How soon is soon?
It was a long long night for many at the Ministry of Defence, in Downing Street and with Team Blair in Scotland. A series of conference calls were held until the early hours of this morning to work out how to react to what . A junior staffer in Washington DC had to be repeatedly re-assured that the White House's involvement was not needed. Yes, the Brits did know just how serious this was!
The Head of the British Army has done his best to repair the damage this morning - insisting that there's no divide between him and his political masters. What he has not done, though, is withdraw or deny making any of the comments he made in . He told the Mail that we have to "get ourselves out [of Iraq] sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems". This morning on Radio 4 he went further saying "the fact that we are there leads people to attack us" (hear it here) . There was one qualification - namely that in some areas British soldiers were making things better.
In the Mail he said: "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." This directly contradicts what ministers have been saying. This morning he did not withdraw, amend or qualify this statement.
The question is what was he up to? "It was never my intention to have this hoo-ha," he told Radio 4's Jim Naughtie and I'm told that he was genuinely perplexed that what he regarded as a feature for the inside pages of the Mail has become headline news around the world. He's clearly a better soldier than a newsman because there were about four front page splashes in what he said!
"I'm not a maverick. I'm a soldier speaking up for his army," he insisted. My guess, and it can only be a guess, is that he is anxious that the Army is under political pressure to stay in Iraq for longer than is necessary - in part to avoid embarrassing the Americans who are operating to a different timetable. Why else did he say this morning "We need to keep thinking about time, because time is against us, because time is money [and because] time is, particularly, soldiers' lives"?
Furthermore, we know that he is worried about overstretch since in he warned: "We are running hot, certainly running hot."
This morning he went further still with an apparent warning that the Army might not exist in five or 10 years time.
When Tony Blair speaks this morning he will, no doubt, focus on the comment about withdrawing from Iraq "sometime soon" and will insist that that's what he hopes for to. What, I suspect, he will not address is the warnings about the state of the Army or that our presence in Iraq is making life worse both there and around the world. Let's see - not long to wait.
I'm 
Comments
Good on Sir Richard. It's always refreshing when someone in a senior position speaks their mind. If you did a survey now of who was well respected I bet Sir Richard and Jack Straw would come out quite highly for sticking their heads above the sandbags compared to the likes of Gordon Brown who was supposedly opposed to the Iraq war but didn't have the guts to stick up for his principles.
Nick
All the spin in the Blair-ite arsenal can't hide the seriousness (and accuracy) of Dannatt's comments.
We should all question if it's really possible for such an educated and worldly man not to have understood the likely response to his words.
When taken with the MOD's near silence on the large number of mobilephone video footage being sent home and published by in-theatre troops it's hard not to think that there's a concerted effort by the Military to counter the Government spin and bring our troops home soon.
Changing the subject only very slightly, I was somewhat surprised by the string of hosile comments made against you this morning by Lord Foulkes.
If there's a round two, in which you make him eat his widely inaccurate words, can you promise to televise it?
From his Radio 4 interview one could tell he was surprised at the reaction- because SO MANY OTHERS have been saying this as well. In the Army. In Whitehall. Heaven forbid, even in the US military (where three former Generals just came out to condemn current US policy).
One feels the General's opinion is merely the tip of an unspoken iceburg- kept silent by bonds of loyalty and tradition which means our soldiers generally stay out of anything that smacks of politics.
All of which suggests that the real story isn't that the Chief of the Army has said these words- it's why it took so long for them to say these words.
Because one thing can be said beyond speculation- within military circles it is clear that he isn't alone in expressing such views. An iceburg indeed.
Has it always been this way, senior members of the military making (whether intentional or not) derogatory remarks about government foreign policy?
I'm no expert but General Sir Richard Dannatt is.
He's just confirming what anybody with half a brain can already see, that Iraq is on the edge, if not already, in Civil war, and that if Coalition troops remain then they are going to be at even further risk than they are already.
my guess is the good general has been quietly complaining about the treatment of the armed forces and being ignored by politicos that know nothing about military matters (ie Blair and Brown)AND a MOD who care more about counting paperclips than soldiers lives.
For him to come out like this must mean our armed forces are in serious danger of cracking. We may have some of the best soldiers available but there are not many of them. They are wearing dangerously thin and not getting the support they deserve from a penny pinching government more interested in legacies and soundbites than bodies in bags.
What baffles me about the Iraq situation is why the so-called insurgents didn't just keep quiet for 6-12 months. Then the foreign troops would all have left, and the "Insurgents" would have had no foreign targets. Then no-one could accuse "Us" of causing the problems to continue.
No army in ten years? Who then is to defend us? Messers Pike and Mainwsring have seemingly never been more needed....
Thanks for this Nick. It puts it all into perspective and tells me that the media are in for a long bout of Blair baiting.
Nick
I retired from the Army in January after 36 years and have known Richard Dannat since we were Officer Cadets at Sandhurst together.
