Downing Street's army beef
Relations between Gordon Brown and the head of Army General Richard Dannatt are terrible right now - perhaps worse than they have ever been between a Prime Minister and one of his top generals.
People in Downing Street are especially angry because Gordon Brown's instinctive reaction last weekend, after all the recent deaths in Afghanistan, was to get on a plane on Sunday, and go to visit British troops in Helmand to show his sympathy and solidarity.
I'm told, however, that Sir Richard and his colleagues advised the Prime Minister that whilst the Army had no problem with Mr Brown visiting Afghanistan at some point this summer, it would be "too dangerous" simply for the PM to make an unplanned, spur-of-the-moment trip.
Mr Brown accepted this advice. His plans were dropped and instead he made a statement about Afghanistan to the Commons on Monday.
I'm told that what especially infuriated Brown and his colleagues in Number Ten however is that on Wednesday morning Dannatt suddenly popped up on the Today programme, speaking from Afghanistan, voicing his scarcely-veiled criticisms of government policy.
Some of Brown's aides immediately concluded that they had been badly outmanoeuvred, and that Sir Richard and his colleagues didn't want a high-profile surprise trip by the Prime Minister to steal the thunder of Dannatt's own long-planned farewell visit.
And the fact that Today presenter Sarah Montague and her 91Èȱ¬ producer travelled out by plane with the Army chief last Sunday, make Brown's staff even more suspicious. They think the whole trip and the attendant publicity were long-planned, and that Sir Richard has badly over-stepped the mark in what he's said this week.
On the other hand, Sir Richard and his colleagues were surely right in that it would undoubtedly have been very risky in the current circumstances for Gordon Brown to visit Afghanistan. A lot more risky than for Dannatt himself or for Sarah Montague.
There may also be an element of paranoia among people in Downing Street, which would hardly be surprising. But that in itself is important element in the story.
Now the relationship between Number Ten and Sir Richard is expected to get a lot worse, especially once the general retires next month, and becomes head of the defence think tank RUSI where he's expected to become a regular military pundit on radio and TV.
LATEST 21.30PM:
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed to me tonight that Gordon Brown did enquire about making a trip to Afghanistan, but that they advised against him going for "operational sensitivities". The MoD insists the Prime Minister was advised by them not to go, and not by General Sir Richard Dannatt.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 17th Jul 2009, leftieoddbod wrote:why is it that when any government minister makes a quick in and out visit to a war zone he is always in a helicopter and not a truck...says it all really...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 17th Jul 2009, Auqakuh1123 wrote:Respectfully...
You use the weasel phrase "I'm told" several times in this blog.
Who told you? Who are they? What are their jobs? Why are they in "the know"? What makes them credible sources?
This is no better than seeing the words "It is said" or "People say" on Wikipedia.
Other than that, interesting read.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 18th Jul 2009, Whiskybreath wrote:Probably the most pointless blog of the week; at least you admitted as much in your last paragraph, MC. Did you fire up the old wordprocessor with the thought in your mind that you would dish the dirt onto Dannatt? Bad chap.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 18th Jul 2009, JunkkMale wrote:There may also be an element of paranoia among people in Downing Street
Having read all this... 'may'? It may be of value to review the Downfall series.
Or maybe 'Brief Encounter'. Briefers briefing against the briefs of briefers.
What away to run a country.
And as to the packaging of spin or opinion as objective news...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 18th Jul 2009, artisticsocrates wrote:I just like the way the government has repeatedly said recently that the army shall get whatever it needs, and now Dannett arrives back at No. 10 with a hefty shopping list. GB outmanouvred? - oh, yes.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 18th Jul 2009, bookhimdano wrote:If Dannatt had his way would we be on a crusade to retake constantinople from the heathens?
not sure a person with what looks shinning eyed messianic views should be given a gun nor give orders to people with guns?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 19th Jul 2009, stanilic wrote:I find it quite amazing; the country is at war, casualties are being sustained, children left without fathers and all we get is this vicious gamesmanship.
The reality is that once gain the British army has been committed to a hot war by New Labour without so much as a second thought. There has been no statement of the objectives other some vacuous comment concerning terrorism, and no political commitment worthy of the name. The numbers of troops has been insufficient, the commitment of some of our allies questionable, the amount and condition of equipment essential to fight a modern war marginal and the determination to get in control of the war on the ground minimal.
My view is that the government needs to get a grip and fight the war with the intention of winning. We know it will only end with a political settlement with those parts of the Taliban who scrub up well, but we will get to that point faster if we prosecute the war with more energy, focus and commitment.
Sady, energy, focus and commitment only apply with New Labour when there is an election to be won. Being in government is a serious business, being at war is a very, very serious business but can New Labour ever be serious? Given the briefings against Dannat I just don't think so.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 20th Jul 2009, JunkkMale wrote:Leadership for the Nu Age: The definitive answer is Yes... or No.
Just watched on 91Èȱ¬ Breakfast Mr. Burnham's on-air 'advice' regarding swine flu. If what he... er... 'said' is anything to go by, I don't hold out much hope for the value of his much vaunted swine flu 'advice line'.
Despite the interviewer's best efforts, he committed to, and hence said nothing of substance or value. Pure fudge when discussing the nation trying to get clear direction.
Which begs the question of what a Secretary of State is for, and why they bother with such appearances.
I am sure lessons have been learned, though.
And I'll bet Mr. Brown is just 'furious'. Again. Management by reactive anger. New Nokias, please, Ball-boy!
I asked the missus how we should 'consider our going into public places'.
She asked me what n earth I was talking about. Indeed. I said a senior member of Gordon's GOAT herd had shared this pearl of well-directed leadership.
Bless.
Us.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 20th Jul 2009, JunkkMale wrote:ps: How well qualified/trained for this role is the young Mr.B, in light of our country's 91Èȱ¬ Secretary role being entrusted to another such competent and confident a GOAT in recent times.
Maybe Sarah Brown as Minister for Tweeting, and then over to Climate Change and on to Defence by the end of the year before her Jimmy Choos get too troubled by all this knowing a blind thing about the department you run and its responsibilities?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 20th Jul 2009, Ian_the_chopper wrote:Post 1 I agree re politicians always seeming to be in helicopters or planes and not in road vehicles. Perhaps if they travelled by road vehicles something more concrete would have been done re the poor state of protection offered by our road vehicles in Afghanistan.
Also, when a politician visits the troops, generally for their own ego and PR purposes rather than anything else it takes that helicopter out of use for our servicemen.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 20th Jul 2009, ladytruth wrote:if gordon brown is so insistant that the british army has enough equipment and helicopters why doesn't he try a six month tour himself but then again he'd hinder them even more he cant even sort this country out! im sure ross kemp could tell him a few home truths.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 20th Jul 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:"defence think tank"...what an odd combination of words...kind of has the ring of "ethical banking center".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 23rd Jul 2009, HM_The_Queen wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)