Corbin and CDS Squaring-Up

[Cows getting bigger]

Corbyn accuses defence chief of political bias in nuclear row - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34759626)

:=:=:=

[Simplythebeast]

On miltary matters I would take the word of a Chief of Defence Staff over that of a Politician who looks like his mum dressed him for his visit to the Cenetaph this morning. He wouldnt complain about Senior Doctors giving opinions on NHS matters or trade Union Leaders telling the Government what to do so he needs to wind his neck in.

[Union Jack]

He wouldn't complain about Senior Doctors giving opinions on NHS matters or trade Union Leaders telling the Government what to do so he needs to wind his neck in - STB

Simply, the best!:ok:

Jack

[OvertHawk]

CDS is not making a political statement!

He's making a statement about the effectiveness of a particular weapons system and that is entirely within his remit, in fact, it's his responsibility to do so.

OH

[1.3VStall]

I watched CDS live this morning on Murnahan; he came across as intelligent, cogent and well informed. In fact he is the antithesis of Corbyn!

[Muzzey]

STB, +1 from me, Corbyn becomes more and more farcical with each passing day, with any luck the wind will soon blow him back from whence he came.

[beardy]

OP,
His name is Corbyn, with a y. I don't like him, nor his ideology, but he is an elected representative of his constituents and elected leader of his party. I, personally, think he is wrong, but he has a mandate to speak publicly about this country's defense policy, CDS does not, his role is to enact it, not make it, he is a servant of the Crown's advisors, Parliament. CDS would have been much wiser to say nothing, the chances of Corbyn's view becoming policy are slim. If they do, he has no choice but to implement to them.

It's called democracy.

[Cows getting bigger]

Corbyn, (with a Y) is a socialist and, as such, he believes in the rights of the people. Last time I looked CDS was a British citizen and under Corbyn's ideology everyone's voice should be heard. := Conversely, is he saying that public servants should be seen and not heard? He can't have it both ways.

[Biggus]

Of course he can have it both ways - or at least expect to - he's a politician!! :=

[langleybaston]

Beardy it's Defence with c
Glass houses, stones .........

[beardy]

CGB, you are correct, public servants do not make policy, they implement it. If CDS wishes to influence policy he should stand down as an implementer. We all have a voice; at the ballot box, that is not the prerogative solely of socialists.

Langleybaston. The spelling of defence/defense should be coherent. Having referred to CDS which is UK English I should of course have used defence despite it being a more modern spelling in British English than defense. Corbyn, however has only one spelling. As does cenotaph.

[Melchett01]

I don't like him, nor his ideology, but he is an elected representative of his constituents and elected leader of his party.

Maybe, but he's hardly representative of the nation and this is a strategic national issue.

Working on rounded numbers for ease, Corbyn received 250,000 votes in the Labour leadership election. In the general election Labour, as the losing party, received close to 9,500,000 votes out of a rough total of 25,000,000 votes. That means Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition something like the equivalent of 0.01% of the national vote and something like the equivalent of 2.5% of the Labour vote at the last general election.

I wouldn't therefore describe him or his views as being particularly representative and he would do well to listen to the experts employed to provide specific politically based advice as STB so correctly notes. Furthermore, as a key component of the deterrent capability is the willingness to press the button, to publically announce that you wouldn't ever press the button effectively renders the capability redundant and as a result the nation potentially weakened. Corbyn clearly has much to learn about stepping up from local reactionary to potential statesman.

[beardy]

Melchett01, you have made a very valid, if not original criticism of our version of democracy. I would recommend Churchill's analysis of it's imperfections, weaknesses and alternatives.

CDS has the opportunity to advise in private rather than on television. His choice of the latter was IMHO unwise.

[Danny42C]

One more demonstration that the supply of Lenin's "Useful Idiots" will never dry up.

[Just This Once...]

I also watched this interview this morning and I saw nothing that was overtly political. If the political choice is to have nuclear weapons the CDS will support it. If the political choice is not to have nuclear weapons then CDS will support that too.

Where a military man is entitled to speak is on the effectiveness of a deterrent if you tell people you will not use it under any circumstances. I thought CDS spoke wisely. He could have gone further and spoken of the deleterious effect of having any politician taking such a stance as it would undermine the deterrence value for future leaders too.

Doubt and muddling are best avoided when nuclear weapons are involved.

[OmegaV6]

Beardy .. you are of course, fully entitled to your opinion ..

"CDS has the opportunity to advise in private rather than on television. His choice of the latter was IMHO unwise."

IMHO he was not only "wise" to do so, but as CDS it was his duty, in the service of his country, to do so. He serves Queen and Country .. not politicians of any party.

[exuw]

OvertHawk said:

"The CDS is not making a political statement!"

The BBC's own website offers this:

Asked about Mr Corbyn's refusal to use nuclear weapons, Sir Nicholas said: "It would worry me if that thought was translated into power as it were." He added: "The whole thing about deterrence rests on the credibility of its use. "When people say you're never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don't have to use it because you successfully deter. "If a prime minister said they would never press the nuclear button, "the deterrent is then completely undermined," he added.


What I would like to understand better is where or when the prohibition on the public expression of political activity or political statements, as proscribed (apparently) under QRs for the rank and file of HM's military personnel, ceases to apply to senior ranks.

Is there an explicit cut-off point or is it implicit?

[PeterGee]

Seems to me our democratic position on the nuclear deterrent is to have one. For a potential leader of a country to undermine its use is undemocratic and *could* be described as traitorous!

If parliament ever votes against the deterrent that dos of change things. Until such time me Corbyn should wind his kneck in! I think CDS deserves an apology!

[BEagle]

Comrade Corbychev ticks all the boxes required for a rabble-rousing leftie trot of the old school. The odious pratt needs to be given a good ignoring - along with the rest of his fellow-travellers.

It seems to me that I'm right never to have trusted people with beards....:rolleyes:

[smujsmith]

Lots of Corbyn outrage on this thread gentlemen, but who was it who said something along the lines of "I don't agree with what he says, but I would die for his right to say it"? I'm sure comrade Corbyn is quite capable of becoming a short lived political leader, without any external help. I thought the CDS was quite right in his opinion, but few serving officers can get away with such overt political comments on national TV. Right or wrong, does he have a remit to take a party political view on military matters ? Awaiting my reeducation.

Smudge :eek:

[beardy]

Omegav6

Queen and country, brilliant emotive phrase. The monarch, currently a queen, has a constitutional position in that she does not make policy. She takes advice and can advise and ultimately assents to the will of her subjects as expressed through, guess where; parliament.

If we democratically decide to join South Africa and unilaterally disarm then so be it. I think it would be a mistake, but it would be a democratic and constitutional one and one I would have to live with if I were not to be treasonous.

[Chugalug2]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what CDS did or didn't say, wouldn't it have been better not to do such an interview on Remembrance Sunday? If his intention was to promote the Armed Forces and remind the viewers that the debt that they owe and acknowledge today is as real now as ever it was, then all well and good.

It seems however that the BBC wanted to politicise the interview, or at least Andrew Marr did. The same comments about the appropriateness of choosing today to do so applies equally to the BBC as it does to CDS in my view. The latter has the excuse that he was bowled a bit of a googlie, no such excuse applies to the bowler. Perhaps we will see rather more of CDS in future on ITN or Sky News? If so I wouldn't blame him at all. The BBC has outgrown any usefulness that it might ever have been to this nation. As someone else (for whom Mr Corbyn might well feel a certain amount of sympathy) once said:-

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

[Finningley Boy]

Haven't very senior officers been asked to express, shall we say, a professional opinion publicly before now?

