Donate SIGN UP

Political soldiering.

Avatar Image
123everton | 23:13 Tue 06th Oct 2009 | History
10 Answers
General Sir Richard Dannett was in the press today complaining that the P.M would not give him more troops for the war in Afghanistan, But General Wavell never complained when Churchill denuded him of troops and equipment for the disatrous campaign in Greece when he had almost all of North Africa under his control if we'd marched on and taken Tripoli from the Italians then Rommel's Afrika Korps could not have landed (if memory serves). Youn should also bear in mind that is was this political interference by Churchill that cost him his advantage in Africa, required him to attack Iraq (I think he refused) and cost him his command, he swapped with Auchinleck just before Rommel's counter offensive.
So the question is, seeing that war is just politics (foreign policy) by other means, was Dannett right to go public with his concerns?
Or should he have reserved his criticisms to private correspondence for historical record and private lobbying via his own supporters within Whitehall?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 10 of 10rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
a fair question. I'm unhappy with soldiers (or civil servants generally) sounding off about the wickedness of their employers. Politicians are elected, and have to answer to the public; generals are not. If Dannett feels he or his soldiers are hard done by, I think the proper approach is to protest privately and, as a last resort, to resign his command. If a few generals did that, the politicians would have some explaining to do, which is their job.

The politicians could I suppose sack any generals who complained about them in public, but that might be overreaction. When Truman sacked MacArthur it wasn't for grumbling about manning levels but for publicly disagreeing about policy, which is definitely the politicians' job.
Question Author
Again yes, if Dannett had resigned over the issue at the time that would have been a huge political storm (may even have brought down the government), I think he's retired now so can't be sacked.
I wonder if Wavell did complain to Churchill at the time. Such things weren't aired publicly in those days. Personally, I'm in favour of Dannett, or anyone else, who shows the politicians statements to the British public to be tosh.
Aha. Dannatt is to become a defence adviser to the Tories in the House of Lords, and may become a defence minister. So that explains that. It wasn't a protest, it was a job application.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8294670.stm
Question Author
And I thought I was being cynical in thinking he had a book coming out.
When I first noted this thread this morning, I considered contributing a comment along these lines..."As I know from personal experience, finding a Labour supporter among senior military officers has always been rather like looking for a needle in a haystack." I decided. however, just to leave it and moved on elsewhere. I could scarcely believe my ears when, on the Daily Politics programme at lunchtime, I learned that General Dannatt is to become a Tory lord. Nuff said!
Question Author
I think this issue is starting to back fire on the Tories now, the army top brass are said to be livid about it and senior government members were apparently asking him about apparent politicising in his last few weeks.
Have you seen this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/10/general_gimmick.html

Tory Chris Grayling mishears that Dannet is joining the Tories and thinking he is joining the Government goes on about political Gimmicks and PR appointments before discovering that Dannet is joining *his* Party.

Shouldn't laugh but - well you have to really
I'd heard that Grayling had made a gaffe but was unaware that it related to this particular piece of chicanery until now. Can you imagine how the Tory throng in the News category would have reacted if something similar had happened in the midst of the Labour conference? Perhaps the chairman of ICI might have said the Tory policy on something or other was bound to be disastrous for British business on one day and Gordon Brown had announced on the next that this very individual was to be made a Lord and appointed as a major adviser on business! You couldn't make it up, really.
I'm afraid you can never be too cynical, 123everton.

1 to 10 of 10rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Political soldiering.

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.