The fact is that the Army is totally overstretched. The planning for any operational commitment from our political masters is 3 times the force required: one force package in theatre, one that has just returned, and the third training to take over. The planned operational tour interval, which all soldiers are promised, is 24 months. For all infantry battalions it is currently 8-10 months. General Mike Jackson was specifically told by Geoff Hoon that he was not allowed to use the word ovsterstech when he announced the defence cuts in 2004 - the same day that the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff refused to give a single interview to the media. The Top Brass have been gagged. The reality is that the Armed Forces, and in particualrly the Army, are far too small to meet their current commitments. Therefore operational tours come around too soon, soldiers are voting with their feet and leaving, recruiting is very tight for unpopular wars and the essential training that maintains the standard to which the British public have become accustomed is falling. There is a dangerous threat of a downwards spiral. This is the background to Richard's comments that there will not be an Army in 5 years time. He is right. As you are well aware politicians have a 4 year horizon, and frankly they do not care for anything other than winning the next election. Soldiers have a far longer perspective upon lifre and the dangers our nation may face. As a servant to the nation, whose oath of allegiance is to HM The Queen, the Head of State and the Armed Forces, and not an elected politiocian, Richard is absolutely correct to highlight the very grave concerns that he has about the potential damage that the current overstretch is causing to the nations defences - particularly if the Government of the day are ignoring the advice that he and the other Chiefs of Staff might be giving. An error? A misunderstanding of the political fall out from this interview? I do not think so. Richard is a very intelligent man who has spent sufficient time working around politicians to know exactly what he was saying. The key thing is that he is a man of principal, and will stand up for the men and women of todays Armed Forces who have been overused and abused by a government who does not understand the military and has done so much in the last 9 years to subvert their miltary ethos, while happily riding on the coat tails of the Army's successes on the world stage. The reality is that there are large numbers of the Labour Government, led by Gordon Brown, who do not understand the military and are very jealous indeed of the public's very high regard that they have for their Armed Forces.
I still dispair at the way the 91热爆 misleads the public when it reports on what people have said.
Any person with an once of wisdom realises that what he said is common sense not some off the cuff political statement for the press to abuse.
Quite right we need to withdraw as soon as the situation is at a level wherby we can hand over to the Iraq security forces.
I do doubt that Iraq will stay a democracy and that "another" Hussain will appear in the aftermath of us leaving. Our only solution is to find an alternative to oil.
Why does it take a career soldier to finally expose the myth that terrorism and Iraq are not linked?
I think there is something else going on.
You report a couple of days ago about how Brown would like to be talking a different language about the war and terrorism and comment that "it would be incendiary for him to do so". Suddenly someone pops up and breaks the taboo to allow Gordon to do so.
Too much of a co-incidence for me
What Dannatt said originally was the truth as he saw it and I agree with him. Iraq is not THE primary reason for motivating jihadists, but certainly exacerbates existing ill-feeling towards the West - that is obvious. And I think that Dannatt is right in his assessment that the presence of UK forces is not for the good of Iraq. The General's subsequent comments are an illustration of how he has been reminded how politicised his post has become. Personally, if any one from the political administration start laying into Dannatt I would be most unhappy as professionals like Dannatt know what they are talking about and talk much less BS than the politicians involved who are merely concerned about their legacy!
This is certainly important news, and politically dynamite stuff.
What this courageous solider is saying is that we need to make important strategic choices NOW about what we are asking our armed forces to do around the world. We need to listen to what's he's saying and take it at face value, Politicians have wasted all there capital when it comes to Iraq.
Withdrawing from Iraq and re-deploying more resources to Afghanistan is a sound decision, we need to get the time-table for withdrawal, and the Americans need to understand the time has come to leave the Iraqis themselves to deal with security and political decisions in their country to them.
Isn't it rather sad that our "democracy" is so corroded that the Generals are stepping in? I thought this only happened in Burma, Pakistan, The Philipines (and sundry European countries e.g. until late last century Spain/Greece etc.)
What he is saying is sensible and probably right - but why aren't our MPs saying this and holding the executive to account?
I have a lot of sypathy for what the General has said but equally I am concerned that Sir Richard Dannatt is so keen to get involved in politics. As a Civil Servant he should be following the elected governments foreign policy not advocating his own, because the next step is the Generals advocating the governments 91热爆 policy and the step after that is Generals implemeting their policies (i.e. a coup). I know that is a bit dramatic, but leave politics to the politicans please, because we can vote them out if we don't like the policies.
Blairs authority is severely undermined by this outburst by the army head.Blair should quit as soon as possible to restore t his countries authority and credibility in the world.We cannot have an unelected military chief being seen to have more authority than the elected government.It is a dangerous situation
It is wonderfully refreshing to hear someone say what they really mean, especially when it tears down the artificial walls constructed by politicians, spin merchants and those who report their spin as undeniable fact.
Nick, it is a pity that someone like yourself could not have challenged the government in a similar fashion, rather than just reporting what our masters say. Is there anyone else out there who wants to take up the challenge issued by the head of the army, or will the government shoot the messenger and the story is then just allowed to blow over once more?
he has gone far beyond his remit as Chief of Staff and entered politics. The General was not elected and has absolutely no right to challenge an elected government. He is there to advise government and to ensure that those for whom he is responsible are dealt with properly. I am sure that he has many forums to raise his concerns and it is inappropriate, unprofessional and unbecoming for him to have given such a story to the press. He is obviously a poor appointment to the job and should do the honourable thing and resign. If not, he should be removed from his post. I dread the consequences if no action is taken - look at other countries around the world when military leaders do not agree with government.
What a strange way for the General to hand in his resignation.
A pretty straight sort of guy
Oh dear Nick, making the news again instead of just reporting it!
Everybody wants us to get out as soon as possible therefore what he said is not news.
A sensible person would assume that our presecce there may well exacerbate the terrorist problem BUT did NOT cause it. I've never heard a minister say anything different to that, so no news there either.
It may be news to some people that in some areas our troops are making things better. That's probably because the 91热爆 seldom reports such things - it seems that only bad news counts for you lot.
