Head of British Army Calls for More Infantry

The head of the army has called for “several thousand” more frontline soldiers to “round out” the British Army’s capabilities, reversing cuts to infantry levels made by his predecessor. Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of General Staff, fears the army risks being degraded by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to a level at which it is no longer able to operate properly. He called for the extra troops in an impromptu address at the end of a Whitehall conference on the future of land warfare earlier this month. It begs questions as to why his predecessor Gen Sir Mike Jackson ever thought it was sensible to cut infantry levels at a time when the army is more hard pressed than it has been since the Korean War.

The “several thousand” new troops Dannatt wants – effectively the size of an additional infantry brigade - would more than reverse the 2,000-man cuts to the infantry made by Jackson, who to be fair was under intense pressure from Geoff Hoon to axe troops as part of what must surely be among the most ill-judged defence cuts in history. The then Defence Secretary was widely known across the military as “Buff” for reasons I will leave you to work out yourself.

Dannatt caused controversy last year by insisting the army needed to get out of Iraq “some time soon” in part because he feared it could be “broken” by the extent of its commitments. "I want an Army in five years time and 10 years time,” he said. “Don't let's break it on this one.”

The infantry in particular has been left with too little time between deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland or the Balkans to train properly. They have also been left with little time at home to recuperate leading to an exodus of experienced soldiers from the army that is outpacing relatively good recruitment. The number of trained troops in the army has dropped to just over 99,000 against a requirement for 101,800, a figure Dannatt wants restored to around 105,000.
 
The MoD insisted the media be excluded from the Royal United Service Institute’s conference on Future Land Warfare in an attempt to keep Dannatt’s comments private. The comments were made not in the uncontroversial, some would say soporific, speech with which Dannatt opened the conference but in an impromptu address at the end of the conference on June 6.

Delegates attending the speech said he told them he wanted "several thousand" more troops. "It wasn’t just numbers for numbers sake,” one said. “He [Dannatt] said it was to 'round out our capabilities'." Another said: "He definitely spoke about increasing numbers", while a third confirmed that Dannatt had used the figure of “several thousand”.

“He said he couldn’t give a precise figure but he needed “several thousand” to "round out capabilities," the delegate said. “He [Dannatt] was clearly talking about new troops. It was in the context of the whole of the conference where one general questioned whether it was possible to get enough troops to fight the long war [against terrorism] without reintroducing national service.”

The delegates declined to be named because Dannatt’s speech was off-the-record and they feared the MoD would have them banned from future conferences. But frankly if this was what the media were banned from hearing, it is hardly news. Even Labour politicians are beginning to get the message. The current Defence Secretary, Des Brown, admitted last week during a lunch with defence correspondents that the scale of current operations meant “we could be in danger of degrading our armed forces”.

Comments

[Dare Warner]

Mick, what a mess. It seems that what Gen. Dannatt is saying is that the last round of cuts in the infantry were a mistake and should be reversed.

It seems to me that we are seeing an increasing meltdown of all three services at a particularly dangerous time, yet the average Briton seems to exist in a fool’s paradise. I think that a way of a least stimulating debate, would be for Gen Dannatt to raise the prospect of reintroducing national service in order to make up the shortfall in troop numbers. Perhaps the prospect of sons going to war would at least focus the minds of the public on the very real crisis that we are facing, and really start holding out politicians to account. Perhaps to, the anarchy that is spreading across the Middle East and threats around the World may make this inevitable.

I suppose the other alternative is to give up playing the Worlds policeman and concentrate on home security, whilst hoping for the best. Trouble is, a far as Islamic terrorism is concerned, the genie is already out of the bottle.

[Chuck Unsworth]

Jackson's reasons for acceding to the Treasury demands for cost-cutting - and hence loss of manpower - are unfathomable. If one were to be unkind one might think they were more to do with his particular position than that of the Army.

Dannatt, by contrast, is saying that he does not believe that the Army can support its likely future committments. I'd contend that is the case right now. It's very clear that in- theatre logistical support is not capable of meeting the demands. Worse, it's quite obvious that much of the equipment used daily in these conditions is sub-standard, bodged up to work from cannibalised items.

This whole debate is about money. Forces chiefs have a direct personal responsibility for the safety and welfare of their people. There seems to be a huge gulf between the heirarchy and those carrying out their daily and perilous tasks. I think Dannatt is trying to do a decent job, but I suspect he's having to buck the system all the way. That's absolutely not how it should be. The system should support the military, rather than spending its time 'controlling'.

There seems to be a conviction within Whitehall and the Treasury that the armed forces are somehow profligate ne'er-do-wells, who given a chance will blitz the nation's entire wealth. Well, by their actions so shall you know them. How many soldiers in the field get to sit on £1000 chairs? How many of those in Whitehall have to suffer the routine dangers of those in Iraq or Afghanistan? The only danger these apparatchiks face is the possibility of imbibing slightly too much Pol Roger over their extended lunches, with the further hazard of being unable to find a taxi home.

[The 3rd column]

Chuck Unsworth says Jackson's reasons for acceding to the Treasury demands for cost-cutting - and hence loss of manpower - are unfathomable.

Agree.

I believe the good general was overrated. Can't really imagine why Jackson didn't make a squeak when cuts were being proposed - and made - during his term. I accept that at that level, i.e., Jackson's post, all posts are political and perhaps, just perhaps, Jackson felt it would be useless to shake the status quo but at his level he should have known the plans that were being implemented would be disastrous for the armed forces in the long run.

Don't want to be harsh on Jackson but really, seems he was not at all qualified for the job. (Ok, heard the hard drinking general was well liked by the troops but that ain't sufficient at all to get job done.)

Question now is, was he appointed defence forces chief because he wouldn't squeak while Blair and Brown were dismantling the armed forces?

[Randal]

Yes, I think Dare Warner's idea of suggesting the reintroduction of national service is a good one.

Perhaps then people will wake up and realise that we live in a world where we are faced with an almost unprecedented absence of military threat, in which we have no need for an army capable of imperialist intervention, and should maintain a sufficient navy, air force and nuclear deterrent force to deter attack on our islands and a few outposts such as the Falklands, and no more. Maintaining an army and military establishment greater than our apparent defence needs would be in general a good, precautionary idea, except that history demonstrates that once we've got it the temptation becomes overwhelming for our politicians to misuse it for grandstanding around the world interfering bloodily in other folks' business.

Ignorant (I mean that literally, and not as a term of abuse) comments about "islamic terrorism" aside, terrorism is, first, almost entirely a response to our meddling in other peoples' affairs and, second, a policing and security matter, not military. We have caused more "terrorism" by our occupation of Afghanistan and invasion and occupation of Iraq than anything else we've done in the last few years, and the situation will get worse before it gets better.

Educationally, I recommend starting with Robert Pape's seminal study of suicide bombers, Dying to Win, in order to begin the journey away from a world-view based upon the "islamic terrorism" bullshit spewed out in the likes of our mainstream press and media. Then, a proper investigation of ME history to grasp the basic fact that Israel is the root cause of its own problems there in the last couple of decades, by virtue of its determination to continue its disgraceful ongoing colonisation of the West Bank. We owe Israel nothing but honesty, and we certainly have no national interest in continuing to position ourselves against the rising forces of the Arab and muslim worlds merely on Israel's behalf.

The latter may be none of our business any more, but it's still useful to understand what is actually going on there, in order not to be led astray by the anti-islam and pro-Israel fanatics that infest our press and media.