Unpopular wars undermine the army

Published 27 September 2007

Many British soldiers feel unease at what they were asked to do by the Blair government - it's not easy to fight and die for something many of your countrymen do not believe in

General Sir Richard Dannatt has established a reputation for being prepared to express the views of the British army on some of the most sensitive strategic challenges our country faces. He has repeatedly given interviews on how the Iraq War has stretched the armed forces to breaking point, berated the postal service for charging soldiers and their families for parcels sent to or from Afghanistan, and described Iraq as a nationally unpopular war. He has spoken with a candour that no previous soldier of his rank has matched.

In a speech on 21 September, at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Dannatt expanded on his fear that the unpopularity of the wars our soldiers are fighting is affecting how they are seen at home. "Soldiers are genuinely concerned when they come back from Iraq to hear the population that sent them being occasionally dismissive or indifferent about their achievements," he said. "We are in danger of sapping our volunteer army's willingness to serve in such an atmosphere again."

No politicians have dared rein in the outspoken general, probably because they had not begun to think about how to address these issues. After his recent speech, however, it was noticeable that they were quick to respond. The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, announced that troops serving in the Iraq and Afghan wars will be given a discount on their council tax and pledged an extra £80m to improve army accommodation. At the Labour party conference on Tuesday, David Miliband conceded that "while we've won the wars, it's been harder to win the peace". "Four times we've sent young men and women to fight for our values . . ." said the Foreign Secretary, "and we cannot forget their bravery and their sacrifice."

Perhaps someone else in the government will now take up Dannatt's ideas on how the country could show appreciation for returning soldiers: councils to arrange American-style welcome-home parades, football clubs to give free tickets to soldiers who have served in Iraq or Afghan istan for more than six months. "Soldiers need to know they are respected for their acts of selflessness and courage," he said pointedly.

Dannatt held up the United States as the exemplary benchmark of how soldiers returning from Iraq are treated, but this is misleading. The critical difference is that the whole of the US, including politicians and the media, was strongly in favour of invading Iraq. This was not the case in Britain, and the passionate divisions about the war were reflected in the ranks.

Immediately after the fall of Baghdad I took part in a debriefing at the BBC with two other correspondents embedded with the British and US forces. My colleague with the Royal Marines described how, when notice came that the invasion was to go ahead, everyone in the unit talked about what they had just been asked to do by the poli ticians. Opinion among the marines, including officers, was divided along three lines.

One-third thought that, with or without international backing or a second UN resolution, they were doing the right thing. Another third were very troubled by the lack of international support and worried that the weapons inspectors had not been given enough time - but they would be relieved if they got a decent welcome from ordinary Iraqis when they went in. The final third thought they were being asked to be America's poodle; some of them openly described Tony Blair as a warmonger and believed that the WMDs issue was a smokescreen. The US marines I met the day Baghdad fell were different. They believed they were there to "get the terrorists". Some of them genuinely thought they were in Iraq to stop another 9/11.

The point is that many British soldiers feel unease at what they were asked to do by the Blair government. It cannot be an easy thing to fight and die for something many of your countrymen do not believe in, but that is the plight the armed forces find themselves in.

I doubt there will be ticker-tape parades for returning service personnel throughout the country. Having heard some of the forces' private opinions about government policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, I suspect that many of them don't expect parades, either.

Post this article to

8 comments from readers

writeon
27 September 2007 at 12:15

There is a fundamental weakness with the 'war on terror' or the crusade against 'militant islam.' It's not just the army who are 'confused' about our war aims and methods, there's the problem of Britain's Muslim population and where their alligance lies. Then we've got the attitude of the rest of the population to consider. The support for the 'crusade' is weak. This is clearly a big problem. It's difficult to mobilize a nation for war when so many, a substantial minority or a sizable majority, frankly don't support the war or it's objectives.

A New Labour minister recently said that British troops would be in Afghanistan for years, probably decades, perhaps generations; in order to get the job done! Now, how many people in Britain really support the idea of remaining in Afghanistan for decades, let alone generations? Especially as the war there is already lost! How futile to die in a conflict where the outcome has already been decided. Put very simply, the people of Afghanistan won and we didn't.

Then there the rape of Iraq to consider. How does one get public support for raping and robbing a country? What's noble in rape and murder? How does one sell that to soldiers or their families? It get's worse. Iran is a model for the future. It's how we are going to treat any country that opposes our will and has something we want, in this case, vast, untapped oil and gas reserves, a prize of enormous strategic and economic value to those who control it. How do we get our soldiers to die for the narrow, class-interests of the ruling American elite? Dying in another countries imperialist war, now that is a hard sell! Even a super-salesman like Tony Blair couldn't pull that one off!

