US Edition General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, believes that one of his fundamental duties is to ensure that British soldiers are not required to sacrifice their lives unnecessarily. He thinks that when British soldiers are asked to risk their lives in a war, they should be adequately equipped for battle – and it is his responsibility to make sure that they are.
Although almost every decent human being would agree with him, there appear to be a number of figures in the present Labour Government who are unable to understand why the head of the British Army should think that protecting British soldiers is a higher priority than avoiding causing embarrassment to Labour ministers. When Sir Richard voiced his complaints in public over the dangers posed to our troops in Afghanistan by the shortage of both personnel and equipment, particularly the shortage of helicopters, one Labour minister, who has so far not been named, threatened that there would be an "offensive" to destroy the general's reputation. "General Dannatt is playing a high risk game", the minister said.
It is a testament to what can only be described as the moral corruption of that minister that he thinks Sir Richard is "playing a game". Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, at the moment at the rate of one a day. Sir Richard's attempts to diminish that horrendous toll are not part of any kind of game, and it evinces a profound misunderstanding of the issues at stake to think otherwise. They are a reflection of his deeply serious concern for the lives of British troops. There is no conceivable personal advantage to Sir Richard in trying to ensure that British soldiers in Afghanistan have the equipment they need to diminish their chances of death. It is extraordinary that there are people in the Government who have managed to blind themselves to every value except party political advantage so completely that they believe they must attack Sir Richard's integrity.
We are relieved that Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has now instructed junior ministers to cease briefing against Sir Richard. John Hutton, Mr Ainsworth's predecessor, demonstrates in the article we publish today that he clearly understands the need to give our soldiers "the equipment to do their job safely and effectively." He recognises that it will take "more resources" to win the war in Afghanistan, and that the urgency of the situation means it cannot wait on narrow political considerations.
Increasing the chances of victory over the Taliban, and increasing the chances that British soldiers fighting them will return home alive, are far more important than ensuring that the present Government can maintain the lie that "British troops have everything they need." Sir Richard's brave decision to take on the Government directly on this issue has forced its spokesmen to admit that our soldiers in Afghanistan do not have all the equipment they need. Downing Street has said that the Prime Minister is working "urgently" to provide more for soldiers fighting on the frontline. We hope that the result is that more equipment actually arrives. We also believe the Government is quite wrong to put off the Defence Review until after the General Election. And we hope that this episode has reminded Labour ministers that there are some things more important than scoring political points.