So just who is General Sir David Richards and what does he stand for?

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

General Sir David Richards is the new Chief of the General Staff. Rory Baxter looks at the man, his history and his thinking on Afghanistan and the government

He's been outspoken even before he gets the job but the Ministry of Defence must be hoping General Sir David Richards is not the thorn in their side that his predecessor General Sir Richard Dannatt turned out to be in his final weeks.

However, the two can often be found thinking along the same lines, sometimes even using very similar phrasing.

In June this year, urging a "fundamental re-think" for the armed forces, Richards said: "Afghanistan is a war; we just have not really understood it is a war." A month later Dannatt said: "We need to get on to a warlike footing. It is very much in our national interest to do this ... even if not everyone in our nation realises that."

Indeed, Richards went further, saying: "We cannot go back to the fighting that we might have done 10 years ago when it was still tanks, fast jets [and] fleet escorts that dominated the doctrine of the three services. Too often we still strive for a hugely expensive, 100 per cent solution or exquisite solution for some state-on-state war that risks being out of date before it comes into service."

Both soldiers also appear willing to disagree with their paymasters ... or do they? While Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth had suggested there would be significant progress in Afghanistan over the next couple of years, making substantial troop withdrawals likely, Dannatt said it was more realistic that Britain would have to keep troops on the front line for up to five more years while Richards mentioned the possibility of Britain being involved in Afghanistan for up to 40 years.

However, he later felt the need to clarify this statement. "I said the whole process in Afghanistan might take as long as 30 to 40 years," he said. "This seems to have been taken by some as meaning that the British Army would be involved in operations like those we are currently engaged in for that duration. I want to nail this once and for all. It is not what I said or what I believe. Afghanistan will need international help for many years to come – for example, through development, governance and security sector reform – and I am sure the UK will play a part in that. But a British military force along current lines should only be needed for a much shorter period."

Already being labelled a 'yes man' by some – almost certainly unfairly – he pointedly added: "There is no difference between my views and those of the Secretary of State on this. It is unhelpful to all those engaged in this conflict, both here and in Afghanistan, to suggest that there is."

So who is the man who is going to head up the army and be subjected to the Afghan-like heat of the media spotlight?

Born in 1952, General Sir David Julian Richards KCB, CBE, DSO, ADC General was commissioned into the Royal Artillery in 1971 before graduating in international relations from University College Cardiff three years later.

Over the next nine years Richards saw service in the Far East, Germany, East Timor, Sierra Leone and three tours of Northern Ireland. He went to Staff College in 1984 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel. Ten years later he became a colonel and was responsible for overseeing the shape and size of the army. Two years after that he was promoted to brigadier and commanded British operations in East Timor in 1999 and Sierra Leone in 2000.

More recently, he was the overall commander of forces in southern Afghanistan, in charge of 35,000 troops from 37 nations in Nato's International Security Assistance Force. He held this post from May 2006 until February 2007 when he was relieved by US General Dan McNeill. Before being appointed as Chief of the General Staff, Richards was Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, a post he took up in February 2008.

Richards once painted a vivid picture of what being a British soldier in Afghanistan is like. "Days and days of intense fighting, being woken up by yet another attack when they haven't slept for 24 hours," he said. "This sort of thing hasn't really happened so consistently I don't think since the Korean war or the Second World War. This is persistent low level, dirty fighting."

What was particularly striking about these comments was that the then Defence Secretary John Reid had been at pains to present the role of British troops as "protecting the reconstruction" of Afghanistan and the word 'war' was not one that was uttered willingly.

Richards has been quoted as saying "Afghanistan and its people have entered my bloodstream", adding: "Why should we care about Afghanistan? Because we have to. The Afghans have been to hell and back, and we have made promises."

Describing himself as "a seat-of-the-pants soldier", Richards is said to be respected by soldiers, journalists, aid workers and others because he is an excellent communicator and a risk taker, not a common combination for an army general.

Richards, whose wife Caroline runs the Afghan Appeal Fund, has listed his hobbies as military history, riding, gardening ... and shooting. Soldiers on the ground, Afghan civilians, relatives at home, the UK government and indeed most of Britain will be hoping that he means troubleshooting – and that he's extremely good at it.

