UK

Rain (AM and PM) 4° London Hi 10°C / Lo 3°C

Brown snubs Dannatt in talks on reinforcements for Afghanistan

Downing Street believes Army chief is using crisis in war zone to score political points against the Government

By Kim Sengupta and Nigel Morris

Gordon Brown has not spoken to General Dannatt about his claims

REUTERS

Gordon Brown has not spoken to General Dannatt about his claims

Gordon Brown is preparing to send more helicopters and military hardware to Afghanistan following public protests over lack of resources from defence chiefs.

Plans to reinforce the beleaguered British force have been drawn up after Downing Street consulted senior military commanders. But in a dramatic indication of the level of friction between the Government and the head of the Army, Downing Street excluded General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, from the negotiations.

Ministers are also making clear that the 700 additional troops deployed to Helmand to reinforce the "surge" against the Taliban will remain for the foreseeable future. Additional explosives officers are also expected to be sent to counter roadside bombs and mines. At the same time special forces units which have been withdrawn from Iraq are also due to be sent on to Afghanistan.

The moves came as the latest member of the British forces to die in Afghanistan was named last night as Rifleman Aminiasi Toge, 27, of 2nd Battalion The Rifles. He died in a roadside explosion while on a foot patrol on attachment to a Danish battalion in Helmand and was the 16th British victim in two weeks.

His death on Thursday took the number of UK troops who have died in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001 to 185, six more than the total death toll in the Iraq war.

Rifleman Toge, 27, was born in Suva, Fiji, and joined the British Army in 2007. His commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Rob Thompson, said "He was one of 35 heroic Fijians in this battalion who add huge value, character and noise to all my companies across Helmand. Rifleman Toge was one of the toughest riflemen under my command and he was adored – heart-breakingly so – by all who had the privilege to encounter him. We have lost a courageous man of great stature – there was no truer moral compass in the Battle Group."

As the action to improve security ahead of the Afghan elections next month continued, Sir Richard used a radio interview to issue a "shopping list" of demands to the Government. It included more helicopters and extra unmanned surveillance drones, as well as more "boots on the ground".

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, also delivered a rebuke to the Prime Minister by contradicting his insistence that no British soldier had died because of the helicopter shortage. The decision of Sir Richard, who has just come back from Helmand, to go public with his concerns over the support for Operation Panther's Claw was an extraordinary snub to the Prime Minister. The two men are believed to have not spoken since the general returned from Afghanistan.

Sir Richard said the succession of deaths from roadside bombs – so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) – could undermine public support for Britain's presence in Helmand. He said he would present a "shopping list" of demands to ministers for bolstering the campaign. He said the extra money could come either from the Treasury or from other parts of the Ministry of Defence budget.

Sir Richard, who retires next month, said: "We have really got to win this offensive counter–IED campaign. What do I mean? I mean we have got to be able to see what the Taliban are doing better – overhead surveillance, we have a certain amount of capability. We have got to be able to target where they are laying these things, which means by technical means we have got to be able to do it." He added that the international forces had to have "sufficient people on the ground" so they could prevent the Taliban planting mines.

The general won the support of Sir Jock Stirrup, who met the Prime Minister in Downing Street yesterday. Sir Jock said he was "busting a gut" to draft as many helicopters as possible into service, admitting that lack of aircover could put put foot-soldiers at risk. He said: "In this situation where you have lots of improvised explosive devices, the more you can increase your tactical flexibility by moving people by helicopters then the more unpredictable your movements become to the enemy. Therefore it is quite patently the case that you could save casualties by doing that."

In the face of the demands, Downing Street signalled that extra resources would be found for the Afghanistan operation. A spokesman said General Dannatt's recommendations would be examined "very seriously".

Lord Mandelson, the First Minister, also promised: "[British troops] will not go without whatever they need to carry out their very important operations in Afghanistan."

Senior officials in Downing Street and the Foreign Office are said to be deeply upset that Sir Richard had used his valedictory visit to the battlefield to "make political points" about the lack of troops and helicopters.

Senior defence and diplomatic sources say that various options to provide additional troops and aircraft for the Helmand mission were already under consideration before General Dannatt's highly publicised trip.

