Britain: Senior politicians were last night lining up to rebuke Britain's top soldier for "interfering" with the democratic process by publicly venting his views on Iraq.
Former home secretary David Blunkett said Gen Sir Richard Dannatt's outspoken intervention concerning the military campaign was a "constitutional" issue. And ex-Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown insisted the army chief should have resigned rather than "blurting out" his disagreement with official policy. "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," said Lord Ashdown.
The criticism came amid renewed speculation that the general's job may be under threat.
The Sunday Mirror quoted two unnamed senior ministers - one in the cabinet - calling for him to be sacked for stepping outside his remit.
Shadow home secretary David Davis also expressed his "surprise" at the candid nature of Sir Richard's interview in Friday's Daily Mail.
On Sky News's Sunday Live programme, Mr Davis said the general should keep his job because his departure would cause a "huge morale issue".
"There is an issue to the extent to which a uniformed officer should speak out over government policy but clearly he was so moved by the problems that the army face that he felt he had to do it," he added.
Current Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell told ITV's Sunday Edition programme it was a "constitutional question" whether the general should have spoken out. "I think the answer to the question is no, but he's done so and so you can't, as it were, just disinvent what he's said, which was pretty significant."
Asked on BBC1's Sunday AM programme for his reaction to Sir Richard's remarks last week, Mr Blunkett said: "I thought 'Please don't try to introduce a new constitutional element', namely that the armed services in our democracy will interfere with the correct role of the government in making the decisions, and the armed services . . . [carrying them] out." Mr Blunkett said Sir Richard was new to the job, and insisted "lessons" had to be learned from the controversy.
"I think lessons will be learned, because we don't have the intervention of the military into our decision-making in Britain, and nor should we."
Other aspects of Sir Richard's language had been "unwise" and not in keeping with his role, said Lord Ashdown. The general referred to "Judaeo-Christian" values underpinning the armed forces. Lord Ashdown said: "These are not Judaeo-Christian values - they are fundamental values shared by Islam. I'm not sure that's territory a general should intervene in."
He added that he was not pleased Sir Richard had used the terms "my army" and "my soldiers". "Generals don't own armies. They lead armies, but in democracies armies belong to the government, they belong to the people."
Former Tory foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind and former defence secretary Michael Portillo have also suggested his position is untenable, despite agreeing with his views on the military campaign.
However, there was some comfort for Sir Richard today as a poll indicated he had won widespread support among the public. Three-quarters of people agreed with his view that troops should be pulled out of Iraq "some time soon", according to the ICM survey for the Sunday Express.
Some 71 per cent said Sir Richard had been right to speak his mind and should remain in the post, and 57 per cent shared his fear that Muslim extremists were exploiting a "moral and spiritual vacuum" in Britain.
A large minority - 44 per cent - also wanted to see a greater role for the British army in combating Islamic terrorism on UK shores.
- (PA)