So who's really "playing politics" over troop numbers?

Justin

"Dannatt should just get on with the job. After the conflict, if there are lessons to be learnt, we should do so in a considered manner.'"

What an idiot David Crausby is! If previous lessons tell us something is wrong, why should the army wait to bury even more soldiers and then justify this by saying lessons will be learnt.

Labour has really gone mad.

John Page

Aren't the government entitled to expect any loyalty from him at all?

strapworld

Who is David Crausby. What is his background? What military knowledge does he have? Has he, for instance, served in the armed services?

Surely the criteria for membership of the Commons Defence Committee must be a first hand knowledge of matters military (OR am I incorrect in my interpretation of Commons Defence Committee? Is it for defence of MP's?)

This disgraceful man who is putting politics and the labour party BEFORE the lives of our servicemen and women must be made to meet with parents and wives/husbands of those soldiers killed in this god forsaken war.

THE LABOUR PARTY has ruined all things we held in great respect. They are determined, in my opinion, to break the British Army.

Damn their eyes.

Simon Collis

I agree with all your points, however, would like to add and take extreme issue with the following statement -

"David Crausby, a Labour member of the Commons defence committee, added: 'It is not appropriate to play party politics at this time. Dannatt should just get on with the job. After the conflict, if there are lessons to be learnt, we should do so in a considered manner.'"

What is the General supposed to do - just accept the current under resourced mess with increasing injuries and deaths? This is nothing short of pathetic - just wait until it collapses in a burning mess and then calmly look at where things went wrong. Surely if you can see where things are going wrong, you need to put it right there and then. Not wait for some post conflict focus group with prawn sandwiches and warm chardonnay. This is just typical of the ineffectual and crass political garbage which this government spews - trouble is now, it's costing lives unnecessarily.

Pete Hoskin

John Page: Well, yes. But, first, there's the idea that Dannatt's ultimate loyalty is to his troops. And, second, there's point c) above: the 2,000 figure isn't secret, so why shouldn't Dannatt repeat it? The alternative is that he says: "Last month, I requested 2,000 extra troops for Afghanistan, but - this month - I've decided we have enough after all." Which seems a little odd to me...

Jeannie Armstrong

If he's 'playing politics', the politicians might like to give 'serving your country' a try

Flemingcrag

Everything that is rotten and corrupt about this Labour Government and the Lobby Journalists who play ball with them is on display in this Times Leader.
"Senior Labour figures", a "Government Minister", who are these nameless and spineless individuals who would send another person's son to die without question or public examination?
Sir Richard Dannatt's decisions to speak out in public has already cost him career wise under this control freakery and cowardly Government. More afraid of criticisms than some young man prepared to die in his Country's uniform.
This has not stopped Sir Richard continuing to speak out, it is this desire to sacrifice personal gain and glory to the advancement of others that so perplexes these spineless, self obsessed, personal ambition fixed delusionists in the Labour Government.
The Times should be ashamed to give their nasty little potshots at an honourable man the light of day. Name them and shame them I say.

James

When one minister has the balls to meet a coffin at Lyneham and look the widows and the children of these brave men in the eye, then they can criticise Dannatt. NuLab are big and brave when seding men to war but, just like the PM, they are nowhere to be seen when it comes to the nasty bit. No one in this government are fit to lick these mens boots.
Yes, I am angry. 10 months and counting

Re Drag

"Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, had attended a private dinner with Tory MPs "...nice to see the general has priorities, help the troops in Afghanistan or quaff champagne with Tory MP's. Also nice to see the Tory MP's know where the generals should be when bullets are flying....has anything really changed in the British army?

Bruce, UK

"Senior Labour figures accused the head of the army last night of playing politics as he said that there were too few troops and helicopters in the Afghan war zone."

There are not enough spikes at the Tower for this self-serving shower. I name them traitors.

johnny come lately

David Crausby
Labour MP for Bolton North East
Entered Parliament on 1 May 1997 — General election Majority: 4,103 votes.
(So, he is facing unemployment!)