Could you please pass on my complaints to the "top" as I am fed up my licence fee funding such biased nonsense.
Nick,
Already, Downing Street has distracted us from the most damaging words from General Dannatt: that Blair's idea of establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq, was naive.
Downing Street wants us to focus on what 'withdrawing soon' really means, instead of on Dannatt's questioning the very purpose of our being there ('A shiny-bright democracy smack dab in the middle of the Middle East!')
Is there anyone more clever than Blair when someone tells the truth and their doing so makes life hard for him??!!
I hope that Sir Richard Dannatt is a better soldier than politician.
He uses the Daily Mail, of all papers, to enter politics. I presume that he will have no objections, now, to the politicians using another newspaper to tell him how to run the Army.
How does he think his views affect the USA? It may be fashionable to denigrate the USA at the moment. I have vivid memories of how they saved our skins during WW2. The way atomic capability is spreading they may be called on to do so again.
The man in charge of the army thinks we should come out of Iraq soon. But the US has an election for president that is two years' away. In spite of following the French to failure in Vietnam, the Americans still seem to believe in the kind of victory that, in the modern world, only comes in the movies. As a result, I suspect that the Republicans cannot be seen to climb down on Iraq for at least two years. That means two more years for the British in Iraq while facing heavy attacks regularly in Afganistan. No wonder they have put the troops' pay up, no doubt to try to keep as many as they can through re-enlistment when their time is up.
I believe, having recently returned from TELIC, that CGS is absolutely spot-on.
The British Army are overstretched in fighting wars / following the US (which tend to be the same thing) that a statement of such a proprietory nature from CGS is not only long-overdue but very good for morale.
More power to General Dannatt.
Tony Blair should disentangle himself from the Iraqi fiasco. He has to take stock of the reverberations of the mounting loss of lives in Iraq. British troops should be withdrawn in phases and Iraqis should take charge of their own country without any further delay. British military generals are now speaking out unreservedly and it would be wise for Tony to heed their advice. Iraqis should be trained within a set time frame and British troops should return home. The British public is indeed getting jittery. Tony has less than a year to rally the Labour faithful to believe in him again and give him a fitting farewell. He has done so much this last decade to resuscitate the Labour Party. So it is vital that Iraq does not become his Waterloo.
I suspect, as someone else has written, that the military have been telling the Government for a LONG time (probably pre Iraq) of the dangers of running down the military and adventurism. All this advice was ignored, and deep cuts made. This public pronouncmenet by CGS is a real wake up call for the Government, who sadly couldn't care less. Interestingly I have just read a novel set in about five years over a new attack on the Falklands and how cuts would make it impossible to recapture them as we did in '82. In that book too, the CGS ended going to the media. We can only hope both fact and fiction end in the same happy outcome; fall of the Government.
The people panicking about military intervention in politics might want to breath in to a brown paper bag for a while, and actually listen.
He was saying quite rightly that our forces are over-stretched ( the word very comes to mind at this point).
Maniacal laughter and a faux German accent, plus or minus cat at your discretion, were all distinctly lacking!!
More to the point are you aware of the powers this goverment have voted themselves? If it's juntaship you're looking for TB and gang are several steps closer than General Sir Dannatt!
And relax....
General Sir Richard Dannatt is demonstrating his strategic wisdom in the face of the the perceived political wisdom. It has long been known that an army fighting a war on more than one front is highly unlikely to succeed.
I believe Sir Richard wants to focus on Afghanistan which to him appears more achievable... and if he believes that the people of Iraq don't want a British presence thenthe obvious thing to do from a resource point of view is to take the troops from Iraq and reinforce those in Afghanistan.
We are in severe danger now... more potential future fronts appear to be opening up - Iran, North Korea.
There is a historical precedent. The Battle of Hastings was lost because King Harold had to fight off a viking invasion in the north, before marching his forces south to face William the Conqueror.
We need to make decisions now, as to which threats we prioritise. We don't have the resources to be the world's policeman.
I served 11 years in the RAF, made redundant despite having signed up for 22 years service. That was in 1996, and the Forces were stretched then. The Forces have always come last when it comes to funding; go back to the 1930s it was the same then. What politicians fail to realise is that if the Forces are treated badly, then they will find it difficult to recruit in the future. It is refreshing to see a senior officer making these comments, unlike his predecessor who was a great spin doctor for the MoD. Even better, get the Chancellor out in the field to experience the reality of the situation, rather than a safe photo opportunity miles from trouble.
Good on the General for speaking up. It is too easy to forget that British troops are simply people doing a job on our behalf. (I'm assuming that is how democracy is intended to work) They deserve a voice and it is refreshing to hear thier voice from their boss! More honest comment and less spin is good for democracy, anyway isn't that what we're building in Iraq?
As the head of the Army is able to make the same assessment as the average man on the street, why one earth is this big news?
Simply because we have a government doing its level best to persuade us to a point of view which bears no relation to truth.
Why should we be surprised by this soldier?
Or are we to be as new labour spins wants us, dumb and accepting of their outrageous behaviour over recent years.
Tony Blair continues to offer his belief and point of view as if it were absolute truth. We all know Mr Blair speaks belief and has trouble seeing the truth.
As to no army in 10 years. The army has long been seen as a place for people who care passionately about our country. As the army are abused, by political dogma鈥檚 not shared by most free thinking people, who would want to join it! Or do we go down the route national service and conscription?
