Sorry. Just another 'military chief with grave concerns' thread. (Merged)

[Al R]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7100298.stm

I'm not sure that although its good the info is getting out, this is the best way to do it. Governments can easily weather drip fed news like this. What they wouldn't be able to do, is stand resignations. The next time a military chief speaks out, it will get 15 minutes and thats it, and then they will say '.. but we did speak out, in fact every day towards the end.'. They have only bought it on themselves.

However, in light of Lord West's performance last week on the extended custody debate/row, it seems men of steel aren't that heavy on the ground when someone threatens to take the ministerial car away. I thought Brown told us that he parachuted men like him in to give gravitas and depth to the g'ment. All he does though, is lambast them when they have the temerity to speak out of turn.

God, what a state of affairs.

Analysis of the West U-Turns last week (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7094819.stm)

West sails into the sunset (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7094438.stm)

"Being a simple sailor not a politician maybe I didn't choose my words well. Maybe my choice of words wasn't very clever." Puhhlease. :rolleyes:

[goudie]

Not choosing 'the right words' must be a Navy thing. The Navy guys and gal who were temporary guests of the Iranian Govt. had the same problem.
Will the Admiral now sell his story to the the Tabloids about how he got a right old bo*****ing from the P.M.?

[Sand4Gold]

Sky News:In his Staff Briefing Team Report for 2007 - 'The head of the Army has voiced concern about poor morale among troops and the strain placed on resources by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan' - fair comment, nothing new. However, can anyone de-cypher this robust statement from the MOD?

'A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence stressed that the report represented the unedited views of individual soldiers which were not necessarily widely representative.'

AA

[Al R]

After all, why would CGS be expected to know anything about the army?

[goudie]

Quote
'which were not necessarily widely representative'.
' Not necessarily' which means they could be very widely representative but MOD don't really know!
I'm starting to believe that MOD are in denial regards what's going on in the real world.

[Lyneham Lad]

Despite the spin from MOD, the report does appear to be representative and comprehensive. Quotes from the Sunday Telegraph article:-

The report's findings follow months of interviews with thousands of soldiers and their families from 47 units.

Entitled Chief of the General Staff's Briefing Team Report (2007), the findings are described by Gen Dannatt as a "comprehensive, vivid and accurate" picture of Army life.

Sunday Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YKZLQVEMKGJWPQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/18/nforces118.xml)

Read it and weep............:{

[Postman Plod]

Hmmm typical response from the MoD - ostritch syndrome. Comprehensive review of thousands it may have been, but as they are all individuals, it doesn't count. :ugh::mad:

[pr00ne]

Er, are not these "concerned military chiefs" the self same very people who are actually RESPONSIBLE for the morale of the personnel under their command?

[BOAC]

I think he has definitely GONE west.

[teuchter]

Agree with you.

RAF chiefs certainly appear to be made of jelly these days.

[gijoe]

As a green wearer the CGS's stock is quite high at the moment.

If the opening statement in this thread from your masters is true, it is utterly shameful and displays a level of arrogance and comtempt for you guys that wear blue that is beyond belief.

G

[In Tor Wot]

Chutley, couldn't agree more with your sentiments. Having heard those very words (some variation but not much) I was stunned.

But then, am I really surprised when the entire hierarchy is populated by people selected for their task by their degree of hand-eye co-ordination at the age of 18?

[nigegilb]

Thought I'd cheer you up with a story about a 1* back in 2002.

"The string brought back some memories since it was my crew that flew Hoon from Bahrain to Kabul. For the record, it was 4 Feb 02. I don't remember specifically telling Hoon that we didn't have defensive systems, but I remember his butt boy. Air Commodore :mad:, a Harrier guy from Strike or 2 Group I think, came on 15 or 20 min before Hoon. ***** jumped right on him about defensive systems. We asked him how he felt about flying Hoon in on a non flare equipped aircraft. He assured us that all Hercules aircraft had defensive systems. I showed him the tie down chain under my seat and assured him that he was mistaken. :mad: assured us that threat assessments were being done, but as Hoon got on the flight deck :mad: was visibly shaken as he headed to the back. Once we were airborne, ***** tried to talk to Hoon, but he slept most of the way. :mad: came back up on the flight deck later and was much more composed. With Hoon sleeping on the bunk, :mad: said again about how the intel assessments were constantly reviewed, and that we would never be sent in if the threat was too high. I quoted him the number of MANPAD shots that had been assessed in theatre from the intel brief we had received and asked him how many you had to have before it was unsafe to send in slicks. He got pissed off and said something about being in the service and to accept some risk. Hoon woke up in time for the descent so we didn't have much of a chance to talk, but when we got on the ground I asked for our flak jackets back. The look on he and his party's faces was priceless. I explained that we didn't have enough jackets for all of our own crews at Thumrait, but that I was sure that the Army guys outside had some jackets for them."

