Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What in the name of hell is he playing at?
StudentofConflict    10/13/2006 3:31:17 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm God botherer Dannatt has really dropped a clanger this time. If what hes supposedly said is correctly reported, when the hell did he get the idea that he has a right to criticise the govts. foreign policy whilst still serving? What will this do to the morale of the lads out in Iraq? And hes destroyed whatever political capital he may have had with the Govt as well- see how willing our socialist masters are to spend much on defense now...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
interestedamateur       10/13/2006 5:00:59 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm" target=_blank href_cetemp="
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm">link

God botherer Dannatt has really dropped a clanger this time. If what hes supposedly said is correctly reported, when the hell did he get the idea that he has a right to criticise the govts. foreign policy whilst still serving? What will this do to the morale of the lads out in Iraq? And hes destroyed whatever political capital he may have had with the Govt as well- see how willing our socialist masters are to spend much on defense now...

Read this thread from the Arsse website SoC. 14 pages of support for Gen Dannatt and counting. Consensus seems to be that he is only saying what everyone is thinking.
 
 
Quote    Reply

StudentofConflict       10/13/2006 6:10:42 AM
Fair play to the lads out there, nothing but respect for their views. But do you think its right for a serving soldier in a democracy to be making these kind of statements to the press, especially when hes the CGS? If Blair et al decide we're staying there anyway, the troops aren't going to be performing as well after this sort of comment. I just don't buy that pulling out now will help our security. You can argue that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, but until they invent a time machine it'll be quite hard to change that fact. Given the state of the Iraqi govt and forces it'd fall to pieces right quick, and then anarchy would follow, and whoever the most ruthless and determined faction there is out there will end up in charge (IE extremists). And then we'd have another Afghanistan for terrorists to use as a base. So you can say our cock up, our responsibility. No arguement with the comments about the post-conflict planning, I was amazed at the time the level of naivety shown by not thinking post-saddam Iraq would be a mess. I was doing my degree  at the time, we were following the war as a group ( we were doing war studies and history) and we all (including our lecturers) had assumed they'd have a detailed plan for post war reconstruction. Wrong!!
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       10/13/2006 6:54:50 AM
But do you think its right for a serving soldier in a democracy to be making these kind of statements to the press, especially when hes the CGS?

It's not "healthy" for UK democracy for the CGS to enter the political arena and say this sort of thing, but on the other hand the government shouldn't place him in such a position.
 
If Blair et al decide we're staying there anyway, the troops aren't going to be performing as well after this sort of comment. I just don't buy that pulling out now will help our security.
 
I daresay the army will continue to do its job to the best of its ability. Iraq is a complete screw-up anyway, so I doubt if it'll make much difference to our medium term security.
 
Given the state of the Iraqi govt and forces it'd fall to pieces right quick, and then anarchy would follow, and whoever the most ruthless and determined faction there is out there will end up in charge (IE extremists). And then we'd have another Afghanistan for terrorists to use as a base.
 
That's going to happen in the medium term anyway.
 
So you can say our cock up, our responsibility. 
 
Yes, unfortunately so.
 
Quote    Reply

StudentofConflict       10/13/2006 7:34:59 AM
Of course, the Army are professionals and will do a professional job, but its hardly a motivating factor to hear the head of said group of professionals saying you shouldn't be there?
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/13/2006 10:09:17 AM
I think, that as Chief of the General Staff, Sir Dannatt should be permitted to voice his concerns over the operational and strategic issues facing his forces.

Perhaps he should keep it quieter than blabbing to the Daily Mail, of all people, but Tony & Co haven't the best record for listening to military concerns when they conflict with their political aims.
 
Quote    Reply

StudentofConflict       10/13/2006 10:41:35 AM
Thats just it - if he says something like 'we need more of equipment type X ' or 'We are suffering casualties because of factor y' then all good. I think if he comments on what is inherently a political question then he may be doing the Army more harm than good in the long run, the politicians  take it to heart if they  are made to look bad...
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/13/2006 11:17:51 AM
From what I see of it, it's a strategic comment on the military necessities of the theatre.  The Scary Mail, have, naturally, taken it out of context. Check the BBC, if you can handle the pinko liberal/commie propaganda, for a more accurate account of what he said.

It seems to endear the CGS to the squaddies though, which isn't a bad thing.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       10/16/2006 1:51:13 PM
when this was covered in canada the day the story emerged in the daily mail the commentator was amazed he would have said something like that and confidently predicted his head would roll by noon the next day.  last i heard he was still CGS though what that means i do not know.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral       10/16/2006 8:11:46 PM
It would seem like censorship of the truth. They would be unwise to sack him for this. He is treading on thin constitutional ice, but the weight of opinion is that the deaf ear of government has forced it upon him. I don't think that relations between the armed forces and the government can get much worse really. Public opinion is the only thing stopping even greater cutbacks in the defence budget. Who knows, a groundswell beneath this might lead to an increase in defence spending.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics