"Intellectually bankrupt"

[Skybird]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Z4HZRLLBHSGDRQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/01/wirq101.xml

Really, no comment needed, I think - the author was (is?) the head of the British army.

[Heibges]

Seriously, no one has tried to pretend that Rumsfeld or Bush are smart.

The difference between a career military officer and a career politician are immeasureable. The values you need to exemplify to succeed in one profession are the exact opposite ones you need to succeed in the other.

That was his appeal. If a stuttering moron like himself could see that the Iraqi's had WMD's, you would have to be an idiot yourself not to see it.

[DeepIron]

Hindsight, especially from those with their pensions safely tucked away, is always the bane of the present.

No, I don't think anyone in the Bush Admin is worth the air they breathe, but why didn't this dude speak up *BEFORE* he retired... :down:

[Heibges]

He and George Tenet should form a club. :lol:

Smartly, Colin Powel left. What does this say about the character of Ms. Rice.

[Skybird]

Hindsight, especially from those with their pensions safely tucked away, is always the bane of the present.

No, I don't think anyone in the Bush Admin is worth the air they breathe, but why didn't this dude speak up *BEFORE* he retired... :down:
He probably did, but not in public, like it is a soldier's regular duty. Since Blair is not any more brighter than Rumsfeld and Bush, you could imagine where such criticism behind closed doors ended.

BTW, he was not the first senior officer to criticise the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/12/wirq12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/12/ixworld.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/27/europe/britain.php

There has been massive criticism by US senior militaries as well in the past 2 years.

[DeepIron]

He probably did, but not in public...
You're probably right... Still, perhaps a bit more open critism of US policy might have led to a different ends. Doubtful... but one can still hope...

[mr chris]

Really, no comment needed, I think - the author was (is?) the head of the British army.
He has retried. His replacement is General Sir Richard Dannet:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

An assessment that we have not been tough enough in our handlng of the Iraq matter. What a breath of fresh air! I'll accept that as true. Unfortunately, it is also true that the political will to be tough enough doesn't exist, and won't exist until the Muslim extremists kill enough of us.

No problem. We are now in the process of leaving Iraq and enabling them to do just that. Then they shall find out that our liberals, whose protection they have mistakenly been relying on, have very sharp teeth and fight dirty. They are mistaking forebearance for weakness.

Don't worry General. It won't happen on your timetable, but without a change of heart in the Jihaddists, there will be plenty of carnage to satisfy you. The West always pays too much at the supermarket of war, but always buys the victory anyway, whatever it costs.

[bradclark1]

That was his appeal. If a stuttering moron like himself could see that the Iraqi's had WMD's, you would have to be an idiot yourself not to see it.
Damn. I'm an idiot!

No, I don't think anyone in the Bush Admin is worth the air they breathe, but why didn't this dude speak up *BEFORE* he retired... :down:
He spoke up before. He's just expanded on it now. Maybe that's why he retired. Fast way for a general to get relieved/retired is to have a vocal opinion different then the official line of the goverment. I don't know about the UK but the only time a General can really give his personal opinion on this type of thing is if he appears before congress and is asked more or less.

[Skybird]

On the man:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ASZ5E23I4ISERQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/01/wmike101.xml

