Ex-Army Chief slams MoD

[the Black Prince]

General Sir Mike Jackson, the recently retired Chief of the General Staff is the latest in a string of senior officers and front line officers to openly and publically criticise the MoD and the way the MoD works.

Adding his voice to that of his sucessor as CGS General Sir Richard Dannet, and former First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West (among others) General Jackson had this to say

Speaking at the annual Dimbleby Lecture, he said there was a failure in the MoD to understand the fundamental nature of soldiering. He added that wages paid to soldiers were "hardly impressive" and "some accommodation" was "frankly, shaming".

Questioning the MoD's understanding of the fundamental ethos of the armed forces, he told his audience: "One's loyalty must be from the bottom. "Sadly, I did not find this fundamental proposition shared by the MoD." He suggested that not enough was being done to care for servicemen and women, as well as their families. "Not much over £1,000 a month for the private soldier for what he or she is doing on operations is hardly an impressive figure," said Sir Mike. He went on to add that "some accommodation is still, frankly, shaming and hemmed around by petty regulation".

The former Army chief told his audience it was "time that real authority was restored to the Chiefs of Staff in order to match the responsibility which indubitably and rightly they carry". He also hit out at the "diminution" of the authority of chiefs of staff - his former role at the Army. Sir Mike later turned his attention to the culture of "commercial so-called 'best practice', with its... targets". During his speech, he hit out at a "Kafka-esque situation whereby the MoD congratulates itself on achieving an accommodation improvement plan defined by itself on what it calls affordability, but which is far from what is defined by the needs of soldiers and their families".

text courtesy of BBC News
full article HERE

[Tom Paine]

So... we should be handing power over our military forces... to a group of unelected officials, rather than the elected Ministry of Defence? Yes, they might have more experience and maybe more competance even, but they have far less accountability to the populace, totally essential for the military in a democracy in my opinion.

[Erik]

So... we should be handing power over our military forces... to a group of unelected officials, rather than the elected Ministry of Defence?

You have an elected Ministry of Defense?

[the Black Prince]

do you know how many people in the MoD are elected???

THREE (out of 4 ministers)

and they aren't elected as military people with military competancy, they're elected as politicians and constituency reps.

since the civil service effectively run the MoD and its agencys like Defence Procurement, and they're unelected, why not let the military run it. at least they know what they are doing, and whats important.

Rt Hon Des Browne MP, Secretary of State for Defence
work experience
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Minister of State for Nationality, Immigration and Asylum at the Home Office, Minister of State for Work at the Department for Work and Pensions and, prior to that, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office.
education, LLB in Scots Law, Scottish Solicitor

Adam Ingram MP, Minister of State for Armed Forces
work experience
He was, for several years, a computer programmer/analyst with J&P Coats, Associated British Foods and the South of Scotland Electricity Board in Glasgow before taking up a post as Trade Union official with NALGO
education
degree from the Open University

the Lord Paul Drayson, 1st Baron Drayson of Kensington Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Defence Procurement
incidentally, Lord Drayson is the only 1 to have the slightest idea how to do his job, no doubt why he retained it in the last reshuffle
work experience
From 1986-1991 he was Managing Director of Lambourn Food Company. In 1993 he co-founded PowderJect Pharmaceuticals plc in Oxford, and was Chief Executive until 2003. Between 2001 and 2002 he was the Chairman of the BioIndustry Association
Education
He took a BSc(Hons) in Production engineering at Str Dunstans College (UoL), followed in 1985 by a PhD in Robotics at Aston

Derek Twigg MP Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans
work experience
formerly Transport Minister and before that School Standards Minister. He was appointed to the Chief Whip's Office in June 2002, after previously serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to two ministers
education
left school at 16, worked as a civil servant for 19 years in the Department of Education and Skills
incidentally, has an interest in military history.

of the 4, only 1 is actually qualified to run the department he is the head of, and only 1 (not the same one) actually knows anything about the military and military affairs.

i'd hold out hope for the Permanent Secretaries...
however the Permanent Under-Secretary spent most of his life working in the Prison Service, then the Immigration Service, then the Northern Ireland Office, clearly emminently qualified to be the senior civil servant in the MoD



now compare that to the military top brass
Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup - Chief of the Defence Staff
been an RAF officer for 36 years and former Chief of the Air Staff

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band - First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff
been a naval officer for 39 years, former Commander-in-Chief Fleet

General Sir Richard Dannet - Chief of the General Staff
35 year army officer, commanded british forces in Bosnia and NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. former Commander in Chief Land Command

General Sir Timothy Granville-Chapman - Vice Chief of the Defence Staff
34 year army officer who wrote the current British Military Doctrine. Former Adjudent General

Air Chief Marshall Sir Glenn Torpy - Chief of the Air Staff
32 year RAF Officer commanded RAF forces in Operation Desert Fox (gulf war) and Operation Allied Force (Kosovo). Former Chief of Joint Operations at PJHQ Northwood.