I watched the interview and apart from the slightly pejorative remark about fear of Corbyn becoming PM, all he did was explain the logic of the deterrent and how it would be foolhardy to undermine it in such a way by promising never to rely on it. But as has been oft said of the Jeremy Corbyns of this world, he's seems a nice chap but on the political front I rather fancy that he is subjective in whom he himself thinks is playing foul. It's therefore easy to shut up the professional heads of the armed forces and the likes of the police because it frightens democracies if the elected great and good don't have a really short tight choker chain on the Generals and Police Chiefs, the problem here is, the men in uniform are professionals and know their stuff just as in any other professional field, just that they are not allowed to speak frankly publicly.

Be interesting to hear Cameron's and other opponents take, so far I don't think anyone else has pulled Sir Nicholas up?:ok:

FB:)

[Bigbux]

Lots of Corbyn outrage on this thread gentlemen, but who was it who said something along the lines of "I don't agree with what he says, but I would die for his right to say it"? I'm sure comrade Corbyn is quite capable of becoming a short lived political leader, without any external help. I thought the CDS was quite right in his opinion, but few serving officers can get away with such overt political comments on national TV. Right or wrong, does he have a remit to take a party political view on military matters ? Awaiting my reeducation.

Smudge :eek:

I'd rather let Comrade Corbyn die for his own right of free speech, particularly given his recent stance on remembering the WW1 fallen. But said Comrade would never do such a thing - he is a protester, nothing more. He is entirely dependent on others for matters of importance, including his own freedom of speech and safety- but he would still criticise and protest. Its called Norman Kember disease.

[Uncle Ginsters]

It's hilarious to suggest that this is a party political intervention by CDS.
Even within his own party, it seems, there's little or no support for Comrade Corby's Trident stance.
All parties have manifestos that should cover everything involved in how their country would be run. When parties differ and an individual takes a particular view on an issue, it's nothing more than their view. End of story.
Corbyn's very quickly looking like the bullied kid at school with little to offer as intellectual retort...

[ORAC]

The Grauniad, no less..... (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/08/rmed-forces-chief-jeremy-corbyn-defence-trident)

Houghton received the backing of Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, who told the programme that the chief of the defence staff was within his rights to express his doubts about her party leader becoming prime minister......

Although Houghton’s comments could be seen as a challenge to the authority of an elected prime minister, Eagle, who like most members of the shadow cabinet supports the nuclear deterrent, said the chief of the defence staff was entitled to say what he did. “He has to answer questions from journalists such as yourself when he’s asked and I’m completely comfortable with that,” she told Marr. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with him expressing himself in those terms.”

She said that she agreed with what Houghton said about nuclear deterrence only being credible if there was a possibility of a state using it and that she had said this herself when Corbyn made his comments at the Labour conference...... She also suggested she would resign if the party did back unilateral nuclear disarmament. Asked if she would serve in a unilateralist government, she replied: “I am not a unilateral disarmer. I don’t believe that that works. I think I would find it difficult but we’re not there yet.”

Later, John Woodcock, the pro-Trident Labour MP, said Corbyn had no right to complain about Houghton because Corbyn himself had signed a Commons motion in 2009 praising Lord Bramall, a former chief of the defence staff, for speaking out against Trident. Woodcock said: “Supporters of CND can’t have it both ways. Unilateral disarmers have been eager to applaud the occasional member of the armed forces who has expressed doubt about Trident renewal. They should welcome these authoritative observations on deterrence by the chief of the defence staff.”

[beardy]

Uncle Ginster,

How right you are. CDS stepped right into the trap laid for him. No reply was required from him, but he insisted on giving one which was immediately leaped upon and interpreted as a political one by politicians eager to diminish the impartiality of the military. His reply was a personal opinion and as such should have stayed private and confidential. The moment he put on the uniform he spoke for the defence staff.

[Avitor]

Corbyn makes Neville Chamberlain look like a war monger.

[Slow Biker]

I would rather Corbyn argued his case than complaining about CDS giving an intelligent view on the case for nuclear deterrence.

[Easy Street]

beardy,

I don't see CDS walking into a trap at all; I think you are seeing what you want to see in his comments. Shortly after his comment that a Corbyn premiership would "worry him", he explained why. Bits of this have been posted earlier but I've added a couple more sentences for additional context:

‘But the reason I say this – and it’s not based on a personal thing at all, it’s purely based on the credibility of deterrence. The whole thing about deterrence rests on the credibility of its use. When people say you’re never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent you know every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don’t have to use it because you successfully deter.’

All CDS was doing was explaining the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, a topic which is a staple of strategic studies textbooks and solidly in his area of professional expertise. He was not expressing a personal opinion in any way, or indeed trying to influence the party political debate. If the audience, equipped with a better understanding of deterrence, decided they didn't like Corbyn's policy, then does that mean CDS is guilty of political interference? I would argue not. Any democrat should be wary of arguments along the lines of "keep them ignorant".

Furthermore, since both Government and official Opposition policy are currently pro-deterrent, CDS can hardly be accused of entering a party political debate. Yes, there may be some disagreement within Labour at the present time, but Corbyn himself was complicit in keeping it off their conference agenda, so it is a bit rich for him to get worked up about it now. Can you imagine how little we would be able to say if we had to respect differences of opinion between each individual parliamentarian? Until Corbyn's views are adopted as Labour policies, that is exactly their status - individual differences of opinion. The fact he is leader matters not in Parliamentary terms.

[Dan Gerous]

CDS can say what he likes, but if the politicians of the ruling party, of whatever colour, tell him what's what, he'll just have to put up with it.

[1.3VStall]

Although Houghton’s comments could be seen as a challenge to the authority of an elected prime minister

Absolute nonsense! CDS was merely responding to a direct question.

I watched the whole interview with Murnahan and CDS responded to the questions eloquently and sensibly, with no political leaning at all. Would you have a CDS with no views at all?

At least the present CDS is prepared to offer a reasoned input while he is serving, rather that to tow the party line until retirement and then sound off ineffectually from the House of Lords like Stirrup, Danatt et al.

[racedo]

When I ask when supposed Nuclear deterrent will be used I find myself struggling to find a case where it will be.

[Stuff]

When I ask when supposed Nuclear deterrent will be used I find myself struggling to find a case where it will be.

Then you've missed the point entirely. What you have thought about is when Nuclear attack would be used.

Ask yourself who would attack us knowing that Nuclear destruction is the inevitable result and you'll find out why we have a deterrent.

[Easy Street]

Ask yourself who would attack us knowing that Nuclear destruction is the inevitable result and you'll find out why we have a deterrent.

Not 'the inevitable', just 'a possible'. But that is all it needs to be for deterrence to work. Indeed I would argue that as long as Trident exists, a Corbyn government would benefit from a small degree of nuclear deterrence. He could change his position in the blink of an eye; unlikely maybe, but such are the calculations that a putative attacker would have to make.

racedo - Suggest you listen to Gen Houghton's comments online, he explains precisely why not using the deterrent is the desired outcome of possessing it.

[Danny42C]

A simple way to get this across is to ask yourself:

If it had been known in the summer of 1945 that Japan had developed an atomic weapon, and had a credible means of delivering it to the West Coast cities of the USA, would Truman have sanctioned the dropping of the Bomb on Hiroshima ?

D.

[ORAC]

XyJh3qKjSMk

[JagRigger]

When the commander of the boat opens the letter of last resort, written by the incumbent PM.


They will do their duty, whatever that letter says.

