Sir, Two former Tory defence secretaries have agreed with what General Sir Richard Dannatt said, while criticising him, on constitutional grounds, for having said it (report, comment and letters, Oct 14).

But it was the Government that first flouted British constitutional propriety by making policy on the sofa, misleading Parliament and taking the nation to war on a false prospectus, without the full UN Security Council authority it now claims for keeping us there. That is no doubt why one distinguished former Tory Foreign Secretary has described the invasion and occupation of Iraq as imprudent and unjust.

Individual chiefs of staff may indeed sometimes have erred in the past in being too swayed by political considerations. However, their first duty is to stand up for their own armed Service, publicly when necessary. It is not the British Army that has brought us to the present pass.

If Her Majesty’s Opposition were to pursue more robustly its own constitutional duty to oppose government mistakes, no doubt the chiefs of staff would be happier to bite their lips.

SIR JOHN WESTON
UK Ambassador to Nato 1992-95; UK Permanent Representative to the UN, 1995-98
Richmond, Surrey

Sir, In a democracy any senior military commander should normally be fired if he publicly criticises the government’s strategy in a current conflict. Otherwise the legitimacy of a coup d’état is strengthened, and the morale and actions of the soldiers involved may be compromised.

Subsequent pretence by the Prime Minister that there is no difference between his views and those of General Sir Richard Dannatt only serves to demonstrate Mr Blair’s weakness in the present political environment. In no way does this diminish the inappropriateness of the general’s remarks.

If General Dannatt really felt he had to make his view known, he should have declined his recent appointment, resigned on a good pension and then made his position clear.

PATRICK ALLAN
Southend-on-Sea, Essex

Sir, Jerry Latham (letter, Oct 14) says of General Sir Richard Dannatt that “he is a government employee”. Perhaps Mr Latham has been under the influence of our cousins across the water too long: the British Army does not form part of the British Government (neither does the Civil Service).

If the “State” was what was meant, then Mr Latham should bear in mind that the highest duty of army commanders — of any agent of “the State” — is to the country and its people (including soldiers and their families).

General Dannatt did not refuse to follow orders; he simply stated things as most of us know, or feel, them to be. That the majority of British soldiers appear to support their commander should give great pause for thought.

PAUL PEMBERTON
Cambridge

Explore Letters

• Feedback