Anthony Barnett (London, OK): What should we call a small group of retired Army chiefs? A gaggle of generals? Whatever we decide to call them, it has been a principle of British politics that they keep their beaks shut. Now they have gaggled up to issue pompous threats - and ominously unprecedented ones - attacking the Prime Minister personally in a concerted House of Lords debate. This is treason. We want civilian rule and make no mistake about it.
The current campaign spearheaded by No2ID against the 'database state' aims to protect us from government by an alliance of spooks, bureaucrats and US corporations. This does not mean voters would prefer government by British Musharafs.
It seems to me that there is prima facie evidence that they are a cowardly lot anyway. If the Army was being so over-stretched why did they not resign over Iraq? Why didn't they support public opposition to the war by making it clear that any sound military judgement meant the likelihood of long-term occupation and Prime Minister Blair was being reckless? In the US, at least the American army can be proud of the fact that it was headed by General Shinseki at the time, who warned openly that several hundred thousand troops would be needed and was subsequently vindicated. And at his farewell address in 2003, after he was levered out of command (it was boycotted by Rumsfeld) he nonetheless insisted on this,
The Army has always understood the primacy of civilian control... In fact, we are the ones who reinforce that principle with those other armies with whom we train all around the world. So to muddy the waters when important issues are at stake - issues of life and death - is a disservice to all those in and out of uniform who serve and lead so well
Indeed. The generals should be marched out of the House of Lords and taken to the Tower for Christmas.
