General Dannatt turned down bombproof vehicles

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by the_boy_syrup, Jul 19, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    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.
  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. msr

    msr LE

    Or is this the incoming CGS's team trying to repair some of the damage done to relations between the politicos and the military?

  4. No. It's got all the hallmarks of a New liebour character assasination.
  5. This is exactly the same story as put out by the well-known agenda-driven blogger Richard North last week.
  6. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    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. Would this military source be Richard North by any chance?
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Here's a link to help you understand the liebour regimes failures just a little better.