PDA

View Full Version : Political/Military interface


Roadster280
8th May 2006, 00:40
I was wondering...

If, following a Cabinet decision, CDS is told (by Des Browne) to plan for military intervention in A.N.Other country (say Russia, following US VP remarks), what happens if CDS says "No"?

To put this in context, if a rifleman is ordered to attention by an NCO and fails to do so, he is bang to rights. MML etc. If an RAF doctor is ordered to train and equip for deployment, and fails to do so, he is bang to rights..

If the CDS, CGS, CAS, 1SL etc reply "no" to a (albeit Cabinet level) civvy, where is the distinction? I cannot imagine a General/Air/Flag officer being CM'ed for such a decision.

More likely, he would be sacked and replaced by a "yes man". When said "yes man" finds something he cannot do in all conscience, he must say "no".

So where does the distinction lie?

Any NATO 4* or above cast any light? Failing that, anyone else to speculate....

(edited for (ashamedly) spelling)

Roland Pulfrew
8th May 2006, 08:10
I was wondering...
More likely, he would be sacked and replaced by a "yes man". When said "yes man" finds something he cannot do in all conscience, he must say "no".

Therein lies your problem methinks. You do not get to those ranks by saying "No". Of course they would say "Yes". Yes to budget cuts, yes to troop cuts, yes to sqn cut, yes to ship/sub cuts, yes to wider civilianisation, yes to PFI, yes to reduced equipment capability, yes to the latest PC bo:mad:ks. Do you see where this is going yet? "Yes we would love to invade Minister! When?"

The Helpful Stacker
8th May 2006, 09:23
From what I've seen 'those in charge' only say no/grumble when they are already on their resettlement course and have that nice big pension in their back pockets.

airborne_artist
8th May 2006, 10:35
From what I have seen the system does a remarkable job of preventing promotion beyond 1* for those who look like they have the b@lls to say No, or the intelligence to come up with a real, facts-based argument that contradicts the political wishlist.

Jackonicko
8th May 2006, 11:10
Just because you don't see people making powerful arguments to their political masters does not mean that such arguments are not being made, before officers then appear to look supportive of the political decision after it has been taken.

From my very limited exposure to really senior officers, I think that you have some very high calibre blokes at high level at the moment. There may be some yes men, too, of course, but I think we're being a bit harsh and over-cynical here.

The Helpful Stacker
8th May 2006, 11:29
....but I think we're being a bit harsh and over-cynical here....

You've never lived life in a blue suit have you Jacko?

'Harsh and over-cynical' is par for the course these days, with industry driven bumpf and complete neglect by our political masters being the golf bats and fairway.

When you've walked a mile in the shoes of the rank and file rather than chumming up to the airships at cocktail parties you might understand why many in the trenches feel so aggrieved.

Sorry to sound so harsh but there are far too many people defending these indefensible quasi political military officers who seem to have let the best interests for their troops fall to the wayside in a rush for knighthoods, pensions and a nudge and wink for that comfy directorship when they leave uniformed service.

Red Line Entry
8th May 2006, 11:47
One of the few irritations of Pprune is the constant mindless repetition of the crass sentiment of "2 rings good, 4 rings (or more) bad". Look at any group of people and you will find the same percentages of good blokes, idiots, self-serving baffoons and outstanding bods. Do you really, honestly believe that all those of air rank have got there by constant, blind unquestioning of higher authority? Have you ever met Dave Walker or Glenn Torpy, or worked for them?

"Ah, but if they were good blokes, they'd do A, B or C...", you cry "Therefore, they MUST be yes-men"

Bollocks.

Do you expect every SAC on a sqn to know why the Boss makes each and every one of his decisions? Every time he has a bust-up with OC Ops, or OC Eng, or the Stn Cdr, should he stand in front of the sqn and say "Well, I wanted to do A but the Staish is a w@nker and so I have to do B"...? No, he tells the sqn his main aims and intent, he also tells them when there are significant problems, but he DOES NOT share each and every one of the battles he fights. It's called leadership. Sqn bosses are also (sometimes!) mature enough to realise that even when they lose on a particular issue, they overall decision can be better for the stn as a whole, albeit it may hurt his sqn.

Trust works both ways, gentlemen, not just downwards. The truth is that 99% of contributers (including myself) to this forum have no idea of the detail of how the issues are being debated and fought within the upper echelons. Nor should we know - it is not feasible, sensible or often even possible for every issue to be brought out for debate as if we had some democratic mandate to determine the actions and decisions of each of our senior officers.

No, I'm not air rank - I'm nowhere near it. However, I have knocked around long enough to know how the system should operate. And it DOES operate quite successfully. With (on the whole, and particularly now) pretty good people at the top. None of this means that you have to like the decisions that do come down from above - but if you've served long enough to be able to pontificate as widely as many do on this forum, perhaps you should also have served long enough to gain a bit of maturity along the way. Perhaps some of these decisions are even the ones YOU would reach if you were sitting in the chair...

Rant off.

dallas
8th May 2006, 19:32
RLE,

A good post that I tend to agree with - it's easy for us to all sit around and presume we have a bunch of 'yes men' in charge. I don't think our lords and masters necessarily are 'yes men' but I often yearn for the mythical 'someone' to do the equally mythical 'something' about, for example, the stretch on the AT fleet (that's Air Transport if any PTIs read this forum). Personally, I don't even think money is the problem - it's how we spend it - and despite hearing the expression 'blue sky thinking' on several occasions I've yet to see any truly radical and revolutionary thinking.

