|
Chief of the General Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt has been sharing his views on the role of the military in modern society, in particular how they must adopt the moral high ground in order to be a 'force for good'.  The man in charge: General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff
[Picture: Graeme Main] In a speech to the pressure group, Progress, CGS talked about standards and values in today's military as well as leadership and how these qualities can determine the direction of conflict: "In conflict and war, our soldiers must uphold the highest of values and standards. Failure to do so would not only in itself be wrong but would also play into the hands of our enemies, for some of whom compromise is not an option. Robust and exemplary leadership is central to this. "I would submit that today's conflict is a contest of ideas and values. It is a battle for hearts and minds on a global scale; it is a battle for hearts and minds not just amongst the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, but amongst the people of London and Washington and elsewhere - amongst the decision-makers and the ordinary people. But as soldiers, the moral high ground is, and must be our vital ground - and only by holding it can we truly be a ‘Force for Good', and not reduced to a contradiction in terms." See Related Links>>> to read the full text of General Dannatt's speech to Progress
Speaking about how he believes the conflicts of today and tomorrow require that we re-learn the lessons of our fathers and grandfathers CGS added that the military must pursue a comprehensive approach in its operations and that soldiers must add to their traditional role of combatant to be able to deliver civil as well as military effects across all areas of society: "Success in contemporary operations is very much a moving target and has, rightly, replaced the binary notions of 'winning or losing' and 'victory or defeat' - both of which assume a line in the sand, or a date on the calendar at which conflict ends and peace begins," he said. "This is not the case now, if it ever was. What has changed is the distinction between the different types of warfare. We can no longer be prescriptive about taking part in either major combat operations or stabilisation operations, the boundary between them has become increasingly blurred. "In conflict and war, our soldiers must uphold the highest of values and standards. Failure to do so would not only in itself be wrong but would also play into the hands of our enemies, for some of whom compromise is not an option. Robust and exemplary leadership is central to this." General Sir Richard Dannatt "I cannot envisage a conflict where there will be no role for stabilisation operations, but equally stabilisation is highly likely to involve combat as it does today. But more importantly I do not subscribe to the view that major combat operations are a thing of the past. I am quite clear that as an Army, we must play our role within national defence as well as provide security." Building on the theme of cross-agency cooperation CGS explained how soldiers must be flexible and adaptable in order to be effective in what they do: "We have derived what we in the military have termed a Comprehensive Approach - an approach that sees the security line of operation - that which the military does - as but one of several lines of operation or activity, all directed to achieving a single, essentially political end-state," he said. "So, I would suggest that the conflicts of today and tomorrow require that we re-learn the lessons of our fathers and grandfathers and this applies as much internally to the military as it does to the other strands of political power, both national and international." News Source: http://www.mod.uk/ |