Seems to me the Blair legacy is going to be with us a long time, may he live a long time to enjoy his beliefs and judgments in action over the coming years. I hope he really gets to understand what he has done and the harm to us all, the diverse and most often harmonious citizens of the UK.
I fully support the comments which the chief of staff has made reguarding the situation in Iraq. If anybody is in a position to make a statement about what is right for the military and it's soldiers then surely Sir Dannatt is as qualified as any. It is the right time to address the military occupation in Iraq and to accept that staying there will not halt the wheels of civil war which are already in motion. We should save our soldiers from being involved in a conflict which has now little to do with them.
At 12:55 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Liz wrote:
"he has gone far beyond his remit as Chief of Staff and entered politics. The General was not elected and has absolutely no right to challenge an elected government."
I see it the other way, when the elected government deliberately fails in its duty to protect the nation from foreign powers and criminals (the prisons are full, the army overstretced) then SOMEONE has to say something.
The crying shame is the the Tories seem to have forgotten what Opposition is about.
As a former RAF officer, I support CGS's comments wholeheartedly. It is about the time someone told the truth regarding this wretched enterprise. The General hold's the Queen's Commission which is signed by Her Majesty, as opposed to any patronage ministerial post or peerage in the grasp of Blair, granted for political obedience or financial donation.
The insistence by No 10 that all is well is costing lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan, just to preserve the illusion of a "legacy".
Nick.
What I don't quite understand is, if there was an MOD person in on the interview, why should the government be worried now? Surely they knew what he had said and were comfortable about it? The only thing they didn't know was how the media would turn some fairly innocuous comments into some front page headlines.
Furthermore, personally I don't think there is much that the government would disagree with. Yes, it is dangerous out there. Yes, we should get out as soon as possible.
So what??
Well, as of now, 14.30 BST, no direct comment from Tony Blair, Des Browne, Margaret Beckett (or Gordon Brown 鈥 now, wouldn鈥檛 that be interesting?) about General Sir Richard Dannatt鈥檚 comments. Its not often you find them all collectively so lost for words. If what Sir Richard said had been complete rubbish, or had little sympathy within the armed forces or around the country as a whole, it would have been easy to refute the comments and sack him. That this has not happened speaks volumes.
I was struck by a comment from a member of the audience in Thursday night鈥檚 Question Time. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of being in Iraq in the first place, he stressed that what was needed was a more positive attitude to what the UK has been attempting to achieve there. So much of the energy of the people of this country has been diverted into trying to get our government to admit its share of responsibility for the horrific situation in Iraq. If only they would do so 鈥 after all, it鈥檚 no secret, we all know it 鈥 perhaps this country could then re-direct its energies towards really helping the people of Iraq. Sir Richard stressed the time element. There is a limited amount left. Hopefully his intervention will help to focus minds on acknowledging the present situation for what it is and doing what can be done in that time.
Dear Nick
Once again we have to endure your excitable reporting of events and "inside knowledge" of what's going on inside No 10. "Hugh, this is going to be long night. They're spittign blood in there etc etc...".
The wider issue is more serious. You are part of a 91热爆 movement that actively and openly dislikes the Blair government, in particular, its Middle East policy. Ever since Hutton the 91热爆 has had an agenda driven by the desire for revenge for what it sees as a humiliating climbdown.
There is a suspicion that the 91热爆's reporting of the general's comments is partly (not whollY) aimed at destabilising the government, not at presenting the facts.
Nick Cohen in the Observer wrote of the 91热爆's growing reliance on commentary rather than facts and the uneven treatment given to those that the 91热爆 feels an affinity and those which it does not. He is right.
This was borne out this morning on the Today programme when Lt Tim Collins (speaking in support of the general's comments) was allowed to get away with a number of comments that went unchallenged.
The 91热爆 needs to return to serious news reporting and move back from seeing news as entertainment and worse, pursuing its own agenda.
Go on Sir Richard, initiate an army coup just like in Thailand, Pakistan and the old South America. Set a date for new proportianal representation elections to get rid of dictator Blair and have a new government that represents the people.
"Army boss"? (On the 91热爆 News Front page link to this blog)... What's wrong with 'Head of the British Army' or 'Army General'? There must be other, slightly less 'dumbed-down' ways of referring General Sir Richard Dannatt?
To those posters who mentioned the issue of the General contradicting "elected government"; As far as I can calculate from the published figures, there hasn't been a government since WW2 voted in by even half of the electorate - one came close, but several "scored" a lot less than that.
So no recent government can claim to "represent" the British people. And Tony (only elected as a constituency MP, not as "President") has used party loyalty as a club to browbeat other (elected) Labour MPs into voting for policies he wanted, but which they objected to.
So obviously he's not too concerned with democracy.
As for "whistle-blowers" - how exactly are the voters supposed to make rational electoral decisions if government is allowed to (mis)use "loyalty", and "security" to conceal its' conduct from us?
The Government isn't representative (check the numbers for yourself), and if it tries to hide "bad news" (which might actually influence their decision) from the electorate, then it's not behaving democratically either.
The reason that the general is so bemused at the story is precisely because the media have chosen to interpret what he said in a way that fits their own agenda (i.e. against the war and the government). When the general was being interviewed this morning and downplaying his remarks, the peevish tone of the 91热爆 reporter was unmistakable. It reminded me of the time another 91热爆 reporter practically browbeat Kofi Annan into using the word 'illegal' about the Iraq war. Shades of the reporter in 'Extras', if you ask me.
