Already a subscriber? Log in
Yet there is worse. The ministers have not acted out of malice. They are merely guilty of naivety, incompetence and stupidity. They could not have done anything like as much damage without the help of the generals. Politically, this government is weak and growing weaker. If the generals had been prepared to push their disagreements to the point of resignation, the ministers would have collapsed like a wet meringue. But — and this is terrible — there is no evidence that the generals did disagree.
Man for man, the British army is now the best in the world. The principal reason for this is the quality of training. But training is not just a matter of teaching techniques and instilling discipline. Training is about bonding and instilling an ethos. Both of those depend on the integrity of the chain of command and on leadership. However well-drilled the modern private soldier may be, he is a thinking creature, not an automaton. He will not long follow men whom he does not respect. Those in authority over him win that respect by their confidence, their courage and their commitment to his welfare. That is the unspoken contract between the officer and his men: do what I tell you, and I will look after you as best I can.
That is the contract which the lawyers are now forcing the officers to dishonour. In his dealings with Tony Blair over the legality of the Iraq war, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, was so invertebrate that he would go on licking the Prime Minister’s boots even while his backside was being kicked. In his dealings with the army, the Attorney General has been consistent. He believes that the armed forces should be a free-fire zone for human rights, political correctness and international jurisdiction. As a result, dubious solicitors who used to chase ambulances now chase khaki. British soldiers in Iraq often come acrosss the slug slime of shyster lawyers .
Senior officers are not seeking permission for their men to run amok. That would be the end of discipline. It is always impressed upon soldiers that they must fight within the Geneva Convention. When troops are in combat, every serious incident is investigated within the chain of command, and this is not a formality. Over the years plenty of soldiers have been prosecuted.
Chain-of-command justice has one advantage. As those conducting the investigations understand the context in which soldiers must operate, they can make informed judgments as to acceptable behaviour. That is not true of Lord Goldsmith and his minions. Yet over the past few years, the lawyers in London have succeeded in devaluing the chain of command.
Trooper Williams was cleared after an investigation by two colonels. That availed him nothing once the Crown Prosecution Service intervened. In court, the case against him collapsed. But a good soldier who had risked his life was rewarded with two years under the shadow of a murder charge. Other CPS-inspired cases have also folded, but not until the soldiers concerned had been punished with months of anxiety for the crime of serving their country.
As a result of this, one might have thought that the army would have asserted itself to restore the primacy of the chain of command. Not so: the Attorney General was able to rebut any such moves with the threat of the International Criminal Court. When Britain signed up to the ICC, there were assurances that British soldiers would never appear in front of it. It would only act in countries which refused to mount proper investigations of their own. But senior officers have now been warned that the ICC would not regard the chain of command as an adequate legal procedure. So methods which have been tried and tested over the decades would not prevent foreign lawyers from putting British soldiers on a par with Milosevic: more of the yoke.
The generals alone cannot solve the problem of the ICC. But one might expect some resistance. Instead, senior figures have made love to their employment as lawyers’ pimps. A brigadier working directly for General Sir Michael Jackson wrote as follows: ‘Do you have any evidence of officer misbehaviour in Iraq which I could use?’
The cold, callous tone of that missive could have come from some satirists’ version of the ch
Also in Politics
Also by Bruce Anderson
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in