the army vs the labour party

[Lo Siento.]

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).

Could it be, just possibly, just maybe, that he wants more kit, because, well, he's a general, and generals always want more kit. The army have been pissing ever since the last spending review cut funding. Why? Well because obviously they like having more funding.

If he wants to go to bat for the army do it at Whitehall direct to the government. He's not supposed to a public political figure. Which is what he makes himself by intervening in a debate between the government and the opposition.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

No. The pols claimed there were enough resources "in theatre", as per their line of the last 12 months. All Dannatt did was apprise the press and the government that the wheels were coming off their fib as it was patently obvious that those resources (including all those lovely Lynx helicopters that can't actually fly during the day because the heat causes engine and instrument failure) were spread thin and getting thinner.

 

[Lo Siento.]

you're all just so desperate to criticise the government that you're refusing to see how out of order this is. It's basically unprecedented, even in wars in which the army was stretched far thinner than this.

It's also unprecedented for a reason, which is that people who have the relationship to the state and force that generals do are not regarded as safe to participate in the political process, it prejudicial to the concept of liberty and democracy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

I riposte with Captain Gaddafi of Libya, someone so far down the rank order as to counteract any amount of general officers!

 

[agricola]

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.

Brown:

"I am confident that we are right to be in Afghanistan, that we have the strongest possible plan and we have the resources needed to do the job" ..... Funding for operations in Afghanistan had increased from £700m in 2006-7 to more than £3bn this year and all "operational requirements" would be met, he said.

Again, Dannatt is clearly pointing out that the Army there do not have the resources necessary to do the job, nor are the Government meeting all operational requirements.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Could it be, just possibly, just maybe, that he wants more kit, because, well, he's a general, and generals always want more kit. The army have been pissing ever since the last spending review cut funding. Why? Well because obviously they like having more funding.

Because he isn't bloody well asking for more kit, that's the bloody point, he's asking for what was promised!

If he wants to go to bat for the army do it at Whitehall direct to the government. He's not supposed to a public political figure. Which is what he makes himself by intervening in a debate between the government and the opposition.

If he goes to Whitehall he deals with Civil Servants, they mediate his input and make it (at least what they haven't filtered out) available to the minister, the minister the does or doesn't pass it up the food chain to the treasury and/or the PM. How soon do you think the government would keep its' promises if that route was always taken, would what was promised be supplied now; in six months; in a year?
Dannatt's ambit allows him to "go public", it's only precedent, not law, that's held him back.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I riposte with Captain Gaddafi of Libya, someone so far down the rank order as to counteract any amount of general officers!

Such is the skewed nature of mean averages.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Because he isn't bloody well asking for more kit, that's the bloody point, he's asking for what was promised!

If he goes to Whitehall he deals with Civil Servants, they mediate his input and make it (at least what they haven't filtered out) available to the minister, the minister the does or doesn't pass it up the food chain to the treasury and/or the PM. How soon do you think the government would keep its' promises if that route was always taken, would what was promised be supplied now; in six months; in a year?
Dannatt's ambit allows him to "go public", it's only precedent, not law, that's held him back.

You're arguing that head of the army has no direct access to the government? Any reason for the precedent you think? Nothing to do with the martial arm always being subordinate to the civilian arm, or of the army keeping out of politics? The headline in The Telegraph was (I kid you not) army generals order the government to provide more equipment. Orders for fuck sake.

 

[ViolentPanda]

you're all just so desperate to criticise the government that you're refusing to see how out of order this is. It's basically unprecedented, even in wars in which the army was stretched far thinner than this.

I'm not "desperate to criticise the government", the effects of their policies are criticism enough. What I get narked about is that this is an old story, and that because someone has dared break a precedent (and that's all it is, there's no constitutional bar that I've been able to find to Dannatt doing what he did, and I've trawled through three textbooks on British constitutional history looking for one) that serves the purposes of the government of the day better than it does those that have maintained that precedent.