I would like to point out to those who feel that General Dannet should not be able to voice his opinions in this way, that everyone is entitled to free speech in this country. Infact, that is one of the rights that General Jackson and his subordinates have dedicated their lives to defending.
Are you saying that the only people who cannot speak freely are those who defend our right to do so?
Liking what the General said and forgeting the General's remit is manifested irreponsibility and possibly intellectual laziness. It does not matter whether he is telling the truth but is it his place to say it in the media?
Serving Generals are not policy makers in a democracy. Theirs is to advise and not pronounce themselves on Government policy. Anyone applauding this man should tell us whether they support quasi coups?
Maybe Nick, should become a politician, as a journalist he has the knack of saying just enough to stir up the debate, without making any differance whatsoever.
His insight into politics it seems is to change the course of government, be it Blair, whathisname oh! Cameron or anyone else.
Is is not? the role of reporters or correspondents to report, not to conject or to create, is the 91热爆 trying to become the Media version of the Sun or the Daily Star.
Come on Nick report and give opinions, dont get bigged down in a game of trash media.
Gen Dannatt has come out and said what needed to be said. Its time for the journalists like yourself Nick to get on side and support Gen Dannatt. If he had to resign or was sacked, it would be a sad day for the British army and for the country as a whole. He is a proffesional solider with the intrests of his men and his nation at heart.
All the press need to wake up, get on side with Gen Dannatt so we can all deal with the matter at hand, which is finishing our work in Iraq and getting our boys home. This can only be achived if we are all pulling in the same direction.
Liz, maybe the General has already raised his concerns with the Government and relevant Ministers on several occasions.
Maybe he's got so fed up with waiting, watching his men die in the field, whilst we have complete impotence from Blair and his Government, and utter inaction from the MOD as regards getting the Army out.
The General obviously feels that it's the time to say, "enough is enough" and let's get out NOW.
Beware, when the army try to dictate foreign policy its never good. How long until they try to dictate domestic policy as well, I seem to remember something happening in Thailand recently along thses lines.
I have recently left the TA after over 20 years service. In the past the silence of the High Command over the conditions for service personnel has either been put down to "working behind the scenes" or "not endangering their peerage and pension". I find it refreshing that a senior officer will "tell it like it is" in public. The New Labour spin has muddied the situation for too long.
I see at least one contributor here, Liz is asking for the general鈥檚 removal. The public need an informed debate about Iraq. However attacking any messenger that differs from the Blairite line seems to be the norm. No doubt Liz will get a vote of thanks from the Blairite machine.
It's also important for the politicians to take note of the fact that while the focus of his comments are about Iraq, there is the very serious underlying message of the army being overstreched, overcommitted and underfunded. We can't expect our army to continue in this fashion. They are a dedicated and professional force, who are committed to doing their jobs, but they are being placed in situations without adequate support or equipment.
And yes it is his position to bring this up in public as it seems the politicians are choosing to ignore what they are being told behind closed doors.
I can't really see what the fuss is about. Any fool could tell you that if you invade someone's country they will not be thrilled by the prospect. The amazing thing to me is how a government could possibly think that invading a muslim country would NOT produce increased terrorist attacks. The government merely puts out statements that no one listens to or takes seriously because they are clearly factually incorrect. Sir Richard is merely speaking an obvious truth (which is somethig that regularly eludes the political imbeciles sitting in their comfy chairs back home). Everyone knows this war is a crock of s*** and unsustainable because it has no military objectives and is completely political.
It all boils down to whether we believe and trust our elected politicians, or a professional who swears allegiance to HM The Queen.
Spin or truth.
Blair's desire to be seen as a world statesman, mindless of the fact that he can only do so hitched to Bush's coattails, has caused this shambles.
British soldiers are risking and many losing their lives, only because of Blair's ambition.
No other country commits so many of its resouces to battling terror and we pay a heavy price.
Why for example, are our soldiers holed up defending themselves in Afghanistan, when they were sent there to help in reconstruction?
We should send one or two senior Labour politicians to Afghanistan, to share the risks in Helmund Province and run a book on how long they are prepared to stay there. It would not be long.
I strongly disagree with several comments above and regard them as fear mongering nonsense. General Dannatt is not setting a precedent for a 鈥榗oup鈥 as labour policy-parroting partisans would have us believe, he is stating the obvious in a time of protracted warfare where military conscientious objectors abound - anyone remember the SAS soldier, Ben Griffin? Such 鈥榗oup鈥 nonsense serves only to distract.
Why do so many soldiers refuse their orders to serve in Iraq? I am not just speaking about British troops alone but American troops also. The answer is obvious. The MOD states we are at war 鈥渋n support of the democratically elected government of Iraq, under a clear UN mandate鈥 and with 鈥渁 clear strategy鈥.
Lets take a closer look at those assertions shall we?
The 鈥榙emocratic鈥 Iraqi govt. was created along sectarian lines, not political ones, whose members are 鈥榬emoved鈥 if they disagree with US interests, who recognise Sharia Law as a 鈥榝air鈥 judicial system and have no control over Iraq - control resides in the hands of militias, the US troops and Mullahs.
A 鈥榗lear UN mandate鈥? Does the MOD mean the war that was declared on a sovereign nation that did not possess WMD? The war that was needed because Britain was 鈥45 minutes鈥 from destruction? The war that was never approved by US Congress? The war that was (from Robin Cook鈥檚 memoirs) supported by Blair; 鈥渢o influence their [US] policy鈥, the war where, according to the Downing Street Memo, the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [US] policy?
