18.10.2006
Rank and file speak out against the war
Jim Moody comments on General Dannatt's remarks which expose divisions in the ruling class over Iraq
The damning remarks of the army chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, are yet another nail in Blair's coffin. When even this senior figure admits that the occupation is the main cause of the violence in Iraq, anti-war sentiment can be said to have spread way beyond the fringes. Speakers at Respect's annual conference joked that Dannatt has applied to join the Stop the War Coalition.
His comments are, of course, in total contradiction to the British government's position that the occupying forces must stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to establish and guarantee a 'democracy'. Blair has staked his political reputation and legacy on this - which is why over half a million Iraqis have been slaughtered since the US-UK invasion.
Trying to patch up the wound in Labour presentation of the Iraq war, Blair leant on Dannatt to get him to backtrack. The latter dutifully claimed to have been quoted out of context - in reality there was "not even a cigarette paper" between his views and the government's, he said. Blair was then able to say he "agreed with every word" of what the general said in subsequent interviews - although he pointedly avoided saying he agreed with what the general originally had to say in the Daily Mail.
The episode exposes deep divisions in the ruling class over the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And the open criticism of a central plank of government policy by such a senior soldier has provoked a blazing row over its constitutionality.
Former Tory MP Matthew Parris said, "I agree with every word that Dannatt said. But he has got to be sacked" (The Times October 14). Andreas Whittam Smith thought there were "ample grounds" for Blair to dismiss him for "publicly criticising a series of decisions by the government" (The Independent October 16).
However, as Simon Jenkins noted in The Sunday Times, "Ninety percent of the army appear from media and internet evidence to support him, which must render him unsackable. But in so clearly undermining the case for the war in Iraq Dannatt has opened Pandora's box. He must now demand that the government pick up [the] request for a British withdrawal this year or his position will become untenable. He has destabilised the military covenant and must urgently win his argument against Blair or resign" (October 15).
What such bourgeois commentators worry over is precisely this "covenant" between the government of the day and the state's 'bodies of armed men'. Military chiefs are not supposed to say anything critical in front of the British public, though they have every right to a private audience with the relevant minister. This kind of frank discussion and closeted conferencing are real politics, unlike what passes for politics in parliament and on the radio and TV. For them, the important questions are just too important to be discussed publicly.
But the genie is definitely out of the bottle. Closing down debate cannot be on the agenda. And as part and parcel of the opening up of debate that has already started, no-one, be they the highest military commander or a private, in whatever branch of the armed forces, must be prevented from speaking out on matters of such importance. In other words, those in the military of every rank should have the fullest right to political expression without fear or favour. We demand that every member of the military should be allowed to be actively involved in politics.
In the CPGB Draft programme we raise this question in the following terms: "Rank and file personnel in the state's armed bodies must be protected from bullying, humiliating treatment, and being used against the working class. There must be full trade union and democratic rights, including the right to form bodies such as soldiers' councils. The privileges of the officer caste must be abolished. Officers must be elected. Workers in uniform must become the allies of the masses in struggle. The people have the right to bear arms and defend themselves" (www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/draftprog.html).
Armed with these demands, democratic to the core, we lay the basis for workers in uniform to truly decide for themselves to ally with the rest of the working class in the future. There is certainly every reason for them to want to speak for themselves openly, prompted by such a crisis as the armed forces' involvement in the bloody Iraq debacle. Indeed given an amber light by general Dannatt's public utterance on Iraq, members of the armed forces have started blogging their concerns for all to see. So far, such discussions have overwhelmingly shown either support for what the general stated initially in the Daily Mail or mild scepticism that he can maintain his position. No-one wants to deny that what he said is essentially true. Indeed, most are relieved that withdrawal from Iraq, and maybe Afghanistan, is an imminent possibility.
On the blogsite of the British Army Rumour Service or ARRSE (its own acronym) there is an online indicator of support for Dannatt, who is "absolutely right" according to 80% of those registering and "right only from a military point of view" according to 11%; just 2% think him "only partially right" and a further 2% that "he had to resign first before making such a statement" (www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php ?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p =891038).
In an ARRSE discussion thread, headed "CGS says time to go home!", 'sknn' writes: "He also said that during his interview with the Mail he had an MOD press officer sitting in. I find it sickening that the head of the army has to have a spin doctor riding shotgun over him when he talks to the press. There are too many of these people employed to spin the BLiar message."
Another squaddie, 'nigegilb', has a particular take on demoralisation that some might think the general's comments would cause: "Anyone who thinks this is bad for morale is living on a different planet. Do the soldiers in Iraq want to know they will be there for 10 years or maximum two? Well, they have their answer today. They are coming home and that cannot be bad for morale."
In a separate ARRSE forum, 'Eagle1' asks: "Was it ever right to question the judgement of our leadership? Should we just go wherever we are sent even though it seems that only a few people in these two countries that we invaded and 'kicked the door in' are the cause of horrific acts. Is it right then to invade a whole nation just because of a few people? Is that morally right? "¦ Some people in power state that now is not the right time to leave Iraq or Afghanistan. I bet they are the ones who supported the invasion in the first place" (www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=49158.html).
The senior service not wanting to be outdone, the unofficial Royal Navy blogsite, Rum Ration, also has its share of openly declared opinions. Writing from Portsmouth, 'blogger come the day' says: "Anybody else see that snivelling bar steward lackey Blunkett on the Sunday morning show? Said that general Dannatt was being unconstitutional and that soldiers should not comment on politics. I think that he shouldn't have spoken about religion, but that his bounden duty is to represent the people he leads, who have been sold down the river by as craven a bunch of charlatans as have ever drawn political breath, one of the main members of whom was the very same Blunkett! We do not fight for god and god has no place any longer in British politics. When we make the mistake of suggesting that a christian god has any more right to exposure than an islamic god, we fall into the trap so ably laid!" (www.rumration.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php).
Thinking politically as well as forward to the next conflagrations in which the US and UK may envelop the world, another Rum Ration contributor, 'Always a Civvy', says: "What about the human rights of soldiers, or sailors, or their families? The government have been making campaign plans without any real consideration of the longer-term sustainability of those plans and appear to have disregarded the advice given to them by their senior service staff. They cannot have it both ways. Think of their plans to deploy the RN to a blockage of North Korea? How, precisely?"
Another navy man refutes the demoralising effect of Dannatt's words. 'Lingyai' declares that, "I for one would have an increased morale knowing that someone with a bit of clout was fighting my corner instead of kissing the political feet. The bods out there are not stupid - I am sure they are aware they are pissing in the wind and just delaying the inevitable civil war until such time as a Saddam replacement stamps on it and takes charge. Full circle. All we have done is stirred up a tribal mob."
What the role of communists in this situation is, of course, is to ensure that workers in uniform come to see themselves as allied with the rest of the working class, not with their senior officers. Political thought and action, independent of those in senior posts, by the lower ranks of the armed forces must be welcomed and encouraged.
The building of representative organisations, including trade unions, within the military would not only reduce the possibility of the armed forces being used against the working class: it could develop the political ability and nous of men and women under arms to join the struggle of our class for socialism.