Huge scandal brewing in UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boats, You are missing the point, or to be more accurate, you have missed a bunch of them.

That a serving officer is willing to blow his whole career in telling the truth is not a sign of cowardice , it's a sign of guts. Sure, traditionally this should not be happening but this is the 21st century, not the 1600s. If more officers in Iraq had told the truth instead of the unbelievable drivel about how things were continually getting better we would not be in the mess we are in now. This officer made a choice between being faithful to his country or being faithful to the bunch of politicians who are temporarily in charge of that country.

This PATRIOT told it as it is to protect his COUNTRY. I wish 10% of our officers had his level of patriotism.
 
He can "tell it like it is", but he needs to resign his commission first.

Only when an officer is no longer serving is he free to publically question his superiors, in this case the civilian authority.

To have it otherwise is to grant the unelected military a say in the policies of the nation and begins the slide toward a military that not only speaks out but also acts out against it's superiors.
 
The Chinese had a tradition. Since the Emperor could not be criticised unless the critic was willing to demonstrate his faithfullness a procedure was developed. Anyone could petition to criticise the Emperor and the Emperor must listen, but then the critic was required to immediately commit suicide to show that his comments were true and not made for personal gain.

In effect, this is what the General did. There is no doubt he expects to be fired. On the other hand, he must have known his comments would carry so much more weight now than they would have done if he had made them after retirement. There will be the usual media frenzy but, quietly, his actions will have a tremendous impact on the british public just because this man's actions are so unusual.

There is an interesting technicality here. When a british officer is commissioned he swears loyalty not to the country, not to Parliament but to the Monarch. A quaint, anachronistic, tradition but in this situation it may be that we see an officer actually putting his version of this loyalty into practice.
 
Of course it could have been third or fourth hand from someone who heard it from one of them, or from someone one of them told.
Click to expand...
He makes it pretty clear he heard it first hand from the Iraqis themselves. I guess they might have some reason to cook something like that up, but for the most part those folks would be speaking against interest--they like W for lopping SH's head off, so to speak. It's hard to imagine why after being flattered by the man--it was an audience with the POTUS, fer cryin out loud--they'd want to toss him under the bus.

You guys are acting so incredulous, but when you consider that the average American can't even find his own state on an unmarked map or tell you what century WW1 happened in, I'd be surprised to learn if even a quarter of Americans can tell you what the difference between Sunni or Shia is. Heck, I wonder how many of us can figure it out. :) It's not really all that hard to believe, knowing what we know about how rather un-worldly the Great Decider is, that he doesn't know all that much about where Suiciders come from, from a religious or cultural point of view. This is a man who makes Dan Quayle sound like Carl Sagan, for cryin out loud. You might think he's a great leader. He's certainly got leaderly qualities in many regards--but he ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer. There's a difference.

The fact that his father set up "no fly zones" to protect the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north from the Sunnis in the middle leads me to believe that it is a BS story.
Click to expand...
Sr and Jr have very little contact on policy issues; in fact, you may recall Scowcroft mentioning that W has snubbed his old man on many issues. I wouldn't assume there's too much trickle down of knowledge there. When pops was putting that policy in place, W was busy at AA meetings and working on running companies into bankruptcy as fast as the golf course could take him. You don't have to know the difference between Sunni and Shia to understand why daddy told the Iraqi airforce to leave 'em in the hangar.

Fighting after victory was declared in WWII?
Click to expand...
Sigh...

That was stragglers cut off from the modern world unaware that the war had ended. They were still men wearing a uniform, not an organized resistance hiding among a civilian population fighting a guerrilla style insurgency conflict. They accounted for maybe a handful of casualties at most, and comparing them to the organized, effective, determined, and murderous insurgency we're facing that kills more people in a week than those holdouts killed in twenty years is beyond sophmoric. It's laughable. Most of them weren't even really fighting, just hiding out thinking they were doing their duty to their emperor. Count up the casualties on that link for us, why dontcha, and get back to us. :rolleyes:

Only Bushies and the Neocons believe there was any fighting against unconquered enemies after the end of WWII.
Click to expand...
Only Bushies and Neocons seem to think a bunch of aging Japanese men living in shacks in Philippinian swamps and imaginary, unverifiable, some-book-somewhere-I-read-once-had-stories about nonexistent, never-happened Wehrwolf attacks are something you can compare to the insurgency that's killing people every day in Iraq.