As for 鈥榓 clear strategy鈥, it鈥檚 so clear tens of thousands of US and British troops are asking 鈥淲hy are we here?鈥 Could it be because of PNAC neoconservatives protecting Israeli interests i.e. a Zionist think-tank demanding Israel remains the dominant force in the Mid-East? Maybe you should read some of the letters PNAC sent President Clinton demanding a war with Iraq while Saddam was building infrastructure there? Then you can look at the signatories on those letters and compare them to the US administration in 2001. That鈥檚 why we saw a little of that policy in another war recently - the one with Lebanon!
Britain does not have 鈥榓 clear strategy鈥 anymore than the US, Britain is not in Iraq because of 鈥榙emocracy鈥, that鈥檚 pronounced hypocrisy. As for a 鈥楿N Mandate鈥 how do you say 鈥榗oalition of the bribed鈥? Bribed with black gold that is.
All this to allow the Zionist-controlled, Israeli-dominated US foreign policy to destroy the mid-east and allow Israel to dominate.
General Dannatt is spot on, get out of a debacle, leave the illegal war and protect our brave troops from war criminal politicians both side of the pond.
What bias?
Is there somewhere we can write to complain about people complaining about supposed 91热爆 bias? :)
Perhaps add a surchage to their licence fee?
Go back as far as the Putney Debates in 1647 and you hear soldiers asking "What has it all been for?"
The men and women serving in Iraq would be entitled to ask what their considerable sacrifice has achieved if they can see that in the long run their mission cannot succeed - that Iraq will slide back into civil war or a totalitarian regime.
As a good officer Sir Richard has the welfare of his people at heart and I for one applaud his comments. He accepts the right of the elected politicians to set the objectives but is reminding them that there are practical implications in the tasks they are being set. They need more personnel, more equipment, and clear instructions. They also need a rest now and again.
Well, at last a CGS who has the courage to speak out for the army. I can't think of one member of this government (and precious few on the opposition benches either) who has served in uniform. They have no idea of, or interest in, the armed services, other than when they can bask in their reflected glory! This government has committed troops to more active theatres than any since the 1950's, while at the same time cutting them back like an old garden hedge. Everyone knows they are overstretched, everyone knows they are under-resourced, but everyone tried to keep quiet about it, hoping that nobody else would notice. Bloody good show for General Dannatt, the man knows were his loyalty lies. It lies with his troops and the good of this country, not upholding a bankrupt political leader.
Tony Blair's government inherited much that was good in this country. It has overseen the destruction of goodwill towards the police service, the destruction of what was left working in the NHS, and now seems bent of destroying the best armed services in the world. Once all those left alive have resigned (and the recruitment rate is dropping) what then? Is this some sort of grand plan to take Britain back to a sort of "year zero" so that they can rebuild it in a fashion more to their liking? Or is it, as I suspect, a sign of just how hopelessly out of touch the government really is with reality? Whatever he may wish it to be, Tony Blair's legacy will always be the folly of Iraq, and the way things are going, it is a legacy that will be written in the blood of British troops in the sand. I would use the old line about lions led by donkeys, but I have rather a soft spot for donkeys!
If the General really wanted to make a point of this then surely he should have resigned. Now that would actually have been news worthy.
The General himself told 91热爆 Breakfast this morning the his comments were being taken out of context. Another example of the media (you especially Nick) creating news rather than reporting it.
Dannatt is only saying what most people already feel. iraq was a huge blunder and will be judged so by history. Never mind public services, Tony's premiership will always be remembered for his disastrous foreign policy. The words Eden and Suez spring to mind...
Having been a former member of HM's Royal Navy I have looked on with growing horror and disgust at the way the armed forces (all of them) have been treated by this government.
Every time they are thrown into combat the return to face ever more cuts, only to be sent out again.
This government has done to the forces what the Tories did to the NHS during the 80's and 90's. It needs to stop and fast.
Our lads are the best in the world bar none, but there aren't enough of them and their equipment is generally speaking, a load of junk. The armed forces are hanging on by their fingernails and if the pressure is not released soon they will fall. I'm just glad I am out of it, I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like watching this travesty unfold whilst serving in the field.
Well played this General for speaking his mind, it's about time someone at the top level did.
At last a leader with the appropriate attributes - intelligence, moral fibre, integrity and a backbone. Politicians please take note - these are leadership qualities.
I don't believe he is dabbling in politics - just doing his job in fighting the Army's corner against politicians who are more than prepared to commit troops to do jobs in dangerous situations but who will not provide the funding or support to enable them to do those very jobs.
The situation must indeed be parlous for CGS to come out and say these things - clearly ministers were not listening to him. At last...
So Iraq is news again at last. Amazing that the occupation has been put on the back burner for so long. For weeks, we have had the fuss about Blair/ Prescot handover as if that was the most pressing problem of the day. I reflect on the headlines of the last few weeks and seem to recall that most days we have also had news of explosions killing civilians including many women and children, members of one religious group or another, security forces, reporters and of course troops. One of the reasons that the political establishment seems to so misunderstand how muslims feel is that they seem obsessed with petty politics when muslim countries are in turmoil following western intervention. Blair, Bush and even Cameron have all had an easy ride about Iraq. Maybe now they will realise they not only have a lot of explaining to do but they have the fate of a people in their hands. Its not about saving faces its about saving real people from the misery we have in part brough upon them.
Would someone set out a complete statement of the facts please?
This sounds like a coup by some Daily Mail reporters at an elegant club, late at night, with the CGS rather more 鈥渕ellow鈥 than he should have been in view of his company.