[Wensleydale]

Sign of a losing team....winners play the ball and not the man.

[racedo]

When the commander of the boat opens the letter of last resort, written by the incumbent PM.
They will do their duty, whatever that letter says.

Duty to whom though ?

Queen and Country..........
PM of the day...........
Humanity............

I believe they are studies done in US (also UK though will be secret) regarding releasing a Nuclear Missile, someone will no doubt correct me but I believe there was somewhat less than 100% compliance in no notice exercises.

[exuw]

JagRigger

"They will do their duty, whatever that letter says."

I trust you will never be the person drafting that letter. Your statement can be interpreted in more than one way........:}

[NutLoose]

Let's face it, Corbyn has got about as much chance of getting into power as my anus has of healing over... :ok:


As for him keeping wittering on about his mandate handed to him by his party, sorry, but with the simple expediency of joining the labour party for a couple of quid a lot of those votes could well have come from none Labour external forces simply out to cause mischief.
I would have accepted the vote if it had been open to current membership at the time it was cast, but it wasn't, so the doubt is there.

[A and C]

I would not mention Nevil Chamberlian and the leader of the Labour Party in the same breath, Mr Corbyn has done nothing for this country except support its enemy's.

Nevil Chamberlian served as an army officer in WW1 and was appalled by the carnage, his motivation for appeasement was to avoid another war on the scale of WW1.

When it became apparent that Hitler was not for appeasing he and his government made the largest peacetime increase in defence spending this nation has ever seen. He also generated the time for the spending to be turned into front line weponds.

Nevil Chamberlian always acted honourably and did what in his opinion was the best for the country, I also see this behaviour in the words of the CDS who I fully support.

I don't see any sort of honourable behaviour fron Mr Corbyn, all he demonstrates is that he is a useful idiot in the service of this nations enemy's.

[mymatetcm]

So a winning 251,417 votes out of a population of 66.1 million is democracy.

[sitigeltfel]

So a winning 251,417 votes out of a population of 66.1 million is democracy.

And how many of those votes were from mischief makers not of Corbyns cadre? Never has £3 caused so much fun!

[beardy]

So a winning 251,417 votes out of a population of 66.1 million is democracy.

Oh yes. It is also apathy.

[glad rag]

"Oh yes. It is also apathy."

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDvNEwJmzgqeku9eEC03oMlAg_HD76tDVuWJMTha3 EpXbtH6uq

Yes I'm apathetic to voting in the Liarbour Party Central Executive Committee, comrade.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Coat_of_arms_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg/150px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png

[Nige321]

Beardy IS Jeremy Corbyn.

I claim my £5...:ok:

[spooky3]

A simple way to get this across is to ask yourself:

If it had been known in the summer of 1945 that Japan had developed an atomic weapon, and had a credible means of delivering it to the West Coast cities of the USA, would Truman have sanctioned the dropping of the Bomb on Hiroshima ?

D.

Danny your response is sooo refreshing without all the bullsh£t and big words by lots of posters on this site, sometimes i wonder if grammer plays a big part in their sex lifes, top man.:D

[exuw]

Quote:

"So a winning 251,417 votes out of a population of 66.1 million is democracy."

"Oh yes. It is also apathy."


It also demonstrates piss-poor intellectual capacity to seek to compare the number of votes cast with the entire population.

Try using the number of those entitled to vote instead.

[idle bystander]

this nations enemy's

this nation's enemy's what, may I ask?

Of course, if you are a grocer, you are excused from answering ...:ugh::ugh:

[exuw]

And while A & C considers whether to edit his post for the second time, we might ask who is "Nevil Chamberlian"?

[ShotOne]

How would the Battle of Britain gone with Hawker Furies vs 109's? But for Chamberlain that what we'd have faced. Please don't mention his name in the same breath as Corbyn; his self-indulgent abandonment of our nuclear deterrent isn't supported even by his own party and it's entirely reasonable and constitutional that the CDS would wish to discuss the issue.

[Chinny Crewman]

Sign of a losing team....winners play the ball and not the man.

Are you referring to CDS playing Corbyn or Corbyn playing CDS?

I'd have more respect for senior officers if they made 'political' statements in public regarding a whole host of defence related issues and didn't go for the easy option of having a dig at the leader of the opposition just before retirement. I wonder which bench he'll sit on?

[A and C]

Those who fail to understand the lessons of history are bound to repeat the mistakes that have been made.

[Brian W May]

Quote:

Armed forces chief 'will not be disciplined' over Jeremy Corbyn Trident row
Downing Street has indicated that the head of the armed forces will not face disciplinary action after he warned Jeremy Corbyn's policy on Trident would undermine the credibility of Britain's nuclear deterrent.

Thank Christ for that. This particular enemy is within and he is the DEFENCE chief.

[exuw]

A & C

Thanks. I already know my Santayana. What is your point?

[Melchett01]

Quote:

"So a winning 251,417 votes out of a population of 66.1 million is democracy."

"Oh yes. It is also apathy."


It also demonstrates piss-poor intellectual capacity to seek to compare the number of votes cast with the entire population.

Try using the number of those entitled to vote instead.

See post 12. Roughly equivalent to 0.01% of all votes cast in May and 2.5% of total Labour votes cast.

[racedo]

Quote:

"So a winning 251,417 votes out of a population of 66.1 million is democracy."

"Oh yes. It is also apathy."


It also demonstrates piss-poor intellectual capacity to seek to compare the number of votes cast with the entire population.

Try using the number of those entitled to vote instead.

251,417 is a lot more than 62 which was number of MPs who voted for David Cameron in 2005, in vote off of the 300,000 Tory members he won 134,000.

So what % of electorate is 134,000 again ?

[Momoe]

Disregarding the 'party democracy' sideshow, Cameron has shown himself to be at the very least credible, and, was voted in for a second term by the British public.

This is the second time in recent history that the labour party has not elected the most credible candidate. Come the next election, credibility is a word we may hear a lot.

[The Old Fat One]

....And at this rate Osborne will be so toxic by 2020 it's Corbyn's to lose!

Borrowed this from another thread...I'm sure Melchett won't mind. In case anyone forgot, democracy is the opinion of the masses. And masses and masses of people hate Cameron and Osborne with a growing passion.

Whether it will be enough to sway a sea change in British politics, nobody knows - honestly, I have my doubts.

But the next election is a long way off and a lot of serious s**t is going to hit a lot of people in the face before that time (check out the boss of Tesco's comments on retail, which is an industry pretty much single-handedly keeping the employment numbers up).

Dismissing Corbyn as a political freak is a tad Ostrich-like IMHO.

Just saying...I don't want him anywhere near power.

[beardy]

It is indeed odd to see two articles in the Daily Mail effectively agreeing with Corbyn. Both Admiral Lord West and Sir Max Hastings have articles agreeing that the CDS should not have said what he said in public.

I agree with the tone and details written by the historian Sir Max Hastings and Admiral Lord West seems to be taking a dignified and principled stand.

[t43562]

It seems very "politburo" to castigate a soldier for explaining the political aspect of a weapon since that aspect is vital to its function to a degree that is unlike any other.

I think the public rarely do get explanations like this from someone who isn't a politician (at least not now) and they need them. If that's inconvenient to some politician who is foolish enough to take on the subject then I think it's their own fault.

[Herod]

When it comes to Trident, and its replacement, the Great British Public needs educating. There is too much "Why do we need it? We're never going to bomb anyone.". CDS quite rightly stated that we need it so that we never have to bomb anyone. Perhaps the politicians should start making that very point before the debate gets underway properly.

