He may have been irritated by the RAF speaking up about issues in Libya but his arrogant SOB attitude has shown itself once more:


BBC clicky

About time he got booted out.

Better still give him a gun and send him to the front line.

Perhaps non-commissioned military service should also be a prerequisite to running as an MP.

Sort of like Starship Troopers.

Now that is an idea. Gets rid of all those who were simply political advisors or researchers.

Sadly, not likely for four more years. By which time the majority of us will be so f**cked it won't matter any more.

Jon

A response like that? From a politician? Who'd have thought it.

this is not a defence of Mr C...

its the militaries role to do or die not question why
if they (the military) have a problem with operations that they need to bring to the (scum bag) politicians attention then they must do this privately

only on mission failure should we, the public (voter), be informed ...

It was, the comments were in a briefing paper to MPs that, like everything it seems, were leaked to the papers.

The fact that D(i)C then publicly spoke so arrogantly regarding the RAF is what got my back up.

then sir, i stand corrected ...

It is the military's job to follow the orders they have been given provided they are legal, both in UK and International law. How they do that - and what else they do - is up to them. The idea they just have to do whatever they are told regardless and nothing else died about the same time the Duke of Wellington did. It's right up there with the idea that children should be 'seen and not heard'. And the higher ups in the forces are specifically there to think at the strategic level and that does mean questioning their orders when they are badly thought out. The soldier, at whatever level, still has a brain and has a right to use it. That doesn't mean not doing what you're told to do if you feel like it but it also doesn't mean being an automaton.


Anyone else think the result of that would be anything other than Sweet Fanny Adams?


How would you define 'mission failure'? We went into Afghanistan & Iraq with no clear mandate or mission objective, so we had no way of knowing if we've succeeded or failed, nor if it's time to get the hell out or not. We went into Libya to protect civilians from Gaddafi's army, yet we're still there even though his army has more or less ceased to exist and now we're accidentally bombing civilians because the only places his army is still around is in amongst them. Only they're not killing the civilians any more, they're cowering behind them. The Libyan army is defunct in all real senses, yet according to Cameron we'll still have to be there months from now.

We as voters have a right to be told what our leaders are telling our soldiers to do in our name and how well those orders are being carried out and what the results are or likely will be. How else can we possibly evaluate the performance of our politicians as leaders in times of conflict? If we only get to be told what happens to our troops in combat after the politicians have been able to filter it in an appropriate way, we're up sh!t creek without a paddle, believe me.

In fact, the selective reporting of conflict is one of the ways George Orwell suggested a dictator could keep a population compliant in 1984. In the novel, the population are fed constant newsreels of their troops fighting in a foreign field in an endless war they were always just short of winning.

Jon

its the militaries role to carry out their orders
all other considerations are secondary

as of 'legal' look no further then Iraq and Afghanistan
so to start a war it must be legal, are you fcuking sure

the results of a mission failure would be as open as mission success ...

The law is very antagonistic in this respect.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that front line soldiers absolutely should not question the detailed logic of the situation their commanders put them in, unless that situation involves napalming innocent nurses and babies. There is a chain of command and sometimes too much "thinking" gets good people killed because "someone" thought they knew better than their officers.

There is black, there is white, and then there is reality which is a murky shade of grey. Best follow orders unless there's a seriously obvious breach of human rights involved. And by obvious, I mean face to face murder of innocent unarmed people.

Yes when such breaches occur it is the soldiers duty to refuse such orders. Otherwise they can be convicted of war crimes.

Indeed. It was always my understanding that international law requires soldiers to refuse any order which would cause them to breach either International law itself, the Geneva Convention or any stated Rules of Engagement they have been provided with. Anything which breaches those can get you anything from a reprimand up to a nice cell in The Hague. 'I was only following orders' died out as an excuse about.. 65 years ago.

...

Oh no, I've Godwined .

Not necessarily. They are prosecuting Serbs for such crimes.

Personally I also think that it should be a requirement that if you believe that such orders are illegal that you have to inform the relevant prosecuting authorities. So generals should report their political leaders if such orders are illegal. You also need to make sure that the prosecutors actually do their job and go after politicians. War needs to be a last resort.