It's also unprecedented for a reason, which is that people who have the relationship to the state and force that generals do are not regarded as safe to participate in the political process, it prejudicial to the concept of liberty and democracy.

Is it prejudicial to the reality of them, though?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You're arguing that head of the army has no direct access to the government?

I'm arguing that unless he's at one of the infrequent meetings between himself and the current minister of his department, all his contact is mediated. It's how our bureaucratic system happens to function.

Any reason for the precedent you think? Nothing to do with the martial arm always being subordinate to the civilian arm, or of the army keeping out of politics?

Of course there are reasons, but shitting your breeks because you're worried that down this road lies a military dictatorship isn't one of them.

The headline in The Telegraph was (I kid you not) army generals order the government to provide more equipment. Orders for fuck sake.

It's a newspaper headline, you twat, an interpretation of a situation, not a neutral bloody report. Get a sodding grip!

 

[Tankus]

hmmm
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/07/saintly-dannatt.html
difficult to know who to believe .

 

[agricola]

you're all just so desperate to criticise the government that you're refusing to see how out of order this is. It's basically unprecedented, even in wars in which the army was stretched far thinner than this.

It's also unprecedented for a reason, which is that people who have the relationship to the state and force that generals do are not regarded as safe to participate in the political process, it prejudicial to the concept of liberty and democracy.

You are talking rubbish. For a start, it is not unprecedented for senior military officers to use their rank in order to criticize policy - Roger Keyes kicked off the Norway Debates dressed in full regalia (as an Admiral of the Fleet) and laid into the Government's handling of Norway and the war generally, though admittedly he was also an MP. FM Sir John French also kicked off the Shell Scandal of 1915 by criticizing the Government to a journo from the Times for not providing enough shells.

Secondly, you appear to base your opposition to this entirely on that precedent, which not even the Government are doing - nor could they, given the already mentioned habit of theirs of using tame Generals to praise Government policy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

hmmm
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/07/saintly-dannatt.html
difficult to know who to believe .

Especially when, because of his position, the blogger can't provide any hard data to support his claims.
One thing the blogger does seem to be missing though, is that while Dannatt may very well have supported projects that were "his babies", there's a very obvious reason (besides petulance, that is) that this might be the case: Because they were determined by those who would have to use them to be the best option for cross-theatre operation.

 

[agricola]

hmmm
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/07/saintly-dannatt.html
difficult to know who to believe .

The key bit is probably:

"I work for people in (relatively) high places. That means I get information ... lots of it, and we also get a lot of people in high places, very high places, giving us very high quality information."

As for who to believe, you can either believe a Government who has a well known and well evidenced capacity for spin, behind-the-scenes briefing, dirty tricks and outright fibbery; or you can believe someone else.

 

[mistere]

you're all just so desperate to criticise the government that you're refusing to see how out of order this is. It's basically unprecedented, even in wars in which the army was stretched far thinner than this.

It's also unprecedented for a reason, which is that people who have the relationship to the state and force that generals do are not regarded as safe to participate in the political process, it prejudicial to the concept of liberty and democracy.

Sadly it isn't entirely unprecedented. Earl Haig was hugely popular with the press and with at least a part of the population during WWI and was constantly requesting more troops for the Western Front, saying that a few thousand more would be enough to win the war. He used his popularity to make public requests that the government was hard put to refuse given his status, despite the fact that it dawned on the government far sooner than on Haig that 100,000 more troops would lead to 100,000 more deaths and make absolutely no difference to the military situation. General MacArthur in Korea is another example of a general using his public popularity and position to force the government's hand. Both show why the military top-brass should stay out of politics.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I'm arguing that unless he's at one of the infrequent meetings between himself and the current minister of his department, all his contact is mediated. It's how our bureaucratic system happens to function.

Of course there are reasons, but shitting your breeks because you're worried that down this road lies a military dictatorship isn't one of them.

