In perfect harmony?

The interview this week with Sir Richard Dannatt, the recently appointed head of the British Army, was little short of astonishing. It is not unheard of, of course, for a military commander to express an opinion about the conduct of a campaign, particularly when the lives of his troops are at risk, but it is almost unheard of for the most senior Army commander to take a public stance which appeared to be defiantly at odds with the policy of his political masters....and more than that, his widely publicised remarks created more than a ripple across the Atlantic from where, it appears, White House staffers were calling Blair's office asking anxiously if 'they could be of any help'.

Tony Blair, the next day, hastily gave a news conference saying that he was 'perfectly in agreement' with the General's remarks and that 'he meant when the job was done, as we all do' but it all had rather that air of a man with his back to the ropes.

For Sir Richard did not say 'when the job was done' but that 'the British Army should leave Iraq very soon' that its presence 'exacerbated the security problems there' and, the remarks that possibly made DC most jittery ' that the post invasion planning had been very poor, probably based more on optimism than sound thinking'.

This is undoubtedly straying way beyond the brief of a senior military man and into the realm of political decision making, a military commander almost criticising the competence of the planners of the Iraq campaign.

In days gone by, a senior Army Commander who so publicly spoke out would have been replaced, I have little doubt of that. Why did Sir Richard feel strong enough to risk such a loaded observation?

First I believe, the situation in Afghanistan where Britain currently has 3300 troops as part of the NATO force. Sir Richard is clearly and honestly driven by deep concern that the number of troops to perform the task against an underestimated Taliban, is insufficient and that supplies and back up are not currently up to the job. Another senior army spokesman had earlier said, causing more ruffled feathers, that the utilisation of the Royal Air Force in Afghanistan was 'virtually useless' . He pleaded for more US Chinook helicopters, so far not supplied, as a far more effective tool for the seeking out and destroying of Taliban 'cells'. Sir Richard is clearly aware, and I sense angry, that the British government is hiding the true state of play in Afghanistan with regard to both casualties and inadequate back-up. One senior officer was reported as saying that Afghanistan 'could be a second Gallipoli' if steps were not taken soon.

Strongly though Sir Richard clearly feels, I believe he would have been more temperate in his choice of language had it not been for the weakened position of the Prime Minister. Until he finally quits the scene, I believe Blair is in danger of many minor humiliations like this because he won't want to be seen sacking his military commanders like some demented Roman Emperor, particularly since it is now clear that British involvement and decision making (however paltry that is) towards the end game in Iraq will not be in his hands. In fact Sir Richard's message could have been deliberately aimed at the next Prime Minister - presumably Gordon Brown - to heed his plea, highlighting once more the terribly weak position in which Blair is now placed and that, whatever his merits or otherwise, cannot be good for the country.

What this all boils down to is that as a nation we are 'kippers and curtains'. We try and look like a first world military power, particularly to impress our US allies, and indeed the British forces are some of the finest trained in the world. But we are paying for them out of the poor box, raiding the metaphorical Oxfam shop to keep them supplied with weapons and equipment, sometimes, as in Iraq, begging and borrowing purpose designed footwear from the Americans even to cope with the strain of the desert and the heat. At some point soon, Britain is going to have to take a deep breath, swallow its pride, and pull back on all the committments we make all round the globe. With a standing army of just over 100,000 men we simply do not have the resources to cope or, apparently, the political will to spend much more money to do so. Nor in my opinion should we continue to expand the military budget, as I've said elsewhere.

Our politicians, however, continue to demand 'their cake and eat it', demanding British involvement all over the globe without the means to pay for it, to the growing despair and fury of the Commanders who carry the can for the success or failure of a military operation, like Sir Richard Dannatt.