Dannatt may be overstating his case, but the government is being disingenuous
David Blackburn 2:17pm
General Sir Richard Dannatt issues a vociferous condemnation of the government’s commitment to British efforts in Afghanistan in the print edition of today’s Sun. Dannatt asserts that Gordon Brown vetoed increasing the British deployment by 2,000 troops, against the advice of military chiefs. He told the paper:
“The military advice has been for an uplift since the beginning of 2009. If the military says we need more troops and we can supply them, then frankly they should take that advice and deploy up to the level we recommend.“If it means finding more resources and putting more energy in, let’s do it. If you’re going to conduct an operation, you’re doing it for one reason – to succeed.
“Don’t let’s do it with at least one arm tied behind one’s back. That said, we have gone from 8,000 to 9,000 this year – albeit with 700 as a temporary surge.”
There’s nothing novel in Dannatt’s latest comments and Downing Street recited the liturgy. A spokesman said:
“The key point I think is there were 7,800 troops in Afghanistan in the summer of 2007, now there are 9,000. Reserve funding for Afghanistan has also increased. Any suggestion that the Prime Minister has been unwilling to provide more troops or resources is simply wrong.”
Obviously, the government ignore that 700 servicemen are due to return within the next month, but Dannatt has overstated his case. His successor General Richards has, by agreeing with Bob Ainsworth that there is no point sending more troops without the resources to equip them, contradicted Dannatt’s opinion that a surge could be adequately supplied. However, Richards’ and Ainsworth's brief concordance raises questions concerning the government’s overall commitment to the war. There is no doubt that an increased permanent presence is required, and General Richards has requested http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6861085.ece a further 1,000 combat troops be sent to Helmand. But whilst the political desire to fight exists, the political will to enact the Defence chiefs’ recommendations does not. Until that imbalance is redressed, British soldiers must fight an increasingly desperate war with a hand tied behind their back. If the public coffers are bare, then the government must downscale British deployment to match its own financial and political committment.
Previous
Vulture
October 6th, 2009 2:38pm Report this commentThe Liebour Government's shameful treatment of the - mostly working-class - lads who are fighting and dying on our behalf in Afghanistan is by some distance the most shameful of their many squalid legacies.
Watching that asinie NAAFI corporal Ainsworth, and Postman Pat with his lop-sided permanant grin, staggering around the country is just toe-curlingly embarrassing.
Neither man is worthy of kissing Dannatt's desert boots, and the best that can be said of them is that they are too terminally stupid to know better. Just a bit of Old Liebour cannon fodder sent out to take the flak.
I don't think the General overstated anything. He told the truth : and No.10 hate him for it. They are beneath contempt.
In2minds
October 6th, 2009 2:39pm Report this commentDannatt said - “Don’t let’s do it with at least one arm tied behind one’s back”.
I say – Don't let's do it, withdraw the troops now.
Nicholas
October 6th, 2009 2:41pm Report this comment"What will the wise prince do when he must undertake wars and fight battles? First of all, he will consider how much strength he has or can obtain, how many men are available and how much money. For unless he is well supplied with these two basic elements, it is folly to wage war, for they are necessary to have above all else, especially money." (Christine de Pizan, 'The Book of Deeds of Arms and Chivalry' circa 1410).
Looks like the fool Brown is out on both counts. Still, wrecking the economy and disemboweling the Army at the same time is probably something of an achievement in the Boys Big Book of Student Marxism which appears to be the source for most of his malevolent incompetence.
Keep the troops in Britain, Chiefs of Staff, and use them for a long overdue coup to rid the country of the communist subversives currently masquerading as a government.
Chuck Unsworth
October 6th, 2009 2:59pm Report this commentDannatt's and Richards' positions are not contradictory.
Dannatt says we need more troops, Richards does not deny this but says there's a requirement for adequate equipment and without the kit we might as well not bother. Fundamentally Richards is indicating that the Government 'plans' (a wholly indadequate description of this pig's ear) for this war are completely at odds with the realities. Meanwhile Dannatt is, rightly, decrying the political ineptitude, appalling mendacity, and the failure of planning and strategic vision.
If you care to examine the detail you'll see that this is a pincer movement.
It's vaguely conceivable that Ainsworth has gone native, but I'd keep my safety catch off - just in case....
David Blackburn
October 6th, 2009 3:09pm Report this commentChuck Unsworth,
Richards is asking for half as many troops as Dannatt, not because that's all that's needed but because that's all we can equip, a point of view that is quite clearly at odds with Dannatt's own.