It appears to be so unbelievably stupid that one hopes it arises out of some such situation.
This man is a soilder, used to conveying orders and instructions in simple language that can be understood and repeated down the chain of command. Our politicians speak in riddles and code in their sound bites so that they can say things but deny having said them. It is unfair to treat either the original written interview or this mornings interview with the same forensic analysis that is reserved for our esteemed leaders. Take what he has said as face value. We are under pressure; in places we make the situation worse just by being there. When we are not helping we should be leaving.
Our politicians seem to believe that saving face if more important than saving soldiers lives. With the exception of Jack Straw and occassionally David Blunkett (neither of whom I agree with politically) I do not trust that a word that comes out of our government that does not have a hidden meaning or agenda. Good on you Sir Richard and I hope that when they give you the bullet you take up arms in your local constituency like Martin Bell did and give them all a bloody nose (figuratively of course)
If the top General of the army says that we kicked the door in to Iraq and the majority of people in this country believe it too why wont the Prime Minister??? You can fool the some of the people ......etc.
Politicians, and often senior businessmen, rely on spin and dissembling in order to control and put their own slant on a particular situation such that they are seen in a positive light. Naval and military personnel are taught to assess a situation and say exactly what they see and believe and not what someone else wants to hear. The General is saying exactly what he sees is the root of the problem and is, in fact, thinking in the best interests of the service personnel under his command and not what politicians and civil servants might be relied upon to say based on their view of the situation from the safety of their ivory towers in London. Well done General Dannatt. We need more open and honest people providing information to the public and the electorate and not pr-driven statements.
When I first heard the General's remarks it occured to me that he has given Gordon Brown a very good set of logistical and financial reasons to modify, if not wholly change, the Government's policy on Iraq without getting into an awkward ideological debate if and when he takes over from Blair. Politics' mysterious ways?
If you really believe in the truth then just reprint what General Sir Richard Dannatt said in the original Daily Mail interview and let people judge for themselves.
You are filters that no one needs.
Journalism at its worst.
For Jim and Liz who seem so worried by the General's comments: There was a time when senior service chiefs would not have been nearly so reluctant to speak out as has been the case in recent years. You should be pleased that this principled and intelligent man is prepared to articulate his concerns and provide us with the re-assurance that someone in authority has the real measure of the situation. His concerns for the future of the British Army are of huge importance and affect us all, so why should they be silenced? Frankly, if you prefer to be deceived by New Labour rather than hear the truth from an honest man, you deserve being misled and kept in ignorance.
Pragmatically speaking, we need either a larger and better-funded armed forces, or the government must become accustomed to doing less militarily, and the loss of international influence - whether real or perceived - that this brings.
Successive administrations have squeezed the forces until the pips now squeak - the RAF for example now has half the number of personnel it did in 1994 - and yet there are more and larger commitments than ever.
Who - particularly in a Labour government - will have the courage to increase the size of our armies? This only leaves the option of conducting smaller or fewer campaigns.
When TB says "not a cigerette paper twix the General's views and mine" does he include his and his cabinets willingness to discuss the issue?
Time after time they say the public is not interested in this issue. Perhaps the General believed them and is genuinely suprised at the interest the public have in this issue and, therefore, the hoo-ha he has created.
Once again the media has distorted and sensationalised what were honest and common sence comments completely in accord with UK policy.
We expect it from Murdoch and his kind but we were brought up to expect more from the 91热爆.
Please accept Hutton's findings were correct and try reporting in an honest and balanced way.
As a serving officer, the strangest part of this debate is how much attention it has seized. The government and MoD have repeatedly said that we are now part of the problem (we provide the target for the insurgents). Despite that, we cannot simply leave; we are making good progress (2 out of 4 Provinces in the UK area now handed back to Iraqi security forces). The plan is to have handed it all back by early next year and then withdraw to much-reduced levels. Nothing has changed.
Maybe the controversy shows how poorly this has been communicated, or how little the media are interested in portraying the truth, rather than headline-grabbing images of destruction that exaggerate the situation. No-one is saying that Iraq is a bed of roses but where are the news articles covering the progress of democracy and essential services?
General Sir Richard has made an excellent start as CGS (with big shoes to fill) - he is clearly sticking up for the Army and that is excellent for morale. Maybe the politicians will start listening to him.
As to the coverage last night, what hyperbole! As General Sir Richard said today, he said nothing new but it was, indeed, a strange choice of newspaper to grant an interview to. The 91热爆 reporting though was ridiculous - it may have been unusual for such a frank interview to be given (although CGS is getting a well-respected reputation for his candour) - but there was nothing new in it...
After Blairs comments this afternoon does this mean that he is such a "Lame Duck Prime Minister" that anyone can say anything they want about him and his policies confident that he will not retaliate but simply agree?
Sad day for Blair and British politics
I read the comments down to the point at which a civil servant suggests that the General stays away from politics and lets politicians 'do the politicing'.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
For all its faults (and it has some) our military succeeds in spite of our politicians, whether red or blue.
And, frankly, I rather fancy the idea of a military man running this country. You would at least find - probably - a little bit of integrity at the top of the pile.
Nick,
I have just read through the comments on this blog and am left with the feeling that virtually all of the contributors never read the full text of this officers comments. A soundbite is a dangerous thing!
I cannot see how this officer can be seen to be interfering in the political process, after all on the question of Iraq there is no discension between the two main parties. Both Labour and Conservatives were and are in favour of being there.
