trivia. I didn't blame it on him. I just ask 'where is he when he's needed' ? Asking Blair about Brown ! Ye Gods!
Posted by: christina speight | October 13, 2006 at 20:03
Well as I thought Deborah,you have not taken on board the fact that it is Parliament whose decisions are final and it is for the Army and it's Officers to carry out the wishes of Parliament. If the C of S wishes to make a critism then he should leave the Army before doing so.It is not nonsense as you put it. As for Fred Baker calling for the PM to be prosecuted as a war criminal because of the decisions of Parliament then it follows that any MP who voted for action in Iraq should also be prosecuted. That would mean the vast majority of Tory MP's as well. So think before making statements like that
Posted by: Sandbagger | October 13, 2006 at 21:07
"PM to be prosecuted as a war criminal because of the decisions of Parliament"
Um, as I remember it, the PM misled Parliament over the weapons of mass destruction!
A Government advisor ended up taking his life due to undue pressure.
The Iraq War is a catastrophe of mega proportions; this does not seem to be sinking in with politicians. The general public seem to have a better grasp of it.
Posted by: Fred Baker | October 13, 2006 at 22:06
Deborah there is a fundamental point of constitutional etiquette here. Blair has parliamentary support for his policy, the Chief of Staff may have a view and he can express it privately. If it is rejected he either gets on with carrying out the democratic policy of state or he resigns.
The logic of his position is that the army should have a veto over government foreign policy. I am certain that is a position no-one here would support.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 22:09
Fred - whatever the merits of parliamentary support for the Iraq policy was, the fact remains that parliament supported it.
I am no Blair fan, but come on what war crimes? By your logic we should have left Milosevic in power wreking havoc on Europe's doorstep, kept the Taliban in power in Afganistan suppressing human rights and maintained the Sadamm regime in Iraq which was funding suicide bombers in Isreal.
You need to have a word with yourself.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 22:16
On the 18th March 1999 the Daily Telegraph reported that "A ROW had erupted
over the long-awaited report of a Finnish investigation into the killing of
more than 40 ethnic Albanians in the Kosovo village of Racak in
January. Serbian media and authorities and some French sources had claimed
previously that the dead men were killed in combat during clashes between
Serbian forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army."
That was the opening phase of NATO's 71 bombing of Belgrade. At the height of this there were supposed to be 100,000 dead Albanian Kosovans and at the end of the war they only found 20. Not 20,000 but 20!
Another Blair outrage.
Posted by: Fred Baker | October 13, 2006 at 22:33
Fred you are not seriously suggesting that Milosevic's ethnic cleansing and displacements was not happening are you?
It might fit your view of Blair to suggest it wasn't and Milosevic was an avuncular figure who was kind to kittens and puppys, the reality is rather different. To suggest otherwise is simply deluded.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 13, 2006 at 22:42
You need to do some serious research before you take me on. That ethnic cleansing took place before the Kosovo event.
The area has always been known as the Cockpit of Europe. The rights and wrongs only Serbs, Croats and Bosnians have a clue.
This little clip from 3 months before the WTC event:-
From the 'The Washington Times' June 22, 2001
"The rebels would have their big brothers in America - the same heroes who
led the NATO mission against their enemies, the Serbs - believe that the
violence they are now perpetrating in Macedonia is merely about protecting
minority rights. But the National Liberation Army (NLA), a splinter of the
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), also has another motive: It is fighting to
keep control over the region's drug trafficking, which has grown into a
large, lucrative enterprise since the Kosovo war. In addition to drug money,
the NLA also has another prominent venture capitalist: Osama bin Laden. The
Muslim terrorist leader, according to a document obtained by The Washington
Times and written by the chief commander of the Macedonian Security Forces,
puts out the front money for the rebel group through a representative in
Macedonia: 'This person is representative of Osama Ben laden sic , who is
the main financial supporter of the National Liberation Army, where up to
date he has paid $6 million to $7 million for the needs of the National
Liberation Army.'"