No final decision would be made, however, until the new American commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, presents his military blueprint for the Afghan campaign in the next two months.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Coup d'Etat - Fact or Fiction
[info]britesc wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 12:21 am (UTC)
I cannot remember when there has been a time, when there has been such a blatant snub of such a distinguished serviceman as that currently in place between Gordon Brown and General Dannatt. Is this current PM so blinkered as to not realise the hatred of him by such powerful forces.
In better times and in a less democratic country I fear he may have found himself seeking asylum in another country. Wake up Brown and Mandleson before it is too late.
Re: Coup d'Etat - Fact or Fiction
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 07:00 am (UTC)
No chance. Not while Britain's armed force is officered by disreputed unprincipled chinless jolly good chaps who have no qualms about waging illegal aggressive war against the lightly armed homeland defenders of a disarmed state that has never threatened Britain in any way - as a corporate welfare operation http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/asia_oil_and_gas_pipelines_map.jpg
Re: Coup d'Etat - Fact or Fiction - [info]britesc - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 09:09 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Coup d'Etat - Fact or Fiction - [info]dumbganda - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:14 pm (UTC) Expand
Gordon Brown - Putting his ego before his duty
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 12:36 am (UTC)
The pettiness and spite of Gordon Brown seems to be without limit. As Prime Minister he should act in the best interests of the country, but is unable to do so.

How can he ignore the most senior British soldier at the very time when British troops in Afghanistan are dying on a daily basis? What message is he sending to British troops by refusing to deal with General Dannant?

His lack of grace and petulant behaviour will be remembered long after his departure from Downing Street.
Re: Gordon Brown - Putting his ego before his duty
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 07:13 am (UTC)
tell us about what in the opinion of a warmonger is "in the best interests of (this) country" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9127706080717077488
Gordon Through his toys out the pram
[info]repton4 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 12:51 am (UTC)
Downing street excluded Sir Richard Dannatt from the talks, It should read Gordon Brown through is toys out of the pram, Dannatt has stood up to Brown the bully boy or should i say coward, Brown dose not like anyone questioning his authority, I am the prime minster, who is Dannatt to tell me what men and equipment we need to fight a war Dannett is only the head of the army, i am Gordon the great no one can tell me what to do he shouts as another soldier dies, Once again this is about Gordon Brown he dose not give a toss about our soldiers getting killed,
[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 01:24 am (UTC)
Well, Dannatt won, Brown lost yet again. how can one leader make so many u turns, be caught out in dishonesty so many times and still have a poll rating that suggests he wont be thrown out with 'null points'? Cameron has almost as much to answer for as brown, because Cameron and the Tories should be home and dry for the next election.
Brown knows his detractors
[info]safwan09 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 01:30 am (UTC)
Gordon Brown is not Tony Blair and therefore can not be manipulated by those with vested interests in this business!!!
Re: Brown knows his detractors
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 08:24 am (UTC)
Well said - and quite true from my perspective.
[info]redcliffe62 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 01:49 am (UTC)
remind me again, why are the brits fighting in afghanistan. some people say it is more valid than iraq, but why? it is their country, they have oil i guess which always influences things, but no brits were threatened in 9/11 by the taleban as far as i remember.
it is all eastasia/eurasia stuff, as per orwell.
Re: Redcliffe62
[info]colinscarr wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 03:33 am (UTC)
"...no brits were threatened in 9/11 by the taleban..."

I seem to recall well over a hundred Britons were killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11 by Al Qaida murderers. Al Qaida had bases in Afghanistan approved of by their allies, the Taleban who then ruled the country.
Hence, we are now fighting in Afghanistan.
Re: Redcliffe62 - [info]redcliffe62 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 04:06 am (UTC) Expand
Gordon Brown snubbed the British Army for 12 years
[info]dumbganda wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 03:24 am (UTC)
Vindictive for no reason whatever, Gordon Brown had diverted funds to his cronies taxpayer funded ATMs hidden under names such NHS IT, ID cards. Billions spend on each one of these non productive 'projects' The best he can do now is get his Lord of the Truth to blame the Conservatives, with the help of the Guardian-BBC, and the Libdems. Maybe we need to recall the British Army to secure our democracy and hold the election right now.
BROWN IS CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT:
[info]bgarvie wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 05:36 am (UTC)
So General Dannett is now being ignored by Brown. What the hell is going on? This PM is absolutely criminally negligent with the lives of our troops. If he won't listen to our top General, then Brown must resign. He sent our troops to war without the proper backup of resources and has failed to support them ever since.
I am now convince, more than ever, that our PM is not fit to lead our country. Never in the history of Government has the UK had such a dysfunctional cretin in charge. He is pathalogically unfit for his duties.
Brown v The Army
[info]voter_no254 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 05:51 am (UTC)
Perhaps the Armed Services should hire Joanna Lumley to make such requests.
So what now for Rifleman Toges family?
[info]alanski wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 05:51 am (UTC)
I presume that giving your life for the UK as a soldier means much. I just wonder how this soldiers family stand now the man has lost his life. Full army pension? You know like the one all other British forces get.
Residence of the Uk, benefits etc. It took decades for the Ghurkhas to get treated like one of our own so what's the score with Fijians?