[Chinny Crewman]

Maybe the public do need educating Herod but it is not CDS job to do so.

[exuw]

Wot Chinny said. :ok:

Any more than it would be the Cabinet Secretary's job to go on the Andrew Marr show to field questions about, for example, Collective Cabinet Responsibility in the event of a change of government.

[beardy]

I know, it was such a cultural shock when Sir Max Hastings moved away from the Torygraph. Luckily he kept his integrity. Still don't shoot the messenger (the Mail) Alain de Botton had some very interstings observations about that particular rag, not all derogatory in his book 'The News : A User's Manual'

BTW I didn't preserve the original article.

[langleybaston]

Fascinating subject.

I sat down and re-read the second edition of Peter Hennessy's Secret State, chapter The Human Button. I recommend it as background to the CDS/ Corbyn issue.

Hennessy [who had unprecedented and long-term access to very delicate material] stresses that the essential of nuclear deterrence is that no potential enemy KNOWS what one's response would be. This is most sharply focused in the "last resort letters", held on every Trident boat containing the PM's personal instructions regarding release or non-release should the PM and his deputies [and the country] disappear in a preemptive strike.

Hennessy tells us that only one ex-PM has revealed what he wrote.

Were Corbyn to be PM, we know, or very strongly suspect, what he would write; he has spent his entire career stressing the point.

No uncertainty, no deterrent. This is not political, it is military.

[beardy]

I disagree, this is intensely political. Corbyn uses his CND credentials as a plank of his manifesto. When a serving Officer criticises it and sheds doubt on his maturity he is entering the political arena by commenting on Corbyn's political stance. Corbyn does not want a nuclear deterrent and does not subscribe to MAD. Should he ever be elected (god forbid) and his policies prevail, the military will have to adapt to a new stance, as the South African military have when they unilaterally nuclear - disarmed.

There is a parallel with chemical and biological weapons, our politicians have decided not to deploy them. Not so other countries. The asymmetry exists, we live with it.

Establishing the logic of a nuclear deterrent is a military topic. Adopting and deploying it are political.

[langleybaston]

Beardy have you read Hennessy please?

[beardy]

No I haven't. But it is now on my reading list.

Corbyn does not want a deterrent, his view may (I hope not) prevail. He has ruled out the uncertainty. In which case the continued deployment of a deterrent has no point and will not happen, this is political. In which case any discussion of it's use would be pointless. When CDS commented on Corbyn's stance he commented on labour party policy (to retain the deterrent) and Corbyn's suitability as leader of that party and potential Prime Minister, that is political. That is why his comments in my opinion were out of order. Of course they and their implications were a political delight to the Conservative Party, hence no public reprimand.

[beardy]

I have just realised that I have missed out the last critical step in my thoughts.

Corbyn feels that this, the second criticism of him and his views (potentially labour party policy) by the military, specifically the army, are an attempt to influence the success or failure of his policies. He believes that the military should not do this since it would be the military interfering in the democratic process. I agree with him (on this issue and only on this issue). The military should not interfere in domestic politics.

[Melchett01]

My perspective for what it's worth - this is only political because Corbyn has made it so.

I watched CDS' interview with interest and it was nothing more than a measured explanation of deterrence theory and what is required for it to work. As the professional head of the Armed Forces that is well within his purview, just as explaining the rationale for 2 aircraft carriers would be in the purview of CNS. At no point was Corbyn mentioned by name. I don't recall Mark Carney being dragged over the coals by the Treasury for comments on the economic implications of a BREXIT and he is in a similar if not even more sensitive position given his ability to influence economic market activity.

However Corbyn's response of playing the man rather than the ball suggests to me that he is intellectually incapable of arguing his point, but would instead attack the individual on the basis of inference rather than fact. A weak response from a politician stuck in the sixth form common room.

[exuw]

Nobody is saying that the CDS should not have a view on the issue of nuclear deterrence. Indeed, most of us would expect to express his view to his political masters without fear or favour as part of his job's remit.

But I just don't see it as part of his job's remit to go on BBC TV and express his view there. As soon as he does so he is entering the political arena, whether he likes it or not.

I ask the question again: is the CDS subject to QRs so far as they relate to the public expression of a political view while wearing the uniform?

[JFZ90]

Interesting that views are split on this.

For me I think he did keep within a discussion on military capability, which I don't think is unfair.

All he clarified was that deterrent should not be undermined by a statement that it will never be used. Whilst, yes, there is some politics here, it can be argued it is common logical sense and hence not in itself political.

CDS could equally say advertising your intent, e.g. filing a civil flight plan for a bombing raid would allow the enemy to know you were coming and easily shoot you down, and therefore would be a bad idea. Is that political or just stating the bleeding obvious?

Stating you'll never use the deterrent is daft, even if you hate the idea of the thing. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of its doctrine, or more to the point not caring at all.

[Finningley Boy]

Of course he won't be CDS by 2020 anyway, barring some unprecedented event(s), so he needn't really worry, he appears to be quite comfortable with the current administration's lean, and they his. In which case he is not publicly challenging Government policy. I notice Sir Max Hasting's contribution in the Mail today, he doesn't seem too wholly convinced of the deterrent himself these days, advancing the Cybre threat as of greater concern. It is of great concern, but so
is the risk of abandoning something as impossible to return to as the nuclear deterrent, once it is gone.

FB

[SOSL]

Beags, I'm a bit late to the party but I couldn't agree more with you (from #20)It seems to me that I'm right never to have trusted people with beards....

My ex-wife had a beard (only one) and I shouldn't have trusted her.

Rgds SOS

[Melchett01]

I suspect CDS is indeed subject to QRs relating to the public expression of political opinion, but having just re-watched the interview with Andrew Marr in this instance he wasn't expressing opinion he was stating a fact.

Equally I suspect that if CDS had responded to Marr by stating a separate fact that the nature of many of today's threats made the use of nuclear weapons difficult, citing the likes of Kissinger and Schultz, despite the obvious point that today's enemy will not necessarily be the same enemy in 30, 40 or 50 years time, then Corby would have been all too quick to make political capital from CDS appearing to be at at odds with his political masters.

Let's not forget however, that Corbyn is even at odds with his own party and the Shadow Defence Secretary on this matter. It pays for him to make mischief to deflect criticism from his own opinions.

[exuw]

"he wasn't expressing opinion he was stating a fact".

That's your opinion.

It is still true that the CDS made himself available on BBC to answer a specific question about Corbyn's previously expressed refusal ever to use the nuclear option.

I don't see it as the CDS's job to do this in a public forum. Nor would it be within his job description to express public support for the deterrent in the event that Marr ever invites him to comment on the current government's nuclear strategy.

His job is to do what he is told, quietly and behind the scenes. He can offer his views through the appropriate channels but these do not include public statements on the BBC. If he doesn't like what he is told to do and cannot persuade his political masters otherwise then he should resign.

[Melchett01]

Without descending to the status of low farce, deterrence theory and nuclear strategy only works if you don't declare your hand. There's no way of dressing that up as anything other than being a statement of fact.

There is no opinion in the mechanics of how deterrence theory works; the key fact is the inability to know whether your opponent will use it or not and that's what CDS stated. Misinterpretation doesn't turn that fact into an opinion.

Whether you think CDS was correct to discuss the mechanics of deterrence theory in public is your opinion, but it doesn't alter the fact that is what he said.