[Groucho]

With 'Wobbly West' and the others, who only shout once they are 'out', it leaves little confidence in the higher chain giving even the smallest stuff for anything other than their own careers (or have I heard that before?)

If Mr West can be so malleable as to swing 180 degrees after a short meeting with GB ("wanna keep your job or what?") you have to ask how strongly he fought for corner when in charge.

Why cannot the services have senior officers with backbone?

[Melchett01]

And the rebuttal from our part-time Minister:

Our forces are the best, and deserve the best. Few people can be more aware than I am that we are now asking a lot of the services and their families. Iraq and Afghanistan place huge demands on our personnel. Many have been wounded; some have lost their lives. Every death or injury saddens me greatly, although this of course can be nothing to the pain and loss suffered by the families.

I sense a growing public appreciation of the sacrifices that our forces and their families make. Last Sunday, I was proud to pay my respects at the Cenotaph as the nation remembered all the gallant men and women who have made sacrifices in the service of their country. Remembrance Sunday is a day to honour not only the dead, but also the survivors, especially the wounded. This year it was noticeable how many young people wore poppies. The nation - and the nation includes this Government - holds our forces in great esteem. All of us want to see that esteem grow and build.

But those who claim the Covenant between the Government and the Armed Forces is in any way broken are wrong. That does not mean that we, the Government, cannot do better. But the truth is that we strive constantly to ensure that the Armed Forces have the best possible package of care.

The facts speak for themselves.

Our operational welfare package has been boosted with a tax-free operational bonus, more phone calls home, better internet access and a year-round free parcel service.

Healthcare provision for the Armed Forces is exceptional, whether it is in-theatre, at Selly Oak, or at Headley Court, where our rehabilitation is widely acknowledged as being world class. The care we provide now has undoubtedly saved many more lives than would have been the case even a few years ago. We have listened to concerns for more of a military environment for the wounded and have put this in place at Selly Oak.

We also take mental healthcare very seriously. A great deal has been done in developing our responses to the stresses of military life. A mental health team deploys to every sizeable operational theatre, and after deployment we try to ensure personnel get a "decompression period" to unwind. If specialist assessment and treatment is needed it can be carried out at any of 15 military Community Mental Health centres in the UK.

Veterans can use the Medical Assessment Programme at St Thomas' hospital where they will see a clinician with a background in military psychiatry. This scheme will soon be supported even further by military experts working with NHS mental health trusts. Treatment for qualifying war pensioners is organised by Combat Stress, to which we have greatly increased our funding. War pensioners are entitled to priority NHS treatment for any disability which is accepted as having been caused or aggravated by service.

Despite media reports, we are providing by far the best kit our forces have ever had - delivering more than £10 billions' worth in the past three years.
We have initiated a rolling programme that is flexible, responsive and delivers good kit on time to the front line. We have spent over £1 billion on force protection, and more on new helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and weapons. We've just announced that we are buying 140 more Mastiff vehicles for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will do more.

The opinions from the people who really matter - those on the front line - are encouraging. On my recent visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, troops gave positive feedback on a range of equipment we have delivered: Mastiff, Bulldog and Viking vehicles, Osprey body armour, Challenger tanks and base security. As the senior British commander in southern Iraq, Maj Gen Jonathan Shaw, said in June: "I have never seen a theatre so well supplied with new kit… this steady trickle of new kit has had real and almost instantaneous impact."

So we are making good progress. But there is a lot more to be done. I would certainly acknowledge that some service accommodation is not up to standard. We are working hard to put this right, but it cannot be done instantly. This year, we will spend £870 million (up from £700 million last year), and we plan to spend over £5 billion over the next decade. This is a big project that will take time. We are dealing with a legacy of under-investment that goes back decades. We are also helping people to buy their own homes and look to do more in this area.

We keep these levels of support under constant review. The Ministry of Defence is working closely with other departments to make sure that Government as a whole delivers for our Armed Forces. The new Cross-Government Strategy on Service Personnel will let us examine our progress, take a fresh look at a number of areas and to set out our agenda for support in housing, health, education, skills or welfare. No government has done this before.

This Government is demonstrating how it values our forces and their families by ensuring it delivers the support they deserve.

I hope the public will support the forces just as much. I am confident they will.


Christ, I think I'm going to throw up. I have highlighted the only accurate bit of the rebuttal towards the end. Yes, the Govt is demonstrating how it values the forces by disaplaying complete and utter contempt for its people, its institutions and its heritage.