He is what they call a man's man, a soldier's soldier, and the title reflects his proudest description of himself. It also gives a personal thrust to his broadside against the Ministry of Defence, which he accuses of failing to understand soldiers or the ethos of soldiering - the can-do spirit inspired by old-fashioned concepts of duty, honour, selflessness, discipline. "These may not rest easily with some of today's values," he says, "but if they are not there you will not have an Army capable of doing what it has to do."
The lack of understanding is endemic, he says witheringly. "It is a cultural divide between the armed services and the civil service." Being out of uniform has liberated him from the need to stay on the right side of his paymasters. In an impassioned endpiece to his personal story, he accuses an over-bureaucratic MoD of failing to value soldiers and their families, undermining the position and authority of the chiefs of staff, and confusing activity with achievement. Without the soldier, he insists, ministers, civil servants, generals, admirals and air marshals are nothing.
"Everything starts and finishes with the soldier," he says. "I would love to have been able to persuade the MoD to understand that. Not much over £1,000 a month for the private soldier on operations is hardly an impressive figure. And some of the accommodation we provide is still, frankly, shaming."
The soldier's part of the contract with the nation, he argues, is to take risks - if need be, to risk their lives. But it cuts two ways: the nation has to honour its covenant with the soldier. "Soldiering is a very important profession, is it not? At the end of the day, you have to get people to risk their lives and you have to give them the best odds you can to succeed. I hope what I say will make people think hard." What a voice this man has, deep and throaty as a faulty exhaust.

I saw him on a longer TV special maybe two years ago, where he was at the centre of another volley of criticism reaching the White House at the receiving end of the line. I must say he impressed me, and i believe he was honestly meaning what he was saying in good, and in bad. This I respect. It is so very much more than anything you get from all the other faces and leaders on TV.

[Skybird]

Next volley on the waaaay...

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2007/09/02/second-general-attacks-flawed-u-s-iraq-policy-98487-19722123/


General Cross, 56, said: "Right from the very beginning we were all very concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the postwar plan - and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld was at the heart of that process.
" I had lunch with Rumsfeld in Washington before the invasion in 2003 and raised concerns about the need to internationalise the reconstruction of Iraq and work closely with the United Nations.
"I also raised concerns over the numbers of troops available to maintain security and aid reconstruction. He didn't want to hear that message. The US had already convinced themselves that Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy.
"Anybody who tried to tell them anything that challenged that idea - they simply shut it out." The general, who was deputy head of the coalition's Office Of Reconstruction And Humanitarian Assistance in 2003, added: "Myself and others were suggesting things simply would not be as easy as that.

"But he ignored my comment. He dismissed it. There is no doubt with hindsight the US post-war plan was fatally flawed - and many of us sensed that at the time."



At that time Major General Tim Cross was the most senior British officer involved in planning Iraq. He sums up the US policy as "fatally flawed".

[bradclark1]

What he's saying has been brought up numerous times on this board so what is special about what he is saying?

[Skybird]

The high ranks.

[micky1up]

just remember this retired officer made sure his pension(which is substantial compared to a foot soldiers ) was secure before he opened his mouth he never did it when it was needed before and during the wars

[Skybird]

Again: they probably did - and were, as they said themselves, ignored. Like every disciplined soldier of course they did not attack their superiors in public, even if these political superiors obviously were complete incompetent idiots, as we know at least today. After you leave the service, you are no longer obligated to remain silent with your views and opinions, only to keep secret stuff secret.

I remembered a thread several years ago were other, low-ranking officers voicing doubts and critcism were quoted - and many people here argued that is not the proper thing for a soldier to do, they should keep that voice limited to internal communication.

So what is it for you then, Micky? Should soldiers speak out in public when they question the mission, or should they not? :smug: Or are you upset only because the criticism of the two most senior British officers concerning the Iraq war can't be so easily wiped off the table by saying they do not know the stuff they are talking about? If these two doesn't know the stuff - who else?

The pentagon exclusively? :lol:

[micky1up]

its very easy for a polititian to say go to war i would suggest that they serve in the forces before taking up a political career thats not going to happen is it, remember the big new about the increase in pay for those fighting on the front in afagn/iraq
it was all in the news what they neglected to say was that the at the same time reduced another part of the pay structure that nullified the increase they where getting . this is typical of the uk goverment position on the men that fight and sail and fly for them a private is on 16-18k a year thats a crappy amount considering that the goverment votes in its own pay rises , a classic was the para who lost his legs and 37 seperate injuries from a land mine gets 150k max and a MOD civil servant get 500k for RSI in her thumb this is the crazy and ****ty world of the uk armed forces ive served 20 years in november and i cant wait to leave i will be offered 5 years extension but only if i go back to sea on a sub after notching up over 15 years out of my 20 on operational units the reply Get F**ked will be heard