How David Crausby voted on key issues since 2001:
(Thanks to They work for you)

Has never voted on a transparent Parliament!!!
Bolton Constituents take note!!

Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban.Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards!!
Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees! Students TAKE NOTE!

Voted strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Now the strangest:-
Voted strongly against the Iraq war. YET, INCREDIBLY
Voted strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war!! (KNOWS HIS MIND THIS MAN!)

Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.
Voted very strongly for the hunting ban. Voted moderately for equal gay rights. Voted moderately for laws to stop climate change (a CANUTE ACT!!).

Obviously a man destined for..err err, as they say in Bolton, NOWT!

Irene

oh how I hate that phrase "lessons to be learnt" - also "after the conflict" when will that be - I personally don't think we should be there -we have been there for eight years and still there doesn't seem to be an exit strategy - we cannot win in afghanistan - the Government have been caught on the hop because of the amount of deaths over the last couple of days - they were playing politics about the Coulson affair and didn't reckon on afghanistan to come and bite them this weekend - panic mode yet again.

Pat

My wife and I were on Pegasus Bridge on 5 June to celebrate the D-Day landings. That evening, a group of runners arrived from Tarrant Rushton ( the airfield the gliders took off from)to be met by General Dannatt. As General Dannatt arrived at the bridge he saw LCpl Ben Parkinson in the crowd. LCpl Parkinson you will remember was the young man severely injured in Afghanistan who had to fight the Government to increase the disgraceful compensation amount awarded him for his dreadful injuries.

General Dannatt and his wife Lady Dannatt immediately left the VIP gathering and greeted LCpl Parkinson and his Mum and Step-Father with "Ben, how wonderful to see you." Lady Dannatt hugged Ben's Mum and they stayed with them for over ten minutes. As General Dannatt left to greet the arriving runners, he said to LCpl Parkinson, "Come on Ben, you come and help me greet the runners." He then pushed LCpl Parkinson in his wheelchair over to the plinth.

General Dannatt is one of the most honourable men it has been my pleasure to meet and serve with.

Crausby is not fit to hide in his shadow.

Cleethorpes Rock

Let this scumbag know what you think:

crausbyd@parliament.uk

G Adlam

Who thought they couldn't sink any lower? Certainly not me.

J Wright

Has anybody heard of CRAUSBY allegedly senior defense figures (pleural).Has he ever served in the forces? Has anymember of his family? No member of the cabinet has .Has any member of the parliamentary labour policy.This governments armourments is to provide jobs in exchange for votes in vulnerable labour sets. The death rate in Afganistan is the price Brown is prepared to pay for keeping in with Obama to help further his political career

Donna

Maybe they're just using 'playing party politics' as a catch-all phrase nowadays. Anything to eliminate actual thought...

Short the UK

How about a proper discussion on the disgust and rage many feel toward the political elite for getting us into Afghanistan!!! A total and utter fiasco. Halfwits the whole lot are. Eight friggin years!!! Wakey, bloody, wakey.

Tony Blair and the cabinet should be held accountable. Conned on Iraq and suckered into Afghanistan.

I feel serious rage. "Our boys" are dying and being mamed for...

Pete-s

So Crausby is saying be Patriotic and keep your mouth shut. Well I always though 'The extolling of Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'

colin

"After the conflict..." in other words after hundreds more troops are killed they might sit down and think about it. We are used to chaotic and amoral government policy. This is just callous.

It is impossible to work out what the government is doing at the moment. Today's papers are giving conflicting messages about troop numbers being increased, not increased or even cut.

Could Brown be about to pull one of his famous conjuring tricks, dressing up a cut as an increase? Surely even he wouldn't sink so low...

