the army vs the labour party

[Lo Siento.]

Bullshit. I'm a member of the TA, it doesn't stop me voicing a personal opinion, DIN instruction withstanding. In my career as a regular I had a couple of occasions to turn round and tell a superior officer to go fuck themselves because they were asking me to carry out illegal acts (not in such impolitic words ). It is essential in a democratic environment that people should be able to speak up for what they believe, whether they are in office or not. If they are enforced to silence then it allows for excesses to remain hidden. To follow your chain of thought would mean thet that the human rights abuses in Iraq would not have come to light.

Criticising illegal acts is different from criticising government policy. Members of the TA are different for the Head of the Army.

 

[mistere]

So what happens if a government makes an order to the Army that is illegal? If they decide to use the Army or to break a strike or put down a civil uprising? Should no comment be made? You are trying to impose a ridiculous standard that assumes that the Government are always going to act honourably, something we already know to be preposterous.

It's the difference between the legality of the use of force and going to war and the legality of particular acts within war. Soildiers have both a right and a duty to refuse orders that are against the laws of war (executing covilians or prisoners, torture, etc); however soldiers (including officers and even generals) have no right to make decisions about when to use force. It's hardly an ideal situation but any concept of governmental control of the armed forces is based upon it. And the Nuremburg Trials reinforced the principle (which is actually much older) that soldiers can be prosecuted for following orders to kill civilians; but no German soldier was ever prosecuted for invading Poland, only the political leaders are seen to be responsible for those decisions.

 

[Bakunin]

Criticising illegal acts is different from criticising government policy. Members of the TA are different for the Head of the Army.

I think you'll find the military rules that apply regarding contact with the media are applied regardless of rank. IIRC, Standing Orders state clearly that no serving member of the armed forces, regardless of rank, may communicate with the press in any way without having had clearance to do so from their superiors. Even Sir John Hackett, an Arnhem veteran who was at the time commander of the British occupying forces in West Germany, narrowly escaped court martial by having written to The Times about Soviet re-armament (and our respnse thereto) in his capacity as a NATO general.

So, we can assume that Dannatt has had clearance to speak to the Press, which rather negates your criticism of him, it's just that he's saying things that aren't favourable to our current political elite, that's all.

 

[agricola]

It follows for the first two institutions, and not the latter. Only those two have the capacity to overthrow the government, therefore only those two should be bound by the basic rule that the army does not interfere in politics.

Rubbish. As an aside, I take it - though doubt it given that you are parroting the anonymous line taken by some Labour MPs - you would equally challenge the likes of Stirrup and numerous ACPO-ists and (former) Commissioners of Police when they back Government policy, given that they are "interfereing in politics"....

Dannatt is making the criticisms as a representative of the army, thus in doing so the army is taking sides in a political dispute. This is dangerous territory.

He is criticizing Government policy - and I will underline this so you can definately see it - relating to the Army. There is no "dangerous territory" discovered when you see the head of the Army speaking about Army matters. If he was saying that unwed mothers should be shot, or that joyriders should be fed to sharks, I would agree with you.... but he is commenting on policy about which he is considerably more informed than government ministers.

 

[MikeMcc]

Criticising illegal acts is different from criticising government policy. Members of the TA are different for the Head of the Army.

In what way? We're both public servants. At what point does a policy become illegal? In the lead up to the Iraq invasion the CGS demanded legal qualification form the Attorney General, which we know now was bullshit. Should folk resign because the captain in charge of them asked them to steal kit?

What happens when the government refuse to fund the kit required to preseve life and limb? In a civvy company the comapany gets taken to court for failing to provide safe systems of work. This is difficult for the military because thay are deliberately put into situations where there is a risk of fatality or serious injury. Yet the Army Medical Services are running at an average of 25% under strength (NO neuro-surgeons, grossly under strength on ICU nurses and other surgeons), 70% of the AMS in Afghanistan is drawn from the reserves, including a couple of mates of mine.

What you are recommending is ridiculous, it's not right democratically or morally.

 

[MikeMcc]

It's the difference between the legality of the use of force and going to war and the legality of particular acts within war. Soildiers have both a right and a duty to refuse orders that are against the laws of war (executing covilians or prisoners, torture, etc); however soldiers (including officers and even generals) have no right to make decisions about when to use force. It's hardly an ideal situation but any concept of governmental control of the armed forces is based upon it. And the Nuremburg Trials reinforced the principle (which is actually much older) that soldiers can be prosecuted for following orders to kill civilians; but no German soldier was ever prosecuted for invading Poland, only the political leaders are seen to be responsible for those decisions.