Ainsworth's and Richards' concordance is a coincidence: Richards' stance reflects military realities, whereas Ainsworth's is an argument for not deploying more troops or increasing equipment supply, it's symptomatic of the wider problem that the political will to fulfil Generals' recommendations. I'm not Hannibal but I can't see a pincer movement here.
Chuck Unsworth
October 6th, 2009 3:28pm Report this commentDavid Blackburn,
Where does Dannatt say (or has he said) that there is sufficient equipment?
Jock
October 6th, 2009 3:50pm Report this commentGeneral Dannatt states that Brown turned down a request for 2000 extra troops. The Government issue an apparent denial in the form a carefully worded statement which on closer examination relates to associated but discrete developments.
My dilemma is this. What do I believe - the military version or the political sophistry?
Tough call.
Old Scrotum, the Wrinkled Retainer
October 6th, 2009 3:51pm Report this commentThe Downing St comment is a lie, pure and simple. Having seen the correspondence earlier this year, of the various Options on offer, the one selected was the one NOT recommended by the MOD, but selected by the usual suspects - Downing St being the lead, supported as usual by the FCO.
The options were- increase, and make a good fist of it, stay the same, and muddle through, or reduce numbers. The decision was taken, in around Feb, to REDUCE troop numbers this year. There is a surge on now for the election, and these may be left for a while longer, but the plan was always to end up with less UK personnel in Afg by the end of the year than at the start. I shouldn't be posting this, but the spin is making even my blood boil.
Point to note - no denials here from the MOD. They know what happened, and can't deny it - you never know, someone may have the evidence!
David Blackburn
October 6th, 2009 4:05pm Report this commentChuck Unsworth,
If the military says we need more troops and we can supply them, then frankly they should take that advice and deploy up to the level we recommend. And also http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5983582.ece
Although I accept circumstances may have changed, it's clear from these reports that Dannatt thought 2,000 troops could be deployed effectively.
TrevorsDen
October 6th, 2009 4:48pm Report this commentYou miss the point - the govt gave the army a task, to protect the election and support the US (Obamas) surge.
It did not give the army the men it needed. Pretty shameful.
And now ha ve expended loss of life to support Obama we risk seeing it all wasted as Obama probably pulls out.
Chuck Unsworth
October 6th, 2009 5:07pm Report this comment@ David Blackburn
Quite the reverse. "If it means finding more resources and putting more energy in, let’s do it. If you’re going to conduct an operation, you’re doing it for one reason – to succeed." is a clear indication that Dannatt would wish to reserve that position - on the basis that additional equipment might well be necessary. Quite obviously the manpower is one thing, the equipment another.
Simply, if you cannot see that point then we'll have to agree to disagree.
As to the concordance between Richards and Ainsworth, well yes there may be similarities, but these are strange bedfellows and this may be a marriage of convenience. I suspect that Richards is trying to play a longer game than Ainsworth - for glaringly obvious reasons.
In any event, things will change shortly, I think. Let's not forget that there are two calendars here - the military and the political.
Fatbloke on tour
October 6th, 2009 5:30pm Report this commentScabby Ugly burd aka Larkin Lover
Oh no not another one.
PR specialist with a messiah complex.
Last week it was Winnie now it is Tricky Dicky.
At what point are you going to work out that the people who shout the loudest are the people who cannot do their job.
His three years in A/stan have been a shambles. No strategy, tactics changing every six months and then back again and a complete lack of imagination all round.
Remember this is the British Army we are talking about, thick as shit at the neck of a bottle. They still can't work out how Rommel gave them a beating with half their numbers.
Indeed Cunningham and Ritchie and even the "Auk" were never off the phone complaining about the quality of their armour and a lack of specialist troops.
Sounds familiar, but hey ho, why let facts get in the way of a few cheers for a mentalist crusader with an axe to grind.
No wonder he didn't get the top job.
And why should he, isn't it the navy's turn.
Everybody in SpectatorLand talks about the limitations of the NHS, why isn't the same level of questioning put to the MOD?
They are a disgrace to the troops in the field. The top ranks of the army are just as bad, as always fighting the last war and not the one in front of them.
In Iraq the Yanks played buzzsword bingo when an army officer spoke, time to the first mention of Northern Ireland. The most money was made on bets for 70 seconds.
Things have not got better in A/stan.
Look at the new armour we are buying, overpriced angle iron engineering from British Waste of Space that isn't up to the job.
Everything covered in a steel bar frame, overloading the chassis and limiting visibility. How does that work when the Red Army sorted out a similar problem with steel springed mattresses as they drove to Berlin.