Posted by: Fred Baker | October 13, 2006 at 23:10
"Milosevic was an avuncular figure who was kind to kittens and puppys"
Milosevic was a thug, but certainly no worse than the criminals on whose behalf NATO bombed Serbian civilians.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 14, 2006 at 08:46
Always makes me laugh when civvies start talking military. you levels of ignorance beggar belief sometimes. Just to let you know, the situation with funding is far, far worse than you can possibly imagine, we are broke verging on bankrupt in the armed forces.
another fat for you to digest; with the deployment of CUMUKAMPHIBFOR, 800 Sqn and 3 Cdo Bde, 50% of all British forces in Afghanistan are ROYAL NAVY. So much for Army overstretch.
Posted by: G | October 14, 2006 at 09:54
Fred matey, you were obviously out on the ale after work last night.
Don't try and patronise me because you will get it back in spades.
You may wish to deny that genocide took place in the Balkans in the 90s. You will be in a very small deluded minority.
You also need to do a bit more research on drug traffic around the world, rather than believe everything you read in the press particularly the Washington Post. 80% of heroin traffic comes in through Turkey, but heroin is no longer the problem it is south american cocaine as it is conveted into crack.
Go and do some more google searches and stay off the ale on a Friday night.
Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 14, 2006 at 10:30
Glad to see that 'G' has brought the thread back to its subject.|
The “elephant in the room” factor is that our troops are put at risk ill-equipped for the task they have to do. The procurement policies of the MoD have been bedevilled by Tony Blair’s insistence that our defence procurement should be directed towards integration with the defence forces of the other EU members. This has squandered resources and resulted in critical gaps in armament.
To list some of the disastrous decisions shows the scale of the mismanagement: -
Scimitar replacement, Panther, Cobra radar, Trigat EU anti-tank missile, Multi-role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), Augusta transport EU design Helicopters, Storm Shadow air launched cruise missile , Eurofighter EU designed air-to-air missiles , Horizon EU standard frigate, EU designed Type 45 destroyers.
The total wasted money on these items alone is over £4 billion and this does not include the Eurofighter which has no ground-attack role and, so far, no air-to-air missiles either. The cost of these fighters is a massive £14 billion.
All could have been instantly supplied at considerably less cost ‘off-the-shelf’ from US sources. Meanwhile British troops are short of lift helicopters, attack helicopters, long-range air-lift capacity and adequate armoured transport. Lives are sacrificed for the dubious political goal of defence integration with uncertain allies in Europe.
Seen in this light General Darratt’s demarche can be seen as a smokescreen to cover up these deficiencies. Why has the Opposition not disclosed the true facts? I understand Liam Fox HAS but I have seen no fetails of what he said here or elsewhere.
Posted by: christina speight | October 14, 2006 at 10:52
Once you look beyond projects and see an infantryman with Kevlar helmet and hopefully Kevlar plates in his flak jacket, you hope he has suitable boots, a good rifle, and sufficient food and water and ammo to sustain him, maybe a radio-set and lots of backup.
Chances are his infantry units have been de-mustered to pay for cost overruns on projects, so when the firemen strike it is not a Eurofighter or a frigate called in to deal with it, but an infantryman.
When Northern Ireland burns, or someone wants cocktails served in Bosnia it is the infantryman who gets shunted there; then when a slip of the tongue of a generous PM invites him to go to Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever, it is another An-124 flight to somewhere else with Halliburton supposedly sending the kit on afterwards and EDS doing the payroll computer.
If the Romanians get the shirts in, the South Africans the charges for the guns, the French the ammo, and the Brasilians the boots, the "British " soldier might be able to get there.
How about raising another 2 battalions of Gurkhas ?
Posted by: ToMTom | October 14, 2006 at 11:10
TomTom - I'm relieved that someone else is kicking in about the scandal of sending our men to war unprepared.
Posted by: christina speight | October 14, 2006 at 12:38
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me
Tapestry, I don't think Iraq is lost. Indeed I think Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria have some thinking to do.
If Britain pulls out then the Sunnis will be cleansed from Iraq and forced into Saudi Arabia. The stability of Syria and Iran may well be compromised. Iran can cause trouble to the West in Iraq but cannot win there because it is hated.