As for the general and his spat with Brown there's alot of ego at stake here, both appear to have excesses of it. Okay let's get it down to real targets. So General when will you win this war? Any year will do. And PM just how much are you prepared to commit the people of Britain to pay for it? And when. Should be an easy one for such a good ex chancellor eh!
The War
[info]lewis_northants wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:16 am (UTC)
The government has redefined the mission in Afghanistan as a war on terror, which cannot be ended
until the Taliban has been defeated. If this is true and the streets of this country will run red with the
blood of of the UK populace if it is not won. Why the hesitance to spend the funds required to win this war. In other conflicts expense was not a consideration in regards to obtaining military equipment. Rules and regulations regarding military procurement were thrown to the wind. Military equipment was purchased from other countries regardless of the expense if unavailable. from UK sources. If the Taliban is as big threat as the government claimed this week it must come up with the funds to win it. The government has spent hundreds of billions to save the banks, why not the same to keep the nation safe from terrorist attack.



Re: The War
[info]corporeal_v001 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:15 am (UTC)

Superpowers go to Afghanistan to get humbled. This war is not winnable. Time is on their side.
Officials upset - who cares?
[info]stewartpa wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:17 am (UTC)
Who are they?

Dannatt is to be applauded for standing up for his troops - that's part of his job and that is what he is doing.

I am upset at these nameless faceless officials for the way in which they are undermining public support for the actions in Afghanistan. The majority of the public understand and support the rationale for our being there as part of an international force. With Downing Street's response to the treatment of retired Gurkhas and now the response to requests for additional resources you have to ask yourself what political planet these officials live on. Oh, and for a bonus, it can't do us much good in our attempts to persuade our international partners to stump up more for the campaign.
Support for Sir Richard Dannatt
[info]sdservio wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:35 am (UTC)
Mr. Brown need to stop playing politics with our British troops in Afgan. Sir Dannatt has recently done a visit and expertise of running a war. Mr. Brown needs to back off and give our TROOPS the equipments and support they deperately need. Mr. Brown your a politican and we don't trust you, Sir Dannatt is a career military man who we trust darely.
Brown is already History
[info]hjd001 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:37 am (UTC)
This is brown, when I speak 'NOBODY LISTENS'. Why Why Why?, I'm only trying to save the world. I have always made mistakes but I also try very hard to learn from those mistakes, else what more could I do? This is another fine mess you got me into blair! Well talking about mess YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET. Damn it everything I do just goes sour, it's not my fault, you know I'm only trying to do what is best for my cabinet, and do exactly what they want. They do drive me crazy, but what more could I do than saving the cabinet?

Did you all know? blair left me with so many problems and since than I was trying to find any good things he done, but guess what? there was nothing, absolutely nothing. But don't worry folks have no fear I'm here.