It's like comparing the hangnail I had once to an Ebola outbreak.
 
shooter,

Nope, if he first resigned his position and then held a press conference explaining why and to make his comments he would have demonstrated his sincerity far more convincingly. He would have shown incontravertably that he was willing to voluntarily sacrifice his position on principle.

Instead, he broke tradition and his oath and can attempt to give the service a black eye by making them the bad guy when they rightfully cashier his butt for insubordination.

In fact there's a chance he might even get to keep his position or at least retirement and such if the government folds to press and public pressure.

A lack of integrity, pure and simple.
 
Iraq

I'll have to side with Boats on this one. (Did hell just freeze?):p

If they say that they really, really want us to stay, you can figure that the truth is exactly 180 degrees from that statement. "Oh please B'rer Fox! What EVAH ya does...Dontcha t'row me in dat briar patch!"
 
CareBear,

I assure you, nobody in Britain expects the General to survive this, least of all he himself. If he does so it can only be as a result of a political decision that is part of "spin control".

You will not believe how this is going to play out.
 
Yeah, frankly I can't understand how you can't see it as a matter of principle--if he's willing to risk seeing his commission and his career go down in flames, he must really be serious and believe what he's saying is important. Guys in his spot don't generally risk this sort of thing on a whim.
 
Early in the thread some one said the General should give up his peerage.I believe he is a knight not a peer.Knighthood is a personal honour.Peerages are hereditary(duke,earl).

His comments taken in context were not political critisizm as much as they were comments on the British militaries ability to fulfill it's comitments if involvement in Iraq continues.I think that's what Blair was agreeing with.

Americans pledge allegence to the flag,Brits to the Queen,in both cases the object of the pledge represents the the best of that country in all it's aspects.

The only real power the queen has politically is to veto any legislation that she deems unconstitutional.I don't think that has happened more than once or twice in the entire commenwealth(and not at all in Britain IIRC).
 
There aren't any civilian parallels. As a serving officer you are not in a position to discuss policy in public. End of story.

Civilian control of the military means just that. If you want to work from inside you do it with your mouth shut to the press. If you are willing to risk your job publically then as a matter of honor and integrity you resign your commission and speak as a civilian.

That is how it is done in the military. To do otherwise is dishonorable and betrays your oath and the traditions of the service.
 
He has definetly ended his career. But he is not the only general to have spoken out. A lot of it is politically motivated and I trulely believe a lot of it is genuine concern with the way things are going.

As for what is his duty, if he is not retired he should keep his mouth shut. And just keep taking his orders and protesting to his superiors. I do however believe that retired generals have a duty still to the American people to tell us if things are not going well and if an administration has been all but completely truthful and forth coming.
 
CareBear,

Would you please stop telling other countries how to run their affairs. If you have not noticed, it can cause an awful lot of trouble.

Not all state/military disagreements are bad. In 1215 the English Barons, who were effectively the military, suggested to King John that he might like to sign a small document called the Magna Carta, which just happens to be the basis of America being (until recently) a free country.

So Cal,

How does the top general protest to his superiors? Ironically your punch line says it all. Jesus got crucified for doing what he thought was the right thing. So will this General, not this week, not next week but eventually. When the removal can be done with a certain amount of grace, he's gone.
 
shooter,

May come to a surprise to you but the tradition of serving officers not publically commenting on the civilian command authority's policies is not "American". It goes back to the British, French and German tradition. It is the tradition of Western civilian-controlled militaries.

I'm merely stating the reality.

Top Generals, like, say, Gen. Harold Johnson Chief of Staff for the US Army during Vietnam?

General Johnson responded by observing that there are sins of omission and sins of commission. He recalled that the Army had reached down quite a few files to make him Chief of Staff, and said he believed that the Lord had pulled him up to do a job. He spoke of resignation in protest, asking, "Was that the job He wanted me to do?"

Then, very quietly, Johnson spoke of the conclusion he had reached. "I remember the day I was ready to go over to the Oval Office and give my four stars to the President and tell him, `You have refused to tell the country they cannot fight a war without mobilization; you have required me to send men into battle with little hope of their ultimate victory; and you have forced us in the military to violate almost every one of the principles of war in Vietnam. Therefore, I resign and will hold a press conference after I walk out of your door.'"
Then, added Johnson with a look of anguish, "I made the typical mistake of believing I could do more for the country and the Army if I stayed in than if I got out. I am now going to my grave with that lapse in moral courage on my back."[31]
Click to expand...

