‘I want an Army in five years time and 10 years time. Don’t let’s break it on this one’

It’s one thing when a retired military officer appears on TV to suggest that troops be withdrawn from Iraq. When General Sir [tag]Richard Dannatt[/tag], chief of the British Army (the British equivalent of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), makes the argument publicly, it’s a far bigger deal.

The Army could ‘break’ if it is kept too long in Iraq and British troops should be withdrawn ‘soon’, the head of the Army has said today.

In a devastating broadside at [tag]Tony Blair[/tag]’s foreign policy, General Sir Richard [tag]Dannatt[/tag] said: “I want an Army in five years time and 10 years time. Don’t let’s break it on this one. Let’s keep an eye on time.”

His comments come after an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, where Sir Richard warned that the continuing presence of British troops “exacerbates the security problems” in [tag]Iraq[/tag] and added that a “moral and spiritual vacuum” has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine “our accepted way of life.”

Dannatt added that post-invasion planning for the war in Iraq was “poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.”

This is no small acknowledgement. As the Daily Mail noted, Dannatt views will send “shockwaves” through the British government, and represent “a total repudiation of the Prime Minister.” For that matter, as Digby noted, Dannatt’s comments have prompted speculation that he “is going to have to be fired.”

With that in mind, Dannatt is subtly trying to back-pedal.

He insisted he had said “nothing new or noteworthy” in his interview with the tabloid and was just repeating policy.

“It was never my intention to have this hoo ha, which people have thoroughly enjoyed overnight, trying to suggest there is a chasm between myself and the prime minister,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

No, of course not. All Dannatt said was that troop presence in Iraq is making matters worse in Iraq and tearing at the social fabric of Britain, and that troop withdrawal needs to get underway. Tony Blair says the exact opposite on all of these points. Who said anything about a “chasm”?

I don’t know if Dannatt will be forced to resign, or perhaps retract his comments altogether, but I have to appreciate the fact that he made the remarks while still in a leadership role. In the U.S. model, we get frank, candid admissions like these all the time — just as soon as the officials leave government and become private citizens.

If more current officials spoke out like Dannatt did, we might be more likely to have policy changes. At a minimum, we’d get a more productive debate.

One more thing: Kevin Drum flagged an important side note to this story last night, when he noted that Dannatt wrote a secret memo a couple of weeks ago about getting out of Iraq, and transferring troops into Afghanistan, where there’s still at least some hope for the future. It seems likely that Dannatt’s comments to the Daily Mail were made out of frustration when his memo was rejected.

Now, if we can only get some of his American counterparts to say they agree with his remarks…

Read “The Reason Why” sometime. It’s a great book about the Crimean War. One of the truths about that war is that the British went into the Crimea with a professional, drilled, veteran army and in such fear for losses, sat it in a seige around Sevastipol for years, where it withered away from desease. When they finally got the nerve to actually storm Sevastipol, the troops were all raw recruits.

The lesson, which is hard to draw, is that if they had just had the moral courage to slam into Sevastipol after the Battle of Alma, the losses might have been heavy but they would have been far less than the eventual losses from desease from sitting in the seige.

What is the application of that lesson to Iraq? I’d say to get out and tell the Iraqis if we don’t like what they are doing (allowing terrorist training camps, for instance) we reserve the right to go back and blow the camps up, or any other violation of their sovereignity we care to make until such time as they are a stable country not harboring foreign terrorist groups and not using state power to oppress minorities.

No more “Pottery Barn Rules”!

  • “Now, if we can only get some of his American counterparts to say they agree with his remarks… ”

    I doubt it. From what I understand it is rare for folks with candor to make it past O-6 (Colonel) in the US military. No more Generals like Vinegar Joe Stillwell who once told reporters after walking out of Burma in 1942 with the remains of his command that “the Japanese kicked their butts.”

    At least the impression is that many are go along to get along types who think their career is more important than their nation especially after remembering the very large knife that Rummy and his Wheez Kids put in the back of General Shinseki (who was proven right about Iraq which is cold comfort to those who are paying the price.)

  • If more current officials spoke out like Dannatt did, we might be more likely to have policy changes.

    Careful what you wish for. An overtly politicized officer corps isn’t going to seem nearly as nice once there’s a Democratic President.

  • At least the impression is that many are go along to get along types who think their career is more important than their nation …

    As someone who works with a lot of former service members from all ranks and branches, I can assure that’s the case … most of the time.

    But the real problem is that those at the top either aren’t real warfighters, or don’t have the chance to be — the politics of those above them (Rummy, The Dick, The King) are what dictate decisions. While the military has always been that way in one form or another, it has gotten ridiculous during this administration.

    Or at least that’s what my former boss (a retired Lt. Col. who was at the Pentagon on 9/11) told me once. It’s that very reason he got out.

    It’d be nice if those who didn’t have the testicular fortitude to serve would let those who did do their jobs.

  • Brits don’t get “fired,” they get “SACKED.”

    I wonder if British bookies are taking odds on Dannatt’s future.

  • I think I see Lance’s point, and if I have it correctly, the lesson I would draw from the Crimean war is that in war you have windows of opprotunity that will close if not acted upon. We had our chance to win this conflict, even though it should never have been started in the first place. But that opportunty has come and gone. “Winning” is now a mater of saving face. Will we have to kill the Iraqis to save them from themselves? The objective in this war is nebulous at best, but continued participation will destroy as much of ourselves and our armies as it could possibly ever benefit the Iraqis. Without getting all Rumsfeldian on your asses, we have to fight the Iraqi war we’re left with, and not the one we wish we could have won.

  • Privately, you can bet that many of our top officers in Iraq are expressing similar views. Sen. Warner’s comments after his last trip to Iraq suggest that he got an earful from them. Our military will also do what it needs to survive, even if that means going behind the backs of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to sway opinion and action in the direction they prescribe. To think that our commanders are on the same page as their civilian bosses is very wishful thinking. They have also been deceived by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell who lead them into one of the biggest debacles in US military history.

  • Sad to say, I think that a lot of the reluctance to speak before retirement is connected to pension concerns.

    They still have to pay the bills and take care of their families after they get out, and since this administration has shown itself willing to utterly destroy anyone who disagrees with them, I can’t blame them for being cautious.

    I remember there was one civilian lady official who was set to retire within days who was fired and her pension placed in jeopardy for some ridiculous reason, and probably more besides so it’s a legitimate concern.

    This administration does not want to hear anything that does not agree with their preconceived notions. Period. If it was me, I wouldn’t want to risk my reward for thirty years of loyal service either. At least they’re speaking up when they’re out, it’s better than nothing.

  • “I think that a lot of the reluctance to speak before retirement is connected to pension concerns.” – Curmudgeon

    That, and the fact it is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That means it’s illegal. Probably a rather more significant point to these guys.

  • I wonder if the general’s remarks are more in line with upcoming Labour administration after Tony Blair finally gets kicked to the curb…might explain why he spoke in the first place, though I’d expect a general to be a Tory.

  • This is totally unprecidented in British history…and he was in fact following the example of recent comments by senior USA military people. Blair would have been absolutely and totally insensed with anger…Just been reading the Blunket Diaries in the UK Guardian newspaper. Blunket was Labour home office minister during the Iraqi war – he mentions how Blair went pysco when Blunket mentioned the lack of a post war strategy during a pre-war meeting…the egoising demigod demands contriction and cow towing. Would be great to get this side of Blair on candid camera video – but I’m sure he’d start babbling some sort of pathetic explanation. (that….that….he was getting angry about the case of the young female Police Constable who was creuly stabbed by a crack addict just the other week type thing). Destestable chappy.

  • Comments are closed.