It's a fundamental problem that the British people no longer support 'imperialist wars', it's probably something to do with our long history of being involved in them. It's a problem of idelolgy as well. How does one get the British to agree to support an American crusade for democracy which is nothing of the sort, but a sham, designed to obscure an clearly imperial project? It just won't wash and the sooner our leaders accept this the better.

writeon
27 September 2007 at 12:18

Sorry for all the mistakes in this, as I was rushing out to fetch the kids and I didn't read it through!

writeon
27 September 2007 at 16:46

Well, I'm back from collecting the kids, and one the way back it struck me that, despite the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, the number one question we should all be thinking about it is, how the hell do we stop the Americans from attacking Iran? The consequences of a probable attack on Iran are vast, especially if Iran strikes back. How does one stop the attack from escalating into a full-blown war? How likely is it that the United States would use nuclear weapons against Iran in such a war? What are the consequences internally for 'democracy' in the United States if such a war starts? Bush has already shredded vast swathes of the Constitution, how far will he go? Is the United States just one large-scale terrorist attack away from dictatorship or something close to it? What are the consequences for the British military in Iraq and Afghanistan of an American attack on Iran? Do we have any contingency plans at all? What about New Labour and Gordon Brown, don't they have any views on the consequences for Britain of attacking Iran? Don't they even care? Have they totally abrogated responsibility for any of this? Does Britain even have anything close to a sovereign and independent foreign policy anymore? Surely one can't just ignore all this, the ghastly slide towards war, and hope that it'll just go away. It won't, not if we don't do anything and say anything at all. Why can't Gordon Brown be a man, and state publically, because it's insane, that he's against an attack on Iran?

Carl Jones
28 September 2007 at 15:10

Wars are carefully thought out constructs and always for gain. While Blair lies low out of fear that war crimes charges could be brought, we are left behind with the cost, death and bloody hands. If we remember the Falklands War, it was entirely preventable. The garrison had been weakened for a reason. The alternative would of been to reinforce the island defences and deter the invasion...a few years of this burden and there would be negotiations with Argentina. Leting the invasion take place allowed a lot of political targets to be hit. Thatcher did a "rope a dope"!! Britain is now putting forward extensive plans before the UN on extending UK rights to oil and gas around the Falklands.

It would be nice to think that our well trained military forces would be used to effect some real good in this sorry world. Such as Zimbabwe, Darfur and even Burma. Unfortunatly there is no oil or gas, well, nothing which is required, or ready for market.

Young men sign away their lives for a veriety of reasons. Many of these could be averted with an honest none NWO education which explains their expendability. I don`t think the US establishment gives a damn about US loss of life in Iraq. Where does the cost of this war go? Transport, munitions and replacement kit. So cheap long term debt finds its way into the elites back pocket. The British achieved nothing in Southern Iraq/Basra, apart from backing illegal special forces ops into Iran. The same can be said for Afghanistan. Nothing but a total waste of life.

Sir Dannatt is pushing the envelope to new limits, but it must be difficult for an old timer to realise that his army is nothing but an instrument of corporate greed. Some would say its always been this way, but in the past one set of leaders would be dead, while Saddam enjoys a well earned retirement somewhere in "Area 51"!lol

AthenaM
28 September 2007 at 16:16

In the same speech, Richard Dannatt also said:

'Our opponents in the main are Iraqi Nationalists and are most concerned with their own needs: jobs, money, security, hope. And the majority therefore, I would suggest, are not bad people.'

But typically, this statement was 'overlooked' by the mainstream media, the NS included.

JimmyJames
30 September 2007 at 09:44

"The critical difference is that the whole of the US, including politicians and the media, was strongly in favour of invading Iraq. This was not the case in Britain".

That's not entirely true. The public were mostly against it. But of the mainstream media only the Daily Mirror opposed the war. Most MPs voted in favour

gnuneo
30 September 2007 at 13:00

our alleged democracy is naught but a sham. Our soldiers do not want to come back to 'ticker tape parades', when they know and understand better than any civilian the reality of what they have done in iraq, being forced labour in a brutal imperial occupation, finally to be expelled by the local population who were supposed to be being 'liberated' does not make one wish to come back as a hero.

of course, they also do not want to come back as murderers and rapists (of a nation), and this is precisely why it can be said that our democracy is a sham. The British people had no popular will for this war, the majority of the 'flag-wavers' before the invasion (excluding the sociopaths who just want a war to make themselves feel 'strong' or excited) would just as easily have been utterly against it were the mass media to have trotted out a slightly different line - ie the actual truth about the situation.

yet, in another sense our democracy has been strengthened by this (in the same way the democracy in Burma has just been strengthened), because this appalling slaughter has brought people to the realisation of just how little control they actually have, and more importantly, it has brought people together to oppose this blatant warmongering that has lurched this world into a far less secure and more terror prone state.

it is simply the case that our volunteers in the armed forces should now come to the realisation that they should refuse to serve, either personally or even in concert, with future Imperialist ventures, and in this way British democracy will even be strengthened.

we normal Briton's no longer accept 'the white man's burden', we no longer desire to 'rule the world', that was a previous meme no longer generally believed in, and this has to filter through to the power-brokers at the 'top' of our society - We Will No Longer Tolerate It.

then once again we can have pride in our armed forces, and giver them the respect they deserve for their sacrifices.

Carl Jones
30 September 2007 at 18:29

This article is joined at the hip with this weeks Newstatesman`s front cover article "Spies and their Lies".

The author David Rose, a pocket spy and others are critical of my replies. But as some of the replies here state, things could hav e been much more different had the media taken a different line.

Jimmy James above tells us that Amerika was behind the Iraq war....does Mr James know how bad and in pocket the US media are? The British media is very bad, in truth, I would find it very hard to find the right words to describe the US media, but I know the 5 major media corporations are owned or run by Jews...Israel always wanted Iraq to be fragmented...this is what has been put before the Iraqi parliament...they are not happy.

The SIS should stick to protecting Britain from direct threats. They should disengage from manufacturing problems and fabricating intelligence. Why on Earth do the feel the need to screw around with the minds of ordinary people...they were against the last war, and it still went ahead...bring on Iran.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/...