[Chinny Crewman]

When we deployed to Helmand in 2006 we had too few helicopters.
When the 2010 SDSR scrapped the Nimrod it left us unable to effectively patrol our waters.
Both facts but the CDS at the time didn't go on TV and state them. If he had done he'd have been accused of playing politics. As I said before I'd have more respect for the lot of them if they had have done so.
It was a cheap shot and with the reputation of the General Staff at a pretty low point it was ill advised.

[1.3VStall]

Corbyn feels that this, the second criticism of him and his views (potentially labour party policy) by the military, specifically the army

I have just watched the interview again. CDS did not criticise Corbyn, or the Labour party. He merely stated the fact that if one has a deterrent that a PM declares he will not use, then the deterrent is no longer a deterrent.

Why are people getting so het up about this? We have a CDS who is quite clearly on top of his job and is not afraid to express well-reasoned opinions whilst in post - unlike his predecessors, who meekly presided over the continual emasculation of the armed forces and who now snipe from the sidelines in the House of Lords.

[Chinny Crewman]

We have a CDS who is quite clearly on top of his job and is not afraid to express well-reasoned opinions

Where are his opinions regarding the shortfalls in equipment, worsening pay and conditions, failure of the reserve recruitment program .....
He'll be in the Lords next year elevated by DC because he towed the line like the rest of them.

[1.3VStall]

CC,

I don't know what his opinions are on the issues you raise - simply because he wasn't asked about them during the interview and therefore he did not offer gratuitous views.

You clearly have the inside ear on CDS's future. We shall see!

[Just This Once...]

Where are his opinions regarding the shortfalls in equipment, worsening pay and conditions, failure of the reserve recruitment program .....
He'll be in the Lords next year elevated by DC because he towed the line like the rest of them.

This CDS does express his opinion in public and appears to know exactly the line between getting sacked or sidelined and getting his message across. For example:

...at the Royal United Services Institute, in what he described as "an outing of professional conscience", he said Britain risked being left without enough military manpower in the future, with the Royal Navy particularly vulnerable.

He said: "Unattended, our current course leads to a strategically incoherent force structure: exquisite equipment, but insufficient resources to man that equipment or train on it.

"This is what the Americans call the spectre of the hollow-force. We are not there yet; but across defence I would identify the Royal Navy as being perilously close to its critical mass in manpower terms."

Gen Houghton suggested spending decisions were too often made "with an eye on supporting the United Kingdom's defence-industrial base" and said a programme of "balanced investment" in manpower and equipment was needed.

[Easy Street]

Where are his opinions regarding the shortfalls in equipment, worsening pay and conditions, failure of the reserve recruitment program

You can't expect to be spoon-fed this stuff because the public, and therefore the mainstream press, don't really care enough about it for it to get a high profile. If you pay attention to the proceedings of places like RUSI, Chatham House, etc, you will see plenty of fairly candid stuff from all of the service chiefs. And your point about the reputation of the General Staff is wrong - the reputation of the TELIC / HERRICK generation of staffs has rightly taken a blow, which will no doubt become a hammer blow on publication of the Chilcot Report, but the current chiefs are well thought-of. Look at the Government's commitment to 2% of GDP on Defence - you can hardly say it was electioneering because they didn't make it until afterwards. Achievements like this are in part the result of slow, patient and discreet influence upon ministers by the current batch of chiefs, who have largely managed to repair the damage done to the reputation of the "Blair's Wars" era of leaders.

[Courtney Mil]

Sir Nicholas was absolutely correct to answer the question openly when asked. As others here have rightly stated his response was a statement of fact and he has also made it clear that it was not just a matter of opinion. Corbyn set out his position on the use of nuclear weapons publicly and that has the potential to completely undermine a cornerstone of Britain's defence, something that CDS is duty bound to uphold and to make sure the public understand. That is not politics, it is a competent leader performing his duty.

If Corbyn feels it is a personal attack it can only be because someone far better qualified than he to speak on this issue has demonstrated why the public statement of his personal ideology is dangerous to the security of the U.K. CDS has not criticised the man, just the public announcement of his position and the undermining of UK Defence Policy in (IMO) a very foolish way. I should add that position is not even Labour policy.

It's Corbyn that has made himself look like a leftie fool, not CDS and he is understandably feeling pretty stupid about it - hence his outburst.

Well, spoken, Sir Nicholas.

[Easy Street]

Having just had a moment of clarity I will add one more thing. Taking the Clausewitzian view of the relationship between warfare and politics, absolutely anything the CDS says can be interpreted politically. He cannot avoid the political sphere precisely because he is part of it. There is a difference between making a factual statement that can be interpreted politically, as CDS did, and entering the realm of party politics; it is Corbyn that has dragged it into the latter through his response to CDS.

[beardy]

From the BBC report:

Asked about Mr Corbyn's refusal to use nuclear weapons, Sir Nicholas said: "It would worry me if that thought was translated into power as it were."

The maintenance and deployment of Trident is a military task. The decision to aquire and use it is political. The expression of worry is that the politicians may undermine and withdraw the deterrent. That is a political comment.

"Most of the politicians I know understand that and I think that, dare I say, the responsibility of power is probably quite a sobering thing and you come to a realisation, 'I understand how this thing works'."

I agree that this is an implication. But it implies that Corbyn and his ilk don't understand the responsibility of power and don't understand the principle of deterrence. (They may not, but pointing it out influences votes.)

For the record I agree with CDS's comments wholeheartedly, just not the platform he used. I fully support the decision to acquire and maintain a deterrent. I do not support Nuclear disarmament. But this would be a political decision based on best advice. CDS's thoughts and advice are for him to give to the politicians to help them understand the gravity, reponsibility and cost. He should not cast aspersions on the integrity, maturity and responsibility of the politicians in public. That way is dangerous. I recall the military rumblings over Wilson, not good.

[exuw]

beardy

I'm with you all the way on this one.

But I grow weary of trying to get people to understand that it isn't the CDS's place to go on national television and answer a specific question relating to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition's previously expressed distaste of a nuclear deterrent.

It is not a case of Corbyn bad, CDS therefore good because he has got up and contradicted the basis of Corbyn's position.

It should be a case of Corbyn bad, other politicians (including some on his own shadow front bench) good with the CDS adopting the position of shutting TFU.

[taxydual]

MATT has it right.

Matt cartoons witty political cartoons and satirical sketches - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=11984850&cc=11971107)

[OmegaV6]

Beardy .. I still think you are completely wrong, CDS had a DUTY to speak out IMHO. Try looking at it this way, a tad extreme but hopefully makes the point ...

A political leader makes the decision to deploy British troops to a war zone - that is a political decision that CDS must obey - however, if that politician then publicly announces that those same troops cannot take any ammunition with them in case they are tempted to use their weapons, then he is putting the troops in "harms way" by limiting the military use of the weapons provided and I would expect CDS to speak out to protect his troops.

The political decision to own nuclear weapons has been made, and until that decision is reversed - which I agree is outside the remit of CDS - then the statement that they will not be used potentially puts UK PLC in harms way, and CDS is right to speak about the matter when asked.

[Pontius Navigator]

Beardy, CDS didn't use the Marr programme as a platform, Marr did that.

CDS had two choices. Answer, as he did, or obfuscate for which he would have been pilloried.

An invitation to go on the show in full uniform was right and proper on this particular Sunday. Corbyn' s position had been made clear weeks before. Of course we don't know if CDS was sandbagged of prewarned.

[Chugalug2]

PN:-

CDS didn't use the Maar programme as a platform, Marr did that.Absolutely agree. We've now grown to accept that our National Broadcaster has a political agenda all of its own, despite being funded by a tax levied on all its licence payers, irrespective of their individual beliefs.