I'm one of the converted in this respect!

 

[mistere]

I think you'll find the military rules that apply regarding contact with the media are applied regardless of rank. IIRC, Standing Orders state clearly that no serving member of the armed forces, regardless of rank, may communicate with the press in any way without having had clearance to do so from their superiors. Even Sir John Hackett, an Arnhem veteran who was at the time commander of the British occupying forces in West Germany, narrowly escaped court martial by having written to The Times about Soviet re-armament (and our respnse thereto) in his capacity as a NATO general.

So, we can assume that Dannatt has had clearance to speak to the Press, which rather negates your criticism of him, it's just that he's saying things that aren't favourable to our current political elite, that's all.

That's hardly a reasonable assumption, who would be giving clearance given the clear wishes of the government that he should not be speaking out? Unless it's from within the armed forces which simply shifts the issue to someone else (presumably more senior in rank, Sir Jock Stirrup I would imagine being the only person capable of giving that clearance) but retains the problem of the power of the armed forces over the government. I would suggest that it's more likely that given the popularity of what he's saying and his support by the press the government have decided that attempting to prosecute him for speaking out without permission would turn him into a martyr. As I said earlier, I happen to agree with his comments but having a senior army officer make public comments either opposed or supportive of political decisions made by the government is worrying. Out of interest, if he was arguing that we should not be in Afghanistan but that Iran is a serious threat that we should consider invading (given his obvious expertise that you commented on earlier), and if he was widely supported by the press would you be as sympathetic to him?

 

[MikeMcc]

That's hardly a reasonable assumption, who would be giving clearance given the clear wishes of the government that he should not be speaking out? Unless it's from within the armed forces which simply shifts the issue to someone else (presumably more senior in rank, Sir Jock Stirrup I would imagine being the only person capable of giving that clearance) but retains the problem of the power of the armed forces over the government. I would suggest that it's more likely that given the popularity of what he's saying and his support by the press the government have decided that attempting to prosecute him for speaking out without permission would turn him into a martyr. As I said earlier, I happen to agree with his comments but having a senior army officer make public comments either opposed or supportive of political decisions made by the government is worrying. Out of interest, if he was arguing that we should not be in Afghanistan but that Iran is a serious threat that we should consider invading (given his obvious expertise that you commented on earlier), and if he was widely supported by the press would you be as sympathetic to him?

No Bakunin is correct. Strictly speaking I'm breaking Military Law by posting about military matters on this site (it also includes the ARRSE site!). Dannatt is above the regulations because he is the delegated legal authority to impose those regulations. He doesn't need to get permission for anything, he is his own authority. I would suppose that he got his planned comments reviewed though, but only 'in house'.

 

[agricola]

As I said earlier, I happen to agree with his comments but having a senior army officer make public comments either opposed or supportive of political decisions made by the government is worrying. Out of interest, if he was arguing that we should not be in Afghanistan but that Iran is a serious threat that we should consider invading (given his obvious expertise that you commented on earlier), and if he was widely supported by the press would you be as sympathetic to him?

If he is making comments within his immediate sphere of interest, then no it is not worrying, or at least any more worrying than seeing an NHS head / Chief Constable / head of NR make similar comments. If he was avocating invading Iran, then you might have a point - but he isnt.

 

[mistere]

Rubbish. As an aside, I take it - though doubt it given that you are parroting the anonymous line taken by some Labour MPs - you would equally challenge the likes of Stirrup and numerous ACPO-ists and (former) Commissioners of Police when they back Government policy, given that they are "interfereing in politics"....

I can't comment for Lo Siento but as I said earlier, the reason I oppose Dannatt's speaking out (even though I think that his comments are correct) is precisely the same reason that I oppose Ian Blair speaking out on terrorism legislation (where I strongly disagree with him). The head of the police, whatever his expertise, should not be speaking out on controversial aspects of government policy with respect to the police UNLESS asked to do so by a Commons Select Committee. The head of the army should not be speaking out on controversial aspects of government policy with respect to the armed forces unless similarly asked. Sadly a democratic society needs a degree of consistency in this type of issue, either they have the right to speak out (a reasonable position in some respects) or they don't; but they can't have the right to speak out when you happen to agree with them and be condemned as politicising the debate when you don't.

To reverse the question for you, given that I've given a clear answer, would you support "the likes of Stirrup and numerous ACPO-ists and (former) Commissioners of Police when they back Government policy, given that they are "interfereing in politics"....", given that you support Dannatt?