Moroever, we have a blockage between 'Us' and 'Them' consisting of an unquantifiable layer of middle management who either filter out the bad news or are unwilling themselves to say 'no'. Within this layer we'll also find the vested interest brigade who magic up ideas like running up and down the gym one week before deploying to Basra, not least to keep themselves in jobs.

Unfortunately 'we' only tend to mix with equally helpless policy victims on a daily basis - bosses who can't get their frames fixed because their blokes are on IDT or similar blah, which despite being relevant to a military force, has come before generating serviceable aircraft (the air force bit) way too often. If 'they' were told it was interferring I would like to think 'they' would take action, but as it is the RAF's operations are summarised to 'them' on graphs, with specifics ignored, unless it's a particularly new or high profile op.

I'm not totally sure what the solution is to our troubles, except to say we need to keep the vested interests out of decision making. We also need to learn to communicate much better - and in both directions - especially while we have the luxury of doing so in peacetime. Asking questions shouldn't be the mark of a troublemaker - it should get extra marks for promotion!! Perhaps then 'they' will get a more accurate picture from 'us'.

oik
8th May 2006, 19:55
RLE - that post contains much of what I spend a disproportionate amount of time doing; explaining that pidgeon-holes do not work in the real world. There ARE good and bad in ALL groups of people.

That's all I got.

Edited because I didn't work very hard at school, and therefore have not done ISS. To amplify my point slightly the majority of individuals, those with and those without IOT, are far too quick to point an accusitory finger at whichever 'that lot' they do not belong to.

Roadster280
8th May 2006, 21:21
Chaps,

A good discussion, no doubt about it. However, I was more concerned at the MOD Centre level, not on individual units, or the interface between say Wg Cdr and Sqn Ldr. This is extremely well defined, though obviously in practice it is a little more blurry than one might imagine.

My query is basically this. The Military is the instrument (or victim, depending on viewpoint) of the policy of the government of the day. If the top brass disagree, then what? As I said originally, I would not foresee a CM ensuing, where a junior officer or airman/soldier/sailor would most certainly be hung out to dry.

moosemaster
9th May 2006, 11:04
And it DOES operate quite successfully. With (on the whole, and particularly now) pretty good people at the top. None of this means that you have to like the decisions that do come down from above - but if you've served long enough to be able to pontificate as widely as many do on this forum, perhaps you should also have served long enough to gain a bit of maturity along the way. Perhaps some of these decisions are even the ones YOU would reach if you were sitting in the chair...
Rant off.

I think the point being made was that 'we' never seem to see the arguments that 'they' have won on our behalf. It always appears that the politicos always get what 'they' want, and the services never get what 'we' want.

Can you name any instances of 'us' getting what 'we' want?

Gen.Thomas Power
9th May 2006, 20:07
Roadster280

I am not a constitutional expert and I do not have a copy of MAFL or the Air Force Act to hand but . . . we all work for the Queen who is our Commander in Chief. CDS' contract with the Queen (commissioning scroll)will say something along the lines of "We do hereby Command // you to Observe and follow such Orders and Directions as // you shall receive from Us, or any superior Officer, according to the Rules and Discipline of War."

Whether it comes down from the PM through SoS to CDS, or direct from the PM to CDS, the order originates with the Queen so I would say that CDS is duty bound to obey these 'superior Officers'. . . as long as it is a legal order (according to the Rules and Disciplines of War). If he failed to obey a legal order, I'd expect him to be CM'd . Wacko Jacko would get my vote as the sort of hard-as-nails, pipe-hitting 4-star presiding officer to 'get medieval on his sorry ass'.

:E

Roadster280
9th May 2006, 22:54
...with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.

Thanks for clearing this up. You would appear to be right, it's still an order.

How is Curtis LeMay, by the way?

Gen.Thomas Power
9th May 2006, 23:58
I always had my doubts about Le May - goddamn bleeding heart lightweight commie sympathiser. If we hadn't whacked Kennedy . . .

Roadster280
10th May 2006, 00:55
Well quite. Wasn't it Gen Power who advocated reducing Cuba to rubble, while the CIA wrongly assessed no sunshine warheads in Cuba?

Still, my dad was 13 in 1963.

Serious thread creep, but hey, it's my thread!

NURSE
10th May 2006, 04:09
I've heard 2 or 3 rumoured deployments being kicked firmly into touch because the relevant service chiefs have said no. The cuts issue is problematic because if the budget is cut in real terms the Mod have to find ways to live within it. Or you get the situation the NHS is in come March rumours abound as to wether we will get paid or not.

saudipc-9
11th May 2006, 03:05
I doubt any professional Officer will say "No!". More along the lines of "Sir, I ask you to reconsider this decision and here is why I ask this.........." would be appropriate. If the response is "Thank you for your imput, but we are still going to press ahead with this deployment make it happen!" then the response is "Yes Sir" and out of ear shot "you f#*king tw@t" would follow.:p

Mead Pusher
11th May 2006, 07:57
I think it would take an order from HM The Queen to overrule one from Parliament... I'm not sure that HM is quite willing to start a civil war though, even with this government!

NURSE
11th May 2006, 08:04
I think the response was more we can't do that because we don't have the resources

Red Line Entry
11th May 2006, 18:46
Valid question Moose - can I give you an example...

As I said earlier, I don't mix in these circles but nevertheless I have seen one particular occasion in the last 6 months whereby one of our lords and masters quite clearly laid it on the line for the politicos. So far, he seems to have been successful and has not been overruled. Unfortunately, I cannot be more specific.