I suspect that their agenda is to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity, and to encourage the Labour Party to unseat him as leader in favour of one that it considers is more electable. The Marr interview was merely one manifestation of that agenda, and any effect it might have on CDS's future, good or bad, is immaterial to it.

That is the elephant in the room, the BBC's constant interference in the national political debate, rather than any professional facts produced by CDS.

[OmegaV6]

Chug .. totally agree ....

The BBC no longer even try and "report" the news as it happens .. they spend most of their time (and budget) trying to "make" the news in their own light.

:(

[Rosevidney1]

I agree with OmegaV6. Luckily a number of foreign news channels (some in the English language) are available to those with freesat, as well as any number of sites a click or two away on the computer.

[melmothtw]

Luckily a number of foreign news channels (some in the English language) are available to those with freesat, as well as any number of sites a click or two away on the computer.

RT?
Fox News?
CCTV?
Press TV?

Spare me!

Oddly, despite all the BBC-bashing that goes on in this country, it is still the source of news most trusted by those outside of it.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcreut_country.html

Here Are The Most- And Least-Trusted News Outlets In America - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10?IR=T)

BBC and The Economist top the list of outlets that are trusted by every ideological group

You (and the rest of the world) will miss it when the Tories have their way, and it's gone.

[Chinny Crewman]

And your point about the reputation of the General Staff is wrong - the reputation of the TELIC / HERRICK generation of staffs has rightly taken a blow, which will no doubt become a hammer blow on publication of the Chilcot Report, but the current chiefs are well thought-of.

I would contend that the current chiefs are the TELIC/HERRICK generation. Gen Houghton was I believe the senior British Military officer in Iraq overseeing the withdrawal, he was then CJO for the first couple of years of Herrick and he's been VCDS and now CDS for ELLAMY and SHADER. The jury might still be out on SHADER but the others are looking like pretty disastrous military adventures.
As for the 2%; political showboating for an international audience, it's all smoke and mirrors unless you have inside info that the security budget and military pensions won't be included in the 2%.

[Pontius Navigator]

To save you looking:

Least - while BuzzFeed and The Rush Limbaugh Show are at the bottom.

Actually the WSJ is trusted by every group.

Interestingly the BBC is only 50-50 amongst Conservatives.

[GroundStart]

I remember reading the obituary of Sir Michael Beetham in the Telegraph. In it was a short paragraph about when he was CAS:

He inherited the appointment at a difficult time and at a relatively young age. Recognising the seriously impaired morale of the service following the heavy cuts his predecessors had been compelled to accept, he set about restoring some stability and improving the terms of service of RAF personnel.

Along with his fellow Chiefs, he had to address the severe problems of service pay, which were seriously hindering recruitment and causing an exodus of skilled people. The need for the military to meet the demands of the fireman’s strike at the end of 1977 brought the issue into the public domain. By the middle of April 1978, the Labour Government had not addressed the matter, so the four Chiefs released details to the national press.

The story was covered in considerable detail and it attracted much public support but it earned the Chiefs a very sharp public reprimand from the Prime Minister. Within a few weeks the Armed Forces Pay Review Board recommended a significant pay increase. On his first visit to an RAF station after this result, Beetham earned a spontaneous round of applause.

Is there any difference in what the current CDS has done currently than what Sir Michael and his fellow chiefs did then? I believe not, some may say otherwise.

[Chinny Crewman]

"Is there any difference in what the current CDS has done currently than what Sir Michael and his fellow chiefs did then? I believe not, some may say otherwise."

Yes;
The chiefs back then were commenting on political decisions that were having a detrimental effect on the military. They did so after trying to make their point in private.
The current CDS did not speak to Corbyn about his "worries", Corbyn's stance currently has no bearing on the military (and in all probability never will).
Gen Houghton was playing politics and I question why?

[jindabyne]

I agree with you Thomas coupling. Rather like Foot, it won't be an issue ere-long.

[JFZ90]

"Most of the politicians I know understand that and I think that, dare I say, the responsibility of power is probably quite a sobering thing and you come to a realisation, 'I understand how this thing works'."

I agree that this is an implication. But it implies that Corbyn and his ilk don't understand the responsibility of power and don't understand the principle of deterrence. (They may not, but pointing it out influences votes.)

I heard him say that and I took it the other way - he was implying that if Corbyn came to power, the responsibility of his position & the logic behind the deterrent may be better explained and he may come to change his mind/view on his position (hard as that is to believe). Seems a very uphill battle but I think that is what CDS was hinting at - he was actually giving Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on the strength of his position and giving him leeway to modify/adapt his position.

[beardy]

You may be right. Either way it enters the realm of judging his suitability as Prime Minister. Fine as a personal opinion, not fine as a public one from CDS in uniform on television.

[Courtney Mil]

Beardy, you are stating things that CDS never said. He made no mention of Corbyn's suitability to be a future PM.

Furthermore,

The expression of worry is that the politicians may undermine and withdraw the deterrent. That is a political comment.

No, was an expression of fact that he would be concerned if Corbyn's opinion were to become government policy. He said nothing about any future government scrapping the nuclear deterrent. THAT may have been a political statement, but CDS chooses his words more carefully than you.

He should not cast aspersions on the integrity, maturity and responsibility of the politicians in public.

I don't believe Sir Nicholas cast any aspersions, he stated that Corbyn's stance would worry him if it were government policy.

Not once did Sir Nicholas mention or point to Corbyn's integrity, maturity or responsibility. If CDS has demonstrated the danger of Corbyn's statement then it is Corbyn that made himself look foolish.

Of course, it may well also be the case that Corbyn never expects to be PM and is simply using his new position to undermine a military capability as a prominent CND leader - rather cynical perhaps, some might say treasonous.

But the bottom line is that too many people have jumped on the outrage bus about a very straightforward answer to a straightforward question. He said he would be worried if a future PM were to state publicly that he would not use his nuclear deterrent. He made no statement about a future government's policy on maintaining a nuclear deterrent.

[Chugalug2]

melmothtw:-
despite all the BBC-bashing that goes on in this country, it is still the source of news most trusted by those outside of it.Probably because they are not interested in the biased slant it puts on coverage of UK domestic politics, which are not a very high proportion of the content of the BBC World Service anyway. That, as a reminder, also now comes out of Licence Payers pockets.

As to the list of broadcasters that you pooh pooh, I couldn't agree more. Then again, like those foreigners that you say approve of the BBC, I don't have to pay for them either.

I'm not saying that the BBC should go, I'm not sure the Tories are either. I'm just saying that like every other broadcaster in this country (with the present exception of Channel 4), they should pay their own way. Then perhaps they would stop building Taj Mahal like palaces for themselves around the country and putting full salaried producers on extended home leave. They would then be forced to consider their audience as paramount instead of themselves.

[Courtney Mil]

^^^ I think you assume that some mythical group of people that you refer to as the BBC actually spend their time dictating to each and every presenter, programme maker and editor what questions to ask and what opinions to push. That is absolutely not the case.

[Easy Street]

Chinny Crewman,

Houghton being CJO for early HERRICKs puts his fingers slightly in the mangle, but remember that at that time the single-Service staffs (especially Army) had far more influence than they do now. You only have to read Lord Richards' autobiography to realise how much CGS and ACGS, and not PJHQ, were driving things. As for ELLAMY, the subsequent descent into failure of the Libyan state in no way changes the fact that the military efficiently did what it was tasked to do; I do not believe that it reflects poorly on Houghton at all that the wider structures of government failed to come up with a comprehensive strategy to exploit military success.