It's a newspaper headline, you twat, an interpretation of a situation, not a neutral bloody report. Get a sodding grip!

he's unable to write Bob Ainsworth a sodding email?

The principle exists to keep the army out of politics, something it's done admirably for most of this country's history. In countries where the army has had free reign to interfere it's ended tragically. Maintaining the principle is important.

Newspaper headlines reflect aspects of a situation, in this instance, a very pro-military paper, with strong links to the top brass crowing about the military ordering the elected civilian authorities around.

 

[agricola]

Especially when, because of his position, the blogger can't provide any hard data to support his claims.
One thing the blogger does seem to be missing though, is that while Dannatt may very well have supported projects that were "his babies", there's a very obvious reason (besides petulance, that is) that this might be the case: Because they were determined by those who would have to use them to be the best option for cross-theatre operation.

Exactly.

 

[Lo Siento.]

The key bit is probably:

"I work for people in (relatively) high places. That means I get information ... lots of it, and we also get a lot of people in high places, very high places, giving us very high quality information."

As for who to believe, you can either believe a Government who has a well known and well evidenced capacity for spin, behind-the-scenes briefing, dirty tricks and outright fibbery; or you can believe someone else.

and apparently a military without any history of any of that.

 

[Lo Siento.]

You are talking rubbish. For a start, it is not unprecedented for senior military officers to use their rank in order to criticize policy - Roger Keyes kicked off the Norway Debates dressed in full regalia (as an Admiral of the Fleet) and laid into the Government's handling of Norway and the war generally, though admittedly he was also an MP. FM Sir John French also kicked off the Shell Scandal of 1915 by criticizing the Government to a journo from the Times for not providing enough shells.

Secondly, you appear to base your opposition to this entirely on that precedent, which not even the Government are doing - nor could they, given the already mentioned habit of theirs of using tame Generals to praise Government policy.

Roger Keyes, an elected member of parliament, making his criticism as a member of parliament with specific information.

The government shouldn't use tame generals to praise government policy, it works both ways. The fact that the government behave badly doesn't mean the army should. Again, your desperation to stick the boot into the government, regardless of principle is obvious.

 

[mistere]

Brown:



Again, Dannatt is clearly pointing out that the Army there do not have the resources necessary to do the job, nor are the Government meeting all operational requirements.

Don't they? Or do they just not have the equipment and manpower to do the job in the way they want to? It goes back to Clausewitz the idea that the military strategy should be subordinate to the political objectives of the war, otherwise you get constant escalation. If it becomes clear that we can't win the government either have to change the objectives to something acheivable, increase the resources if the original objectives are important enough to make it worthwhile or withdraw. That is and has to be a political decision, the role of the armed forces is to implement it, not take sides in a political debate about it.

 

[agricola]

Roger Keyes, an elected member of parliament, making his criticism as a member of parliament with specific information.

The government shouldn't use tame generals to praise government policy, it works both ways. The fact that the government behave badly doesn't mean the army should. Again, your desperation to stick the boot into the government, regardless of principle is obvious.

The only person harping on about "principle" here is you, which is ironic given that you value your own precedent (which, as we have seen, isnt really a precedent) over the reality of the situation.

Look - and I appreciate this is wasted on you given your comments thus far - almost noone who is not a Labour MP believes that Brown is right when he says:

"I am confident that we are right to be in Afghanistan, that we have the strongest possible plan and we have the resources needed to do the job"

Now - while we are on about precedent - there used to be a precedent that a minister of the Crown would resign, or at the very least apologise, for misleading the House of Commons in such a way. He (and Blair before him) have put the Army in the situation it is in and failed to provide enough men, enough money or enough equipment for them to do what they have been told, by the politicians, to do. They have then repeatedly lied, or at best attempted to mislead everyone, when asked for the real state of affairs, both in the Commons and in public.

