Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, who took over as the chief of the general staff in August 2006, has turned out to be the most outspoken head of the 100,000-strong British Army that I can remember in my lifetime. Not for a moment does anybody believe that he enjoys the publicity, or still less that he seeks to become a celebrity. He is convinced his beloved army, which he joined in 1969, is facing a grave crisis. It is fighting battles in two different countries and yet its budget is, in real terms, at a level of that for the army in the 1930s. His troops and their kit are looking frayed at the edges. His troops feel undervalued by the Labour government.
What is so damaging for government ministers is that they know the general not only claims to be speaking up for his army “constituency” but is genuinely reflecting military thinking, and the public, which has been against the government’s policy on Iraq for years, will side with the general.
I am inclined to be cautious over generals speaking out in public — at one time England, under Oliver Cromwell, was ruled by major generals — but I believe Gen. Dannatt is broadly correct on the issues he is raising and with a hopelessly miscast Secretary of Defense Des Browne, the army is putting forward a powerful case for better treatment. Having been a soldier myself for 12 years I appreciate I do not start from an entirely neutral position!
The circumstances surrounding his most recent speech are certainly curious. He addressed a conference of senior British and overseas officers on future land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute in Whitehall back in June. The media was not permitted to attend and his speech remained secret. But following a formal request under the comparatively new Freedom of Information Act it was put in the public domain. The fact that the Ministry of Defense wanted his comments kept secret only added to their public interest. Gen. Dannatt ordered his officers to make preparations for “a generation of conflict” and declared:
“The challenge of this generation is as great as any that have gone before us.”
(My father’s generation which helped Britain fight “alone” against Hitler’s Germany would find that a little over the top.)
Gen. Dannatt stressed the importance of achieving success in Afghanistan and Iraq, which he described as the “all-consuming focus” of the British Army today.
“It is success today in those two theaters, however you define success, that ... is both the top and bottom line because, if we fail in either campaign, then I submit that, in the face of that strident Islamist shadow, then tomorrow will be a very uncertain place.”
Gen. Dannatt, one of whose sons has been a platoon commander in Iraq, said of that conflict that the army was “enmeshed” in helping to construct a modern Islamic state “in the tinderbox that is Iraq in the face of extremism and jihad”. He went on:
“We are doing this in a region perched precariously above a large proportion of the world’s remaining supply of oil. So it is, indeed, some high-octane context that we find surrounding current events.”
In a reference to the perceived Russian invasion threat to British India at the start of the 19th century, which led to the ill-fated Anglo-Afghan war, he thought the army was “on the edge of a new and deadly Great Game in Afghanistan”.
There is a strong feeling in the army that there is little more positive action it can take in Southern Iraq at this stage, and that the crucial and future battleground is now Afghanistan. I agree with that assessment. Gen. Dannatt’s latest remarks should be seen against the backdrop of an interview he gave to a journalist on the Daily Mail last October during which Iraq was at the center of his thoughts. He believed he would:
“get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems. We are in a Muslim country and Muslims’ views of foreigners in their country are quite clear... we weren’t invited ... the military campaign that we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.” It is no longer possible for the Ministry of Defense, currently a poorly administered government department, to conceal the serious equipment shortages. For far too long, patrols in Iraq had to use highly vulnerable “snatch” vehicles. There has been an obvious shortage of all types of helicopters to back up the battalions in combat.
Back home half the accommodation for the army has been declared “below standard” and there are no longer purely military hospitals to treat those seriously wounded on the battlefield.