I'm not usually one to be lost for words, but I am rapidly becoming unspeakably angry with the leadership, sorry maangement shown by our senior leaders, the lack of leadership or management shown by the likes of Loader et al and the sheer transparancy of anyone in a light blue uniform at the highest levels ..... is that what they meant when they said they wanted to introduce transparent government?

So, you're delivering the support the forces deserve Mr Brown? Please tell us why you think we deserve to be shafted every single day we turn up for duty by this administration.

[Biggus]

If RAF numbers drop significantly below the current target (approx 41,000) then we may find out that Sir Clive Loader is only a '....simple airman.....' and perhaps he didn't '......make the best choice of words....'!!!

[goudie]

quote
'so well supplied with new kit… this steady trickle of new kit'

In one sentence 'well supplied' becomes 'steady trickle'
Has he chosen the right words?.

[The Dodger]

This is the first time that I have posted onto this site, so please forgive me for lack of introduction. However this subject I feel has now become so important that I feel that I have to put hand to keyboard to join the debate. I completly agree with what General Dannatt has mentioned in the report and it strikes me with so much anger on how, our part time defence minister can only conjour up such a weak and ill thought out statment to his running of our Armed Forces. I agree 100% with Melchett01 has previously said. I cannot understand why our senior leadership have not had the inclination to start supporting what General Dannett is trying to do. The, (can do) attitude can only go so far and I think we are all at the end of it. Large amounts of folks are leaving when they are needed more than ever and it is so frustrating to see that nothing is being activley done to stop the rot.:( What is going on at the top? Do we have a voice that they are listening to? Are they speaking to the right people in the service? Who knows. The only thing that I can see, is that we are going to be facing a serious crisis in manpower or commitments to operations in the near future. Our senior leadership have got to start doing something and soon.:{

[hoodie]

For those who haven't seen it, Swiss Des has an opinion piece in the Sunday Telegraph today:

The Armed Forces are safe in my hands (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/18/do1805.xml)

From the comments (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/18/do1805.xml#comments) on the Telegraph site, few appear to agree with him...

[endplay]

The telegraph story is based on the CGS briefing team report which will include individual statements from soldiers that can easily be taken out of context. From my experience of working alongside earlier versions of these teams (3 years with the AFBLT) I can tell you that the final report will have, as annexes, almost every comment made to the team. They will usually be grouped together under an appropriate heading - PAYD, JPA etc, and it is the overall weight of opinion that is important as opposed to isolated, but included, comments. The way the information is gathered, recorded and, particularly, presented is primarily down to the team leader. He/she is usually of Lt Col or Wg Cdr rank and is subject to chain of command pressures in the way the report is presented. I'm not questioning any individuals moral fibre but the recent events concerning Lord West are illuminating perhaps.

My point is that MoD are correct in saying that these comments may be from individuals and not necessarily representative of the overall view (from your own experience with the UK press which comments do you think would be quoted) but the fact that CGS, for whom the report was produced, has made the conclusions that he has speaks volumes IMHO.

As i've said before, when the AFLT made similar comment the report was buried and the team disbanded.

[nigegilb]

Endplay, for all its faults, and I understand the team visited well over 40 establishments, you haven't highlighted a better method of guaging current attitudes amongst servicemen. Perhaps you could highlight a better method currently in use?

In the absence of another system and after the passing of the gagging order a few months ago I would suggest that this is an authoritative survey of where we are now. Put it this way, if the conclusion was different and the attitudes were positive do you think Desmond would be so quick to dismiss?

Worse still, having gagged the workforce, the MOD propogandists rush out a press release claiming something else is true and in doing so are speaking on behalf the very servicemen they gagged in the summer.

Sorry, this smacks of panic by the Ministry of Despair. Once again General Dannat has proved himself to be the only service chief worthy of his rank.
Well done General, you can rest assured who the British public believe.

[Kitbag]

I may be wrong, but the RAF gave up these (AFBLT) reports a couple of years ago didn't it? Probably on security grounds- what you don't know you can't you can't tell.

[Wader2]

Melchett, thank you for posting the ST article verbatim. Interesting that it was on page 29 at the bottom. Only marginally higher in the burial order than page 28.

One line stuck in my throat

I was proud to pay my respects at the Cenotaph as the nation remembered all the gallant men and women who have made sacrifices in the service of their country

I won't say why as I am sure our erudite readership can infer what I mean.

[Gainesy]

'A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence stressed that the report represented the unedited views of individual soldiers which were not necessarily widely representative.'


