GENERAL CONFUSION OVER CONFLICT IN IRAQ

13-10-2006

It's reported today that the head of the British Army is at war with Tony Blair over the war in Iraq…so when did generals get to choose which battles they fight?

Comments made by General Sir Richard Dannatt in the Daily Mail (www.dailymail.co.uk) have been seized on as evidence that military top brass can't wait to quit to the Gulf as soon as possible.

Dannatt says: “I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

He adds that the general welcome British troops initially received has now turned to “intolerance”, and concludes that we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

The Mail itself says the General's comments are a “devastating broadside on Tony Blair's foreign policy”.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Read the full interview, and you could equally come to the conclusion that Dannatt is merely stating the position honestly, based on his experience in the Gulf.

He certainly doesn't make any explicit criticism of the Prime Minister, and as to the crucial question of whether the war was justified or not, he fudges the issue, saying cautiously “history will judge”.

It's all so opaque that only the General and the journalist who interviewed him truly know if the paper is guilty of outrageous top-spin, or whether Dannatt gave the green light to their anti-Blair “interpretation.”

Either way, he should have kept it zipped. It's the job of elected governments to determine when to fight or withdraw from a battlezone, and no business of any senior army member of the army to question it (or be seen to be questioning it)in public.

Yes, they can (and should) explain military strategy to us anddescribe the way in which a particular battle has gone.If soldiers aren't properly equipped, it's reasonable that should makethis known via the press too, even if it has to be strictly off the record.

Anything else, though - forget it. Sure, those with fighting experience need to let politiciansknow if they think they are behaving foolishly; but those warnings need to be kept behind closed doors.

This isn't because of some outmoded notion of “honour” either; it's for the very practical reason that comments like thesegive hope and inspiration to those actively engaged fighting British troops.

Dannatt has effectively said that the army is on the run in Iraq andstretched to breaking point in Afghanistan, thus giving a key psychological and strategic advantage to those who want to see more coffins coming home draped in the union flag.

As a military man, the General should understand the value of discipline; here he has undermined it - whether by accident or design - by being seen to try and call the shots in parliament, not just on the battlefield.

This sets a scary and dangerous precedent, too. In a democracy, however much they might not like the idea, military men and women are merely tools of government policy. It's not pleasant to think that theyare leading their troops to to deaths with might otherwise be avoidable, but ifyou take the Queen's shilling it goes with the territory.You might not like it, but you have to lump it. War is simply not a pick n' mix option.

What's the alternative anyway? International diplomacy decided in the Naafi?

Let's not forget that however loathed Tony Blair might seem to be, he is the Prime Minister of a democratic country, chosen by the people.

Nobody voted for Dannatt. He has been selected to do a job, that's all, albeit a very serious one.

He should get on with it , emplying maximum fuss and minimum noise.