The focus is now for Iraqi politicians to grow up and run a country. It should have an Army and a Police Force by now, instead it has an interior Ministry using Shia militias to murder and liquidate opponents.
This cannot continue without Western cover. It makes the insurgents look stupid. the British want to go but they are forced to stay by the insurgents.
I think these honest words from the C-in-C have been wonderfully refreshing and may help us resolve this witches'brew in Iraq.
Posted by: TomTom | October 14, 2006 at 14:35
"Iran can cause trouble to the West in Iraq but cannot win there because it is hated"
It is 18 years since the Iran Iraq war. Is this still the case?
Posted by: Fred Baker | October 14, 2006 at 15:06
Several Tory commentators (Portillo,Parris &Rifkind) calling for Dannett to be sacked for his unconstitutional comments. We'll see if Blair is brave enough.Personally I think he will prove to be far too craven to consider such a step and will try to spin his way out of trouble instead.Dannett will win some extra funding for the Army but what's going to happen in Iraq? Not much in the short term I think. Even though the situation there is terrible and getting worse I don't think either Blair or Bush have the first idea on what to do next. If something dramatic Happens in the US mid terms then perhaps we might see movement but apparently that is unlikely with relatively few seats forecast to change hands. It's a shame, for the first time in my life I will be hoping that the Democrats win and that the Republicans are given the pasting they so richly deserve for foisting people like Rumsfeld,Cheney and Wolfowitz upon us.
Posted by: malcolm | October 14, 2006 at 17:33
With friends like Portillo, who needs enemies?
Posted by: SophiaHagia | October 14, 2006 at 17:56
Dannatt's remarks will put more pressure on Bliar because it put withdrawal on the agenda, but Blair is in the way of this policy being developed. Labour MPs, many tricked into supporting the war, will want to get on with organising a withdrawal and will see Blair as being in the way, so they will want to get rid of him sooner rather than later.
Brown benefits from Dannatt's remarks because it gets him out of having to make more pro-Iraq statements. He did not want to go into Iraq but was given a choice, support of go to the back benches.
In recent weeks Brown has had to support the war because Cameron has become more anti-america, this has driven brown into a corner of giving Blair more support for this war.
I think Brown might have given a nod and a wink to Dannatt to speak his mind. Dannatt's remarks have damaged Blair and helped Brown.
If this is happening it is a disgrace, if our politics are being determined by the animosity between Blair and Brown it is irresponsible
Posted by: Julian Williams | October 14, 2006 at 23:06
I think Brown might have given a nod and a wink to Dannatt to speak his mind.
I think it more likely that George Bush did so................where do you make this rubbish up ?
This is the CGS - he is not involved in Govt - he is on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and liaises with the Prime Minister and Secretary of State - he does NOT work within the Govt machine unless you think Britain does not have civilian control of the Military.
Why do you obsess about Iraq ? What about Afghanistan. I wonder if the British Army even expended 450.000 rounds going into Iraq. They have a tougher foe in Afghanistan and fewer fighting men - either bring in Conscription or call on Volunteers - I bet there are loads of commentators just waiting for the call to go fight in Afghanistan...............or even Iraq.
Why not advertise for volunteers if we cannot afford real soldiers ?
Posted by: TomTom | October 15, 2006 at 07:26
"Several Tory commentators (Portillo,Parris &Rifkind) calling for Dannett to be sacked for his unconstitutional comments"
I guess they haven't noticed that Blair has spent the last ten years trashing the Constitution. Or does that not apply to politicians? In the circumstances I think Dannett's comments were completely reasonable and I support both his main points 100% - we need to leave Iraq to the Iraqis, and we need to defend our homeland.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 15, 2006 at 09:43
EAch time Portillo appears I feel heartfelt sympathy for Carolyn Eadie
Posted by: TomTom | October 15, 2006 at 15:47
Well if I may say so, we british aren't there in Iraq for executing Blair's orders. We totally execute the straight-from-the-top Bush. There is no England in Iraq!
Posted by: Newsman | August 22, 2007 at 16:43