Unedited = Horse's mouth, true, not spun, not sexed up.

I know which version I believe.

[moggiee]

I'm starting to believe that MOD are in denial regards what's going on in the real world.
Only starting?

Swiss Des
The Armed Forces are safe in my hands (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/18/do1805.xml)
.....but only 2 1/2 days a week

[Tigs2]

I was proud to pay my respects at the Cenotaph as the nation remembered all the gallant men and women who have made sacrifices in the service of their country

I am sure his next words would have been

I felt refreshed and alert during the service particularly as I had had such a good sleep the night before whilst attending the Royal Albert Hall at a service to remember all the gallant men and women who have made sacrifices in the service of their country :E

[Al R]

Wasn't Swiss Des too busy to attend the Battle of Britain ceremony?

In many ways, the Heads of the Services are onto a hiding to nothing. Perhaps we've always been this p#ssed off, but never communicated it, because we weren't able to. Perhaps the fact a few dozen folk are openly expressing their dismay simply means that the few thousand others on this board, aren't? Who is more representative?

What can't be disputed is that while Lord West may have been a gallant Captain in Corporate, he's out of his depth in his current job. I also would like to see the Heads of each Service either confirm that the men and women in their charges are happy, or take the g'ment to task properly on their behalf, rather than pointless drip feeding. Also, someone needs to put those media handlers at MoD firmly back in their broom cupboards. If they had any professional credibility, they would be working in the industry properly, and not as desk bound civil servants churning out disingenuous media releases.

[Axel-Flo]

These MOD people replying tocomments etc. Who exactly are they? I do wish these MOD spokes people would have a face and name it would give us chance to see their credentials and understand perhaps if they have any authority to comment on the subject. It makes me quite vexed that they are so faceless..............II WATs:mad:

[Two's in]

As a green wearer the CGS's stock is quite high at the moment.

If the opening statement in this thread from your masters is true, it is utterly shameful and displays a level of arrogance and comtempt for you guys that wear blue that is beyond belief.

...but you hardly need a Degree in Pyschology to figure this one out. The Army has no major battle-winning procurements in the pipeline for some time and continues to operate marginally capable equipment (except the Apache, which is fully capable, just poorly managed in terms of equipment support). The Navy has 2 carriers due to arrive (some time before the Sun cools down) and a swan boat on the Serpentine, so what do those Service Chiefs have to lose by being critical of the way the Government is running the show? On the other hand, that nice Mr Torpy is still unsure of whether he is getting just the 144 Scroggs Wonderjets or a whole bunch more under Tranche 3 - why would he draw any attention to the RAF's perceived shortcomings until he has secured the future for 500 of his workmates.

[Pontius Navigator]

Perhaps we've always been this p#ssed off, but never communicated it, because we weren't able to.

Actually we were pissed off right royally in 1965 (or 1966) with the rear crew bang seats and the TSR2 etc etc and we showed this at the 1 Gp Dining In.

I don't know if the effects were heard outside the corridors of power but the AOCs career came to an abrupt stop. The story may be seen here

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=48124

The 3* was actually a retired 4* and introduced as

"A former AOCinC of Bomber Command and now a distinguished director of AV Roe (or Hawker Siddley), Air Chief Marshal Sir Harry . . . ." and the rest was drowned out with BANG BANG, BANG BANG and suitable precussive accompaniment.

Later posts in the same thread suggested the event was so large that some people thought the event was quite normal. I certainly have some different memories but in essence it is accurate. One of those who thought it perfectly normal was the Very Reverend Oliver Wycombe-Thistleton-Fiennes, until he got the letter of apology that is.:}

Oh yes, dissatisfaction was well demonstrated but we didn't get the bang seats for rear crew despite Avro's making a successful plan as the aircraft was due out of service in a year or two.

[Al R]

I know that there's no comparison, and I know that this guy has not yet been charged of anything, and I know too, that he might be guilty. Or he might not. But. Compare the choices taken when potentially valid and justified criticism is levelled against one, when one holds public office and when the danger is that that public office is in jeapordy of being bought into disrepute. I'm not saying that resignation should be automatic (far from it) but there have been far greater and far more intense and sustained levels raised against the military hierarchy than this man who, by all accounts, has slashed the crime rate in his region.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7102473.stm

I think of people like John Profumo, who I held such absolute respect for, because of how he conducted himself when he knew he was in the wrong. But better still, because of how he tried in the most humblest of manners to make good the harm he caused by, for instance, cleaning the charitable toilets at Toynbee Hall, and even the likes of Laurence Dallaglio, who stepped back and who grafted hard and has become now of the greatest loved and respected of English sportsmen.

