PDA

View Full Version : MoD lawyers soar


ian16th
2nd Nov 2013, 07:38
MoD lawyers soar as Armed Forces? budgets cut - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10421907/MoD-lawyers-soar-as-Armed-Forces-budgets-cut.html)

During my 13 years service, I never met an RAF lawyer, or felt the need to.

Was I abnormal?

Wander00
2nd Nov 2013, 07:45
It used to be (we) accountants

Whenurhappy
2nd Nov 2013, 08:19
Well, a deployed commander worth his or her salt won't go anywhere without their LEGAD and POLAD providing (generally) sound advice. And it's not all about 'Yuman rites'. It is, principally, about complying with IHL and LOAC. A few years ago I was seconded to the staff of a senior POLAD and we were linked at the waist to the LEGAD team. It was interesting - indeed astonishing - to see the target lists presented to the Joint Targetting Board by the J3/5 staff. Time and again, the POLAD and LEGAD teams would scrub through the list removing non-compliant targets - generally because they did not meet proportionality or legitimacy tests, or would have had a wider (and negative) political and PR impact amongst the Coalition.

Yes, legal officers are still rotated through the Parish Pump of discipline and employment casework (it is surprising to see how many lawyers are still employed in BFG to maintain and interpret the SOFA - and to manage the 'behaviour' of young soldiers), but most spend a considerable time in direct support of operations. It is safe assume that there are no deliberate weapons releases made (except in self defence) that have not been scrutinised by LEGADs, inter alia.

Dengue_Dude
2nd Nov 2013, 09:03
No wonder Alexander and later the Romans did so well . . .

Still, perhaps it's better than embedded effin' media. It was always time to go when Kate Adey pitched up

4Greens
2nd Nov 2013, 09:13
Many moons ago in the RN it was accepted wisdom never to engage a lawyer for a court martial defence because it proved you were guilty!

racedo
2nd Nov 2013, 11:47
MOD Lawyers Soar..............................................who was it that said Weasels never get sucked into Jet engines at 30,000 feet.
Always a first time for everything. :E

Melchett01
2nd Nov 2013, 12:19
Time and again, the POLAD and LEGAD teams would scrub through the list removing non-compliant targets - generally because they did not meet proportionality or legitimacy tests, or would have had a wider (and negative) political and PR impact amongst the Coalition.

And that is the ultimate expression of the politicisation of the military. Legal and political logic is often at odds with military logic. Politicians are all too keen to start wars, but not so keen when the penny drops and the realisation kicks in that war is a brutal, messy business, and that their reputations are on the line as is their chance for re-election when the viewing public turn on the evening news. And the legal profession, like a bunch of ambulance chasers, has jumped all over that to ensure their status and role in a shrinking military.

Given the level the LEGADs and POLADs are operating at, the military commanders at that level are professional operators with huge amounts of operational experience, and one would hope, a good degree of common sense military judgement built up over the years. It is their job to conduct operations in the most effective manner consistent with the ROE and and constraints placed on them at the outset by the politicians. It isn't the job of the POLADs and LEGADs to dictate how operations are run because what needs to be done might upset a politician somewhere. That is where the commander's military judgement and experience should be coming in to play. The LEGADs, if they have a role to play, have a role as a handrail offering guidance, not directing operational decisions. And frankly, having seen the standard of some of the MOD's legal work in various disciplinary cases, I don't think I'd want half the MOD's lawyers in the same country as me let alone working in the same HQ as me on ops.

If politicians are so concerned about their image, stop declaring war like it's a game of cricket. And if the LEGADs are so keen to get involved in running operations, they need to ditch the 'wig and gown' and pick up a rifle. I suspect the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanstan would have been over far more quickly and with far less suffering and costs had the politicians actually done their job properly in the first place.

Politicians and lawyers - a curse on them all :mad:

Courtney Mil
2nd Nov 2013, 12:35
My experience with the LEGAD and POLAD in the earliest days of AFG was nothing but positive. It was very clear that they were part of the team, understood the military needs very well and were there both to keep the commanders and the fighters out of potential trouble as well as helping with what they could do.

Remember, they are advisors and the Commander does not HAVE to follow their advice if they see an overriding military need. If such a situation arose, the two advisors could, occasionally, offer further sound advice.

I take the point about the politicization of mil ops, but that's more to do with the politicians and the various higher courts more than the advisors or MoD lawyers. IMHO.

Wensleydale
2nd Nov 2013, 14:33
My experience with the LEGAD and POLAD in the earliest days of AFG was nothing but positive.