Thinking on the hoof I think they call it, whatever it is they don't teach it at Sandhurst.
Chuck Unsworth
October 6th, 2009 6:46pm Report this comment@ Fatbloke
Do you have the slightest idea of how RPGs and IEDs work?
boulay
October 6th, 2009 8:34pm Report this commentSurely it is the whole process that is wrong. The government of the day should agree whether a conflict is right or wrong to be involved in. If the govt approves involvement then the whole campaign should be passed over to a joint services committee to plan completely for a successful outcome. As soon as they report back with a strategy and costing the govt then has to approve and back fully in line with the plan and costs or withdraw.
Fatbloke on tour
October 6th, 2009 8:38pm Report this commentCharles U
Only too well, unfortunately British Waste of Space and the MOD don't, otherwise they would have relegated the Vector to the scrap heap long ago.
It proves, as does the Jackal that cab over and mine resistsnce don't go.
Regarding the bar armour, that is the equivalent of putting a heavy bird cage around the vehicle with all its ateendant weaknesses. There must be a better way.
All these vehicles being rushed to the front, the good the bad and the ugly of armoured vehicle design costing fortunes that would have been better spent on a well thought out selection of vehicles.
Unfortunately we are in A/stan with the modern equivalent of Fred Karno's army.
What price the Boxer MRAV.
Proper vehicle to do a proper job.
Beer Moth
October 6th, 2009 10:13pm Report this commentIn2minds
Yeah good idea. Let's do that and stand back and watch the effect it has on radical Islam. They'll appreciate the gesture and reward us no end.
Nicholas
October 6th, 2009 10:58pm Report this commentHmm. Red. Blatent. Some techno-military insight. Scottish.
Is the fat interloper with the shoulder chips that doyen of Everything Wrong With New Labour and well known Art Dealer Eric Joyce? (Maybe the spelling mistakes are deliberate, to disguise the Educational Corps connection - or maybe the Educational Corps is just as bad as the armoured vehicle strategy ).
Fatbloke on tour
October 6th, 2009 11:51pm Report this commentNicky Boy
---------
You will need to try harder, not even close.
Interesting to read your thoughts on the matter when you get round to post them.
Scabby Ugly Burd / Larkin Lover
-------------------------------
What's that at the start of your post?
Crocodile tears for the youth of the working class?
Yesterday you wanted them crushed and their mothers eating grass.
You really are the hypocrite's hypocrite.
The Mr Benn of SpectatorLand.
Last week it was professional historian.
This week it is poetry critic.
Next week it will be a total fud.
Bob.India
October 7th, 2009 1:51am Report this commentMaybe a better way of conducting ourselves in Afghanistan might be contained here:
Don’t Try to Arrest the Sea: An Alternative Approach for Afghanistan. Major Mehar Omar Khan
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/301-khan.pdf
strapworld
October 7th, 2009 8:44am Report this commentI am sick to death of the lies this unscrupulous, double dealing, cowardly government tell the British people daily.
Last week a brave soldier was blown up in a vehicle that we were assured by Col.Blimp Ainsworth had been withdrawn from service. Where is the outrage from our National Press?
Lies. Lies. Lies are fed to the people and it is about time this Magazine and all newspapers joined The Sun in their campaign Do you know there is a war on?
Brown refused to give what General Dannant requested. As a result more soldiers were killed. Brown in my view is guilty of war crimes committed against our troops. Charge the bastard!
Vulture
October 7th, 2009 9:03am Report this comment@Fatburk
Don't you think its a bit ambitious to graduate from remedial reading classes to armchair military historian? A bit like waddling before you can crawl. You'll have to learn to spell before you can hope to write.
I know a bit more abt Dannatt than you fatty, because we share the same literary agent. Your slurs against this fine and brave man (One doesn't get the MC for nothing) say much more about you and your Liebour masters than they do about him.
It's clear from your vile insults that you hate the Army just as much as your hero Bruin - which rather disqualifies you from pontificating about them.
But if you really want to know what the opinion of real soldiers is regarding this lying, scumbag excuse for a Government, just read a few Army voice websites - I warn you, the opinions are a lot richer than those you find in Speccieland.
By the way, what does Downing Street pay you for your ludicrous contributions to this site? I'd guess around £18,000 p.a.
so you might just squeeze in under Oasborne's radar and not get your pittance frozen. Only problem: come June you'll be out of work. I hope you are saving hard.
In2minds
October 7th, 2009 10:01am Report this commentBeer Moth -
I have a better idea, first we deal with radical islam here in the UK. Then when that's sorted we take off on fancy foreign adventures.