 

[MikeMcc]

I can't comment for Lo Siento but as I said earlier, the reason I oppose Dannatt's speaking out (even though I think that his comments are correct) is precisely the same reason that I oppose Ian Blair speaking out on terrorism legislation (where I strongly disagree with him). The head of the police, whatever his expertise, should not be speaking out on controversial aspects of government policy with respect to the police UNLESS asked to do so by a Commons Select Committee. The head of the army should not be speaking out on controversial aspects of government policy with respect to the armed forces unless similarly asked. Sadly a democratic society needs a degree of consistency in this type of issue, either they have the right to speak out (a reasonable position in some respects) or they don't; but they can't have the right to speak out when you happen to agree with them and be condemned as politicising the debate when you don't.

To reverse the question for you, given that I've given a clear answer, would you support "the likes of Stirrup and numerous ACPO-ists and (former) Commissioners of Police when they back Government policy, given that they are "interfereing in politics"....", given that you support Dannatt?

I would agree with them speaking out, though I might slag off their comments if I disagreed with them, that's debate.

 

[agricola]

To reverse the question for you, given that I've given a clear answer, would you support "the likes of Stirrup and numerous ACPO-ists and (former) Commissioners of Police when they back Government policy, given that they are "interfereing in politics"....", given that you support Dannatt?

Yes. People who are in charge of institutions like that should always be able to publicly comment on those institutions and the Government policy that relates to them. Nor can I see any democratic problem with them doing so. The problem comes when the State praises those individuals to comment positively, but attacks those that comments negatively.

 

[agricola]

The Observers take on things, which is remarkably damning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/19/gordon-brown-generals-fallout-afghanistan

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Is there a case for taking the government to court for negligence? (serious question, I know the moral case is overwhelming)

 

[Das Uberdog]

Lo Siento, the Labour Party legitimise the political views of the army by opportunistically referencing their own take on them in order to justify their military campaigns. If the Labour Party come out claiming that they're following certain policy initiatives 'in the interests of troops' or as a result of pressure campaigning for the army (which they do on a regular basis) then it's not only the right, but the duty of the army to express publically what their position actually is.

What you're asking in practice is that the ruling party are able to make up public bullshit about the opinions of military figures without those figures having the right of reply - that's fucking bogus.

If you want to keep the army out of policy, tell the fucking Labour Party to stop referencing their voices as justification for said policy.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

labour do that because they are treacherous scum who think we are as thick as pigshit, and don't give much of a fuck how many die. Their moralising patronising attitude is nauseating beyond belief. I will laugh like a drain when so many of these filth are hoofed out.

 

[gosub]

Is there a case for taking the government to court for negligence? (serious question, I know the moral case is overwhelming)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6537095.ece

 

[Lo Siento.]

Rubbish. As an aside, I take it - though doubt it given that you are parroting the anonymous line taken by some Labour MPs - you would equally challenge the likes of Stirrup and numerous ACPO-ists and (former) Commissioners of Police when they back Government policy, given that they are "interfereing in politics".

Yes, I equally challenge that, under exactly the same principle. You don't have to be a government supporter to see that the army interfering in public policy is a bad thing and I'm not.

He is criticizing Government policy - and I will underline this so you can definately see it - relating to the Army. There is no "dangerous territory" discovered when you see the head of the Army speaking about Army matters. If he was saying that unwed mothers should be shot, or that joyriders should be fed to sharks, I would agree with you.... but he is commenting on policy about which he is considerably more informed than government ministers.

Look, give me more money for the war in Afghanistan is not simply an intervention on an 'army matter', because the government has a limited budget. It's not just 'magic more money for the army from nowhere', it's take the money out of the budget for something else. It is essentially an attempt to escalate our commitment to the war in Afghanistan. That is broader than 'army matters'. More than that, supplies for the war in Afghanistan were already an issue in the House of Commons, before he intervened. He's weighed in on a side of the debate established by politicans.

 

[Lo Siento.]

In what way? We're both public servants. At what point does a policy become illegal? In the lead up to the Iraq invasion the CGS demanded legal qualification form the Attorney General, which we know now was bullshit. Should folk resign because the captain in charge of them asked them to steal kit?

What happens when the government refuse to fund the kit required to preseve life and limb? In a civvy company the comapany gets taken to court for failing to provide safe systems of work. This is difficult for the military because thay are deliberately put into situations where there is a risk of fatality or serious injury. Yet the Army Medical Services are running at an average of 25% under strength (NO neuro-surgeons, grossly under strength on ICU nurses and other surgeons), 70% of the AMS in Afghanistan is drawn from the reserves, including a couple of mates of mine.