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/98spring/sorley.htm

That is the choice of honorable men. That is why the US Generals openly protesting the administration's actions are retired.
 
I was addressing the other "shooter" SoCal.

Speaking to a Parlimentary or Senatorial commission in private is a very different thing than running your mouth off to the press.

Looking at my quote, it's kinda scary how what Johnson wanted to tell his president 40 years ago (the bolded part) again seems applicable.

To make my position clear(er). I have no problem with Generals protesting a government's military choices, they of all of us have the training and experience to comment intelligently (whether I agree with them or not) on strategic questions.

What they should not do for reasons of professionalism and what they in fact can not do without opening the door to upsetting the very structure of our civilian-controlled military is to make those protests, in public, while still actively serving.
 
It may be the tradition of European militaries but it is certainly not the practice. That is the reality.

What do you think about Generals who would put a bomb in a briefcase under their political leaders table - pity they missed Hitler.

What do you think about a Corporal who would become an Emperor? Ask Naploeon.

In fact, until well after the discovery of America it was quite usual for the Monarch to be the effective head of the military in Europe. This situation continued in Germany into WW1. There was no political versus military difference. The idea that the military should be subservient to the politicians is a relatively new concept. In the middle ages in Europe Monarchs in reality served at the will of their powerful military supporters.

In a perfect World we expect the traditions to be followed. In an imperfect World creatures that follow the leader over a cliff are called Lemmings.

The problem with following your idea of resigning then complaining is that nobody takes a bit of notice of you. Fairly recently a group of retired officers tried this. Result - nothing.

SoCal,
Protesting to higher up - like a General telling Don Rumsfeld he's wrong. Ask Shinkesky (sp?).
 
google "retired generals"

You'll find news story after news story. If there isn't a public outcry it isn't because people aren't aware of them or the press has ignored them, it's that a majority of the population doesn't agree with them. Which is their right.

However, these generals were, almost uniformly, retired prior to making their comments. They did their 30, made sure their retirements were assured and thus seem like ex-ballplayers criticizing the current team.

What hasn't happened, including the coward at issue, is for a general to publically resign in protest due to his integrity and unwillingness to continue serving under the current policy makers. This whiner could have done that equally as easily and equally as publically without disgracing himself professionally.

When that happens, I assure you the media will paint it across the sky.
 
and thus seem like ex-ballplayers criticizing the current team.
Click to expand...

You just made my point for me. Nobody is interested in an EX-General. They see too many of them as boring "talking heads" on news shows. As soon as a retired General speaks he is dumped on by the spin controllers.

You still have not answered my point that serving senior military personnel have not always been as compliant as you would wish them to be and that in some cases the result of their actions has been beneficial to their country.

How far do you want to go back? Caeser, as General, becoming Dictator of Rome? Frederick the Great crowning himself as Emperor? The hundreds of minor countries where the General replaced the titular Ruler? Hitler and Mussolini taking over as Fuhrer and Duche? The Russian revolution? Even the American Revolution could be viewed as a case of military mis-behaviour.
 
Oh, I think since the Rise of Democracy will be suitable, since until then, as you pointed out, the Emporer/King etc was the actual head of the military. Call it 220 years plus or minus for us on this side of the pond.

In American history it goes back to Washington's unwillingness to join (and actions against) a proposed coup against Congress by a group of junior officers upset over their handling of military affairs.

Once you have a Parliment or Congress you have the purse strings (thus the real control) and the power to formally declare war in the hands of the elected representatives of the people, not the executive.

I'm sure you are deliberately missing the distinction I'm making between Generals who retire because their time is up and a General formally resigning his commission in protest.

It is the difference between retiring from a company after 20 years and getting that pension check in the mail and then commenting on your replacement and publically quitting in your 19th year, sacrificing everything, and holding a press conference immediately thereafter because you are appalled at the mismanagement.

The latter makes its point by the public sacrifice involved, the other can be dismissed (but shouldn't be) as just Monday morning quarterbacking by folks with too much time on their hands.

We have yet to have a 3 or 4 star publically resign his commission in protest. That is a very different thing from just retiring then speaking one's mind.
 
Note that men lacking in political sensibility do not tend to rise to the rank of general.

Many of the retired generals protesting the war are as much political/celebrity figures as they are military men. They use their stature as "Retired General" to give their self-serving political ambitions a weight of credibility that wouldn't otherwise be afforded to the typical two-bit politicians that they are. Wesley Clark comes to mind.

On the surface, the Brit general in question appears to be cut from the same material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top