More like this
Libya: Cameron teaches the generals a lesson
Whatever happens next, the PM is vindicated – but let’s hope he doesn’t make a habit of it
The Gaddafi family are not the only losers in Libya. David Cameron has put the military chiefs of staff firmly back in their box. His position relative to the admirals, generals and air marshals has been immeasurably strengthened.
It is too early to tell whether Operation Ellamy, the MoD's code name for intervention in Libya, turns out to be in the British (or even Libyan) national interest. Or if British voters will eventually think it worth the money and effort. Certainly, the next few weeks could be very messy indeed. The fight does not seem to have gone out of the Gaddafi family and its henchmen quite yet. And the idea that everyone in the National Transitional Council will go back to reading the Guardian once the fighting is over belongs with the tooth fairy.
Nevertheless, David Cameron has been vindicated in one, narrowly military, respect. Many of his senior commanders said Gaddafi could not be brought to his knees without putting British 'boots on the ground'. But he has been, more or less, if you accept that a heavy sprinkling of spooks and special forces don't count as boots.
Others, mainly air marshals and admirals, like the overpaid leaders of a bloated quango whined that it could not be done because of the 'defence cuts'. In the end we had enough planes. And we didn't need an aircraft carrier – not even to hang a 'Mission Accomplished' banner from.
The generals never liked the idea. Conditioned and trained to take orders from American commanders, they were nervous of the Pentagon's lack of enthusiasm. It also distracted attention from the MoD's main effort in Afghanistan. As operations in Libya reached an apparent stalemate in May/June, the background briefing against the prime minister from some senior military figures was 'running hot', to steal a phrase from that arch-practitioner of the art, Gen Lord Dannatt.
In May, Lt General James Bucknall, the UK's top soldier in Afghanistan, openly challenged the prime minister's judgment after Cameron indicated that he would withdraw a few hundred REMFS (support and admin staff in polite English) from Afghanistan immediately. "This is not the time to send conflicting signals on commitment to the campaign," was how he put it, brazenly, to the press.
When the prime minister visited the troops in June and was stuck in Camp Bastion as all available helicopters searched for the missing Highlander, Scott McLaren, the army top brass saw another opportunity to quietly rubbish his Afghan exit strategy back in London.
Interestingly, ever since Bucknall's public insubordination there have been persistent but unsubstantiated rumours that the regiment of which he is colonel, the Coldstream Guards, the oldest regiment in the British army, is scheduled for the chop after 2014. Someone on Cameron's staff certainly knows how to go for the jugular.
Cameron certainly has the whip hand now. His military judgment and drive has proved superior to that of his military commanders. As a result, the defence review is likely to go ahead as planned. More importantly, Cameron is more likely to get his way on withdrawal from Afghanistan. As he said in reply to Bucknall et al: "2014 is a deadline – be in no doubt. This is a matter of judgment. It is my judgment that it is right." Quite.
We should be relieved and proud at a success for British or, more accurately, Franco-British arms. To many, including possibly the prime minister, an 'entente cordiale militaire' with our old ally France is more useful and attractive than the poodle status of the Special Relationship.
But we should also be worried. Aerial bombardment in support of a rebellion in a far-off land without the need to commit ground troops, Cameronkrieg, looks as though it has worked against a crazy like Gaddafi. But it was a "damned near run thing" and took five months. Let us hope that Cameron does not acquire a taste for it. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
The record of revolutions that have taken place without any foreign intervention is long. With outside help there have been more but I think we can stand off praising Mr. Cameron for investing in Libya so much. A lot of minders are going to lose their jobs in Libya. Also the army which used young men will be slimmed down. The prison population of "rats" and their guards, as Gadaffi calls them will be eliminated which will also slim the ranks of employed young men.
I am an old man. Young men are precious. It is not enough to decry their moral stature whilst sending out orders that will fill body bags and maim thousands such as the Libyan theatre has delivered. Libya and the UK share a problem and the PM lacks the moral fibre to see it. To many young people without a road forward.
To be fair to the generals, it depends what counting you do. In terms of saving lives, non-intervention of any kind would have restored Gadaffi to his regular maintenance killings and saved lives. As it is there is now to be Martyrs' Square with many thousands of names to inscribe. The Generals are fighting an impossible losing war in Afghanistan. If they tried the same in Libya they would almost certainly get the same mess with boots on the ground. In the end it would wind up a spring of repression which would take decades to unwind. By just providing support to the rebels the martyrs have muddled through. Mr. Cameron gambled for political reasons and seems to be winning much as the Taliban did in Afghanistan and the Shah was defeated in Iran with outside support. The test is what follows. The problem is going to be the same as in the UK, Afghanistan and Iran.. A large unemployed youth problem which needs a strong hand... Or otherwise some competent governance. Small hope on the latter even in the UK.