Sir Jock Stirrup is the very model of a military man. He has a jacket laden
with gold brocade, shoes polished like mirrors, slicked-back hair and, after
his name, two dozen letters. His name itself could have come straight out of
a Jilly Cooper novel – although he would never read anything so trashy. When
we ask the former fighter pilot whether he is more like Tom Cruise or
Harrison Ford, he replies: “Who are they?”
After Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, who is reputed to have killed people with
his bare hands, and Admiral Boyce, who could knock politicians out with one
lash of his tongue, the present head of the Armed Forces is as smooth as
Cruise. This Air Chief Marshal is adept at steering through turbulence and
avoiding embarrassing crash landings. Like an old-fashioned senior civil
servant, he chooses his words carefully and likes to be in control.
Ministers love him. He is such a safe pair of hands that he has just been
asked to remain in his post for another two years. Some say that his
contract was extended to make sure that General Sir Richard Dannatt, the
head of the Army, who has been more vociferous in his criticism, did not get
the top job. “I was asked to stay on and that’s it,” is all he will say.
“The decision on my appointment is not one that’s made by me.”
Now, though, Sir Jock is fighting on three fronts. Already the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are pushing the troops to the limit – but now he has a
battle looming in Whitehall as well. The new enemy is the credit crunch.
Even in the boom times, the Armed Forces felt unloved by Labour. Last year,
five former chiefs in the Lords accused Gordon Brown of treating the
military with contempt. Already troops appear overstretched, underpaid and
ill-equipped. In the era of austerity, some fear that the Ministry of
Defence could be further squeezed.
The Chief of the Defence Staff is ready to man the barricades. “The
prerequisite of a sound defence is a sound economy,” he says. “But you have
to continue protecting your interests. You can’t take a holiday from doing
that.” Although he stops short of asking for the defence budget to be
ring-fenced, he insists: “What is clear is that we are engaged in two major
operations. The world is getting more dangerous . . . If you ask somebody in
my position whether they would like to have more to spend, of course they
are always going to say yes.”
After Blair’s wars and Brown’s Budgets, the Armed Forces are near breaking
point. Sir Jock says the present level of engagement cannot go on. “We are
not structured or resourced to do what we are doing at the moment in the
long term. Of course we can do it for a period, we can surge. The question
has always been – how long can you sustain that surge?” In his view, twelve
months is the maximum. “If we are able to get back to a more sustainable
position over the course of the next year then we will be in a position to
start our recovery,” he says. “The longer the stretch continues the greater
the pressure on individuals, the greater the pressure on their families and
the greater the backlog of training.”
There is very little scope for dealing with another crisis. “Do we have some
contingency left to be able to respond to the unforeseen? In a small way we
do . . . If something that is truly threatening to our nation occurs it is
clearly all hands to the pump.”
British troops are, their commander believes, likely to be out of Iraq within
a year – the Iraqis are “very close” to the point when they can handle the
security challenges themselves. Afghanistan is going to be a longer haul.
“Afghanistan is a very backward country . . . [Militarily] it’s going to be
some years before we finish that project.”
Sir Jock thinks that the public must change its expectations of what can be
achieved. “We should avoid the use of words like ‘win’ and ‘lose’ in the
context of Afghanistan. It’s not that sort of enterprise. It’s about helping
the Afghans make progress in bringing their country towards the modern
world. That’s a very, very long journey where success is measured in each
year looking a bit better than the one before.”
George W. Bush famously declared “Mission accomplished” in Iraq. But the Sir
Jock does not think it will be possible to say that a military victory has
been won there either. “These things are more complicated . . . In both
cases it’s a journey. If you’re talking about the development of a country,
it’s a journey that never finishes. There’s no end point.”
The aim of the mission in Afghanistan - like that in Iraq – is, he says, to
“help the Government there extend governance to their people and to improve
their lot”. But is this a role for military men or diplomats? Sir Sherard
Cowper-Coles, the British Ambassador in Kabul, is said to have concluded
that the military campaign will fail. “This is a very complex issue,” Sir
Jock says. “It has to do with administrative capacity. It has to do with
executive capacity, it has to do with the criminal justice system, with
police and infra-structure. The Armed Forces are only there to create space
within which political and other solutions can be delivered. They are a
means to an end.”
