General Sir Richard Dannatt CDS petition

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Trans-sane, Sep 21, 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. Trans-sane

    Trans-sane LE Book Reviewer

    Well I recieved an email response to the No. 10 petition that was floating around the halls of arrse a few months back. Response reads:-

    "With all three single Service Chiefs changing over in the same year (2009), it is not unusual for the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) to be extended in post to provide continuity, particularly when the individual has done his job so well. The Secretary of State for Defence asked the current CDS, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, to remain in post until early 2011.

    General Sir Richard Dannatt is enormously respected amongst serving and retired Armed Forces Personnel, and has served the Army superbly well during his outstanding career, the pinnacle of which has been his successful appointment as Chief of the General Staff. However, as he is due to retire at the end of August 2009, he will not be eligible."

    Comments please 8O
  2. Are 'comments' really required?

    I'm only surprised the fat tub of lard's office even responded.

    Dannatt = a mind of his own; Stirrup = a compliant man. Who shall we chose?
  3. The phrase "as he is due to retire at the end of August 2009" gives away how long this reply has been sitting in someone's drawer. A month, at least.
  4. course they'd keep stirrup.

    you don't invite someone in who actually has a back bone and something about him.

    just look at the cabinet.
  5. Stirrup… Yes Sir, No Sir, as long as I get my fast jets Sir!
  6. The Fuehrer Bunker wrote
    Really? As a former CGS, General Dannatt remains on the active list, a consequence of binning 5* rank. It wouldn't be the first time that a 'retired' officer has returned to high military office. However my money is on the recently 'retired' 1SL Admiral Band becoming CDS in 2011 unless Cyclops has changed the rules.

    Is that coffee brewing?
  7. Don't know why people bother with these petitions. They are either ignored or acted upon purely in the interests of the government and has nothing to do with popular indicatives. Like everything else this government has initiated it is usually a "5 or 10 year plan" a la soviet thinking or/and a PR/spin exercise to opiate the masses.
  8. General Sir David Richards will become CDS after a relatively short tour as CGS.
  9. Apologies for being so emphatic in the last post. There is one other (less desirable and less likely) option, that is General Sir Nicholas Houghton, VCDS, becomes CDS. Either way we get an Army CDS which is essential when the only action is on land in Afghanistan and the other two services are, at best, in support (as will be the case in every, or virtually every, conflict from now on). At present we have an airman as CDS and another as Chief Joint Operations, and the consequences speak for themselves.
  10. Oh and one other thing. Adml Band could not possibly be recalled. As 1st Sea Lord he presided over the worst humiliation in the history of the Royal Navy in living memory when a group of sailors were left exposed, surrendered without a shot and then prostrated themselves at the hands of their Iranian captors. Nelson would have turned in his grave and the good Adml Band will not be coming back into service.
  11. A new government may see Gen Dannatt being re-called to the colours. I would defer taking up any long-term contract if I was in his position (never a likely possibility I will say - before anyone else pipes up)
  12. Manintheshadows wrote about the last 1SL
    *Cough* yes * cough* of course. :oops: I like the idea of General Dannatt as CDS under a Conservative government though. For the good of the Armed Forces and to stick it to Broon and Co.
  13. But Dannatt will not come back as CDS. The Conservatives can see just as much as Labour can how he was and will in the future be prepared to speak out against government policy. When you are in effect part of the government you can't do that and get away with it which is why he was never going to be CDS since he made his comments about British troops in Iraq making the problem worse (when Blair was PM). Montogomery could have said the same about British troops in France after D-Day. Without the Normandy landings and our attacking the Germans on the continent of Europe there would have been no fighting. The place to "speak out" is forcefully behind closed doors and if you don't get what you need, then resign. What he did was dangerous, would not have been tolerated by him lower down the chain of command, and achieved nothing except cause generations of future politicians to deeply distrust generals. Politics is a game for the hard-nosed and I would guess there will be no love for Dannatt among the Conservatives, as there was temporarily because he did their job and embarassed the government.
  14. Who cares what politicos think about Generals? They will never accept them anyway. To me, what General Dannatt did was show a bit of leadership. You can't lead from behind a closed door, can you? It might have been tolerated from lower down the food chain but if you know your boss is going to confront the issue in public then why do you need to? The majority of us lower down the food chain don't really concern themselves with what the generals get up to, to have a general that was seen to stand up to the government was cheering and as far as I am concerned he is up there with the best of them. It has already been stated that the new boss will do most of his fighting behind closed doors, hardly inspirational is it? All it sounds like to me is "you don't need to know about this".
  15. Yeah I can see your point totally. But we have managed to fight and win many wars in the past, often in much worse circumstances, with far worse equipment and hugely greater casualty rates than we have seen in Afghanistan, and with politicians no better than the ones we have now - without the chiefs of staff fighting their battles with government in public. If Dannat can do that why should brigadiers, colonels and privates not stand up and tell the media how the government or the Defence Staff is getting it all wrong? Some do, like Eric Joyce, who (I believe) was rightly given the choice of resigning or facing court martial. Why should there be one rule for the lower ranks in the forces and another for the most senior? Dannatt's actions had other motives than just leadership in my opinion, although maybe his methods are in fact suitable for the current era in which everything is dominated by the media... I still don't think his supposed "outspokenness" achieved anything concrete - you may disagree and you may well be right. In my view - and it is only of course one view - he would have achieved much more by being forceful behind closed doors in a way that I do not believe he was, or to have resigned. The other thing we would all do well to remember is that generals can be just as good at "spinning" as their political masters! As to who cares what politicos think about Generals - this is critically important as it is ultimately the politicians who make the really key decisions about our armed forces and they must feel able to trust them - whether you or I like it or not. Or maybe we should have a military coup and run the whole thing ourselves? Not a bad idea come to think of it...