David Dimbleby Lecture.

Hello All,
I watched the Dimbleby lecture last night (Wed 6th Dec) on BBC 1, it was given by General Sir Mike Jackson now retired, he is a very good speaker and made a lot of sense.
It was excellent he covered the future of the army and all the important issues such as Trident, deployments,soldiers pay and accomodation, families related matters , the closure of millitary hospitals and the treatment of injured returning service men and women.
If they repeat it as I am sure they will it will be worth the effort to watch it.
Regards to all,
Joe.

Agree entirely but now he has to watch his back for the Bliar Character Assassination (Deny Everything and Destroy all Critics) Team who will surely dump on the general from a great height, once they've sorted Assistant Commissioner John Yates who is investigating the cash for honours scandal!

Hello Joe,
I am certain the BBC will repeat Gen Jacksons speech, we get more repeats from the BBC than a 10 cent cucumber.Look at the Xmas presentation of the BBc it is a load of ****.
Regards none the less Don.

Totally agree with Joe and Don, sometimes I ask myself what do we pay a tv licence for?
Benny the Ball

It's a shame he never had the guts to do it whilst he was CGS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKSniper

It's a shame he never had the guts to do it whilst he was CGS.

---

I dont really want the serving guys to make any comment on this, But

Well said that man, the same thought crossed my mind as I listened to Gen Jacksons remarks as I drove to work. I have not seen the full lecture, but it strikes me that I would have liked him to have made those comments whilst he was serving, or was everything ok while he was CGS, and the good General just had a "Road to Damascus Moment" when his first pension cheque hit the mat.

Its seems that many of our top Generals now have the same poor code of ethics as our government ministers. I would really just like to see one of them resign over a point of principle. They are in a unique position in that they are head of an organisation that is based on comradeship, self sacrifice and leadership. He is not the only one, I noted that Gen Guthrie, who was very closely linked to the PM has also started to speak out, after remaining silent during his military service.

I have also seen the otherside, where senior officers will stand up and be counted, the Royal Welch has a proud history of that, such as..."Col Fury" during the 1977 Firemans strike and in the 90's Commander Gorazde Force, unfortunately they don't seem to make CGS.

I listened to the whole lecture and found that although Gen Jackson started his arguments in a placid manner once he got into the nitty gritty of the life of a serviceman in the late 20the early 21st century he really let it rip. As a loyal soldier of some 45 years service he felt that he could not voice his frustrations in public whilst still serving. Without breaking any part of the Official Secrets Act when I sevrved as Sir Menzies Campbell's senior advisor some 4 years ago I had the honour of meeting this man and listen to his arguments with senior civil servants and believe me he fought tooth and nail to try and get what was needed and sometimes he got it, other times, (unfortunately to many times) he was fobbed off by Whitehall Mandarins who had never ever served in the Armed Forces. He's wotrth listening too. There are others who have taken over his mantle and will try their very best against the extreme odds to get Politicians to see that Civil Servants really don't know best.
If any of you have watched the programmes YES MINISTER and YES PRIME MINISTER the characters portrayed are more true to life than you would really wish to think!

Hingey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKSniper

It's a shame he never had the guts to do it whilst he was CGS.

---

Mathew,
I do believe you are being a little unfair, the poor General as all senior officers do has to answer to the government of the day.
If you watched the lecture you must agree that it was very good.
Regards,
Joe.

HI all, at first i thought he was the bees knees when he was in, but now when i think back he should have done more , he has sent troops out with not enough manpower resources and that endangers lives. It is his job to advise civil servants and Politicians what he can do with limited resources ,manpower, money, by agreeing to send troops he has endangered soldiers lives.
Its his job to make it clear to these civil servants and Politicians that they are not qualified to make decisions on military matters and thats why hes the top man.
I honestly think he overstretched the British army, and agreed to cut backs in army strengths as well which was really bad thing to do.
IF he had fought his corner and publicaly told the British press what mess we would be in,with out the proper resources,before we deployed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe the government , would see less men killed in action and wounded coming home to be shoved in NHS wards with druggies geriatrics and staff who have no idea what care and treatment these men need.
This new man who has taken over has been slated for telling tony Blair what mess our armed services are in , good for him well done sir. VAL