Lance Grundy

The Labour Party have had it in for Dannatt for a while now as this courageous Christian gentleman has always put his concerns for the welfare of the men under his command before his own ambitions. He was the first ever serving head of the army to publicly demand more money for his service and has been highly critical of the government’s penny-pinching attitude to the Armed Forces.

Gordon Brown effectively blocked his elevation to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a move that Liam Fox described as "petty, vindictive and small-minded and entirely contrary to the ethos of our Armed Forces".

According to THIS RECENT PROFILE OF DANNATT , at a recent speech to the students at St Lawrence, a private school steeped in the evangelical Christian ethos which Dannatt claims for his own, he said "do the right thing, not the easy thing" as "it's moral courage that really matters." In confronting his political paymasters so publicly he is merely showing himself to be a man of his word.

Well done General Dannatt. Your country needs you.

Nicholas

New Labour don't take the same line with their top policemen. They are given full rein to spout party politics. More double standards and hypocrisy from the party that can always be relied upon to speak with forked tongue.

But perhaps it is because the Common Purpose Police upper echelons have become New Labour's allies, enforcement arm and the enemy of the people.

egh

If only we could forcibly enlist the whole Westminster shower and send them to the front line in Afghanistan!!!

Oh, but wait.
Traitors, cowards, and idiots would do more harm than good, there....

Edward Sutherland.

In the present political situation I would guess General Dannatt is all but unsackable. As any good commander should, he is speaking up for his men fearlessly, which he is forced to do because of the paltry support given by the government.

logdon

Today's papers are full of this and reader comment confirms Peter's analysis.

Watching the fat, smug and gurning ex trade unionist Bob Ainsworth, who is now Minister of Defence dictating terms to highly professional soldiers and quite blandly talking of more deaths is as apt a metaphor for this disgrace of a Government as could be.

They talk of this action as 'protecting Britain from terrorism 'in the belief that that emotive word will have us all rooting for 'patriotic Labour' when nothing could be further from the truth.

One, the London Bombers were all UK citizens.

Two, the porosity of our borders is ignored and any talk of tightening up is met by charges of little Englander racism.

Three, our engagement with our indigenous Pakistani population is woefully wrongheaded and polarised.

On the one hand they pile in with highly publicised mass arrests which come to naught. On the other as Sentamu has described today, Muslims receive preferential treatment over other faith groups

"Church leaders have accused the Government of giving preferential treatment to the Muslim community because of "political correctness".

So where's the joined up thinking?

Are we more at risk from a Helmand Taliban member who rightly or wrongly believes he is defending his country and faith or a disgruntled British Pakistani who has been indoctrinated in Pakistan yet allowed to come and go as he pleases?

The crazed duality of this strategy is quite astounding yet any challenge is met by howls of protest.

We are told time after time that the war in Afghanistan is to promote a fairer society . Meanwhile those values are reduced to naught back home where multicultural attitudes replicate in certain areas the backwardness we are attempting to eradicate in Afghanistan.

So what is the point? One step forward over there. One step back here in Britain.

As always, Labours conflicting ideology creates an unholy mess. Action hero in overseas conflict, pusillanimous appeaser in the country they govern.

As my departed Father would have bluntly said, ‘arse about face’, which sums it up quite neatly.

Lord Monkington-Smythe

If Crausby is too stupid to hide himself behind ye olde anonymous Labour source tag, then he deserves all he gets. I think the soldiers on the ground who have to kill and be killed would rather avoid the "lessons to be learned" in the first place and return from Helmand with their limbs intact, rather than having some tool of a Labour minister learn all about the mistakes after the event.

Denis Cooper

Dannatt owes his loyalty to the Queen as the Head of our State, all of us, not to the party politician she has chosen as her Prime Minister for the time being.

One of those "oaths of allegiance" things which apparently cause David Cameron some discomfort and embarrassment.

My understanding is that if the Prime Minister ever tried to order an army officer to arrest the Queen, it would be his duty to arrest the Prime Minister.