We ask whether he thinks the war in Iraq has been a success. “We need to leave
those judgments to historians,” he replies. There is a wider point that Sir
Jock wants to make. British troops should not be used as some kind of
international moral police force. “When we are asking our young men and
women to go into danger, and some of them to lose their lives on our behalf,
then it has to be in the strategic interest of this country. But one
shouldn’t imagine that narrow national interests mean a narrow national view
of the world.”
He is often woken in the middle of the night to be told that one of his men
has died. “It’s not every night, thank heavens, but it is far more frequent
than one would wish. It is never something that you get used to. It makes me
continually ask are we gaining something of strategic value for the price
that these young men and women are paying?”
There are problems with recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. Morale
is said to be at rock bottom – one recent survey found that almost half of
the members had considered leaving. But Sir Jock insists that the prospect
of fighting has actually made it easier to persuade people to join up.
“Mothers are most certainly more anxious, but involvement in conflict is
always better for recruitment.”
The real problem is the number of operations, which reduces the amount of time
troops have on home leave. “Certainly the operational tempo is a key factor
in retention, particularly for people with families.” He agrees with David
Cameron that troops should start their holidays once they land in this
country. “We need to make sure our people get sufficient rest and
recuperation in the right place – not on a plane.”
According to Sir Jock, morale is “excellent” out in the field although he
admits: “Good morale is not the same as being happy. Obviously people get
angry when their friends are killed.” In his view, pay is not the issue.
“The things that our people do can’t be rewarded adequately with money.”
Coroners have criticised the lack of basic equipment provided on the ground
but he insists: “Coroners are not the people using the equipment. The
British Armed Forces are better equipped today than they have been at any
time in 40 years. When I go out there I don’t even find people complaining
about their boots these days and I can usually rely on that.”
Prince Harry’s tour of duty gave the Armed Forces a great boost. Sir Jock
thinks that he and his brother, William, should when possible be allowed to
fight on the front line. “The key criterion is do they increase the overall
level of risk beyond that which exists anyway?” But he does not want to
cover the Princes with cotton wool. “If you are going to be in the military
you need to do what the military do . . . The clear demonstration that
members of the Royal Family are anxious to bear the same burdens and run the
same risks as others is an important signal.”
He is careful not to criticise the Prime Minister’s attitude to the military –
although he says the decision to split the roles of Scottish and Defence
Secretary “sent a welcome signal” which implies he was not happy when the
two jobs were combined. The public should, he thinks, now do more to show
their appreciation – even when the Armed Forces are fighting unpopular wars.
“The British have always supported their Armed Forces, but what was missing
was a tangible expression of that support. We have seen a bit of unbuttoning
and that’s very important. We as a nation tend to undervalue the importance
of just saying thank you.”
A life in the front line
Born December 4, 1949
Educated Merchant Taylors School, Northwood, and Royal Air Force
College, Cranwell
Career He received his commission in 1970. He served on loan with the
Sultan of Oman’s Air Force in the early 1970s, operating Strikemasters in
the Dhofar War. Returning to Britain in 1975, he flew Jaguars in the Fighter
Reconnaissance role. In the months after the September 11 attacks, he was in
Central Command masterminding the war in Afghanistan. He became Chief of the
Air Staff in 2003 before being promoted to the role of Chief of Defence
Staff in 2006
Family Married with one son
Quick fire Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford? Who are they?
Action Man or Power Rangers? Never heard of them
Uniform or mufti? Uniform
Brass band or opera? Opera
Curry or caviar? Curry
Bacon and eggs or croissants? Bacon and eggs
Stuff the credit crunch...and bollocks all round. We're talking about mens (and womens) lives here. No expense spared.
kirk, Rotherham, UK