Its all a matter of honour, and doing what's best for the greater good. If those at the top are convinced the g'ment is doing a great job, fine. They serve no one's interest though, least of all the countries (those they are charged to protect), by keeping quiet when they know things are wrong, and by referring to an implicit code of subservient conduct. Yes, I applaud their commitment to 'the system', but commitment is a 2 way street. Where is the commitment to the troops?

[endplay]

Nigegilb,

As it happens I can't think of a better way to canvass rank and file opinion than a face-to-face conversation with properly informed briefing teams. The RAF has decided to reintroduce an Air Member for Personnel (AMP) team whose focus is admin centric. The AFBLT specifically precluded TG17 WOs to try and garner a more balanced view and to distance itself from the "PMA" perspective. In my 3 years Innsworth I met loads of people who had spent the majority of their careers at the HQ and had a distinctly non-op view of life. I don't knock these people, you play the cards you're dealt, but their priorities were unquestionably different to mine.
Ultimately the message can be skewed in so many ways that perhaps the AFF, something I never thought I would endorse, is the best way forward.
I'm out now but I wish all of you still serving the very best.

[Pontius Navigator]

Al_R, I mentioned this elsewhere but SASO 1 Gp attended a dining-in night at Scampton just a short period after the drink driving laws came in.

It was expected that the social stigma attached to drink driving would be so great that any officer so convicted would be asked to resgin his commission.

The Air Cdre was entitled to a driver but chose to drive himself. On the way home he drove into a ditch, called the police, cleared his office at Bawtry and resigned with immediate effect - for the good of the service - as he realised that had he not resigned then it would be invidious to ask less junior officers to resign their commissions.

We live in different times.

"Did anyone see you do it? - no - Deny all knowledge"

[Al R]

Indeed we do live in different times. SASO 1 Gp didn't live in times where there was a demand for media punditry or consultancy..

A possible reason I suppose, is that to those at the top, their current status is a means and not the end. To resign, or to admit to an infallibility wrecks the chances of greater income after one hangs up one's No 1s for the final time.

[samuraimatt]

To resign, or to admit to an infallibility wrecks the chances of greater income after one hangs up one's No 1s for the final time.

What is wrong with wanting the best pension you can get? Everybody is entitled to get the best deal they can. If you think you could have done better then why didn't you get a Commission and rise to Air Ranks level?

[Kitbag]

...and rise to Air Ranks level?

As this is in reply to a comment about being honourable and the good of the service it is clearly something you haven't the wit to achieve :}

Next appraisal= clearly not a team player

[airborne_artist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif Armed forces 'are running out of money'


Gen Sir Mike Jackson said recent spending commitments by the Chancellor Alistair Darling were likely to prove insufficient to pay for future operations.

More in The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YNNDZPPFWJF25QFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/20/nforces120.xml)

[grimfixer]

Nuff respek for Gen Danatt. First time in years we have a figurehead in the services who has the cohones to challenge the spin merchants et al.
Although more noise on the side of the state of the Armed Forces and it's lack of support can only help, pity Gen Jackson wasn't half as noisy when he was in uniform. Sort of defeats his arguments to a degree as he thought everything was great a short while ago. :mad:

[The Nip]

Maybe the RAF could instil honour, integrity and individual responsibility.

[Pontius Navigator]

Interesting that the Head of Revenue and Customs walked the plank immediately.

[hoodie]

That's because it is such a massive disaster that voters will be affected, therefore someone was needed to chaff for the Chancellor... And he didn't leap off the cliff immediately - it took 10 days or so whilst the riff-raff were still being kept in the dark.

(Yes, I know Forces personnel are voters, too. Just not for the rabble currently in power.)

[Al R]

Matt said: What is wrong with wanting the best pension you can get? Everybody is entitled to get the best deal they can. If you think you could have done better then why didn't you get a Commission and rise to Air Ranks level?

There's nothing wrong with wanting a good pension. But thats not what I was talking about. But if it was, my first answer would still be the same.. and either way, if you're not up to the job you should be chopped or forced to go. If you think the same rules apply though Matt, at that level, you're mistaken.

Why didn't I do that?

I wasn't good/canny/motivated/astute/slimy/arsed/arselicker/two faced/healthy/bothered/ etc and I possibly rubbed too many people up the wrong way and taking a couple of stn cmdrs to various small claims courts around the country possibly didn't help.

Does that mean though, anyone who is similar to me isn't entitled to the very best of commitment and ability from their chain of command? Are there differing levels of personnel entitled to differing levels of leadership based on their career aspirations?

Oh, and various discip offences probably added to my career malaise. :}