Anthony Barnett (London, OK): What is going on when the serving head of the army starts to lecture us about policy and strategy? The first word that springs to mind is "treason". Technically, this is what General Dannatt committed last October when, speaking about Iraq. he told the Daily Mail,
we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems". "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. "As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren't invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.
"That is a fact. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."
This flatly contradicted the Government's view. Typically, the ultra-labile then prime minister Blair managed the consternation that followed by saying there was no problem because there was total agreement! Dannatt had been quoted out of context, he claimed, which he clearly was not. At the time I thought he only got away with it because everyone knew he was on the way out and trying to save face.
There was also speculation that Dannatt must have informally been given the go-ahead by Brown. This is the way that Brown likes major policy to be made: someone else acts as the heat-shield, opens the space, carves out the ground, detonates any hidden mines, and then Gordon moves in.
So that's all right then. But I have to say I do not sleep more soundly in my bed when serving generals make policy - they might start to enjoy it.
Now Dannatt has done it again. It is becoming a dangerous habit.
Unless, that is, he is under orders, such as they are in the age of Brown.
As I have posted, there is a fierce argument is going on between London and Washington, a sign of its intensity being that neither side will admit to it. Brown has decided to withdraw from Iraq but stay in Afghanistan. The US president did not like his decision to draw down in Iraq just when the US was increasing its forces, especially as the UK pullout exposes the neck of Iraq to Iran. It mean that if the US attacks Iran American troops may have to be sent in to replace the British to ensure access to the Gulf.
So, according to Tim Garton Ash, who would not print it if he didn't know it, "This week General David Petraeus and ambassador Ryan Crocker have been in London, trying to persuade Britain not to pull all its troops out of Iraq."
It's worth considering this sentence for a moment. It means that Britain has so decided.
Will the US President's high-level envoys persuade the Prime Minister to change his mind? This is the context for Dannatt's remarks. He states, "We must move from being a society that uses the military as a political and media football", a blatantly obvious reference to Tony Blair, "and more towards seeing the military for what it is. The instrument of foreign policy conducted by a democratically elected government acting in the name of the people". My italics.
But the British people have spoken. They oppose being in Iraq. Message to the Americans from the British high command, we cannot continue to be deployed there.
And the PM can tell the President, "You see, my hands are tied, my general does not agree with your general".
But let's not get anti-American about this. Dannatt also suggests, in a theme from Brown's Green Paper that, "In America, appreciation for the armed forces is outstanding and, frankly, I would like to be able to mirror some of that here". He means welcoming parades and special discounts for veterans to replace the quiet patriotism that was once considered 'British'.
Behind the froth and echoes of Brown's push for patriotism there is a serious democratic point. If the armed forces are to be sent into action these days there has to be public understanding and support: what is the cause of the war, why is it the last resort, what is the outcome being fought for? It is a sign of the tragedy that Blairism inflicted on us that sticking to such obvious, even banal principles should be regarded as the sign of a profound seriousness.