Concur. For example we were worried during GW2 that the RAF Sentry crews were middle men in passing attack instructions from US commanders to US aircraft in theatre: the US and UK had different ROE and therefore was it legal for the Brits to pass some of these instructions on? The legal team in theatre acted quickly and soon came to a satisfactory decision that allowed our war to continue without pause.

alfred_the_great
3rd Nov 2013, 07:47
And that is the ultimate expression of the politicisation of the military. Legal and political logic is often at odds with military logic. Politicians are all too keen to start wars, but not so keen when the penny drops and the realisation kicks in that war is a brutal, messy business, and that their reputations are on the line as is their chance for re-election when the viewing public turn on the evening news. And the legal profession, like a bunch of ambulance chasers, has jumped all over that to ensure their status and role in a shrinking military.

Given the level the LEGADs and POLADs are operating at, the military commanders at that level are professional operators with huge amounts of operational experience, and one would hope, a good degree of common sense military judgement built up over the years. It is their job to conduct operations in the most effective manner consistent with the ROE and and constraints placed on them at the outset by the politicians. It isn't the job of the POLADs and LEGADs to dictate how operations are run because what needs to be done might upset a politician somewhere. That is where the commander's military judgement and experience should be coming in to play. The LEGADs, if they have a role to play, have a role as a handrail offering guidance, not directing operational decisions. And frankly, having seen the standard of some of the MOD's legal work in various disciplinary cases, I don't think I'd want half the MOD's lawyers in the same country as me let alone working in the same HQ as me on ops.

If politicians are so concerned about their image, stop declaring war like it's a game of cricket. And if the LEGADs are so keen to get involved in running operations, they need to ditch the 'wig and gown' and pick up a rifle. I suspect the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanstan would have been over far more quickly and with far less suffering and costs had the politicians actually done their job properly in the first place.

Politicians and lawyers - a curse on them all


And thus forgetting that War is a continuation of policy by other means, and it is absolutely right that Politicians (and thus POLADs/LEGADs) stick their oar in at every opportunity they feel necessary.

It a pernicious belief that war should be solely conducted by the 'professionals', especially because they make it "hard". Everything, and I mean everything, we do in the military must assist in the political solution that is the end point. Unless, of course, Dr Strangelove's Maj Ripper is something of a role model to you.

Whenurhappy
3rd Nov 2013, 08:04
Well, there is also a distinction between US Political Advisors and UK Policy Advisors. The US one I was seconded to work for was a former US Ambassador; whereas Brit POLADs tend to be terribly bright and frighteningly young FCO or MOD fast-trackers. There job is to remind the Commander of Extant national policy advice, as well as the position of other Coalition players. They also have good connectivity with policy makers in Whitehall (outwith the chain of command) whereas US POLADs exercise a greater degree of autonomy, certainly in my experience in two Theatres (Balkans and Afghanistan). As pointed out above, they don't direct the war or make decisions, but as in the case of LEGADs a commander would need particular good operational imperatives to ignore or contradict sound IHL and LOAC advice, especially on ROE and information-sharing issues.

Melchett01
3rd Nov 2013, 10:05
alfred,

I might be wrong, but you seem to have completely missed my point.

The politicians set the national policy and direction, and as you say, rightly so. For it is that policy that gives the military a defined end state to work towards - or it should if the politicians have done their job correctly and not raced half-arsed into a situation just because their wives told them something must be done after an uncomfortable kitchen table supper with friends. In conjunction with that end-state defining policy are the ROE which will provide the commander with his left and right of arc, and as you say, rightly so. We are professionals not barbarians.

But once the political direction is established and any constraints set out, then leave the military commanders alone to get on with the job! This has nothing to do with thinking we should all be following the Maj Ripper and Col Kilgore approach. It has everything to do with allowing your senior officers and military commanders in the field to used their cumulative professional experience and judgement to meet the required endstate. As Whenurhappy notes, most POLADS are young thrusting fast streamers who wouldn't know one end of a rifle from another and for whom a getting a bit of sand on their boots is just another rung on the ladder and an interesting dinner party story for when they get back. The LEGADs, yes, they wear a uniform, but again, how much experience?

And yet the system has developed in such a way that they, with that relatively limited experience of military ops, can exert an undue level of influence at the tactical level over a commander and his HQ. Really? You think that is right or appropriate? Sounds not so different from the days of the Political Officer in the Soviet Regiments; no military experience but a political appointment to ensure the unit commander did what the Party thought he should do not what the tactical situation dictated. If you do think it appropriate for inexperienced POLADs and LEGADs to have such undue influence, well you can just get rid of most of the command element from the military, save the MOD a fortune and simply replace them with POLADs and LEGADs.

But how do you think it assists the overall 'political' situation when a TST is missed because the LEGAD & POLAD pressed pause on the op to take advice? I've seen that happen before. And when the commanders out in the field have to start second guessing themselves and their men in case they are hauled up before the courts 5 years down the line for a well meaning and tactically sound decision made in the heat of battle, now coming under scrutiny because the rules have changed. I'm dealing with at least 2 such cases at the moment in my unit - is that appropriate?

We are clearly coming at the POLAD / LEGAD perspective from diametrically opposed angles, and I suspect that won't change. I think LEGADs and POLADs should be tolerated, largely because we now have to, but they should be there as advisors and no more. I would much rather have a decent CULAD taking up the post instead.

