General Dannatt turned down bombproof vehicles

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Labour perhaps not waiting to he retires before getting him
Seems strange Labour make a big hoo ha in the week about leaving him alone and now "senior officers" turn on him

Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt is facing a revolt from his top brass as they accuse him of blunders that undermined the safety of troops in Afghanistan.

One source said: 'Dannatt has had three years to sort out these problems and should look at his own record instead of blaming everyone else.

'He got some big calls wrong and proved unable to change his strategy fast enough to cope with the rapidly changing tasks facing the Army.'

One Whitehall official provocatively claimed the publicity offensive by Sir Richard, who is to step down in the next few weeks, may be cynically aimed at helping him secure a lucrative job in the private sector.
'What better way to do so than to give a series of high-profile interviews in which you cast yourself in an heroic role?' said the official.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200630/General-Dannatt-turned-bombproof-vehicles.html
 
#2
The government had better hope that Dannatt does not decide to sling the mud back, otherwise joe public may be informed of other information which would do more harm to labour government.
 
#3
the_boy_syrup said:
Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt is facing a revolt from his top brass as they accuse him of blunders that undermined the safety of troops in Afghanistan.

One source said: 'Dannatt has had three years to sort out these problems and should look at his own record instead of blaming everyone else.

'He got some big calls wrong and proved unable to change his strategy fast enough to cope with the rapidly changing tasks facing the Army.'
Or is this the incoming CGS's team trying to repair some of the damage done to relations between the politicos and the military?

msr
 
#4
msr said:
the_boy_syrup said:
Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt is facing a revolt from his top brass as they accuse him of blunders that undermined the safety of troops in Afghanistan.

One source said: 'Dannatt has had three years to sort out these problems and should look at his own record instead of blaming everyone else.

'He got some big calls wrong and proved unable to change his strategy fast enough to cope with the rapidly changing tasks facing the Army.'
Or is this the incoming CGS's team trying to repair some of the damage done to relations between the politicos and the military?

msr
No. It's got all the hallmarks of a New liebour character assasination.
 
#5
the_boy_syrup said:
Labour perhaps not waiting to he retires before getting him
Seems strange Labour make a big hoo ha in the week about leaving him alone and now "senior officers" turn on him

Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt is facing a revolt from his top brass as they accuse him of blunders that undermined the safety of troops in Afghanistan.

One source said: 'Dannatt has had three years to sort out these problems and should look at his own record instead of blaming everyone else.

'He got some big calls wrong and proved unable to change his strategy fast enough to cope with the rapidly changing tasks facing the Army.'

One Whitehall official provocatively claimed the publicity offensive by Sir Richard, who is to step down in the next few weeks, may be cynically aimed at helping him secure a lucrative job in the private sector.
'What better way to do so than to give a series of high-profile interviews in which you cast yourself in an heroic role?' said the official.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200630/General-Dannatt-turned-bombproof-vehicles.html
This is exactly the same story as put out by the well-known agenda-driven blogger Richard North last week.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
Just listened to the World This Weekend and it's becoming clear what the next stage of the BBC/Labour campaign is. They are trying to press the point that there's no chance of winning, that the Russians couldn't do it, the USA an't even with 90,000 men, and that the question should therefore be: would more troops/helicopters/etc make any difference - NOT 'why are the helis not there now?'

Clever stuff - it diverts attention from the problem now - which is urgent, and goes back to "well, what's the point, really?"

Look out for more subtle attempts to shift the discussion away from current problems, with Soldiers becoming casualties, away to less concrete, but more 'debatable' issues. That's just what the Government want, of course.
 
#7
Military sources claimed Sir Richard initially opposed the £30million purchase of 100 US-built Mastiff armoured patrol vehicles which have increased troops' protection against roadside bombs since replacing the heavily criticised Snatch Land Rovers.
Would this military source be Richard North by any chance?
 
#8
jaspery said:
msr said:
the_boy_syrup said:
Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt is facing a revolt from his top brass as they accuse him of blunders that undermined the safety of troops in Afghanistan.

One source said: 'Dannatt has had three years to sort out these problems and should look at his own record instead of blaming everyone else.

'He got some big calls wrong and proved unable to change his strategy fast enough to cope with the rapidly changing tasks facing the Army.'
Or is this the incoming CGS's team trying to repair some of the damage done to relations between the politicos and the military?

msr
No. It's got all the hallmarks of a New liebour character assasination.
Rifkin one of my least favorite SoS defence i might say on TODAY program friday had some interesting things to say about that MSR but he also conceded that we are at War and that somewhat changes the ballpark rules somewhat

it may still be available as a BBC podcast..."Today: Army criticism 'cannot continue''
 
#9
jarrod248 said:
OldSnowy said:
Just listened to the World This Weekend and it's becoming clear what the next stage of the BBC/Labour campaign is. They are trying to press the point that there's no chance of winning, that the Russians couldn't do it, the USA an't even with 90,000 men, and that the question should therefore be: would more troops/helicopters/etc make any difference - NOT 'why are the helis not there now?'

Clever stuff - it diverts attention from the problem now - which is urgent, and goes back to "well, what's the point, really?"

Look out for more subtle attempts to shift the discussion away from current problems, with Soldiers becoming casualties, away to less concrete, but more 'debatable' issues. That's just what the Government want, of course.
Now read my link on mental defence mechanisms - see anything familiar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanisms
i think my brain just sprung a leak trying to understand that..... ;)
 
#10
What General Dannatt has cleverly done, at least for the moment, is to get the public into believing that the Afghan mission could be turned from failure into success with just a little more effort from HMG.

If he genuinely believes that, then I fear he is fortunate to be retiring next month and leaving the problem at the doorstep of his successor.
 
