He has completely misunderstood the concept of equal opportunities

Radar spokeswoman Agnes Fletcher

Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London on Tuesday, the general said that he welcomed women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities in the army, but "drew the line" at disabled people.

Sir Charles has been an influential voice with the Labour government and is known to be close to the prime minister.

His comments - which have angered disabled rights campaigners - came in one of his last public speeches before he retires from his post in February.

Disabled people, he said, had no right to serve in the armed forces, adding that the idea showed a lack of awareness of military issues.

He said the armed forces were different from civilian life, and too few people understood that.

Being a soldier involved more than cradling babies, and any member of the armed forces had to be ready to fight in high-intensity conflict, he said.

Lack of awareness

The general believes there is a danger that armed forces could be turned into what he called a gendarmerie, just a police force which is all symbolism and no substance.

"Our defence ministers do understand our position and have been robust in the defence of our case during the recent European debate on ending employment discrimination on grounds of age and disability," Sir Charles said.

"I fully understand that those proposing this aspect of employment law were acting with good intentions and for entirely laudable aims.

"But if left unchecked the impact would have had a detrimental effect on the forces by insisting that disabled people had a right to serve.

"We need to guard against such ill-conceived ideas in future."

Colin Low, a member of the Disability Rights Commission, said the proposals were not as unrealistic as they first appeared.

Human rights

"People think disability just means people in wheelchairs but the Disability Discrimination Act, which we are now saying should be extended to cover the armed forces, covers a much wider range of circumstances that are not widely appreciated as being disabilities," he said.

"People who have had disabilities in the past, people who suffer from diabetes, controlled epilepsy for example.

"Don't tell me there aren't roles that they could perfectly adequately perform in the armed forces."

The Royal Association for Disability And Rehabilitation (Radar) called Sir Charles's comments "inappropriate and patronising".

Spokeswoman Agnes Fletcher said: "He seems to think that giving jobs to disabled people is a charitable act.

"Equal opportunities is about getting the right person for the job, and why cut out great swathes of people who might have something very important to contribute?"

Sir Charles said being a soldier involved more than cradling babies

Ms Fletcher said the charity would like to see further investigation into how many people in support roles in the armed forces were in reality ever required to perform in combat.

But politicians are divided over Sir Charles' remarks.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Menzies Campbell said he had "a great deal of sympathy" for him.

"I would take a great deal of persuading to accept the fact that there's a role for the disabled in the front-line of the armed services," he said.

But Lord Ashley of Stoke, chairman of the all-party Parliamentary Disablement Group, condemned Sir Charles' comments.

"The generals are besotted with the trench warfare of World War I," said Lord Ashley, who is deaf.

"Disabled people can make a useful contribution to many areas of service life, especially in this computer age."

Jonathan Eyal, senior analyst at Royal United Services Institute, said that Sir Charles was obviously concerned that the army may no longer be exempt from human rights legislation.