Tony Blair tried his best tonight to play down differences between the Government and the Army, despite the candid views of the Chief of the General Staff, who said that Britain should withdraw from Iraq soon.
In interviews with The Daily Mail and the BBC, General Sir Richard Dannatt said that the presence of British soldiers in Iraq was exacerbating the violence there and that a prolonged stay in the country could "break" the armed forces. He expressed more optimism about the British mission in Afghanistan.
This evening the Prime Minister said he agreed with everything that Sir Richard had said, although it appeared he had only read a transcript of the General's remarks on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, rather than the extended interview he gave to the newspaper.
"I have to say to you I’ve read his transcript of his interview on the radio this morning, and I agree with every word of it," said Mr Blair, when asked about the comments at St Andrews this evening. "If you read the transcript of the interview on the radio this morning and the television, he sets in proper context exactly what he was saying."
Mr Blair said any contradiction between the Government's analysis of the situation in Iraq and Sir Richard's was being created by press reports:
"Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq when the job is done... When he’s talking about our presence can exacerbate he’s absolutely right. I’ve said the same myself. In circumstances where the Iraqis are ready to take over control of areas, and we’re still there," he said.
Downing Street earlier insisted that Sir Richard, who took over as the head of the Army in August, had Mr Blair's full support, despite a clutch of front page newspaper reports this morning that spelled out the General's far from optimistic views on the war in Iraq.
In the Daily Mail interview he said that the continuing presence in Iraq of 7,200 British troops was "exacerbating the security problems" and said they should come home soon.
He added: "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims’ views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner you can be welcomed by being invited in a country but we weren’t invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in."
He said that whatever consent there may have been at the start, it had now largely turned to intolerance on the part of the Iraqi people.
"I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them," he said.
He made it clear that he thought that the planning for the post-combat phase was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning".
He added: "The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naive hope, history will judge."
In the interview, Sir Richard even linked the presence of British troops in Iraq with the growing Islamic extremism taking hold in Britain. He said that failure to support Christian values in Britain was allowing a predatory Islamic vision to take hold. "When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country."
Challenged today about his warning that the British presence was making the security situation worse and provoking hostility, he told the BBC: "That comment is slightly taken out of its context."
He added: "It is an absolute fact that in some parts of the country the fact that we are there causes people to attack us and in that sense our presence exacerbates violence.
"We need to keep on thinking about time, because time is against us, because time is money, time is particularly soldiers and soldiers’ lives, and we can’t go on forever."
Sir Richard said Britain must "stay in step" with its American allies, but he also warned that the army must not be "broken" by the Iraq mission. He insisted: "I am not a maverick in this sense. I am soldier speaking up for his army. I am just saying come on, we can’t be here forever at this level.
Although other senior figures in the Army have privately expressed concern about strategy in Iraq and, in particular, the lack of proper planning after the invasion had taken place in March 2003, no one as senior as Sir Richard has made such a damning assessment of the Government’s strategy.
His views were welcomed by opposition MPs, anti-war groups and soldiers.
Colonel Tim Collins, one of the most senior officers in Iraq in 2003, said Sir Richard had given a "refreshing and very honest insight into what the Army generally feel".
"That is that the political shortcomings and the shortcomings in the planning for the occupation of Iraq have made the job of the Army very much more difficult," he told the Today programme.
"And there comes a time when the realisation on the ground is that the people of Iraq do resent foreign intervention and there comes a time when we have got to look forward to when we can hand it over to the Iraqis for them to sort out."
"I think we have to salute the honesty of the Chief of General Staff and understand that he is reflecting the beliefs of the Army, the people on the ground. He is not a politician and he is not given to spin, so what you hear from him is absolutely ground truth."
Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said: "To have one of our senior military figures speaking out on behalf of those under his command is a refreshing change. When I was in Iraq, soldiers told me the same thing."
Andrew Burgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, invited Sir Richard to speak at the anti-war group’s next public demonstration. "He has articulated what we have been saying for a long period now: that the presence of the British forces is exacerbating the security problems in Iraq itself," he said.
Sir Richard appeared genuinely taken aback by the attention paid to his remarks and insisted that he was not at odds with the Government, telling the BBC:
"It was never my intention to have this hoo-ha…in trying to suggest there is a chasm between myself as head of the Army and the Prime Minister or between myself as head of the Army and the Secretary of State for Defence.
"My intention is particularly to speak up for what is right for the Army. That is my job. That is my constituency. If some people have chosen to pick up one or two of the comments I have made and tried to make frankly quite a large mountain or chasm out of that then so be it."
