Dannatt, gimmicks and half-wits

Hawkeye

Rod said: "Henceforth, all criticisms he makes of the conduct of the war in Afghanistan will be taken with a pinch of salt, because he is now a Tory primarily, rather than an independently-minded soldier who wants only the best for his former comrades."

That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that he will have more influence to get the stuff his ex-comrades need if he is "inside the tent pi**ing out, rather than outside the tent pi**sing in".

If Dannatt stands up and says "Now I'm a tory and everything is rosy in the world of defence", then his usefulness will decline. If, on the other hand, he explains to the politicians what really needs to be done then he will be very useful indeed.

Gordon has already learned that GOATs and the like continue to follow their personal beliefs rather than the party line. Cameron might be about to learn the same lesson

Nicholas

Well at least you got Woolas bang to rights, smarmy little git (him not you . . . . . although . .)

Our_Beloved_Revolutionary_Sweetheart

So Dannatt will presumably ask Dave for more money and more troops, while the prevailing mood in the public is that we should just get out.

Lupus Lungfish

I'm surprised Cameron's mob could'nt have predicted the fuss this would kick up. It gives the impression that Dannett's been carpetbagging this past few months- they'll be drafting Joanna Lumley in next.

rod seacole liddle

the prevailing mood is wrong, then.

Vulture

Dannatt's agenda has been obvious to anyone with half a brain since he gave an interview to Sarah Sands in the Mail in his first weeks in office in which he blasted Liebour's shambolic and possibly criminal incompetence.

Dannatt confuses and worries the political and media classes because he actually stands up and says what he thinks. He's a Tory. Of course he bloody well is - so what?

The bottom line is that Tories understand the Army and the need for it and what it does which Liebour never have.

You have only to look at the calibre of the creeps and cretins of those RD is up against : Ainsworth, Foulkes, Jones, Woolas and fumblebum Bruin himself, to know who is the better man.

KB

"...as his underlings will tell you, Dannatt has a certain liking for the limelight."

Still getting the emails from McBride then, Rod.

Carl Gordon-Brown

I'd say that this was nothing more than a political gimmick, but I've been beaten to it by two half wits.

It would be very funny if the General (better known as the "Reverend" in the Army) turned Dave down.

Hawkeye

"You have only to look at the calibre of the creeps and cretins of those RD is up against : Ainsworth, Foulkes, Jones, Woolas and fumblebum Bruin himself, to know who is the better man."

Did you hear Eddie Mair take Foulkes apart on the PM programme (Wed 7th) last night? It took Mr Mair about two minutes to tie Foulkes into verbal knots and start backtracking on his accusations.

They can't even get their smears right. Pathetic!

Liz Brown

Woolas IS petty, stupid and contemptous. Was he the best Liebour could find to argue against the appointment of Dannat and didn't both Bliar and gormless want a Government of all the talents?

john miller

I have to say, I think I'm giving up.

I saw the LibDem conference and thought: "what a bunch of cretins".

I saw the Labour conference and thought: "what a bunch of cretins".

I saw the Tory conference and thought: "what a bunch of cretins".

Dixon

I saw the interview too. Honestly, I dont intend to be frivolous ( wot, moi )but that Woolas was a disgrace in his very countenance: a shabby, badly shaven unkempt homunculous with all the charm of an obsessive cottager. Do his comrades...uh, colleagues really want to lose the election THAT badly that noone could be found either to appear in his place or, failing that, tell the scruffy, seedy little sod to get a makeover.

As for Grayling...when he speaks it reminds me of, well, me. Shop staff and waiters treat me like I'm a half-wit until they get beyond my stilted, autistic-spectrum delivery and realise that ( sometimes at least ) I am talking sense. Only, in Graylings case, he wasnt actually talking sense.

WoW

Hey Dix, its Render!

ron nowicki

Liddle is completely wrong re General Dannatt's loss of value to the Conservatives. The fact that the Grayling was left out of the loop re the appointment of Dannatt does not negate the fact that the general has more battlefield experience than anyone on either side of the aisle. Labour missed that point as did Liddle.