NutLoose
3rd Nov 2013, 10:18
What he said, seems a strange way to fight a war having your decisions and tactics reviewed by a lawyer when the other side are not encumbered by such things, perhaps we should disband the Military and send the lawyers to war.

Hangarshuffle
3rd Nov 2013, 11:20
You weren't abnormal Ian, probably you were a good servicemen who just simply did yer bit. Like me.
Ever changing world. I sometimes wish I had had more balls and got a civvy lawyer stuck in for me when things got sticky.
Not all of our officers are or were good decent men, I for one am often pleased to see when the lads fight back and stick one up them via a learned friend.

NutLoose
3rd Nov 2013, 12:34
Yup we had 5 Liney's court martial led for drugs offences, 1st pleaded guilty on charge, RAF officer defending.... was done, second had a barrister, charges thrown out, one SIB back to uniform and some early returns to UK.... Lots of incorrect documents, times etc... Hints at homosexuality the list went on, rest got off too.

Hangarshuffle
3rd Nov 2013, 13:40
The whole breadth and depth where lawyers can get involved now is just massive......if I was still in I would have a decent local lawyers telephone number on my phone "just in case" and bring him in at every opportunity.
In my latter year the threat to "take it beyond the main gate" worked at RNAS XXXX (by implication I mean your own MP however much you may hate him or her, a lawyer or the media -or all 3) and I would recommend it that line to anyone.

Pontius Navigator
3rd Nov 2013, 15:53
MoD lawyers soar as Armed Forces? budgets cut - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10421907/MoD-lawyers-soar-as-Armed-Forces-budgets-cut.html)

During my 13 years service, I never met an RAF lawyer, or felt the need to.

Was I abnormal?

Yes.

I met one, a wg cdr, based at a secret base in mid-Lincs. He wasn't a real officer, his No 1 was not shiney and was creased. His department had been rusticated as part of the economy drive. I asked him whose side he was on. What he on our side or was he the enemy? The enemy he said.

His role was as prosecutor and not defence.

The military justice system were the guilty party can ask to be defended by any officer but the prosecution has trained professionals is surely wrong.

Big Pistons Forever
3rd Nov 2013, 16:09
What he said, seems a strange way to fight a war having your decisions and tactics reviewed by a lawyer when the other side are not encumbered by such things, perhaps we should disband the Military and send the lawyers to war.

The problem is fighting the "war" is the easy part. The "war" in Iraq 2 lasted the first 17 days. The next 6 years were combat operations in support of the "peace". Commanders would have be professionally negligent if they did not understand and adapt their orders to recognize and deal with the political-military nexus that is implicit in virtually every situation. Advice from the POLAD/LEGAD is vital to fully understanding the battle space.

Finally the buck still stops at the desk of the Military Commander. He/she will be the one to, as always, live with the consequences of every decision to use kinetic effects.

NutLoose
3rd Nov 2013, 18:24
The problem is fighting the "war" is the easy part. The "war" in Iraq 2 lasted the first 17 days. The next 6 years were combat operations in support of the "peace". Commanders would have be professionally negligent if they did not understand and adapt their orders to recognize and deal with the political-military nexus that is implicit in virtually every situation. Advice from the POLAD/LEGAD is vital to fully understanding the battle space.

But they were negligent in not having a plan in place to ensure a stable and continued existence. They might have won the war in 17 days, but they lost it in the following months, they stood by as rape, murder and looting went on and the civilian population came round to the realisation they no longer had safety, drinking water, working sewage systems, food, medical facilities, heating and power. Even during ww2 it was realised you had to work with the remaining infrastructure in Germany while you weeded out the bad guys, something sadly that never happened in Iraq, no wonder it became a breeding ground for terrorism, hate and mistrust and took 6 years to get out of.

alfred_the_great
3rd Nov 2013, 20:14
And not a single peep was heard from many, many, military Officers over that. We all knew it, and decided to do nothing about it.

Maj Gen Tim Cross' testimony to the Iraq Inquiry is quite illuminating.

Brian Abraham
3rd Nov 2013, 22:42
And thus forgetting that War is a continuation of policy by other means, and it is absolutely right that Politicians (and thus POLADs/LEGADs) stick their oar in at every opportunity they feel necessary.A lot of good men paid with their lives in Vietnam because they couldn't bust a SAM site during the construction phase because some Russian/Chinese might cop a bit of shrapnel.

Had the misfortune to be called out one night to support a SVN fire support base which was in the midst of battle. Arrived just after dawn to find it had been wiped out - 200 men, women and children slaughtered. The enemy? They were sitting on the other side of the canal giving us the bird, knowing that they would be able to melt away before we could get the necessary authorisation under the ROE in force. By way of explanation, the canal formed the border between two provinces, and it was necessary to have the province chiefs authority to engage. We had the wrong province chief on board.