The idea that somehow this further endangers the position of the PM is laughable. The only people who can unseat the PM are in his own party, and they seem to be afraid that infighting will cause them to loose the next election. Blair may have lost all authority but the lust for power will ensure he keeps his job.
To all those who fear a military coup, I would just point out that all of our military are tied up elsewhere - which I believe was the point the CGS was making. It is not the military who are letting down the politicians, rather the other way round.
I think if he was trying to change our foreign policy he would be best advised to talk to Condi, after all it is not the tail that wags the dog.
As always certain elements in the media distort open and honest comments given in an interview by ignoring the bits that it doesn't want to hear to manipulate the story in the way that it sees fit. An open and honest person is forced to clarify what was said even though it was perfectly clear when they first said it and ultimately the next interview will be less open and honest. People may not trust the government, what I fail utterly to understand is why they continue to trust the media.
Bush was in too much of a hurry to invade Iraq, doubtless because he wanted to succeed where his father failed. Blair managed to slow Bush down but ultimately we are loyal to the U.S. for many reasons.
I supported Blair all the way but it must be quite obvious to all of us that our presence in Iraq has become counter productive and since we now have valid reasons for extricating ourselves with honour from our very own Vietnam dilemma we should negotiate with Bush for a speedy and honourable joint withdrawal. Let the U.N. clean up the mess we made. That is what the U.N.are for.
If Blair and Bush refuse to face facts they stand exposed to the world as stubborn boys who will not pick up their ball and go home (while they can) They may not have a ball left if they don't!
I left the Army in 95 because in the eight years I was in they cut the budget every single year. It doesn't take a high IQ to work out why: they simply did not care, and nothing seems to have changed, to my knowledge it has been cut every year since. You don't get to be CGS by being thick, so anything he said he meant to say: and right on as far as I'm concerned.
He wants an army in 10 years time: so do the Blair government; an incy whincy one that cost the least amount of money to maintain. Ironic when you concider the amount of cash they have poured into the police and internal security forces: it's getting to the point where we will have more armed police officers than soldiers: remember G8 in Scotland 12,000 police officers to run the corden, that's 4,000 more than they sent to fight the war and says just about everything you need to know about the intent of this government.
The P.M. should not try to spin his way out of the truth told to us by General Sir Richard Dannatt.
It is clear that we have done all we can and the situation can only get worse from here if we stay.
I worry that the fanatical political leaders of Blair and Bush might accept a military debacle in Iraq to use as an excuse to strengthen and lengthen the stay.
Given the twisted rational for war and extreme, personal and presidential ambitions we see, perhaps that thought isn't as perverse as it seems.
Dannat is the man we should have in Government, Its been a long time coming when a person in his position has taken this very brave and honourable act of telling the truth.
we should demand that he be honoured with a knight hood. I am sure that the knives will be out as they are for all that tell the truth.
I wonder if General Sir Richard Dannatt will share the same fate as Dr. David Kelly ? Perhaps Nick or Jeremy Paxman could interview Alastair Campbell and ask his opinion.
dismayed to hear so many politicians come out and attack Gen Dannatt - how dare they call into question the loyalty or authority to speak of a man who has proven his worth under fire!
How dare they!
This man recieved the MC for his gallantry in the service of our country, his son is also a commissioned officer - I would trust his word far better than any failed barrister or career politician, whose life and family do not depend on their contrived lies and spin.
Thank God Lord Montgomery was the leader of the British Army in WW2 and not someone like Sir Richard Dannett - Sir Winston Churchill would have sacked him without any hesitation.
Sir Richard Dannetts comments will encourage the insurgents to increase their murderous campaign and that will cost our soldiers their lives, I find it hard to view his comments as anything other than a political attack against Tony Blair and the USA, why else would he have used the Daily Mail.
One has to question Sir Richard Dannetts ability to comprehend the consequence of his actions as I am sure we will all soon discover at our cost.
His thoughts should have remained private, confidential and for the ears of the Prime Minister only.
It seems as though the nation is suffering from MEMORY LOSS, am I imagining it or wasn't Saddam slaughtering tens of thousands of Kurds with CHEMICAL WEAPONS and wasn't Saddam firing SCUD MISSILES INTO ISRAEL and wasn't it Saddam who ATTACKED KUWAIT.
Am I the only person who believes Saddam would have a NUCLEAR BOMB by now if it wasn't for the UK and USA invading Iraq when they did.
Perhaps we should have waited for the UN to have solved the problem (no hope of that ever happening), the UN and Sir Richard Dannett have a lot in common, they are actually making the situation worse.
B B Doris (66) 13/10/06 writes.
鈥淵ou can fool some of the people.....etc.鈥
True. The Tories and their media organisations have succeeded in using Iraq to denigrate the PM.
In the course of time people will realise.
(a) The Tories voted for the war on the basis of exactly the same facts as those available to the PM.
(b) The wrong hands in control of the Middle East, before we have developed alternative power supplies, would be able to put our industries onto a one day week at the turn of an oil valve.
The CGS is likely to discover, in the course of time, that he could have done better than use the Daily Mail as his introduction to politics.
Politicians and the news media seem to be surprised and shcoked that General Sir Richard Dannatt commented in public about the deployment and various aspects of HM Armed Services in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It should be remembered that the Chief of the General Staff, like all HM Service personnel, swears allegiance to the sovereign which , despite powers assumed under the Royal Prerogative, cannot be vicariously transferred to politicians. He , therefore, has a right and duty to speak out about military matters .