Normally somebody in Dannatt's position would not consider it part of his duty to the Queen to speak out publicly against her government's policy, even if he strongly disagreed with it, and he would be extremely reluctant to do so.

But this is an exceptionally bad government, kept in office by the exceptionally bad crop of MPs the people elected in 2005.

Bob.India

Re Drag: May I refer you to Pat's post (no pun intended!) above, which may assist you in your required re-evaluation of General Dannatt's worth?

Will

Redrag

When the bullets are flying, the general should be in HQ trying to run his army the best he can - if that means putting pressure on meddling politicians to make a strategic decision which should be his to make in the first place, then he's exactly where he should be. Furthermore, the event wasn't a private Tory affair, it was a dinner of the All-Party Parliamentary Army Group, which is Tory-dominated. If Labour MPs don't want to join a group supporting the troops from whom they are withholding reinforcements, equipment and funding, then at least they are consistent in their complete lack of any shred of principle or morality.

John Page

So does this freedom to disagree publicly with the government apply to officials too?

woody

If the boot was on the other foot, how would you feel, i.e. a General talking with Labour MPs about the failings of a Tory government? You don't discuss the faults of your employer with your employer's opponents, whether your employer is public or private.

Fearless Frank

@John Page
"Aren't the government entitled to expect any loyalty from him at all?"
Are the armed forces supposed to loyal to the gov't? I thought their allegiance was to queen and country.

Mirtha Tidville

General Dannatt is worth umpteen Gordon Browns let alone this odious Crausby character. The only good thing to come of them is that by the time they leave office, they will have destroyed, labour, for pretty much all time...Deo Gratias

Bob.India

woody: Last time I thought about it, I did not reach the conclusion that General Dannatt was "employed" by Gordon Brown or his NuLabour junta and for which reason, I'd consider your metaphor misplaced.

As a corollary, however, my sense is that the UK electorate has become so utterly incensed by the recently publicised financial antics of our representatives in Parliament in addition to the simmering anger generated by the revealed long-term stupidity and incompetence of the present government, that, in the event of a future Tory government matching such performance, even Coffee Housers would evidence little compunction in having General Dannatt's successor speak with members of an ostensibly competent opposition party who may be in with a chance to oust what had proven to be a deficient and defective replacement of NuLabour.

Lance Grundy

@ John Page

"So does this freedom to disagree publicly with the government apply to officials too?"

An interesting point. I would suggest that the main difference between government "officials" and the Armed Forces is that the "officials" have a right to "disagree publicly with the government" by the withdrawal of their labour via strikes or other action [short of strike] such as ’work-to-rule’, trade union political campaigns in the workplace etc - and they frequently do so.

Whether it be over government imposed wage settlements, pay cuts, workforce reductions or more ’political’ policies such as privatisation, government officials frequently disagree with the government both publicly and blatantly and challenge its authority.

The Armed Forces, being non-unionised and being unable to go on strike, do not have this option and therefore depend on their senior officers to represent their concerns.

Augustus

Woody has a point, but warfare is a bit different from managing a business. What, for example, is the point of deploying the best hardware and equipment that money can buy if you don't give the troops in the field nearly enough equipment and spares to do the job properly? That, as I understand it, is the position in Helmand Province. Party politics doesn't come into it. A commander should think of his men first, and those men, some of whom are barely eighteen, are not being fully equipped for their life and death roles out there.

Christopher H

I expect that all will be revealed once the General retires. His opinion can then be shouted as loud as he wants - just whn he no longer has the power to alter the position. Maybe if he spoke out now forthrightly, as we all know he probably wishes he could, something could be done to reinforce the troops, instead of the understrength bloodbath that is currently occuring.

Edward Sutherland.

Woody,
If a Tory government had set our armed forces a well-nigh impossible mission and had then skimped on troop reinforcements and adequate equipment, I would have no difficulty with the head of the army raising the matter with the Parliamentary Army group of MPs. Come on, let's have some Labour MPs on this group if there aren't any already.

