On Sunday 27 June Andrew Marr interviewed former head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt. Please note 'The Andrew Marr Show' must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.  General Sir Richard Dannatt |
ANDREW MARR: "We can't be there for another five years". The Prime Minister's words on the mission in Afghanistan, which sounds like the beginning of a timetable. So what will be the impact of David Cameron's comments on the troops serving in Afghanistan, and on the Taliban whose insurgency of course continues? General Sir Richard Dannatt was until last year the Head of the Army, and he joins us now from Norwich. A sunny looking morning in your garden, Sir Richard. Thank you for joining us. GENERAL DANNATT: Not at all. Thank you. ANDREW MARR: Do you agree with David Cameron that we can't be there for another five years? In another five years, I should say. GENERAL DANNATT: Well he's made that comment, but actually he's also made some other comments about the overall mission, which I think are important with regard to time. And that was, on his last visit there, we don't want to be there for one day longer or with one soldier more than we need before we've achieved the aim. And I think this notion of five years is important. It's actually quite a long length of time. So that time element is an important factor to consider. But the really important thing is that we resource properly, we put the maximum amount of effort in as a coalition, as an alliance, to make sure that we succeed and do that as quickly as possible - in our own interests, of course, but in the interests of Afghanistan and particularly in the interest of our armed forces as well. ANDREW MARR: Because I suppose the real problem is that any hint of a timetable encourages the Taliban to think that they can just hang on, wait there, and then come back in due course when we leave? GENERAL DANNATT: Which is why from now on, and we've been doing it for the last little while, we must put maximum pressure on to succeed, so that the Taliban don't have that kind of option to say we'll sit them out for five years, ten years or whatever. I think what's got to be remembered is these complex and difficult counterinsurgency campaigns always take time. There's a notion: strategic patience. Just think back. Northern Ireland, may be very different circumstances, but we were there for 38 years. Bosnia, we were there for 14, 15 years. Kosovo, we were there for 10 years. These things take time. And although people quite rightly say "well we've been in Afghanistan now since 2001" actually this major operation that we're involved in began in 2006. So this major push in the South of Afghanistan, absolutely critical that we get right, has been running for four years. So I think to put maximum effort into it now, to deny the Taliban the option of sitting us out, so that we've effectively achieved our aim - made Afghanistan secure enough for themselves, secure enough for our purposes, stop being a failed state or ungoverned space - that's critical. That's where the effort's got to go at the present moment. ANDREW MARR: It does sound to me as if you think the five year comment was mildly unhelpful, to put it that way; that once you put any kind of time limit on it, you have conceded something? GENERAL DANNATT: No, I'm not going to actually say that because I don't think that's relevant. I think time is a factor; there are many factors. What we've really got to do is make sure that support for this mission - it's got heavyweight political support in Washington and London, and I think elsewhere in NATO to a large degree now is very much behind the mission; that the nations concerned - particularly the US and the UK - resource this, get behind our servicemen in a practical sense as well as an emotional sense, as we saw in the country yesterday, and make sure that this mission succeeds. ANDREW MARR: Michael Semple, who was the Head of the EU mission in Afghanistan, is quoted this morning saying there's 'a widespread perception in Afghanistan', he says, 'that NATO is not winning this. A lot of people now expect that the NATO campaign will fail. They don't think that NATO will see it through, and the Government is not strong enough to continue, and they expect there'll be another round of civil war and they're getting ready for that.' GENERAL DANNATT: Well Michael Semple is a respected person. He's got a point of view. There are lots of other points of view. Actually I dispute that particular point of view. It is difficult, it is taking time, but progress is being made. It's being made on a gradual basis. And let's face it, one of the factors that's really important here is popular understanding of this mission. If we go on talking about negative things, if we just focus on casualties - however tragic they might be - then we will only be pulling the mission down. I think it's really important that we do focus on some of the things that are going well. ANDREW MARR: And do you think there is enough explanation of that because we do hear constantly about the deaths and it's been a terrible few days for the British Army again, and we hear … GENERAL DANNATT: (over) I've lost … ANDREW MARR: … and we heard about a certain amount of ground being captured and then it seems to go away again. I think for a lot of people, they're not at all clear what is actually being achieved. I'm sorry, we've lost the link. Can you hear me now, General? GENERAL DANNATT: I missed … I can hear you now. I lost your last question