Departure of army chief reveals deeper malaise among top military brass

The exit of General Sir Patrick Sanders has raised concerns about deeper underlying issues in the UK’s armed forces, writes Kim Sengupta

General Sir Patrick Sanders (PA)

The withdrawal from Basra Palace in September 2007 followed one of the most dangerous times of sustained violence faced by the British forces in Iraq. There were relentless attacks, mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades, and ferocious firefights in the ambush alleys of the city.

The 550 troops of the 4 Rifles Battle Group, and those of us who accompanied them, drove out of the palace with bullets smacking into the sides of armoured cars. The British troops fought all the way. One soldier, Corporal Lucas Farrell, told me that he had fired 600 rounds from his GPMG (general-purpose machine gun) during the journey.

The convoy arrived at the airport, the last UK base remaining after the palace, for final departure from an inglorious and bitterly divisive war. The soldiers, exhausted but unbowed, spoke not just of their own experiences, but also about comrades killed and maimed in a mission, which had seemed increasingly futile.

There was silence, apart from some clumps of mortar, when the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Sanders, addressed his troops. He praised their courage, dedication and sacrifice.

Afterwards, he reflected: “I could have stayed on there for another six months; we would have been able to defend ourselves, and killed a lot of people in the process, but what would that have achieved?

“I would also like to think that what was achieved at Basra Palace had restored some of the reputation of the British forces, which had been damaged by mistakes by a very few people.”

That was 16 years ago. Since then, General Sir Patrick Sanders, who also served in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Afghanistan, has risen since then through the chain of command to become Chief of General Staff, the head of the British army. But it now seems increasingly likely that he’ll be leaving two years into the job.

The probable departure of General Sanders, much liked and respected in the military – not just in the UK, but across many allied states – has raised concern and questions about deeper underlying issues in this country’s armed forces.

One senior officer said: “It looks like we’re going a lose General Patrick, one of the best service chiefs of his generation. This will not be due to his ability, which is considerable, but because he’s standing up for what he believes is right for this country’s defence. But there are others, sadly, who’d rather deal in petty politics.”

There are claims of internecine strife and personal ambition in the senior ranks. Inter-service rivalry is hardly new in the UK’s, or other countries, armed forces. But senior officials are worried about the debilitating effect this is having on defence.

General Sir Patrick Sanders, who also served in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Afghanistan, has risen to become Chief of General Staff, the head of the British army (PA)

Around half-dozen senior officers, at least one of them supposedly selected by Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, have been asked to apply for the top army role while Gen Sanders remains at his post.

As disquiet grows over military affairs, the Commons Defence Select Committee has announced that Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the CDS (Chief of Defence Staff), the head of the military, will appear before it next week, his first session there since being appointed to the job.

The mood among many in senior ranks is fractious, and there is unease about the defence command paper that is supposed to be due during July.

Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative chairman of the committee, and a former soldier, said of Gen Sanders: “Sir Patrick’s departure is a huge loss to the army. He is willing to tell political leaders what they should hear, rather than what they would like to hear regarding the true state of the army.”

The pressures of the war in Ukraine have been immense for the UK, which has been among those at the forefront in supporting Volodymyr Zelensky’s government to fight Russia’s invasion.

The army has borne the bulk of this and received little from central coffers in return. Three months ago the government gave £5bn to the Ministry of Defence to be spread over two years, £3bn of that went to the fleet of nuclear submarines and £2bn did go to the army, but only to replace ammunition stockpiles sent to Ukraine, not for the host of other needs.

The army, according to some officers, faces a further cut in numbers from an already low 73,000 to 70,000. To put this in context, a force of fewer than 100,000 is technically not an army, but a self-defence force. In topical terms, the East India Company, Britain’s historical equivalent of Russia’s Wagner Group, had 250,000 men under arms in the 19th century.

Last year General Sanders, pictured here with David Cameron, described cuts to the army under Boris Johnson’s government as ‘perverse’ (PA)

Last year General Sanders had described cuts to the army under Boris Johnson’s government as “perverse”, especially so “as a land war rages in Europe and Putin’s territorial ambitions extend into the rest of the decade, and beyond Ukraine”.

Boris Johnson, who had declared during the 2021 defence review – at a time when Russia was carrying out massive war drills with tanks across Ukraine’s borders – that the age of tank warfare was over, insisted the army was being boosted in other ways.

Two years ago, General Sanders was tipped to succeed General Sir Nick Carter as CDS. Johnson appointed Admiral Radakin to the role instead.

Admiral Radakin recently suggested that Britain, which has sent Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, does not need to focus any longer on tanks as Nato allies like Poland are investing in armour.

Speaking earlier this week at RUSI (Royal United Services Institute) in London, General Sanders begged to differ. He wanted to stress “those who believe that our geography allows us to minimise investment on land or that we can simply hide behind the armies of other Nato contributors are simply wrong”. Giving Challenger 2s to Ukraine, he had said, “would leave us temporarily weaker as an army, there is no denying that”.

So with little love lost, Admiral Radakin, it has been claimed, suggested at a recent strategy meeting that Gen Sanders’ job could be done by General Gwyn Jenkins, a Royal Marine.

Defence secretary Ben Wallace (middle) says the armed forces has been subject to a ‘corporate raid’ by the Treasury for the past ‘30 or 40 years’ (PA)

General Jenkins has been rapidly promoted. He is currently DCDS ( Deputy Chief of Defence Staff). But the idea that the job of CGS could be done by someone from the Navy (of which the Marines are a part) was described by one senior officer as “ risible”. He added: “If he did say it, did Tony Radakin say it in jest? One would hope so. Otherwise, the level of hubris is weird and amusing.”

In government, Mr Wallace has fought his corner for the military against Downing Street and the Treasury. But officials say he has been distracted since it became clear he would not become the next Nato Secretary General, a job he had wanted for so long. He will also lose his parliamentary seat of Wyre and Preston North in the boundary changes.

General Sanders, it is claimed, told Ben Wallace that further cuts to the army cannot be carried out without serious harm to effectiveness. He pointed out the high degree of stress on the system caused by the demands of the Ukraine war.

Wallace had been vocal from the outset about supporting Ukraine. Indeed, it is his public pushing in this which is said to have cost the support of senior figures in the Biden administration and the US military for the Nato job.

Asked about Gen Sanders potential departure, Wallace dismissed “conspiracy” theories. He said Sanders was “outstanding” but “generals come and go”.

Wallace is said to have asked Lieutenant General Sharon Naismith to apply for the CGS role. She had achieved the rank of General Officer Commanding and will become the first woman to hold the top army post if she gets it.

Ben Wallace has ruled himself out of contention for Nato’s top job (PA)

This week also saw the publication of the report on the RAF’s attempts to promote diversion by raising recruitment among women and ethnic minorities. The plan was found to be unlawful. A target of 40 per cent of the force being female by 2030 has now been pushed back as a result.

The episode is seen by many as another example of muddle and malaise in the military. What is happening with the head of the army is viewed as a wider and very serious manifestation of that.

While serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, General Sanders praised the fighting qualities of the UK’s forces but also stressed the need to have a moral compass and have the courage to do the right thing.

Now he finds himself having to make the same choices, and the consequences will undoubtedly have an impact on Britain’s military at a dangerous and uncertain time.