HAVE YOUR SAY

Ur new general might be good at many things - but not his analysis on Afghanistan. 100 yrs later if he comes back he will find the hostility still there perhaps more than since he left. Despite what u may do to a Pakhtoon, on the back of his mind remain his relatives than the paltry sum that u pay him to do ur dirty job. It is time for all of u to leave - honourably now rather than be ejected after a few months - and that too- with disgrace
a m malik - Karachi-Pakistan

Well Pakistan is welcome to help the situation more if she can do a better job. Perhaps by having a proper go at insurgents within her own borders first rather than keeping them in case they're needed to annoy India?
AC - Winchester

Dear sir David - I have recently written a preliminary report named 'The re-settlement of Military personnel into Civilian Life'. Would you like me to e-mail you a copy. yours truly - Dr William A. Donkin
Dr William A Donkin - Cottingham, East Yorkshire

hi just want to say something that i fill is wrong i have tried since 2007 to get into the army and i managed to get into adsc round 2009 and failed both selection and i think i have been put to one side as i completed every task at pirbright on adsc ... i think the army should take consideration in people who is trying to join and get turned own not for medical reasons but for fitness levels and those who struggle but still complete adsc and get turned down like me is there anythink you can do to help me have another chance at selection as i have been wanting the army for years and i dont want to give up as my brother served with the british army for 6 years and went to iraq for 8 months on reserves and i think people like me who struggle but still complete the fitness should be aloud to get in the army please could you email me back once you have read and understood whats happening down adsc at pirbright i dont want to give up on a army dream as i been wanting to go in since a little kid my email is andrewjones12@msn.com please email me back if theres anything you can do to help me have another go at adsc thank you
Andrew Paul Jones - wiltshire

Dear Gen Sir Richards, last year i submitted a service complaint to the battalion i was serving with it still hasn't been sorted and i still am not recieving updates about it i have put in over 1000 pages to try and sort this but neither apc glasgow or hq land forces can seem to work out what is going on with it as it keeps bouncing back and forth and noone is looking at it to make a decision and i have been told that glasgow will be sending it back to bordon commandant yet he was the one who finalised my discharge paperwork so this has become a complete mess the service complaints wing in upavon is dealing with this matter but i do have contact with the service complaints commissioner, and bordon local mp RTHON James Aburthnot MP, they have brought my wife into the service complaint as they are accusing her of things she hasn't done and she is fully civilian, would you please be able to look into this for me as to why i am getting no information and what is going on with my service complaint all the above have my contact details thankyou for reading this A. Millington
antoni millington - bordon

My sympathies go to A Milligton from Bordon. I have been trying to process a series of complaints for about ten years. Initially there were ignored then corners were cut in the processing. All this was condoned by the Army Board. There is no requirement for the Army to take complaints seriously. I was never interviewed, asked for evidence, or allowed to call witnesses. The majority were dismissed. At a Board of Inquiry it came to light that senior officers cheated, lied and descriminated. All the was condoned by Gen Richards. Maybe that is standard practise and that is how he got where he is. I would suggest writing to the Service Complaints Commissioner but she ignores letters and refuses to discuss the issues. The Army appears to have a clear aim of blocking complaints at all costs. I have repeatedly called their bluff and they have been found wanting. Recently theh Army Appeals Wing took 18 months to prepare a brief for the Army Board. It was done only using evidence from the chain of command, and there was no input from me. This is standard practise. So much for impartiallity and natural justice when you take evidence from both sides before making a judgement. At present I am in the process of petitioning the Sovereign. Once the petition is submitted the Army Board are meant to review and re-investigate the case. They have refused to do so. Consequently I will have to submit a complaint against the Army Board! It is never endless circles. Stick at it A Millington from Bordon. My sympathies go to all the families involved in the Deepcut sagas who have been frustrated by the refusal of the Army to investigate its own. It all suggests that self regulation does not work. Look what happened to the Banks. I expect the 'moderator' to censure this and it will not reach the internet. It will be another example of poor self reglation.
AM

andrew morgan - uk

It is essential that we have a Soldier running things given our present Military Commitment.
The removal of Sir Jock Stirrup is long overdue.
How can a Pilot understand the needs of a foot Soldier
George Devanney - Consett Uk