[melmothtw]

^^^ I think you assume that some mythical group of people that you refer to as the BBC actually spend their time dictating to each and every presenter, programme maker and editor what questions to ask and what opinions to push. That is absolutely not the case.

Spot on, as usual, Courtney.

Speaking as 'media' I can assure the more conspiratorial of folks on this forum that in the BBC at least there is no 'they' and there is no 'agenda'. That both sides of the political spectrum often call out the Beeb for not being impartial at times, probably indicates that they are getting the balance about right.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Beardy, you are stating things that CDS never said. He made no mention of Corbyn's suitability to be a future PM.

Furthermore,..........

.......... He made no statement about a future government's policy on maintaining a nuclear deterrent.

Well said. :D:D:D

[beardy]

Coutrney Mil

No, was an expression of fact that he would be concerned if Corbyn's opinion were to become government policy.

Spot on. This is a comment about Corbyn's political agenda (which Corbyn would like to see become Government policy), which is outside the remit of his position.

[langleybaston]

QUOTE
Speaking as 'media' I can assure the more conspiratorial of folks on this forum that in the BBC at least there is no 'they' and there is no 'agenda'. That both sides of the political spectrum often call out the Beeb for not being impartial at times, probably indicates that they are getting the balance about right.

As media you will be aware that this is not the view of the customer. The BBC is a service industry. The informed customer is always right.

[Arclite01]

This is the thing with being in Opposition. It's easy. You can rubbish the Government, you can come up with unrealistic policy options - no one ever holds you to account.

Being in Government is hard. People see what you do, they hear what you say, they can make you answer questions, and worst of all you have to make decisions which can come back and bite you on the a£se............. (whether the responsible individuals care or are capable is a different question :})

As Government history crucifies you - but the Opposition rarely gets a mention.....

Lets see whether Corbyn changes his position WRT the deterrent if he ever gets into power ............. suddenly you realise the aspects that you never did when you were sitting on the opposition benches - the spin offs of economic impact, technology impacts, geography, world position and so on............ decision to be made that are far bigger than the single question of 'would I really use the deterrent ?' - the question is more likely to be 'Would I shaft the country and myself if I drop this deterrent ?'

The real issue is Corbyn is old school 'left wing'. They never align with the views of what they perceive to be right wing militarists. The clash with CDS was/is inevitable - it's just a matter of timing.

Arc

*Perhaps we should call ourselves 'Freedom Fighters' rather than militarists - he'd probably think it was an OK occupation then..............

[Chugalug2]

CM:-
I think you assume that some mythical group of people that you refer to as the BBC actually spend their time dictating to each and every presenter, programme maker and editor what questions to ask and what opinions to push. That is absolutely not the case. Nothing so crude. It is more a case of only recruiting "people like us", and divesting yourself of those who clearly aren't. The message then gets round quickly to "encourage les autres". If they were an independent profitable company they could try retaining that same business case, but I think it would prove very unsuccessful. Successful independent broadcasters have to look to serving their audience rather more.

melmothtw:-
That both sides of the political spectrum often call out the Beeb for not being impartial at times, probably indicates that they are getting the balance about right. Both sides of the spectrum are often pleased with their stance. This Marr interview is a case in point. By pointing up Corbyn's limitations as a prospective Prime Minister (courtesy of CDS), they please both the Tories and the Parliamentary Labour Party. So that makes their intervention into party politics alright? Not in my view. That privilege is for the electorate alone which the BBC then records, not the other way around. The BBC is the elephant in the UK media room. People in that room need to be careful lest they be trampled under. People like you melmoth?

[t43562]

Surely any broadcaster is going to be too left for some and too right for others? Surely it is just a part of life that this is inevitably so? I think the idea that there is any such thing as absolute neutrality is very hard to imagine starting, for example, with what one considers newsworthy, what aspects to concentrate limited time on and so on.

In any case where is the public supposed to get "neutral" information about how their defence system works so that they have at least the opportunity to make logical decisions? Do the professionals have to avoid explaining how it works now and why in case that steps on the toes of some odd politician out there that is selling some wierd alternative idea?

[Momoe]

Chinny crewman,

The vast majority of the service personnel involved in the nuclear deterrent perform the endless drills despite hoping that it never happens, they remain focussed and committed knowing this.

Are you saying that a politician making a statement that he wouldn't use the deterrent under any circumstances because of his stance on nuclear weapons isn't demoralizing to the service personnel? (Assuming that said politician is in a position to exercise that option).

[Chugalug2]

t43562:-
Surely any broadcaster is going to be too left for some and too right for others? Of course, you are absolutely correct. The problem is that the BBC presents itself continually as being both balanced and neutral, which as you so rightly say it can't be. No doubt it does so because it is funded by a compulsory tax, but that merely points up the contradictory nature of its existence.

I know it is one of our holy cows, along with the Archers and the NHS, but in these days of streaming via the internet and countless channels accessible via Cable and Satellite, the Beeb is no longer the monolith that it once was. The fact that it is so much admired around the world should give hope that it can indeed survive, nay flourish, on its own.

It isn't the Beeb per se that is admired so much as the products of all the creative people that it employs. They will still be around and in demand if it is privatised, and then the BBC can if it so wishes openly display its own political allegiances (probably of a Social Democratic nature I presume, so no doubt the Lib Dems would welcome that ;-). Even so they might well be advised to then curtail the number of women with U.S. accents that populate Radio4, and who are forever haranguing us about how we should behave as a society. That might pose problems for them, as I presume they are here because the U.S. doesn't want to hear from them either...

[Chinny Crewman]

Chinny crewman,

The vast majority of the service personnel involved in the nuclear deterrent perform the endless drills despite hoping that it never happens, they remain focussed and committed knowing this.

Are you saying that a politician making a statement that he wouldn't use the deterrent under any circumstances because of his stance on nuclear weapons isn't demoralizing to the service personnel? (Assuming that said politician is in a position to exercise that option).

I don't think it's any more demoralising than a number of decisions taken by politicians over the last 15 years on which this and previous CDS have chosen to remain silent. I'm actually pretty sure that if you ask most members of the military today what they find demoralizing they would say erosion of pay and allowances, reduced capability and lack of strategic direction. A hypothetical situation 5 years away, I doubt it. However if Gen Houghton thought that Comrade Corbyn's position on the deterrent was having an adverse effect on forces morale maybe he should have spoken to him about it and not gone on a flagship political program to 'worry'.

[1.3VStall]

CC,

And when, pray, did CDS express the opinion that Corbyn's position was affecting morale?

He didn't!

Like many on this thread you are attributing to CDS words that he did not use and opinions he did not express. In short you are talking bolleaux.

And if you don't believe me then either read the transcript of the interview, or watch it again before you post any more tripe!

[Chinny Crewman]

CC,

And when, pray, did CDS express the opinion that Corbyn's position was affecting morale?....
In short you are talking bolleaux.


Oh dear! I suggest you read the post properly before commenting 1.3. I was quoting a previous post where someone else commented on CDS comments affecting morale.
I suggest you read things properly before resorting to name calling!

[Momoe]

1.3VStall,

I posted the suggestion that under Corbyn those service personnel involved with the 'Nuclear deterrent' might question the point of the exercise.

I fail to see how this could not affect morale and I respect your right to disagree, what I don't respect is your tone and your haste which led you to accuse the wrong party.

Hope you like egg

[MSOCS]

Hey kids, your Mums just called. They said it's about time you stopped talking Politics and came home for your tea.