Val
I agree with what you said but what were his options resign! It's always better to fight your corner from the inside. Your point on Civil Servants shows us all how this country is in the mess its in. These people cannot be removed we only have to look back to what John Reid said about the Home Office "It's not fit for purpose!"
If they had the final sanction of losing their jobs for being unable to carry out what their bosses wanted they would soon buck up their ideas.However, this is not the case, they have a job for life, and belive me they will carry out every trick in the book to ensure they get their own way.
Our boys deserve better!!!
Last night on the news Blair and Bush made a joint announcement both men looked haggared and worried because they're busted flushes. Power corrupts...... they both thought they have a devine right to do what they did without consideration for the consequences both for the countries we have occupied and more importantly for our troops.....It's a mess which has to be cleared up soon!!
Hingey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokeyjoe

Mathew,
I do believe you are being a little unfair, the poor General as all senior officers do has to answer to the government of the day.
If you watched the lecture you must agree that it was very good.
Regards,
Joe.

---

Hi Joe,

Your right about armed forces being answerable to the government of the day. But he was the head of an organisation, that because of the lack of resources and political interference was failing the soldiers under his command. Val's comment about medical treatment is a good reminder of how the soldiers have suffered over recent years. Poor medical treatment was unthinkable whilst we were serving.

I'm sure he spoke very well during the lecture, but his comments would have had much more impact delivered from the steps of Whitehall, as he annnouced his resignation from the Armed Forces. Last night on BBC's Question Time, it was clear that the government spin doctors were already at work, with Ruth Kelly claiming that the General had already backed down over some of his comments, following the pre budget speech by the chancellor.

For me General Jackson's comments can be summed up "To little, to late".

Al

Come on Joe - When is his book due to be released? This is typical pre-memoire publicity. How many people would know this man well enough to buy his book without a bit of media coverage? Me, Cynical? Maybe I am but I have always prefered people speaking up " as and when" and not, (as I believe in this case) just to be in the limelight. I have far more respect for his replacement who does the talk now. (right or wrong depending on your own personal view) The reason our boys do not get the right support where and when it needed is because there are to many lame ducks at the highest level who, are more concerned with their own political futures and upsetting the status quo, than what is happening to the Armed Forces. Generals who make noises get heard, EX- Generals who make noises, SELL BOOKS!

Hello again,
I agree with all the comments so far, I must admit that my comment about the "poor General" was as I thought a rather cynical side swipe at the ones who must be obeyed.
I still maintain that it was a good lecture but also accept that it would have had more effect had he made them whilst still serving.
Regards to all,
Joe.

Hi Paul, if he had kick up a fuss, embarrassed the government, and the press went on feeding frenzie because the top man advising government for the military resigned because there actions put his soldiers at risk , would he be classed as doing his job.
I think hiding in a corner and agreeing to something he knows will kill and wound countless men, should have not been given the job in the first place.
He knew what would happen, but history will so he did not do his job .Val.

From his follow up interview the next day he seemed to back track some of the things he said . On the hole i think he was very much a soldier's general and in privet he voiced his concerns to the government . as for voicing them in public whistle still serving he would have been moved on preity sharpish . looking at the equipment the guys get now its moved on 100%, but you'll never have enough equipment ,but you make do with what youve got that's what makes the British soldier second to nun.

Hello All,
Going back to Al's quotation "The road to Damascus" I think "Eyeless in Gaza" or even "They also serve who only stand and wait" may well be applicable in this case.

Don

Further to my last, Bliar's Assassination Squad can stand down. General Jackson has been assassinated by his previous colleagues!