Dixon

The government are certainly responsible for the supply issues which Dannat et al have highlighted. And the overall strategy in Afghanistan ( placing Afhan lives before those of our own, trying to "build" a country rather than simply standing back and easily obliterating any element within it that we dont like the look of ) is questionable. But who is responsible for actual British army "tactical doctrine", ie, sending men out on foot patrols in the absolutely certain knowledge that a percentage will be fragged. Sending out patrols in ridiculous fairground-targets-on-wheels ( ie, Land Rovers ) rather than properly protected? Why, its people like 'is Lordship Dannat there. Its they who regard "squaddies" ( "salt of the earth...and they know their place" ) as basically IED fodder. Against which light, all the wingeing about kit, no amount of which in the world will protect such men against a remote-controlled explosive device, seems like inexplicable crocodile tears.Inexplicable until now that is.

The British forces have ALWAYS been poorly equipped regardless of who is in power. They have always consisted of "oik" "lions lead by donkeys". "Toff" donkeys who basically regard their "lowest" subordinates as expendibles, like ammunuition or toilet paper.

Donkeys like Dannat. I mean look at that regalia!

Hawkeye

Dixon said: "Donkeys like Dannat. I mean look at that regalia!"

You mean, never trust anyone who dresses up fancy and then puts a chicken on his head?

Prof. John locke

if you think a soldier will cease to want the best for his comrades because he happens to be an advisor, you do not understand what makes a soldier tick....better Dannatt than Sugar!

GaryO

On a separate issue, I'm wondering, how come you never hear Taliban complain about the lack of their gear or helicopters or armoured petrol vehicles? They must be the world's poorest army fighting the best equipped and well paid armies in the world – no formal training at military academies, no helmets or space age bullet proof vests, bare feet, mostly eat as and when they get it, save a swab of tincture iodine, no hospital treatment for the injured, living in caves, no helicopters, no fighter jets, no fancy gear or satellite intelligence and mainly using WWII guns and ammo left behind by the Russians in the 80's.

And they are winning this war, right?

Will I be vilified and shouts of death to traitor rain down on me if I venture to ask if perhaps our soldiers are too pampered? Does every death of our soldier have be treated by the media and politicians as a great calamity on our nation – like a Lady Diana moment, or can we not just ask them to get on with it?

This is an un-winnable war – a war with no legitimate purpose and no end.

Bring our boys back home.

Dirty Euro

Look at that picture of him who will tell dannatt that he has a giant Swan sitting on his head.

Ian C

I agree that Dannatt's use has been diminished but only in the immediate political battle up to the election because he now cannot now comment as he did last week and not risk involving the military in politics.

He therefore must shut up, publicly, and only advise the Tories privately while they're in opposition, who may or may not use what he advises. If he is made a minister in a Tory Gov't then what he then says publicly is fine.

He cannot now go public with the sort of criticisms he has made in the past as these were direct from his miltary employment and will risk politicising other senior figures who have criticisms to make of the MoD/Gov't of the day. It also silences his successors frommaking the sort of public utterances that he made while in post as they will risk being accused of politicising the military.

But from time to time, in history, senior sometimes, but not exclusively, ex-military personnel have felt the need to put the boot in to the gov't of the day publicly. He only did this, at first, from his direct miltary experience under this gov't and with considerable wide support in the forces and the country. To continue to do so publicly now would diminish the specific but justified and important criticisms he has made.

Lupus Lungfish

GaryO- No our soldiers are not pampered and no the Taliban are not winning the war. The Taliban have an advantage in that they are fighting a no holds barred guerilla war just as they did against the Russians. To say they've not had any training is not quite true- fighting is what they do and always have, if they're not kicking us out (as they did in 1842) they're beating each other up. Its a shame Congressman Charlie Wilson wasn't allowed to finish his excellent work back in the eighties and keep them on our side!

rod seacole liddle

Have to say, I have some sympathy with GaryO's analysis. The parades through Wootton Bassett and Huw Edwards wearing a black armband every time a soldier is killed may not help the public mood.....