Jonathan Cook

Congratulations to Dannatt.

The Sunday Times headline specifically used the word "Labour" rather than "Government" and linked the party with failure to support the troops.

I wonder if the Murdoch empire used this to hint to Labour that they didn't like Minister's jumping on the get The News Of The World / Coulson wagon?

Bob.India

Augustus: What seems to be emerging is that the troops do not enjoy "deployment of the best hardware and equipment that money can buy".

Philip Jacobson makes the point in the Debate section of today's Mail on Sunday, although he takes a lead, I suspect, from http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/ and Richard North's book, "Ministry of Defeat".

In precis, the combined thesis holds that money is not the current problem, rather that the wrong military thinking has prevailed since the Balkan war and no real account has been taken of the abundant lessons of asymmetric warfare gained there and later on in Iraq, the wrong troop carrying vehicles have been specified and procured by an inept and un-listening MOD; lightly skinned as opposed to MRAP - Mine Resistant Ambush Protected - and exacerbation has been found through a dearth of Chinook battlefield transport helicopters, courtesy of the former NuLabour Chancellor's narrow personal, political and ideologically generated parsimony.

Needless to say, no really clear strategy exists to ensure the ultimate success of this latest Afghan campaign. Asymmetry still exists in the involvement, activities and commitment of our European allies to assist in the resolution of an increasingly unsatisfactory tactical situation but much more importantly, resolution of the precarious politics of Pakistan and extension of the writ of law into the Tribal Areas, backed by overwhelming force of arms, does not seem even a distant prospect.

logdon

The reality on the ground

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/12/afghanistan-taliban-troops-helmand-letters

Not quite what we hear from Bob for the job Ainsworth.

John Law

ohn Page
July 12th, 2009 10:01am

John, the Army owes its loyalty to the Queen and her subjects. The government and its' ministers are just the hired help, and a pretty tawdry bunch of employees at that.
They have undermined the forces continuously since they came to power.
Loyalty is a two-way street, Labour deserve none. In fact they deserve the contempt of the entire nation for their lack of any kind of long term strategy. A large proportion of the Afghan deaths are directly attributable to Brown, and his starving of our forces, of the appropriate equipment and numbers for proper force protection.

The lions are not obliged to be loyal like the donkeys.

Verity

logdon - Thank you for your excellent post.

This is a good thread. Lots of interesting perspectives, well-expressed.

John Law

Cleethorpes Rock
July 12th, 2009 10:43am

Thanks for that address. I don't normally stoop to foul language in print, but how else can you deal with this Labour filth

Bob.India

logdon: Yep, the boys on the ground seem to be the only ones speaking the truth (as usual).

B Luggs

It is Party before Country and obsessively typical of Labour.

Me, myself and I, in the person of the Labour Party.

Hysteria

The letters fron the front were interesting (thanks for the link logdon)

could have been written at any time over the last 200 years I guess !

john miller

Having advocated the use of the word "lie" when dealing with Brown and his motley crew, I now find another word inescapably appropriate.

That word is "hate".

I find myself hating Labour Party members who accuse a soldier of playing party politics, just because they disagree with him.

I hated Tony Blair for going to war. I hated him for lying to us all, sacrificing British troops, all in order to cling to Bush's coattails and become world famous.

I hate Gordon Brown for announcing that 1000 troops would be going home only for a net 500 to be sent out from Britain. But, of course, that wasn't playing party politics.

I hate socialists whose sole argument is, "if you don't agree with us you are a toff/racist/sexist/bigot/misogynist/Tory".

The bolshy Labour Party socialists never had a cause, never had a philosophy, never had an argument. After 12 years of name calling, smears and David Kelly, I've had enough.

john miller

Normally, I don't reply to some people who comment here as they do so solely to wind us all up. If they don't do it for that reason, then they are just crazy. Either way, they are not worth the wear and tear on the keyboard.