As for your email comment, I am sure that Dannatt, and his colleagues / predecessors, have raised this issue with them endlessly behind the scenes in the usual manner. They have achieved precisely fuck all with that method, and have achieved not a great deal more than that by indirect criticism / leaks. Dannatt has therefore felt emboldened to come out and say these things, which after all need to be said.

 

[ViolentPanda]

he's unable to write Bob Ainsworth a sodding email?

He's legally obliged to follow the correct bureaucratic path, which means going through the permanent secretary (a bureaucrat) who is the minsters' "gatekeeper". That is constitutionally-defined, unsurprisingly.

The principle exists to keep the army out of politics, something it's done admirably for most of this country's history. In countries where the army has had free reign to interfere it's ended tragically. Maintaining the principle is important.

It's not a principle it's an uncodified convention.
Oh, and we haven't had a standing military for most of "this country's history", only for the last three and a half centuries.

Newspaper headlines reflect aspects of a situation, in this instance, a very pro-military paper, with strong links to the top brass crowing about the military ordering the elected civilian authorities around.

Yes, aspects, with added spin, and just because The Telegraph says that politians were "ordered", does that actually mean they were? Of course it fucking well doesn't.

 

[Lo Siento.]

The only person harping on about "principle" here is you, which is ironic given that you value your own precedent (which, as we have seen, isnt really a precedent) over the reality of the situation.

Look - and I appreciate this is wasted on you given your comments thus far - almost noone who is not a Labour MP believes that Brown is right when he says:



Now - while we are on about precedent - there used to be a precedent that a minister of the Crown would resign, or at the very least apologise, for misleading the House of Commons in such a way. He (and Blair before him) have put the Army in the situation it is in and failed to provide enough men, enough money or enough equipment for them to do what they have been told, by the politicians, to do. They have then repeatedly lied, or at best attempted to mislead everyone, when asked for the real state of affairs, both in the Commons and in public.

As for your email comment, I am sure that Dannatt, and his colleagues / predecessors, have raised this issue with them endlessly behind the scenes in the usual manner. They have achieved precisely fuck all with that method, and have achieved not a great deal more than that by indirect criticism / leaks. Dannatt has therefore felt emboldened to come out and say these things, which after all need to be said.

Again. I'm not debating whether Dannatt's right or not. Given that everyone thinks the government is wrong, how did that happen? Because the information was already in the public sphere through the array of options the army has to make these things known. It's not public duty to let the people know what's going on. Everyone is well aware of what's going on.

It's the job of the political opposition to then press that case, to make the case for a different PUBLIC POLICY decision. Not Dannatt's.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't they? Or do they just not have the equipment and manpower to do the job in the way they want to? It goes back to Clausewitz the idea that the military strategy should be subordinate to the political objectives of the war, otherwise you get constant escalation. If it becomes clear that we can't win the government either have to change the objectives to something acheivable, increase the resources if the original objectives are important enough to make it worthwhile or withdraw. That is and has to be a political decision, the role of the armed forces is to implement it, not take sides in a political debate about it.

With respect, all Dannatt wants are the tools for the job, tools he was promised and that have, in most cases, been proven to work in a decent cross-section of environments. The only side he's taken is the side of honour and duty; the honour of his role, and his duty to his people.
It would have been nice to have someone as committed as Dannatt in the saddle when squaddies were still occasionally being sent on patrol in Ulster in hardtop Landies into the 1980s.

 

[likesfish]

maybe if the government decided to fight fewer wars and decided to review are military needs with a cost neutral agenda at least to start out.

Richard North has appeared on arrse a couple of times and not done to well facing people who have actually served operationally in helmund.

The MOD is poor at procurement its often used to subsidize British companies at the expensive of capability. Military bosses go for the rolls Royce option when a less modified version would be cheaper. Or try to cut corners that ends up costing more hence the 8 helicopters still not airworthy

 

[Tankus]

8 Chinook's sitting in a hanger for years , merlins bought for Afghanistan and supplied to the army 2 years ago and they still wont be ready 'till next year , guns supplied to the army that jam in sand , radio systems so bad its better to use the local phone network, £1200 each desk chairs for H/O, £34,000 per hr without crew quoted running costs for the merlin yet a 50 ton Russian mi17 available (double lift capacity) with crew for £3,000 per hour .

lot of pork being spread around ..... but not much meat getting to the front seats .....

