How the Army went to war against itself

Political reporter FRANCESCA MOLD on the bizarre war of leaks waged bytwo opposing factions of Army officers.

It had all the elements of a spy novel - seditious letters, covert campaigns to influence the Government, private dinners with MPs, secret briefings and document shredding.

Yet the Army's three-year internal war was no fiction.

Investigators have discovered that two factions of Army officers fought each other for several years through a flurry of leaks unprecedented in a Government department.

The "A" team was a group of senior officers who defied the tradition of a politically neutral military by campaigning to win the Army the largest slice of military spending.

Their gradual success, marked by the Government's decision to follow the "A" team's advice to buy more light armoured vehicles than recommended by senior military advisers, bred a "B" team.

This team of middle-ranking officers were vehemently opposed to the politicisation of the Army and were angry that "A" team members were being rapidly promoted.

A report into the leaks published last week did not identify the officers in the factions, but Defence Force chief Air Marshal Carey Adamson is working to track them down.

NZ First MP Ron Mark is named in the report as having received the largest number of leaks in the past two years. He will not name his sources but points out that they are not all in the military.

"You'll never get politicians to name them, because that will be the kiss of death for those people."

He says it is not hard to figure out who fits into which team.

"The ones that got rapid promotion are in the 'A' team. The ones that had to graft their way up and were only eventually acknowledged because of outstanding work are in the 'B' team. Also in the 'B' team are those soldiers who have been discharged and are serving their time in funny little posts around the world where they can no longer exert influence by expressing opposing professional opinions."

The war of leaks has been traced back by investigators to April 1998, when National's Max Bradford was Defence Minister.

"In a lot of cases the leaked information went to the Labour Opposition," says Mr Bradford. "There were also several journalists who were the favoured channel for leaks.

"The Army officers who were involved in this exercise wanted to put a particular spin on things, so they would leak embarrassing or unhelpful, one-sided material to those journalists."

The leaks included details of negotiations about whether to buy or lease a third frigate, plans to close Auckland defence bases and the cost of buying F-16 fighter jets.

"An awful lot of material that could only have come from the most senior ranks was coming out through the Opposition," says Mr Bradford.

Defence Minister Mark Burton has denied receiving leaked information from the military while in Opposition.

The leaks did not stop with the change of Government in November 1999.

By early 2000, the "A" team was working hard to create bad publicity about the cost of equipping the other services by leaking information about Project Sirius (the upgrade of the Orions), pilot resignations and options for the Navy.

But at the same time, the "B" team's counter campaign emerged.

"B's" leaks focused on personally attacking those seen as aligned with the "A" team - Army chief Major-General Maurice Dodson and his predecessor Major-General Piers Reid.

In October and December 2000, Ron Mark revealed details of General Dodson's numerous trips abroad at the taxpayers' expense.

By February last year, itineraries had been released showing General Dodson also played a fair amount of golf on his official trips overseas.

By mid-year, the leaks had turned to the controversial purchase of 105 light armoured vehicles for the Army which would cost $677 million.

There were leaks about the additional cost of maintaining the vehicles, concerns that they could not be used in terrain such as East Timor and then the early release of the findings of a critical audit into the purchase.

The "B" team's most significant victory was the leaking of a controversial letter which exposed the thinking of the "A" team.

On August 28, then National leader Jenny Shipley released the "seditious" letter written by London-based Lieutenant-Colonel Ian Gordon. The letter, which is now the subject of another inquiry, encouraged the Army to open a "second front" to gain influence in its "war" with Defence Force superiors.

It advocated exploiting the more vulnerable Air Force, appointing campaign supporters to senior positions especially in the Ministry of Defence, influencing Maori MPs, select committees and targeting sympathetic officers from other services.

Over the next few days, the impression left by the Gordon letter was reinforced with leaks about private briefings and a dinner attended by the Army high command and Defence Minister Mark Burton of which the Chief of the Defence Force was unaware.

On August 30, General Dodson was attacked for awarding lucrative contracts for military education to his predecessor Major-General Reid.

The leaking of the Gordon letter finally pushed the Government into ordering an investigation.

The Government believed the letter was leaked by Centre of Strategic Studies director Dr David Dickens, whom Mr Burton accused of having blatant links to the National Party.

"I would observe that Dr Dickens appears to be a prime recipient of bucketsful of leaks which he passes to Mr Bradford and other Opposition politicians," said a furious Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Dr Dickens denied being the source of the letter.

Days later, on September 17, National's Mr Bradford launched another hit, revealing that General Dodson had ordered the shredding of a potentially embarrassing 1997 public relations strategy advocating the development of a group of influential people to champion the Army in the news media.

Mr Bradford is reluctant to discuss where he got the information. But he says it was someone closely associated with defence activities who had subsequently left.

"He had been given it by somebody in the Army.

"This person was absolutely offended by what had been happening ... "

Mr Bradford believes strong action should be taken against those who leak official information.

"I think what we've seen happen with the Army playing a one-sided game which was to their benefit is the perfect reason why any leaks should be stamped on very hard with the individuals court-martialled, kicked out of the force and if necessary the appropriate legal action taken against them for breaching the Official Information Act and destroying evidence."

He adds: "I don't give a stuff how high that goes. That is not acceptable behaviour for anybody."

Mr Mark just wants the investigation into who is to blame for the war of leaks to be even-handed. He is concerned that several leaks, including those which emerged from the Government's own offices, were left out of the original inquiry.

"I don't know how productive that witchhunt will be. I just hope it is fair and includes the minister's office, chiefs of staff as well as any other officers suspected."

* A report by Judge Advocate-General Peter Trapski into the Gordon letter is expected to identify individuals responsible for the leaks. It is due in the next few weeks.