HS UK
Brown snobs Dannatt
[info]ripsnorter757 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:49 am (UTC)
Someone somewhere sometime has to convince Brown and his cabal that this war is un-winnable and this is another chink in the process.
Consider seriously the fact that for 11 or so years Russia threw in over 500,000 soldiers never less than 100,000 at the time and finally left Afghanistan with their tail between their legs with 15,000 body bags. Someone somewhere sometime please tell Brown and McChrystal that and make certain they are listening and not dozing off. Talk about lions lead by political donkeys.....
Whilst they are at it tell these idiots that the root of world terror is NOT in Af. it's next door in Pakistan where all military and diplomatic efforts should be directed or is Pakistan 'untouchable?'
'Threat to the streets of Britain?' - rubbish and pure nulab. spin, the traffic is far far more dangerous.
Military support
[info]valdan70 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:54 am (UTC)
Well at least we know now that, whatever the parlous state of our economy, Liam Fox has assured us that whatever our troops need, they will get, be it helicopters, unmanned surveillance drones, reinforced military vehicles, Girls Aloud, Fortnum & Mason hampers, etc. The question is which Peters will be robbed to pay Paul. Mr Fox should go easy on his unfunded promises. The Conservatives know from their previous paucity in spending on defence between 1985 and 1997, this is a bottomless pit and priorities need to be decided such as what will save lives.
Re: Military support
[info]ripsnorter757 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC)
Easy peasy valdan70 - get out today. No decisions to be made after that. No further expense on helicopters laying in some hanger after 8 years of a war. Left there by some incompetent.
Who are these 47% who approve of this war as per some poll or other? I suspect it was politically motivated by the Grauniad (what's new?) I speak to innumerable people online and face to face and I haven't yet met one of the 47%. What is going on here sending kids to die in a drug and corruption ridden hellhole to support - what? American oil pipeline interests and the price of Heroin. What a sick world we live in whilst listening to the daily dose of nuliebour spin.
Re: Military support - [info]dumbganda - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 02:57 pm (UTC) Expand
'public protests over lack of resources from defence chiefs'
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:56 am (UTC)
Notably from our disreputable unprincipled chinless jolly good chaps, not about the fact that they are waging an illegal corporate welfare war against the lightly armed homeland defenders of a disarmed state http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/asia_oil_and_gas_pipelines_map.jpg
What a twat!
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)
..and he calls himself Prime Minister - what an ugly personality he has. Delusional and bullying. A bit like Blair before him except Blair was't a bully - eejit maybe but not a bully - I think!!
Wonder if the General would stand for Parliament?
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
..seems he has more support from the country than Brown and Cameron put together - was wondering if he should stand for Parliament - him and Vince Cable would make a great team. Maybe they should even create their own Party. Mil-Dems
Mil-dems to deal with the still unfinished business of 20th April 1653?
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:36 am (UTC)
Anything is worth a try I suppose, but I can't see it other than as a purely military op until the ground has been cleaned and held for long enough for democracy to put down roots.
the idiot brown strikes again
[info]manx99 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 08:54 am (UTC)
Well it just shows the arrogance of that thick Brown. Not only has he screwed the economy but he has to rage a war of hate against a man who actually knows something.

Brown who really should not have been let out of uni has an assumed knowledge about everything and little real knowledge of anything.

Shame we cant put him on the front line with a target on his back
The armed forces need every ounce of available support.
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
It is reported that the Defence Secretary has told his junior ministers to stop briefing against the senior military commanders. One asks, how could such briefing happen in the first place? The most serious problem with this awful government is the complete lack of anyone with service experience. Added to this is the Dear Leader who considers the armed services of little value because the majority will never vote Labour. Then, of course we have to remember that these were Blair's wars and that must grate on the Dear Leader's nerves.

The public have every right to ask just why we are in Afghanistan. But the important fact is this government put us there and our service men and women are fighting a war so they need every ounce of support available. Dear Leader, Brown knows only left wing politics. He rants on about Britishness yet fails to support the very people who fight to maintain this Britishness and are fine examples of it.

Frankly Brown's reaction to questioning by James Arbuthnot at the liaison committee was a disgrace. The man cannot answer a straight question with a straight answer then wonders why he is branded a complete liar. How can we stand another ten months of him?
Re: The armed forces need every ounce of available support.
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 09:52 am (UTC)
..I watched the committee session too on BBC Parliament - and he was bordering on exploding. If he hadn't remembered it was a parliamentary committe that was questioning him I think he would have blown it and walked out. Now that would have been brilliant - not just for viewers but for teh country - surely he would have been certified then and there - mind you teh deputy pm would have had to take over - Mandy - arrgghhhh.
Military Support.
[info]chipmem1 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 01:07 pm (UTC)
47%, seems strange to me. Most people seem to be confused or undecided. I was
expecting to see a bigger percentage of , " Don't knows "

It must be difficult for the military, when alot of the goals seem blurred. If it is a phoney
war, at some time the military either will know or know some time in the future. If they
feel they've been , " sold out " ......

What then ?
Re: Military Support.
[info]alanski wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 01:46 pm (UTC)
Er how about Revolution!
Re: Military Support. - [info]ripsnorter757 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 02:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Helicopters...
[info]asurbanipal wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 05:15 pm (UTC)
According to statistics published earlier in the week, the MOD has a total of 666 helicopters, including 176 Lynx helicopters and 133 Gazelles. Of this total 23 are deployed in Afghanistan. Work that out as a percentage and ask yourself what the devil they are up to.
Helicopters...
[info]asurbanipal wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 05:30 pm (UTC)
According to statistics published earlier in the week, the MOD has a total of 666 helicopters, including 176 Lynx helicopters and 133 Gazelles. Of this total 23 are deployed in Afghanistan. Work that out as a percentage and ask yourself what the devil they are up to.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date