Doesn't matter what gordon sez now ...the level of the military's importance to him is plainly shown by the seniority of the defence ministers that he appoints ...... the last one even held the Scottish office at the same time ..or was that the one before ?

there is no endgame in Afghanistan ..its just a grinder

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

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

I saw that and remember it now thanks gosub.

Im also thinking of criminal prosecutions against scum like Hoon.

 

[mistere]

With respect, all Dannatt wants are the tools for the job, tools he was promised and that have, in most cases, been proven to work in a decent cross-section of environments. The only side he's taken is the side of honour and duty; the honour of his role, and his duty to his people.
It would have been nice to have someone as committed as Dannatt in the saddle when squaddies were still occasionally being sent on patrol in Ulster in hardtop Landies into the 1980s.

The "tools for the job" need to be determined by the government, who decide how politically important the objectives are. By exactly the same token, when the government promises the police the necessary powers and tools to fight terrorism it's still up to the government, in Parliament, to decide exactly what those are. Ian Blair does not have the right to come out publicly and say that 42 day detention is necessary in the middle of a controversial and very tight political debate; he's probably right that from a strictly policing point of view giving the police more powers would help, but it's up to the politicians to determine how to balance that with the need to protect civil liberties and he should not be trying to influence the debate. Dannatt is probably right that more troops and equipment would help make acheiving the objectives easier, but it's the government who determine what level of resources to provide.

It's impossible to be consistent while criticising Blair but allowing Dannatt to speak out, their position is the same. If you can genuinely say that you have no problem with Blair's intervention in the terrorist legislation debate then fine, you're at least consistent which I respect, though I disagree with you. But if you think Blair was wrong to speak out you can't at the same time support Dannatt. Like I said earlier, it's not about political views or being a Labour stooge, as agricola has suggested; I oppose Blair's comments and think they were wrong, I happen to support the war in Afghanistan, I think far more resources should be provided and I think the government has made a complete pig's ear out of setting out specific objectives that are to be acheived, despite all that I don't think that Dannatt should be intervening in a political debate.

 

[likesfish]

blair was on record of saying the troops will get what they need.
hasn't happened.
army like all the services does'nt want to lose future capability because of Afghanistan.
fres ffs is replacing apc etc that are pushing 35/40 years old

westland should be sacked we are replacing 124 ickle helicopters with 60 that will cost a billion quid
there not gunships they can't carry many soldiers what exactly is the point of them
could give every worker at westland a million quid buy 120 blackhawks and have change from the futre lynx programme

 

[agricola]

Again. I'm not debating whether Dannatt's right or not. Given that everyone thinks the government is wrong, how did that happen? Because the information was already in the public sphere through the array of options the army has to make these things known. It's not public duty to let the people know what's going on. Everyone is well aware of what's going on.

Are they? Blair, and now Brown, kept making statements which "everyone" (according to you) knew were false, and yet its only Dannatt's intervention that has led to something actually happening (if indeed something does happen) - before he got involved there was still a consensus not to overly criticise the operation across the three parties, and the story was largely confined to the stodgier Tory press, Private Eye, ARRSE and various books written by ex-officers.

It's the job of the political opposition to then press that case, to make the case for a different PUBLIC POLICY decision. Not Dannatt's.

That is nonsense - the debate is not over policy (however much you would like it to be), its about the truth, both on the ground and what we are being told.

If Dannatt was demanding new things, or things beyond his remit, then you would perhaps have a point - but all he is asking for is what every PM, and every Defence Secretary, have said they will get since they went into Afganistan in the first place.