General Sir Richard Dannatt

Ex-military heads have gone straight to the House of Lords completely skipping the House of Commons to dismiss the Measures as being "too academic". They have been deemed "devoid of realism". The military heads have claimed "parliament mustn't run the risk of hazarding the lives of service men and women". This being said though the complaints are relatively unfounded as, under the proposals, if there was "no time" to consult Parliament, then Parliament need not be consulted in advance. However, the Prime Minister would be held directly responsible immediately after "he had committed armed forces under exceptional circumstances" under the proposals.

The Ex-Military heads made comments such as; "In today's less clear cut security environment this can be an immensely complicated matter which needs to be considered further before we completely abandon the royal prerogative or something equivalent,"( Field Marshal Lord Vincent of Coleshill), "How often in future are we going to embark on offensive wars of choice?" (RAF Lord Craig of Radley)

The ex-Generals in effect want the power to declare a pre-emptive military strike against another nation they disapprove of. This is against the Charter of the United Nations that Britain has signed up to, and amounts to the right to commit war crimes. [See Pre emptive strike anyone?]

This is a clear portrayal of the ruling class' opposition to the full handing over control of a section of the state, to its own limited democratic bodies. In a so called democracy it would be expected that matters of foreign policy such as a declaration of war would be at the disposal of the highest democratic body. Parliament is supposedly a sovereign body above all others. Yet elements of the ex-military top brass, who are often used as spokespeople by the current generals, question such principles. As Marxists we understand that bourgeois democracy is not full democracy that functions in the interests of or represents the vast majority of society, the working class, Nevertheless we do seek to defend and further these democratic institutions and stand against tendencies to increase autocracy and erode the limited democracy that we do have in this country.

In addition to this, the Times announced that the training for some troops may be halved due to the increasing demand for soldiers in the Afghan conflict. The Current training time is 26 weeks in training, however, the proposed changes by the Ministry of Defence is to drop the minimum training period to 14 weeks. This is because of the fact that the battalions due to replace the 52nd brigade in Afghanistan were at least 100 soldiers short. The Ministry of Defence has claimed that no troops would be deployed on any operation without the adequate training for action. The Ministry has stated that they were looking into the possibility of reviewing the reserve forces' training. This again indicates further deployments into Afghanistan, which is fast becoming a huge drain on the resources of the British and American militaries. 

The forces of imperialism are facing defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the face of popular resistance from populations that will not accept the occupation of their homeland. A product of this has been the increasing independence of the army in the political field. In recent months we have seen former generals come out and criticise conditions in the army and the way politicians have behaved in relation to the armed forces. This is not normal behaviour in a functioning bourgeoisie democracy and it is a reflection of the wider crisis currently facing imperialism.