Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
Whispering campaign against General who spoke up against Blair
Last updated at 23:07pm on 15.10.06
Sir Richard Dannatt gave a blunt assessment of the Iraq campaign
Britain's top General was the subject of a vicious Whitehall whispering campaign yesterday as Labour ministers furious at his devastating outburst over Iraq called for him to be sacked.
Despite Tony Blair being forced to back General Sir Richard Dannatt publicly on Friday over his blunt assessment of Britain's mission in Iraq, there were growing fears that the head of the Army could yet fall victim to a political backlash.
In behind-the-scenes briefings yesterday senior ministers claimed the General should be dismissed. They condemned his explosive public statements as a 'mistake' which must not be allowed to happen again.
However opinion polls revealed the political risks facing the Government as three quarters of the public said they agreed with Sir Richard and that he should keep his job.
Downing Street was left seething by the senior commander's explosive interview in Friday's Daily Mail, in which the Chief of the General Staff warned that UK troops in Iraq were 'exacerbating the security problems' facing Britain around the world, and must leave 'soon' - driving a coach and horses through Tony Blair's foreign policy.
He condemned planning for the post-war occupation as 'poor', and claimed hopes of creating a liberal democracy in Iraq were 'naive.' Within hours he gave a series of broadcast interviews, prompted by a late-night phone call from Defence Secretary Des Browne.
But rather than apologising he went even further, warning of the risk that the Iraq mission could 'break' the Army. The Prime Minister appeared wrong-footed and outmanoeuvred, and faced with an overwhelming wave of support for Sir Richard from MPs and the armed forces.
Mr Blair was reduced to playing down the schism, agreeing with the General's more palatable comments while trying to ignore the most explosive.
But yesterday brought the first signs of a serious Government backlash, raising grave questions about Sir Richard's future.
One Cabinet minister speaking anonymously to a Sunday newspaper said: 'He should be sacked. His comments were utterly unacceptable for someone in his position.'
Another minister said: 'Dannatt was an accident waiting to happen. He should not be allowed to make another mistake.
'How can we expect our troops to risk their lives in Iraq when their commanding officer is questioning their presence there?'
Former cabinet minister David Blunkett, who remains close to Mr Blair, criticised Sir Richard for 'trying to introduce a new constitutional element' by 'interfering' with the Government's decisions, rather than simply carrying them out.
Another Government source said of Sir Richard: 'It is not his job to criticise Government policy. He needs to get back in his box and shut up. His next mistake will be his last.'
The hostile comments raise real doubts over whether Sir Richard's working relationship with the Government can be patched up. His post as head of the Army has no official time limit. His predecessor General Sir Mike Jackson served for three-and-a-half years, whereas Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, overall head of UK armed forces during the 2003 Iraq invasion, quit after barely two years following a series of run-ins with politicians.
Army insiders now fear Sir Richard's position could become impossible even sooner. There was more measured criticism from some opposition figures yesterday who claimed the General had overstepped the constitutional mark.
Former Liberal Democrat leader and ex-soldier Paddy Ashdown said: 'He may be accurate in what he said, he may be cheered to the echo in the Army, but he certainly shouldn't have said it.
'It's a clear constitutional breach. It opens up a massive division between him and the Government.'
He said military chiefs who opposes Government policy should resign rather than 'blurt out' their disagreements.
Former Tory foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind suggested Sir Richard would receive a 'two strikes' warning, adding: 'What he said was right, but it's not for a general any more than it is for a civil servant to express what are in fact political views.'
He told GMTV's Sunday Programme: 'Serving officers are not, I'm afraid, able to have that kind of freedom.'
Meanwhile in Iraq itself senior officials agreed that British troops should leave sooner rather than later.
A spokesman for the governor Basra Mohammed al Wail said: 'It's true they saved us from Saddam Hussein, but that war is over. We believe their continuing presence makes the security situation worse.'
In Afghanistan there were growing signs of the shortages Sir Richard referred to, as officials admitted the MOD was looking to charter civilian helicopters to ease the strain on the force of just eight Chinook transport helicopters currently trying to support 5,600 British soldiers on the ground.
In theory the civilian aircraft would be used for routine supply movements and kept away from the 'frontline', although in reality aircraft face risk of attack virtually anywhere in Afghanistan.
Reader views (7)
Ordinarily I'd say the government was right to criticise his outburst but these are not ordinary times. Our Single Party Lib Lab Con Parliament is corrupt, I fully support his stance on this. Unlike them he is concerned about his troops and the country.
- Adrian Peirson, Britain
Less senior officers have spoken out but the army of Labour spin doctors invade our TV screens telling us there is no problem. The soldiers are forced to retract their comments, have probably ruined their careers, and the story is forgotten. This labour government only thinks of the party and its own short term political future. The military server the government, but the government is supposed to server the people. When the government hides the truth someone needs to speak out. Sir Richard Dannatt should be awarded another medal for bravery.
- Paul Anderson, Birmingham, UK
It is clear the the armed forces are constrained and need more resources and manpower to cope with the ongoing and escalating civil war in Iraq. The General spoke for the safety of his troops, Blair should have listened, agreed and then assisted in resolving the current quagmire and choas that embattles the situation in Iraq. The troops need more resources period.
Perhaps the next successor can lend a hand and make a more positive action.
- Baldev Gill, Los Angeles
This Labour Regime are the most corrupt and immoral 'government' to have ever taken office. Labour ministers are more interested in spin and lying and tricking the public than actually doing what is right.
Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have for years faced shortages of equipment, inferior equipment, over-stretch that any normal civvy would have by now claimed massive damages from an employment tribunal, world famous regiments disbanded - th Royal Scots which was the oldest regiment in the British Army disbanded by Brown and Blair.
All to save money for the treasury. Then when they think they need to up the PR to minimise their inflicted damage they give paltry sums as a bonus with strings attached (minimum 6 month tour of duty - but many are sent home just short of their 6 months).
The list goes on - but one thing is for sure... there are many people who will never forget what this Labour government have done to the military - NEVER.
- Jeff Duncan, UK
I generally agree that it is not the proper role of a military leader to speak out against civilian leadership in a democracy but this situation demands some honesty that is just not forthcoming from Downing Street or The White House. For God's sake somebody has to start telling us the truth.
- Doug Taylor, Port Hadlock
He certainly should not have said what he did while in his position in the military, but if he feels that strongly about it he should step down from his post and shout his opinions from the rooftops. It is just quite possible that being the commander of all British troops, he just might know something worth listening to.
- Matt Rowe, Indianapolis
Perhaps as a foreign reader I have no right to comment, but I would like to say, in defence of the commander, perhaps his concern was for his forces and his integrety as a leader was greater than his loyalty for a failing political policy. Yes, he could have resigned and left the battle for someone else but again, perhaps his integrety precluded his leaving under those circumstances. Believe me, we've had numbers of generals, admirals etc. resign and they feel much as this commander did. I think the people of Britain and the people of America have lived under a free society that has encouraged independent thinking for too long to succmb to authoriatarianism without putting up a fight.
- Eham, Tulsa, OK USA
