It has been a long time, as far as we know, since military chiefs attempted to destabilise an elected British Government. In Harold Wilson’s days, it was a maverick group of reactionary extremists whose own embarrassed colleagues agreed they had overstepped the constitutional line between democratic accountability and military might.
Quite what British Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt and Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup are up to is not clear. Both, most dramatically Sir Richard, have been publicly outspoken about alleged shortcomings of the Government’s commitment to troops and equipment, notably helicopters, in the Afghanistan war and the Helmand offensive in particular. It may well be true that more helicopters are needed – it is a tenet of all governments that the forces get what they say they need to do the job the politicians ask of them.
But, as the Chancellor Alistair Darling apparently pointed out to the generals last week, the Government cannot provide that which has not been asked for. And neither extra troops or more helicopters were requested by the military before Sir Richard decided to make such public play of the matter. He, and all the other military chiefs, are well aware of the time it takes to prepare these aircraft for combat readiness in an area such as Helmand. They will be aware of the futility of identifying shortages one day and expecting delivery the next.
Neither Sir Richard not any of his colleagues have requested additional troops or helicopters before he decided to make the issue public. Indeed, they have assured both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that they had the numbers and the troops to do the job asked of the forces.
If they knew this not to be true and failed to request more, they stand guilty of macho posturing and of letting down the forces they lead, in more than 180 cases to their deaths. If they have only recently realised that the mission they have been tasked to do in Helmand is under-resourced, their duty is to inform the elected representatives who sent them there before making political hay with their in-house national newspaper the Daily Telegraph.
Mr Darling has made it clear that no request for additional equipment has been refused by the Treasury and that he has at no time been made aware by the military chiefs in the regular meetings that are held in Whitehall of any critical shortages.
Tribune has made clear its opposition to the war in Afghanistan at the same time as expressing concern for the troops sent to fight an unjustifiable, unwinnable conflict. The mistake is to be there is the first place but the charge that the military effort is being jeopardised by political donkeys is a canard.
If the military chiefs failed to identify their needs for this mission adequately in advance it is on their shoulders the burden of blame should fall and Sir Richard should resist the temptation to mark his retirement by parading himself as the soldiers’ champion against a recalcitrant, penny-pinching, weak (Labour) Government. Although a stronger Labour Government would get the troops out.