What you are recommending is ridiculous, it's not right democratically or morally.

Because government funding kit is not a matter of liability or right or wrong. It's a budget decision. There's a limited amount of money, and the money we give to the army doesn't go into other areas of public policy. Carrying out illegal acts leaves soldiers liable to prosecution and open to committing war crimes.

What I'm talking about is not ending all debate about army matters, let's face it Dannatt has a wide array of options for getting his message out about equipment shortages. He's doubtless got lots of retired military friends who could make the same criticisms without placing themselves in the same position. He can approach the government directly, he could resign and make these criticisms that way. He's currently doing so in his uniform as the Head of the Army, his position makes that wrong.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Pinochet was Commander in Chief before the coup in Chile.

I take it you have at least a limited understanding of the contingent nature of the word "usually"?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

He does a good facepalm.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree, one of the major and most serious criticisms of Ian Blair was that he took on an overtly political role, asking for more powers and supporting government policy on terrorism and the like. The fact that Dannatt might be correct and that I happen to agree with him doesn't change the fact that in his position he should not be taking a public position on government policy (either against, in his case, or for, in Blair's case). If he wants to make comments like he has been then he should do so to the government in private, or he should resign his commission and make them in public (but only after resigning) or he can make them to the Commons Select Committee on Defence if he is called as a witness; rather than giving interviews to the press and making public comments.

The government can't have it both ways. They (and their tory predecessors), more than anyone, were responsible for politicising the policy and the military. Now they're (rightly or wrongly) reaping what they sowed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

resign then. If it outrages him so much, resign. You do it in a general's uniform, you do it as a representative of the armed forces, not an individual. As a private individual of expertise he's entitled to all the opinions he wants, not as the head of the army. Comes with the job.

As head of the army he's entitled to hold and voice any opinion he likes that serves the interests of those he's directly responsible for.

 

[agricola]

Look, give me more money for the war in Afghanistan is not simply an intervention on an 'army matter', because the government has a limited budget. It's not just 'magic more money for the army from nowhere', it's take the money out of the budget for something else. It is essentially an attempt to escalate our commitment to the war in Afghanistan. That is broader than 'army matters'. More than that, supplies for the war in Afghanistan were already an issue in the House of Commons, before he intervened. He's weighed in on a side of the debate established by politicans.

That is not what he has been arguing with them over though. The Government has repeatedly, including as late as several weeks ago, said that the Army will get what it needs to do the job in Afganistan. They have clearly failed to do that, as even John Hutton admits here. General Dannatt should not be criticized for pointing this out, indeed it is his job to do so.

 

[Lo Siento.]

As head of the army he's entitled to hold and voice any opinion he likes that serves the interests of those he's directly responsible for.

fuck it. Why not just have a military dictatorship, seeing as army officers are beyond reproach.

 

[Lo Siento.]

That is not what he has been arguing with them over though. The Government has repeatedly, including as late as several weeks ago, said that the Army will get what it needs to do the job in Afganistan. They have clearly failed to do that, as even John Hutton admits here. General Dannatt should not be criticized for pointing this out, indeed it is his job to do so.

eh? Dannatt asked for more helicopters and more troops, ie. to escalate the war.

 

[agricola]

eh? Dannatt asked for more helicopters and more troops, ie. to escalate the war.

What utter shite. He asked for what they said they were going to give him, but have failed to do so.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I take it you have at least a limited understanding of the contingent nature of the word "usually"?

I gave you another example lower down the thread – Walker plotting in the UK. I'll give you a third:

Argentina, 1976, coup led by Commander-in-chief General Videla, supported by the leaders of the Navy and Air Force. A united front of top brass.


How many more do you want?

 

[Lo Siento.]

What utter shite. He asked for what they said they were going to give him, but have failed to do so.

When did they say they'd give it to him? There's a balance between public finances and what general want to do the job. Tell the politicians what you need and they make the decisions as to what money there is the pot. It's not like the government want them to lose.

 

[ViolentPanda]

fuck it. Why not just have a military dictatorship, seeing as army officers are beyond reproach.

No-one has said he's "beyond reproach", so try not to let your doubtless highly-strung temperament blind you to the obvious, eh?

Dannatt is responsible for the army, therefore it is not outwith his duties to "got to bat" for those he is responsible for.

How that implies that a military dictatorship would be acceptable is beyond me (and beyond, I suspect, anyone but a handful of people with very special needs).