It seems to me that Magna Carta basically established that wealthy landowners had certain rights that were inalienable by the king, rather than having much of anything to do with "speaking out." The lords were merely fighting for self-interest, not (intentionally at least) setting a course correction for the affairs of state.

At any rate, when you have the military brass and the civilian leadership publically disagreeing on matters of war policy, you create (or at least exacerbate) dissention in the ranks. Theirs is only to do and die and all that.

Barnett is quite often right and I think he's on to something here. I'm sure there are many more Republicans than are currently speaking out who think we should get out of Iraq.

Further, I think we'll be "out" of Iraq by the end of Bush's term regardless. We'll have a substantial advisory/logistical force in the FOBs for years to come, I suspect, but we'll turn the most visible face over to the Iraqis. Dannatt's right that having white faces at the pointy tip of the spear creates its own set of problems.

I have to disagree - he isn't disobeying orders so what it destroys is unity of opinion rather than unity of command. the former is a political matter, the latter is military. The Magna Carta showed that, in Britain at least, subordinates have a duty to speak out when the leader is off course.

I'm interested though in your opinion on Barnett's take. It seems obvious to me that no-one is going to get elected to the White House in '08 with a policy of "I will stay Bush's course on the Iraq occupation". Plus, after the midterms, all those GOPers will be free to dissent from the Bush course without any political fallout, knowing their next candidate will do the same thing. Do you agree with Barnett that we will see a lot of GOP reps and senators dissenting after the midterms, in an attempt to set up a policy that the next candidate can agree with?

Regards, C

Very interesting, if strange to my sensibilities. Blair is the defacto commander-in-chief albeit with the nicety of having to go through the pretend monarch-for-tourists. It's bizarre to me that one of his underlings can pop off without consequence; it destroys unity of command.

It's a rubber-stamp job. If ever a Monarch refused her Prime Minister's request for the use of the military to carry out his government's policy it would spark a constitutional crisis. But it is still a very important constitutional distinction which Blair cannot ignore. That's why he won't fire the general.

To fire Gen. Dannett, Blair would have to ask the Queen to do so. The general's only had his job a few weeks; Blair was the man who asked the Queen to appoint Dannett; the general has the right to speak up; the request would be seen as petty political spite and the Queen, who has shown in the past she is very aware of constitutional niceties, might just refuse his request. He cannot afford to take that chance because that would be a constitutional crisis too and Blair would lose the contest.

And let's remember an important detail - General Dannett isn't saying he is refusing to carry out his orders to the best of his ability, he is just exercising his right to say publicly what he thinks of them.

Oh, and James, here's what Thomas Barnett has to say:

To me, this is the Brit Army voting with their mouthpiece, and it's telling.

I really liked Peter Beinart's bit on Kudlow a couple nights back, saying that the perceived GOP-v-Dems split on Iraq would dissolve right after the election, with many conservatives joining Dems to get Bush to change policy. The only way that can work--namely, a significant drawdown of U.S. forces (don't kid yourselves, we won't leave fully, as we never leave anywhere fully)--is for us to enlist a lot of local help, to include first and foremost Iran.

Regards, C

JJ's point is probably valid re: the U.S. -- Congress has about as much oversight as it wants, and under the Republican regime, that's been slim to none.

The party that supposedly is proudest of the U.S. armed forces, has expressed its deep contempt for them and what they stand for. Nice.

You're flat wrong. British soldiers do not directly serve the elected civilian leadership. The British Army's Commander in Chief is the Queen, not the Prime Minister. (BTW, she is also the head of state.) He can say anything he bloody wants about the PM's policies, as Tony is outwith his chain of command. The PM is in all ways and at all times a civilian. When the PM wants to use the armed forces, he asks the Queen - that's why they all have "Royal" in front of them (Army, Navy, Air Force).

Nor is there any executive "privilege" (lit: private law) within the UK parliamentary system except that given by a vote of Parliament, where the PM is a single voter as he is just an MP like all the others. Where there isn't a clear majority or where there's a backbench revolution it is quite common for the UK parliament not to just rubber-stamp a PM's wishes. (E.g. the recent refusal to extend detention time without charges or court order to 90 days).

Oh, and Nuremberg established that a serving officer - of any nation - has a duty to not only refuse orders that would cause war crimes, but to actively prevent them being carried out if at all possibe - from within the military. The senior presiding judge for that decision was an American, you know.

Regards, Cernig (A Brit)

At what point would the ranking general of the Army be entitled to say this administration is destroying the Army? Only after he resigns and can be derided as someone not receiving the current reports, as has happened in the U.S.?

If the boss gives a dangerously irresponsible order, you have the option of going 'over his head' to the next level... but you better be mighty damn sure you're right & your boss is more than a little wrong. And I'm not real sure how that would apply to the SecDef or CinC; who should a general complain to?

And finally, we are _all_ taught (and have been since long before Abu Ghraib) that if you are given a clearly illegal order, you have an _affirmative duty_ not just to refuse it, but to report that person to the proper authorities. If you don't perform both those tasks, you are just as liable for criminal charges when the hammer finally falls.

The question then becomes: just how endangered _is_ the UK military vis-a-vis Iraq; what category does Dannatt's commentary (or would equivalent commentary from a US general) fall into?

I notice how those who have never been in the military manage to replay "The Charge of the Light Brigade" updated to this century, much like this whole war, and are now experts on British politics and military policy as well as American.

Meanwhile, the John Murtha plan of redeployment, still being called "cut-and-run" by Bush and the GOP and made fun of on this website, will be presented to Bush after the election by the Baker committee as the most viable option.

Yes.

The problem is that Unity of Command is one of the fundamental principles of military service. Ultimately, the President is the commander-in-chief and Congress merely has oversight and signs the checks. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has an obligation to be truthful and candid with Congress when he testifies before them but, otherwise, he is subordinate to the SECDEF and President.

The UK has cabinet government so, in effect, the PM is the head of Parliament (or at least the Commons). Absent a vote of no confidence, they're a rubber stamp.