#11
ottar said:
Would this military source be Richard North by any chance?
Just looked at North's Blog, subjective in the extreme, plenty of one-sided arguments that will appeal to those on the top deck of the Daily Mail Outrage bus.

He certainly has CGS in his sights for some reason.
 
#12
whitecity said:
What General Dannatt has cleverly done, at least for the moment, is to get the public into believing that the Afghan mission could be turned from failure into success with just a little more effort from HMG.
For your logic to apply, you might need to convince a few more that the mission is a failure first, including CGS.
Are you North's publisher by any chance?
 
#13
subbsonic said:
whitecity said:
What General Dannatt has cleverly done, at least for the moment, is to get the public into believing that the Afghan mission could be turned from failure into success with just a little more effort from HMG.
For your logic to apply, you might need to convince a few more that the mission is a failure first, including CGS.
Are you North's publisher by any chance?
The nature of the mission to Helmand, and a timeframe of 3 years for its completion, was elaborated by the then SoS John Reid back in 2006.

Between then and now, the force levels have had to be significantly increased and reconfigured. Mission creep #1: more resources are needed to achieve the mission's goals.

We are now at the 3 year point, and 'success' has still not occured. Mission creep #2: the time frame has had to be extended indefinitely.

Moreover, which of the missions various goals have been met?

Although the mission's goals technically remain the same, they have not been achieved by the resources provided nor within the timeframe prescribed. The mission has thus failed. To suggest that failure has not occured and that we are just waiting for it to succeed is like suggesting that the Fourth Reich or the Soviet Union didn't fail, it's just waiting to succeed.
 
#14
This is a non story, apart from the fact that the Liarbour spin doctors are attemtimg to tarnish the image of a man that has the balls to stand up for his soldiers. The feckless Liarbour apparachiks are not fit to clean the boots of the General, who has had an outstanding career and is closing it ( prematurely due to the Liarbour machine ) in the same manner that he has served, and that is with courage in the face of the enemy ( in this case, the enemy is 400m down Whitehall.

I truly hope that the incoming CGS continues to stand up for the soldiers. He has a tough act to follow.
 
#15
whitecity said:
subbsonic said:
whitecity said:
What General Dannatt has cleverly done, at least for the moment, is to get the public into believing that the Afghan mission could be turned from failure into success with just a little more effort from HMG.
For your logic to apply, you might need to convince a few more that the mission is a failure first, including CGS.
Are you North's publisher by any chance?
The nature of the mission to Helmand, and a timeframe of 3 years for its completion, was elaborated by the then SoS John Reid back in 2006.

Between then and now, the force levels have had to be significantly increased and reconfigured. Mission creep #1: more resources are needed to achieve the mission's goals.

We are now at the 3 year point, and 'success' has still not occured. Mission creep #2: the time frame has had to be extended indefinitely.

Moreover, which of the missions various goals have been met?

Although the mission's goals technically remain the same, they have not been achieved by the resources provided nor within the timeframe prescribed. The mission has thus failed. To suggest that failure has not occured and that we are just waiting for it to succeed is like suggesting that the Fourth Reich or the Soviet Union didn't fail, it's just waiting to succeed.
Here's a link to help you understand the liebour regimes failures just a little better.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ghanistan-We-are-fighting-ghost-soldiers.html
 
#17
Think jarrod has it in a nutshell.

And consider that; a) It will get a lot worse over the coming weeks, and b) the media "focus" on every death on HERRICK from this point forward is going to be used in an awful way to justify "points".
 
#18
the_boy_syrup said:
Labour perhaps not waiting to he retires before getting him
Seems strange Labour make a big hoo ha in the week about leaving him alone and now "senior officers" turn on him

Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt is facing a revolt from his top brass as they accuse him of blunders that undermined the safety of troops in Afghanistan.

One source said: 'Dannatt has had three years to sort out these problems and should look at his own record instead of blaming everyone else.

'He got some big calls wrong and proved unable to change his strategy fast enough to cope with the rapidly changing tasks facing the Army.'

One Whitehall official provocatively claimed the publicity offensive by Sir Richard, who is to step down in the next few weeks, may be cynically aimed at helping him secure a lucrative job in the private sector.
'What better way to do so than to give a series of high-profile interviews in which you cast yourself in an heroic role?' said the official.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200630/General-Dannatt-turned-bombproof-vehicles.html
It's the Daily mail - innit. Do they ever tell the truth?
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
Whet said:
the_boy_syrup said:
Labour perhaps not waiting to he retires before getting him
Seems strange Labour make a big hoo ha in the week about leaving him alone and now "senior officers" turn on him

Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt is facing a revolt from his top brass as they accuse him of blunders that undermined the safety of troops in Afghanistan.

One source said: 'Dannatt has had three years to sort out these problems and should look at his own record instead of blaming everyone else.

'He got some big calls wrong and proved unable to change his strategy fast enough to cope with the rapidly changing tasks facing the Army.'

One Whitehall official provocatively claimed the publicity offensive by Sir Richard, who is to step down in the next few weeks, may be cynically aimed at helping him secure a lucrative job in the private sector.
'What better way to do so than to give a series of high-profile interviews in which you cast yourself in an heroic role?' said the official.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200630/General-Dannatt-turned-bombproof-vehicles.html
It's the Daily mail - innit. Do they ever tell the truth?
Does Labour?

In and out in 3 years without firing a shot
Hit the fukcing nail on the head there didn't he

Bet he told John Hartson he was looking well last time he saw him at Parkhead
 
#20
Can anyone name the last Chief of the Army who DID NOT have MoD, Whitehall, the Cabinet and HM Treasury poking their nose's in every defence contract that existed? The Boss may his thoughts over Future Lynx but since when did the enduser's views count on such a politically ensitive project..?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads