- Reaction score
- 2,718
- Points
- 1,260
Mods: If D&B has already captured this one, feel free to axe this - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
Former defence chiefs oppose role for MPs in war decisions
Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian (UK), 28 Dec 07
Article link
Parliament must not be allowed to decide when Britain goes to war, two former defence chiefs insist today.
Strong opposition to a war powers act, modelled on the US statute and being considered by the Brown government, is voiced by Lord Guthrie, chief of the defence staff under Tony Blair, and Sir Kevin Tebbit, former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
Questioned in a recorded interview with Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary history at Queen Mary, University of London, and guest editor of BBC Radio 4's Today programme, they say they are opposed to giving MPs the final say in the deployment of British troops abroad.
In principle, there should be a parliamentary debate before troops are sent, Guthrie says. In practice, he adds, it would be "very, very difficult".
There would be the problem of how much ministers could tell parliament about intelligence. There was also the question of surprise - "do you want to warn the enemy?"
Britain's coalition partners would not welcome going to war being dependent on a vote in parliament, Guthrie claims. And it would affect the morale of the troops. What would they say if the Commons split 60-40 and the whole country was not behind them?
There was also the question: when is the country at war? "What do you mean by armed conflict?" Guthrie asks. Britain last formally declared war in 1942 - against Siam, now Thailand. "What we do is slide into war, you cannot avoid that."
An apparently benign peacekeeping mission could turn into fighting. That happened in Bosnia. It could happen in Darfur, too, Guthrie says.
He suggests that pressure for an act is the result of a "knee-jerk reaction about what happened in Iraq".
But his views also reflect frustration among the British military establishment and ministers with other European countries in Nato, where parliaments have a much greater say in the deployment of troops. Parliamentary accountability there has meant that Nato commanders cannot rely on their open-ended commitment to military operations, notably in Afghanistan.
Tebbit suggests a debate here about a war powers act is redundant. "No prime minister is able to deploy forces without a parliamentary majority." Therefore, the government is already accountable to parliament, he claims. The US was different. Unlike in Britain, there is a separation of powers in the US between the president, the commander in chief, and Congress.
Tebbit suggests that Commons select committees could be given sensitive information in private sessions.
MPs are pressing for the right to war-making and treaty-making powers. The government has suggested that parliament may have a greater say over the future deployment of troops abroad.
Former defence chiefs oppose role for MPs in war decisions
Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian (UK), 28 Dec 07
Article link
Parliament must not be allowed to decide when Britain goes to war, two former defence chiefs insist today.
Strong opposition to a war powers act, modelled on the US statute and being considered by the Brown government, is voiced by Lord Guthrie, chief of the defence staff under Tony Blair, and Sir Kevin Tebbit, former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
Questioned in a recorded interview with Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary history at Queen Mary, University of London, and guest editor of BBC Radio 4's Today programme, they say they are opposed to giving MPs the final say in the deployment of British troops abroad.
In principle, there should be a parliamentary debate before troops are sent, Guthrie says. In practice, he adds, it would be "very, very difficult".
There would be the problem of how much ministers could tell parliament about intelligence. There was also the question of surprise - "do you want to warn the enemy?"
Britain's coalition partners would not welcome going to war being dependent on a vote in parliament, Guthrie claims. And it would affect the morale of the troops. What would they say if the Commons split 60-40 and the whole country was not behind them?
There was also the question: when is the country at war? "What do you mean by armed conflict?" Guthrie asks. Britain last formally declared war in 1942 - against Siam, now Thailand. "What we do is slide into war, you cannot avoid that."
An apparently benign peacekeeping mission could turn into fighting. That happened in Bosnia. It could happen in Darfur, too, Guthrie says.
He suggests that pressure for an act is the result of a "knee-jerk reaction about what happened in Iraq".
But his views also reflect frustration among the British military establishment and ministers with other European countries in Nato, where parliaments have a much greater say in the deployment of troops. Parliamentary accountability there has meant that Nato commanders cannot rely on their open-ended commitment to military operations, notably in Afghanistan.
Tebbit suggests a debate here about a war powers act is redundant. "No prime minister is able to deploy forces without a parliamentary majority." Therefore, the government is already accountable to parliament, he claims. The US was different. Unlike in Britain, there is a separation of powers in the US between the president, the commander in chief, and Congress.
Tebbit suggests that Commons select committees could be given sensitive information in private sessions.
MPs are pressing for the right to war-making and treaty-making powers. The government has suggested that parliament may have a greater say over the future deployment of troops abroad.