my main gripe about this story is that while they are climbing there careers these high rankers say yes to everything asked of them never questioning because if you do rock the boat bang goes your promtion only after they have gotten as high as they can or have left do they grow a pair and start sounding off but only after said pension is secure an admiral in the RN retires on full pay for life ,a leading hand gets 40k payout and 6 k a year for life indext lined after 55 years of age

he but what do i know ive only been at the coal face for 20 years


this isnt me having a go at the men who serve in general ive loved the comaradery and the friends ive made over the years but the higherarchy need to sort this out people are leaving in there droves

[Skybird]

I don't understand you then, Micky. Has Jackson not complained exactly about what you are complaining too, then? and have both generals not criticised the political home-made plan for Iraq and saying they were overruled and wiped of the table by their political superiors? And is this not coming from the highest ranking officer at that timne, and the highest rankiung officer engaged in planning with the american political leadership? I do not understand why you mock at cross and Jackson, then. It's a miserable situation, isn't it: on the one hand during a war, and in peace as well, soldiers are expected to obey orders and not attack the politcal superiors in public. Orders during a crisis canot be debated, war is no democracy. On the other hand this disobedience or lack in loyalty sometimes apparently seem to be preferable. An even more extreme example of course was the officer corps of the Wehrmacht, living by the drill of old Prussian tradition and code of honour, who refused to confront Hitler'S suicidal orders time and again and called this "loyalty" and "duty" and good soldiering.

It seems that everything can be exaggerated - obedience as well as disobedience. Question is where to draw the line. anyway, concerning the Iraq war the problems for me are mostly with the politcal structures anyway, not with the military. Even the Pentagon was time and again reported to be hesitant about invading Ireaq, and Rumsfeld obviously did not only ignore Jackson, but quite some am American advisors and generals as well.

See my posting #10, the link on that biographical essay. My impression is you judge Jackson wrong.

[micky1up]

in a way yes


but the blind following of orders is not how it should be the excuse i was mearly following orders was used in the past(nazi germany) did he protest enough when he could have made a difference becasue i would bet i he did raise a few problems that threatened the operations acctually hapening he would have been replaced


this is not just ramabling matey if it was just me having a grump why is the armed forces so critically undermaned the navy is over 5000 short i cant say what the armys like but i bet it similar there has to be a reason for that ? people are leaving in there droves and everyone i see leaving are saying no to extensions of service ths gap is just going to get bigger and bigger recruitment is down pay rises are staggered and peopel are being asked to take on more roles in there terms of reference im a leading hand in the royal navy on a sub i do electronic warefare ,tactical data handling ,navigation, radar and weapons guiding also having to quilify as a high pressure plant operator on the sytems control pannel take 3 months to learn itself on a suface ships that about 5 diffenent peoples jobs

and they wonder why people are leaving


too many jobs for to few people

[Skybird]

Well, okay, but the wars of the past years have been voted for not by militaries, but civilian politics, who also used to justify them by massive decpetion and manipulation. But by the constitutional rules they have the final word, that's how it is supposed to be in a democracy, else it would be a military tyranny. So, the credits for the poor shape the military is in, go to the civilians in office. the alternative would be that the military is deciding on war and peace, and when to switch from the one to the other. Does not sound like a desirable alternative. So when I follow your thoughts, and make my own assessments, I blame it on the porked political system we have. It was meant well as an utopia, but this is reaaty we deal with now, and many of the good intentions expressed in constitutions and political philosophies, meanhwile have degenerated into a mess of corruption, incompetence, lobbying and serious distortions that are everything but democratic. Desasters like Iraq are just one of the many symptoms of the long and slow fall that comes from that. Rome died over several centuries, didn't it. - Late here, good night.