Britain’s military forces are characterised by self-discipline. They submit to a code of conduct which includes the cheerful acceptance of orders from above. Generals are no exception and cope uncomplainingly with the demands placed on them by ministers.
The public criticisms of the resources provided by the government for the Afghan campaign, voiced by Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff, and Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, are extremely unusual. That the two most senior officers in the chain of command have broken with the restraints of a service culture imbued in them since they enlisted as young men suggests an unprecedented level of exasperation.
Their frustration is evidently caused by Gordon Brown in particular. The generals have muddled along well enough with half a dozen defence secretaries since Labour was elected. During Tony Blair’s premiership, the army absorbed the unreasonable strains of deployment in two war zones and alarming casualty rates with no more than a sigh. But now the generals are engaged in a very public row with this prime minister. As though Brown had not already suffered enough humiliation, he is now to be seen contradicting those who command the soldiers sacrificing limb and life in Helmand.
The armed forces rarely get from politicians what they have a right to expect, even though their requirements are simple. Commanders want to know what is the mission and what is the exit strategy. They request they be given the tools for the job and political support from start to finish. Except perhaps during the second world war, politicians have always been fuzzy about objectives, failed to make the adjustments necessary to supply a campaign with men and equipment and wobbled in the face of public anxiety.
Generals recognise those political weak-nesses and so normally settle for less. They can manage if ministers at least recognise the value of what the forces do. It used to be that prime ministers and ministers of defence had served in the armed forces and imbibed their ethos. Since the 1970s that has ceased to be the case. The military have met that new challenge by impressing their civilian political masters with their enthusiasm and efficacy.
Read Full Article »