Being on the outside looking in now gives us all a comfort zone that repurcussions regarding our words and deeds do not effect our careers or our employability. A serving General or a Fusilier has a duty to support publicaly what the Government of the day dictates as their Foreign and Defence policy no matter what they might think privately or indeed express to Politicians out of earshot of the media.
Whereas, I agree with you that Gen Jackson standing on the steps of the MOD building in Whitehall saying what he really felt whilst tendering his resignation would have created huge waves across the country. But having served, do you think he would have done that given he had 45 years service behind him.......I don't think so!
I have read most of the reportsd in the papers on his lecture and comments and I cannot see him retracting anything he said in his original lecture. He did say that his interpretation was perhaps different from the present Commander but at the end of the day they would be both trying to get the same end process for their troops.
This is a difficult subject and we all see it slightly differently. but what we all want is the best for our lads in theatre and some real support for their families. If, God help us our boys need medical treatment then the deserve the best the country can offer!

Hingey

Very interesting set of comments regarding the lecture. My problem with Iraq is that there were people who actually believed that the intelligence concerning WMD was factual. Apart from that, having served in Aden in 66/67, when the Terrorist organisation called NLF actually became the government when we left, I find the actions of Bush & Blair to be totally irresponsible. Lord David Owen was interviewed by Andrew Neil recently and stated:"Blair made the same mistakes over Iraq as Anthony Eden over Suez, although the latter did resign. On top of that, the gross incompetence of both Bush & Blair over the two places can only be compared to that of Gallipoli". The Forces clerical training was superb in making people administrators - do the civil service have this? Knowing some-one who is employed at a government office, I don't think so - as he is just turning up to get his pension and throws more sickies than anyone else I know. Being computer literate doesn't make you an administrator. But who cares - certainly not our politicians.

Gen Jackson was interviewed by Andrew Marr on Sunday AM this morning. He was asked why he did'nt resign. He appeared slightly contrite, and indicated he was aware of the criticism surrounding his lack of action and that he may have allowed his concerns over constitutional arrangements to overide other decisions(or words to that effect).

It is clear that he did fight his corner whilst serving, and that his arguments were ignored by the politicians and civil servants. A missed opportunity.

I watched with interest since retiring senior officers will always speak out when they have left office; it was quite predictable that he would have something unpalatable for the government to hear. He has been criticised by some serving soldiers for not doing so whilst in office, but Paul Hinge is right, what is he going to do if he is not listened to, resign? Some commentators have cited his loyalty for this (turn to the right and get on with it even if you don't agree with the diction) and we can all relate to that! However, loyalty goes down as well as up and no matter how hard he was fighting for us from the inside, it sometimes needs a public statement to let us know that. The new CGS Gen Sir Richard Dannatt has done just that, though much of what he said was taken out of context. Interesting now though that US and UK are developing revised withdrawal strategies.

Numbers of Majors leaving the Army at the moment are 20% up on recent years - I think that says it all.

well said Sir, happy xmass and new year Val.

I saw the interview on the Sunday morning and I still stand by my first comment.

"If you spend too long with politicians you'll become one".

Martin you have hit the nail on the head with this. I for one feel that a professional armed forces should be just that..professional where a healthy environment is created when people can speak up on what concerns the well being of the forces as a whole without outdated sanctions being levied at them. I don't mean any Tom Dick or Harri speaking to those who need to know but peole with abit of gravitas i.e. Corporals with service CSM's and Senior Officers all of whom have an input in ensuring we have a vibrant Armed Forces whose members feel they are of worth. It has been mentioned by another commentator that Private Security Firms pay 3 times what a Senoir Rank is picking up in a combat zone. Further to that ask the question why so many Major's are leaving the forces when they could have what should be a wonderful career before them. All ranks are suffering disillusionment with lack of structure, constantly being called on to be in a combat zone, very little or no time to relax and recharge the batteries.
Basic Management Skills that seem to bypassed the Armed Forces and are not in the volcabulary of those making the decisions on levels of commitment that our Armed Forces can realistically undertake!

Hingey

This is a qoute from the MOD Oracle website

"Leadership, sorely lacking in recent years, is vital. Most senior officers, intimidated by draconian ministerial instructions, maintain a Trappist silence until they wail unconvincingly from the safety of retirement. The recent outbreak of honesty from a new generation of serving generals has been applauded by almost everyone save the government."

Obviously there are a few others that agree with us Alpoole.

The rest of the write up can be seen at (its worth a read)

http://www.modoracle.com/?page=http:...C025EAE1CA7D91