3 of the 5 officers have university degrees in addition to their military training.


who would you rather have running the military? i know who i'd pick. the people who actually know what they are doing, what it is like to be a soldier, what soldiers need on the ground, and what its like to be both IN and COMMAND in combat

[Carach]

So... we should be handing power over our military forces... to a group of unelected officials, rather than the elected Ministry of Defence? Yes, they might have more experience and maybe more competance even, but they have far less accountability to the populace, totally essential for the military in a democracy in my opinion.

You kidding me?

Its civies being in charge of the military that screw us over.

the proof is there for almost 90 years...

You shouldnt be electing fools, let the people that actually have a clue run things on matters concerning the nation's security

Democracy isnt and shouldnt be used for everything - especially not for the above, where the majority have little clue/care little for the Armed Forces. Democracy is the enemy of an efficient armed forces, that is painfully apparent in the UK.

Your belief that more power given to the people in the know (the people that should actually have the position of making decisions/advising..) will create instability and even revolution? is an extremely outdated and imaginary one.

[Tom Paine]

The Minister and Junior Ministers of Defence are elected, yes.

[Erik]

The Minister and Junior Ministers of Defence are elected, yes.

You mean they are elected as MP, or as minister?

In any case as long as they are hold responsible by parliament (ie: parliament has the power to remove them at any point) I see no reason why you can't let military leaders lead the military.

And the same applies to the rest of the government.
I'd rather have somebody with a degree in economics and glasses as minister of finance than someone with a degree in sociology and a cute smile.

[Tom Paine]

They're elected as MP and heck the Parliament has no real check on Ministers, let alone anyone else. Yes, I'd rather someone qualified had the post, but they have to be accountable to the people, they really do; otherwise we end up in a seriously worrisome situation. Same with all the Ministries; we need their Ministers accountable to the people, not enturely unaccountable!

[Erik]

They're elected as MP and heck the Parliament has no real check on Ministers, let alone anyone else. Yes, I'd rather someone qualified had the post, but they have to be accountable to the people, they really do; otherwise we end up in a seriously worrisome situation. Same with all the Ministries; we need their Ministers accountable to the people, not enturely unaccountable!

So it's the current situation that you are unhappy with?

Or are you content with the fact that somebody can become minister if only the people from his district elect him? (so if your a conservative candidate and you happen to come from a strongly conservative district you are pretty much set for life, no matter how badly you run the military)

Making the MoD accountable to parliament as a whole isn't that difficult, it's actually the standard in Europe.
The way it works: at any time any member of parliament can propose to fire a minister, and if he gets more than 50% of parliament behind him the mister will be fired (nobody else can do anything about it).
Notice that the second a minister looses the majority support in parliament he will loose his job...that's accountability for ya.

[the Black Prince]

so make the Chief of the Defence Staff accountable to parliament, notably the commons select committee on defence

[Tom Paine]

I still disagree; that's an indirect accountability and leaves the executive of the Cabinet of HM's Ministers out of control of one of the most neccessary duties of the executive, ie overseeing the military.

[The Alcotroll]

A nice speech, I thought. Shame it sat on his desk all the time he wore greens.

Ozymandias, I'm not sure what you're getting at with your reluctance to see more power in the hands of the Chiefs of Staff and less in the hands of the civil servants and appointed ministers in the MOD.
The loyalty of the Army is to the Crown and to the Government, regardless of who makes the decisions in the MOD. Am I to understand that you fear the possibility of a coup or an Argentine-style military junta, should more power be put in the hands of the Military itself?

[Tom Paine]

Pretty much. I like my institutions democratically accountable especially in a democracy. Yes, if we elected the Chiefs of Staff from a shortlist of qualified people, then I could see it as a good idea. But to have the army so unaccountable in a democracy is entirely illogical.

[LoZz]

Pretty much. I like my institutions democratically accountable especially in a democracy. Yes, if we elected the Chiefs of Staff from a shortlist of qualified people, then I could see it as a good idea. But to have the army so unaccountable in a democracy is entirely illogical.

i disagree, the military has no say over your life as a civilian, so why should they have to be elected?
also - if they are elected all their going to be thinking about is their image to the public, and what the public want, thats not their job, they should be thinking about their soilders, the lads their going to put in danger, the lads who will be effected by any such vote, sometimes whats best for the army is not best for the public, if you allow public voteing you turn something very important into nothing more then a micky mouse popularity show with the leaders of the army doing interviews with the sun newspaper instead of giving the army boys the body armour they so need.

if their was going to be any such vote - only military personal should be allowed to vote, i mean could you honestly think you would pick the right guy, or that i would be able? we have no idea what goes on in the army, only the people who are in it do.