Sarge
October 7th, 2009 10:39am Report this commentAside from the rhetoric and the fat tourist's rantings,let's look at the bigger picture. The Army has 100,000 personnel and c 10,000 are in Afghanistan - why can we not find 1/2000 more? Answer -the finances are so screwed now,this is impossible to fund. If so,why the promises of more equipment?
To add to this,I note the the recent death at Camp Bastion happend in a Vector. Supposedly withdrawn in May as they lacked protection.
It seem to me that the Rhodesian Army in the 70s overcame the mine problem with a small budget, limited numbers and a trade embargo. i.e. ingenuity overcame the obstacles.
Sadly,the Army is like any other corporate organisation. He who tows the party line rises to the top.He who does not either leaves or stays at the sharp end.
This does not put military talent at the top of the command chain by default.
Fatbloke on tour
October 7th, 2009 11:24am Report this commentScabby scavenging burd / aka Larkin Lover
We now have you and the mentalist crusader sharing literary agents? This is beyond irony, three years hard graft generating a media profile so that he can sell a few books.
Shame, shame, shame!
Maybe if he had read some and not spent his shouting from his soapbox he might have learned something and fewer people would have been killed.
Budgie does it again, crack shot.
One bullet, both feet!
Vulture
October 7th, 2009 12:20pm Report this comment@Fatburk
Don't you read the news, Fatso? It's been reported everywhere for months that Dannatt's book will nail Bruin's criminally irresponsible Govt. for the scum they are. I'm looking forward to it - its the hottest property in publishing right now. Mind you, I wouldn't expect you to know that because you are an illiterate unemployable imbecile.
PS. And talking of literature didn't your hero Bruin have a book ghosted for him called 'Courage'? And people say the bogey-muncher has no sense of humour.
Fatbloke on tour
October 7th, 2009 12:37pm Report this commentSarge
A/stan involves HMG / MOD / Army
Spectatorland puts all the blame on HMG.
As you might expect I disagree.
The MOD has more tribes than the Apache nation.
Everybody working for their own pet project.
Doing the right thing is not rewarded, as you note, same here as in the Army you either toe the party line on equipment and support the incumbent supplier or you are toe'd.
Only in extremis are changes made and that is usually people have been killed.
Consequently equipment issues are not just down to the Treasury playing hardball.
Although as it is the Treasury they have both a long memory and a list as long as your arm of all the major MOD cock-ups.
Unfortunately they have plenty to choose from.
Army has struggled in both Iraq and A/stan.
The initial Iraq assault had a lot of "after you Claude" about it, headless chicken style re-arrangements without actually moving forward.
A/stan has probably been even worse as the fluid nature has shown up the Army's "but this is how we did it in the Divis flats" mentality. That and the fact that changes have involved two steps forward and then one step back mean that we are now second rate in the eyes of the Yanks.
They might be dregs / underclass of US society with a cadre of shouty / mouthy officers but they do learn and they do it fast.
Consequently the Army needs to up its game, the MOD needs to get its finger out and the government needs to work out what it wants to do.
Hopefully the next Army guy is more of a soldier and not a tub thumping, book writing, Crusader mentalist like Tricky Dicky.
Fatbloke on tour
October 7th, 2009 12:47pm Report this commentScabby Scavenging Burd / Larkin Lover
So the bold general has been planning to write a book, an enterprise in which he hopes to make money while still serving in the Army.
Shouldn't he have been concentrating on his day job?
Suddenly all the dots start to join up.
All this to get him into ermine?
Vulture
October 7th, 2009 12:57pm Report this comment@Fats:
And if Bruin had been getting on with HIS job with a modicum of competence instead of drivelling on abt something he knows absolutely nothing abt, viz. 'Courage' then perhaps we wouldn't be facing national bankruptcy now? You are so stupid that its tragic, actually.
Nicholas
October 7th, 2009 1:25pm Report this commentDon't Feed The Communist Trolls.
They are stalking the threads everywhere with exactly the same patronising diminutives, put downs and air of moral superiority.
Fatbloke on tour
October 7th, 2009 3:41pm Report this commentSkanking ugly Burd / Larkin Lover
---------------------------------
You are Chris Grayling and I claim my £100.
Nicky Bhoy
----------
Marxist Leninist if you don't mind.
You have heard of Old Labour.
You have heard of New Labour.
Well I am Tribal Labour.
So GIRUY you smug reactionary trumpet.
What is that I see in the street?
Oh a dog with a red rosette on.
I must go and vote for it!
Cheery.
Back to top