or your last comment, I'm afraid. ANDREW MARR: Let me ask again. I was really just wondering whether what's going on in Afghanistan is clear enough for people to continue supporting the war at home? You know there's an unpopular Karzai government. A bit of ground is won and then it seems to go … be lost again. Nothing seems to change radically there. GENERAL DANNATT: Well I think that perception is wrong and I think what we've got to do is to try and get some of the less interesting stories wider coverage. I mean the fact of the matter is there is a understandable operational design to clear, hold and build. Clear areas of Taliban, which we are doing; holding them sufficiently securely so that people can feel confident; and then building a better life for them, so that they can choose to support their own government and not fall back under the Taliban again. That is very clear and it is happening, but it will take time. After all, the US surge will not be complete until about November this year, so the numbers are still building up. Also we mustn't forget we're putting a lot of effort into building up the Afghan National Security Forces as well. Now about 130,000 have been trained and that number is increasing on a daily basis. That's important as they increasingly take responsibility for themselves. When that happens, that's when we'll get to the crossover and our own troops will be able to start reducing and then start to come home. Now whether that happens in three, five or seven years, I think it's difficult to tell. But conditions on the ground are what's really important. Time is an important element, but we are making progress and we've got to focus on that as well. ANDREW MARR: It does strike me that President Obama might not have fired his top man there, General McCrystal, had things been going better. I mean there are clear tensions between the top of the military on the US side and the political side. I mean you have experience of this from your own time - the difficulties of being a top soldier and dealing with politicians. What did General McCrystal do wrong? GENERAL DANNATT: Well Stan McCrystal did right in so far as analysing the situation that he found a year ago, designing a very good operational strategy and focusing the forces and starting to achieve success. That was good. Unfortunately what he did - and some of his close colleagues - is make comments about the US leadership, of their President, of the Ambassador and others that frankly really gave President Obama no option but to dismiss General McCrystal. It's a personal tragedy for General McCrystal. I don't think it's a strategic disaster for Afghanistan. And if ever President Obama was a lucky person to have General David Petraeus in the wings, ready to come and take over - a very gifted soldier - then I think this is an opportunity. So losing McCrystal - most unfortunate, most unhelpful, but not a strategic disaster. And enter David Petraeus - I think that actually will keep the thing on a good track and I've got a lot of confidence in General Petraeus. ANDREW MARR: Sir Jock Stirrup took a little bit of friendly fire, it might be said, from the politicians and the newspapers last weekend. There's now a big choice about obviously who's going to replace him. Is it important to get an army man there, and do you think that the inevitable review of the Armed Forces should be concentrating on expensive fighters and large ships and so on, and asking whether they're necessary versus spending more money on the Army? GENERAL DANNATT: Well there's a number of points you raise there. I think first of all as far as the next Chief of the Defence Staff is concerned, I think this is very much a matter for the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary to look at the various candidates and decide for themselves who they think is most competent, in whom they have most confidence to lead our Armed Forces over the next three years or so, which is the traditional length of time the Chief of Defence Staff is in place. As far as the Defence Review is concerned, I think a couple of things. One, there's a growing consensus that we should do these things regularly every four or five years. And that's really important because if we have to make difficult decisions now that might let's say, favour an increased spend on our land forces for this period of time that we're in Afghanistan, then it's probably the right thing to do now. But it might mean that if we're going to review our defence again in four or five years time and the world has moved on, we can then shift our spending priorities at that point. So what am I really saying? We've got to focus on the here and now, what is really important at the present moment, and I think that means there should be a marginal, not a huge but a marginal increase in the funding for our land forces - by which I mean the Royal Marines, the Army, the Rotary Wing part of the Air Force, those things that we need to ensure success in Afghanistan. And if we're going to take a little bit of risk anywhere, it may be on some of the medium to longer term requirements for the unexpected. It's always difficult to predict the unexpected, but the here and now is staring us in the face. Let's make sure at least we resource that properly for the next three to five or seven years. ANDREW MARR: Sir Richard, thank you very much indeed for joining us. GENERAL DANNATT: Thank you. INTERVIEW ENDS
|  |
|
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
Bookmark with:
What are these?