[Tom Paine]

Actually, they get set as an MP for life, as the Prime Minister and Queen appoint Ministers and can fire them at will.

[The Alcotroll]

How accountable is Des Browne or Adam Ingram then? If the good people of Kilmarnock and Loudoun ever get hacked off with Browne's handling of their constituency then we might expect him to lose his job, but if you or I dislike his handling of the MOD, there's naff all we can do about it.

Incidentally, giving the CoS power to match their responsibility is hardly going to put the military beyond the reach of public account, nor will it put at us at risk of a militarist coup d'etat. I think you may be misunderstanding the role of the MOD in fact.

The MOD website.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) provides the defence capabilities to ensure the security and defence of the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories. It supports the government's foreign policy objectives, particularly those relating to peace and security.

The MoD has responsibility for the Armed Forces, including 200,000 regular members of Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, together with over 47,000 reserves.
It is the lead department in the government's policy of defence diplomacy through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Western European Union and the United Nations. It provides strategic direction on UK participation in conflict prevention, crisis management and operations.

The MoD procures equipment through the Defence Procurement Agency which most cost effectively meets agreed military requirements, including fighter aircraft, tanks and submarines. It also supports British defence exports, within the framework of the government's arms sales policy.

The MoD funds the Meteorological Office, which provides the national weather forecasting service. It also operates military schools and academies, including the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. The MoD provides services for military veterans, including war pensions, through the Veterans Agency.

The purpose of the MOD is to execute the Defence policies of the current Government, as well as to provide the means with which to execute those policies (constrained obviously by the tightness of the Treasury's purse strings).

Des Browne does not decide when and where Soldiers are deployed. Tony Blair does that, supposedlyon the advice of the cabinet and parliament. If we give Des Browne's job to General Sir Richard Danatt, why should we suddenly be worried about the military deploying itself?
Of course, Sir Jackson is only pressing for more power in the hands of the Chiefs of Staff ('power to match their responsibility', I think were his words). That doesn't equate to putting the MOD firmly under the auspices of serving soldiers.

Giving the Generals more control of the MOD will mean (hopefuly) that, while policy itself remains in the hands of the elected government, the methods of meeting those policies and the tools used in the meeting are decided by the Military. It's they, after all, who are most qualified to make such decisions.

What that means in basic terms is that the Government (supposedly answerable to the people) decide when and where the Forces are deployed, and what their objectives are. In a democracy this is only right and proper, and if the people of Britain disagree with those objectives or deployments, it is their privelige to use their electoral powers to voice this disquiet.

The messy business of achieving those objectives (and chosing what doctrines and what tools are used to meet them) should fall to the men and women with the qualifications and experience to inform those decisions. The public should have no say in this, and that is only right and proper because, speaking personally, I am not comfortable with the prospect of the electorate deciding which pattern DPM I wear, let alone which rifle I fire or which doctrine informs my training and operations.

[Tom Paine]

Yes, we shouldn't be electing fools. We should be electing competant people. Because the nation's security is the security of indididual citizens. The nation's security is a concern of all citizens. The nation's defence is a concern of all citizens. And yet, by removing elective power from said citizens, this highest of their concerns... is entirely beyond their reach!

[The Alcotroll]

Yes, we shouldn't be electing fools.

How do you account for John Prescot then?

In all seriousness, the MOD is responsible only for the facilitation of the UK's security. The administration is firmly in the hands of the Government, which is democraticaly elected and answerable to whoever owns the Sun... sorry, I mean the British electorate.

I'm more than happy for the electorate to have a say on where, when and in what circumstances the Forces are used. I'm less happy for them to be making decisions about doctrine and procurement, deployment strength and strategic choices, which is the current remit of the MOD.

To use an analogy; If I go to a chippy, I expect to be allowed to choose whether I have fish or pudding with my chips. But I wouldn't presume to tell the bloke behind the counter how to cook it.

[Carach]

Yes, we shouldn't be electing fools. We should be electing competant people. Because the nation's security is the security of indididual citizens. The nation's security is a concern of all citizens. The nation's defence is a concern of all citizens. And yet, by removing elective power from said citizens, this highest of their concerns... is entirely beyond their reach!

The vast majority of the people however do not actually care today for the security of this country unless something suddenly happens. why should clueless average joes be voting on something as important as this? Its insane.

[Tom Paine]

Alcotroll, pretty simple. Shouldn't be, not aren't, which is why I'd suggest election from a list of qualified gentlemen with military experience (in the British Armed Forces obviously). And your analogy has a major flaw; if you don't like the way they cook it, you like to be able to go to another chippy... with the MoD, this is presently impossible.

Carach, they vote on it every time they go to a General Election. They vote on all law every time they go to a General Election. So democracy is insane?