But John Page, I find this subject just a bit emotive, when half-assed socialists advocate that we let men die and sort it out later.

Your posts indicate that you are a firm believer in soldiers shutting up and doing as they are told. They should be loyal to their masters and not have a conscience.

Please, can you post a comment stating your views on the moral position of the guards at Auschwitz and Buchenwald?

Carly

It's the Labour party and Gordon Brown who are 'playing politics' with the military. How they sleep at night is beyond me!

Stan, UK

Time for a military coup, methinks....

Yrnefromhorsham

How about this - given that any number of labour MPs enjoy spending a month on dole money or two weeks living rough why is it that none seem to want to spend fourteen days on the front line. Chicken - all talk - no bottle.

michael

Dulce Et Decorum Est.

Go forth and re-read it ...
...the lot of you

Nicholas

john miller - I appreciate your last two posts very much indeed.

Socialists always demonise their opponents and invariably resort to the ad hominem attack - so don't be reluctant to give them a taste of their own medicine. In fact I think it is high time that the "socialist experiment" perpetrated on Britain by New Labour and its adherents were demonised, villified and thoroughly discredited to the point where admitting to be a Labour supporter or socialist brings public condemnation and opprobrium as a pariah, as they have tried to do with those on the right.

Socialist adherents of the New Labour creed have no place in modern Britain and taking a leaf from Harmon's Big Book of Bias I hope to see positive discrimination against them occupying influential posts in our civil establishment, public sector, education and police - ever again.

They are dangerous loons whose "progressive" tinkering with our constitution, culture and convention has resulted in one unholy mess, where the only certainties are that of unintended consequences and cost on a huge scale, both in monetary and human terms. These idiots, not fit to run a whelk stall (and that is an unwarranted slight to whelk stall operators) have managed to seize the public narrative and hold it to ransom, aided by their communist-leaning chums in the BBC, to the point where Britain is no longer recognisable as the tolerant, fair-minded, pragmatic and reasonable country it once was. Their imbecilic policies and determination to impose a single standard of thought, speech and behaviour, at complete odds with their professed beliefs in equality and fairness, have resulted in a public narrative trite beyond belief, replete with paranoia, all kinds of nastiness and what can only be described as creeping fascism. It is quite horrible and perpetrated by a relatively small gang of inadequate fools who have the pig-headed temerity to pretend they speak on behalf of "the public". Quite simply these people are corrupt traitors and criminals not fit for the offices they hold.

So don't hold back when another useful idiot posts here supporting these monsters.

William H

"John Page
July 12th, 2009 10:01am

Aren't the government entitled to expect any loyalty from him at all?"

Answer: NO. The loyalty of a senior military officer is to his troops, fighting an increasingly difficult enemy. He holds the Queen's Commission, and he ultimately is responsible to the Monarch, not to the latest whims of an increasingly out-of-touch political party and government.

As a disabled ex-soldier of thirteen years service, my job was to carry out the wishes of my superior officers, but not necessarily without question. On occasion, I did question those orders, and rightly so. On two occasions, I was proved correct, at the time, not after the event when it would have been too late. Lessons MUST be learned quickly, on the spot, not after the deaths and maiming of many more soldiers. Any inquiries later can question whether the troop numbers were correct or not, but certainly not in the heat of battle when men and women are dying for lack of equipment or reinforcement that is requested by the senior officers.

Andy MacLeod

my be its more of a case of Senior Labour figures playing soldiers.

Ed

General Dannatt is a true "hero" to the modern Army and the voice of the Army - not a pol. I, for one, will be sad to see his retirement July 31st 2009.

For far too long, our Army has been a plaything of politicians with even those soldiers that one might have expected to be the voice of the Army (yes, I'm looking at you, ugliest-man-in-NATO) falling at the final fence.