NR

This analysis rest on the assumption that Dannatt only has political uses, not real, practical ones. What if Cameron wants him in to find out what is really wrong with the military and to actually do something about it.

Simon Stephenson

rod : 12.05pm

Don't you think that pivotal to improving the public mood must be improving the understanding that each emotional episode is the consequence of something of substance - it's not just an occurrence that can be dealt with in isolation? In other words, we can't take the Wootton Bassetts and the armbands away without withdrawing from whatever purpose it is that we are active in Afghanistan.

Like most everything else in life it's a trade-off, and allowing a public mood to develop from looking only at one side of the trade is, I would say, quite dangerous to the proper formulation of national policy. There needs to be a much more candid approach taken to explaining why the Afghanistan mission is so vital for our interests, because many, many people look at what's been given out hitherto as just not adding up. As with Iraq.

Cru man

GaryO’s point about the ‘un-winnable war’s spot on. It’s unwinnable because the strategy stinks.

Like it or not, call it racist or not, close your eyes to it or not but it’s a given in the current geo-political environment: fighting men from Christians countries can never solve anything in a Muslim land, particularly as orthodox as Afghanistan. It’s a dead certainty that at best we’ll leave the country and not much will have change, at worst we’ll dig a deeper hole, one akin to our arming the Mujahedeens when the Russians had a go moulding the country.

What the West should consider is the setting up of a terrorist fighting agency under the auspices of the UN, largely fund it, and convince those Muslim countries that have as much to lose as us to back it. After all, the terrorists are a threat to all of us. The body would be charged with recruiting fighters almost exclusively from non-Christian regions, a bunch of volunteers akin to the French Foreign legion. If the pay were good the supply would easily exceed demand. The training wouldn’t have to be that long. The important message these men would convey in Afghanistan is that, although Muslims themselves, they are fighting for a form of Islam totally different from that of the turbaned nutcases who live in caves and strap bombs to children. The local population would identify with such force easier, too. It would also be cheaper to keep these units in place for years, or until Afghanistan stabilizes sufficiently, and its armed forces can take over.

Lupus Lungfish

Cru man, it'd never work. I had a good drunken chinwag with a yank in a bar in New York a couple of years back. We decided that it would be an excellent idea to give the Jews Montana. Simply pay off the rednecks who live there and move all those churches and stuff over brick by brick along with the Israelis- do I win the Nobel peace prize?

Toby- Ballocks! (luv ya really)

Lupus

Toby- Ballocks

lupus loves China Town

Have you ever been to Montana?- its empty- The Jews would convert it into California, you Yanks would have Two Californias.I'm sorry ,just dreaming, LOVE America. Once when I was hitching from Boston to New York a bunch of guys had a go at me- the point is about America when I squealed like a stuck pig- Four lads came out of the BLUE- God bless that stupid country.If Rod Liddle thinks he knows America, or his stupid BBC friends,. Sorry Rod, but you do not know America.

Lungfish Circus Lupus

Nobel prize awarded to Rod Liddle- services to Punk Rock and general mutiny. Fingers says "YES HE'S FULL OF SHITE"- but superb with it.Now Feck off before your head explodes you CANT.

Prescott deseves it more than all of us heathons- what a charming man

Lupus

I'm really sorry but I quite like Melanie- I think she talks sense.

pseudo punk - fairly interesting

lupus lungfish

Toby- I was at that Brasenose Ball in 89- that Hawkwind band, I really can't remember,what were thry called? I had to fix them up!they were an off shoot from Hawkwind-That stupid thing I had to watch on the telly the other day.Boris and Dave!_ Don't these cunts realise who's REALLY running the country?
Rod the Punk- its the Cambridge Crew that run this country.Rod with all working class hero respect- the Oxford boys put on the show its Cambridge that runs the place.

Percy Filf

I'd have a lot more respect for the man if he'd just face up to the fact that he is bald instead of walking round with that decapitated chicken on his head.

Lupus

I really should learn to keep my gob shut when drunk-