Why Blair Won't Fire Top General

The stunning critique of the British government's involvement in the ocupation of Iraq by the nation's highest ranking soldier has caused a bit of a stir, to put it lightly. Some are talking about the General's dissent being a constitutional crisis while others, mainly in the U.S., are taking the tack that Blair should fire General Sir Richard Dannatt forthwith on the basis that:

It really doesn’t matter who is right here: Soldiers serve the elected civilian leadership and do what they must to carry out state policy. If they believe strongly that the politicians are wrong, they have a duty to speak their minds behind closed doors and seek to influence the decision-makers. If that fails and they can not in good conscience obey their orders, then they must resign and take their case public. It can simply be no other way.

But there is no constitutional crisis and Blair is highly unlikely to fire Dannatt. To see why, let's see what i can remember from my schooldays in Britain.

As far as I know, the good general has every right to say whatever he bloody well likes about Tony Blair and his policies. The Prime Minister isn't in his chain of command. The Queen is Commander in Chief of the armed forces - that's why they all have Royal in front of Army, Navy and Air Force - and the Prime Minister and every other member of the elected government is simply a civilian. If Dannatt had criticised the Queen, that would be a different matter entirely, but he hasn't. He has criticised her government's policies and he is perfectly entitled to do so while still in uniform. As far as I am aware, every Crown servant has a right to speak up on political matters while still in their post as long, as they do not contravene some statute such as the Official Secrets Act, and on occasion some still do. However, it has become the convention, encouraged by political leaders, to wait until they have left the Crown's service. So, no constitutional crisis.

The same basic structure of government lies behind the reasons Blair is unlikely to fire General Dannatt. You see, he can't, not directly. He would have to ask the Queen to fire him - and given that the general has only been in his post for a few weeks, that Blair is the one who asked the Queen to appoint him, that it would be seen as done for political spite and that the current Monarch seems to be far more aware of the constitutional rights of her subjects and the balance between Crown and Parliament than many...it just isn't going to happen. Blair won't take the chance that she might refuse - because that would be a constitutional crisis.

And let's remember an important detail - General Dannett isn't saying he is refusing to carry out his orders to the best of his ability, he is just exercising his right to say publicly what he thinks of them.

Postscript: The perceptive will have noticed that American servicemen don't seem to have that right. They can either soldier in silence, say something in private and then soldier on in silence, or retire and then speak out. At least, those are the three options offered by conservatives. That's because you have an elected monarch - a King who serves for a fixed term and whom you agree to call a President instead of a King - as your head of government and head of state and commander in chief. In my opinion, at least the first and last functions should be seperate.

But even so, there are occasions when the law requires a serving soldier to speak out - such as those where he sincerely believes that his orders from the chain of command are orders to commit war crimes. The Nuremberg trials, presided over by an American senior judge, established that precedent.