[glad rag]

Hey kids, your Mums just called. They said it's about time you stopped talking Politics and came home for your tea.

Telling post indeed MSOCS :cool:

[Courtney Mil]

Spot on. This is a comment about Corbyn's political agenda (which Corbyn would like to see become Government policy), which is outside the remit of his position.

Beardy, you are obviously set to make an issue of this and are clearly not reading what others are saying - in this case me. Let me try to explain my point again. CDS did not make a comment about Corbyn's political agenda. As I said before, he made no comment about the possibility of the U.K. abandoning its nuclear deterrent. His answer to a very clear question was about a possible, potential Prime Minister declaring that he would never USE the UK's deterrent.

His response made no reference to Corbyn's wish to scrap the UK's deterrent, which IS Corbyn's agenda and that IS political.

Am I being obtuse here or are you not reading what people write or are you just using this MILITARY forum to make a POLITICAL point?

[Chinny Crewman]

Courtney I think everyone can see what you are saying but I believe the point is this;
CDS went on a flagship political program on one of the (if not the) most important days in the military calendar and chose to comment on a subject that is currently highly political. It matters not that he was asked a question and answered it, we've all had 'media ops' training. That he was stating facts is also irrelevant, surely the fact that his interview caused much comment on social/print/televised media proves that he was interpreted as being political and so he was at best being foolish at worst in contravention of QRs?

[Courtney Mil]

CC, I'm pleased you can see it, Beardy seems not to see the difference between our military leader criticising politicians or policy and expressing his concern about a remark that undermines UK security as it stands.

Your point is well made, but I think you're also slightly trying to find ways to politicise Sir Nick's statements. Yes, it was on a Political programme and, yes, it is both a political and Defence issue. The media interest that followed his comment points more to the reasonable response of many newspapers, broadcasters and twitterazzi (made up term, but you know what I mean) to reflect anything that grabs the public interest; that doesn't define it as political.

I know QRs would have forbidden me to make public statements concerning Military Policy or about military matters in general. But the (somewhat poor) military PR machine is allowed to. If CDS sees himself as a part of that machine (I suspect he should) then QRs don't prohibit that. I have to admit that I've never read QRs end to end.

[Chinny Crewman]

I have to admit that I've never read QRs end to end.

I'm not sure anyone has!
An interesting thread with differing opinions expressed largely in good humour. I suspect we will all have to agree to disagree and this will die a death.
Onto the SDSR announcement, I suspect that will throw up some interesting posts!

[Courtney Mil]

Well, it may well die a death now that Her Majesty has brought him into the fold:

Queen gets Jeremy Corbyn to bow by gluing a pound to the floor (http://newsthump.com/2015/11/12/queen-gets-jeremy-corbyn-to-bow-by-gluing-a-pound-to-the-floor/)

[beardy]

CM,

No need to shout 😉 The only political point I wanted to make is the defence of democracy. I really don't like Corbyn, but he has a right to free speech, unimpeded by involvement of the military. I happen to agree with CDS's comments. I just don't think he was wise to make them in a forum that could give anybody the chance or opportunity to attack him nor them.

We are extremely lucky to live in a country where the military keep out of politics. Well I do, you live in France where post war events in North Africa led to military inspired violence and bloodshed in the metropole. (At the time the Gendarmerie was also a part of the military.) They are still remembered, bitterly by some, fondly by others. The divisions they created are diminishing, but are still there. We should learn how to avoid that in the UK.

The whole thing is pretty academic, but there are important points of principle. It's not worth falling out over until there is direct action.

[Chugalug2]

beardy:-

We are extremely lucky to live in a country where the military keep out of politics

Well, they famously didn't in the last century, until the Queen Mother told them, "I don't think that would be a very good idea, dears". Uniquely a fine mess that Lord MB didn't manage to get us into...

[Pontius Navigator]

Regarding QRs, which version would CDS read?

Is the light blue version still called QRs and ACIs, or has that been changed?

Thread drift warning:

CM, you missed a treat and possibly a load of dosh. I rarely opened QRs and didn't find an allowance or wrinkle. The one I liked best was the right of a living in officer to retain his room, appropriate to his rank, except where the station commander so ordered, in writing and with reason.

[Geordie_Expat]

It is amazing that we get guys moaning that no-one in high places says anything about anything until they retire, then we get a CDS who answers a question whilst in post gets slagged off. Make your minds up, people, you can't have it both ways. CDS has every right, indeed the duty, to state THE FACTS. It was not political conjecture.

[Chinny Crewman]

It is amazing that we get guys moaning that no-one in high places says anything about anything until they retire, then we get a CDS who answers a question whilst in post gets slagged off. Make your minds up, people, you can't have it both ways. CDS has every right, indeed the duty, to state THE FACTS. It was not political conjecture.

That's partly my point Geordie, I'd have more respect for him and the rest of the General Staff if they did speak out more often. However in this instance CDS was commenting on a hypothetical situation 5 years away. I'd be happier if he'd talked about the 10 year pay freeze/1% cap or the dangers of capability gaps.

I acknowledge the point made earlier regarding speeches at RUSI etc... however the Marr show v RUSI doesn't really compare.

[Courtney Mil]

OK, this is becoming a somewhat pointless discussion because one or two folk here are reading into others' statements that which they wish to read to support their own arguments rather than the writer's intent.

And that is particularly the case with Sir Nicholas Houghton's answer to a question that was a part of, not only of a much longer and wider-ranging interview, but also just one of very many interviews between Andrew Marr and many politicians, commentators and military people. CDS himself has featured many times in these interviews and has commentated openly and far more politically on numerous subjects without any of those currently riding the outrage bus ever remarking about it. That has only really happened after one somewhat extreme politician has made a fuss about it. Where were you all when CDS and others were commenting on important matters with a link to politics before Corbyn got all up himself about it?

By the way, the transcripts of all the very many similar interviews are available. If you can't be bothered to find them I can provide links.

Given the number of misquotes and adventurous interpretations of Sir Nick's response, here are the actual words:

ANDREW MARR: Of course we now have the leader of the opposition who says quite openly he would never press the nuclear button. Does that worry you?

GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Well it ... it would worry me if that, er, thought was translated into power as it were because ...

ANDREW MARR: So if he wins, he’s a problem?

GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Well there’s a couple of hurdles to cross before we get to that.

ANDREW MARR: Of course.

GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: But the reason I say this – and it’s not based on a personal thing at all, it’s purely based on the credibility of deterrence. The whole thing about deterrence rests on the credibility of its use. When people say you’re never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent you know every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don’t have to use it because you successfully deter.

ANDREW MARR: So no point at all in spending billions and billions of pounds if our enemies think we’d never use it?

GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Yeah because deterrence is then completely undermined. And I think people have got to ... You know politic... Most of the politicians I know understand that and I think that, dare I say, the responsibility of power is probably quite a sobering thing and you come to a realisation ‘I understand how this thing works’.


Two points to note.

CDS only stated that he would be worried if the thought that a Prime Minister would not use the nuclear deterrent under any circumstances were publicly stated. He made no reference to Corbyn, simply the public announcement of such a thought. In fact, when Marr tried to tie CDS's response specifically to Corbyn, CDS dismissed the premise, quite rightly, by saying that "there’s a couple of hurdles to cross before we get to that." His reply referred to the thought declared publicly, nothing to do with Corbyn saying it.

The rest of that part of the interview was explaining why declaring the thought publicly negates the deterrent effect of being a nuclear power and noting that politicians generally get that.

Nowhere in his careful response did CDS ever say, express or hint at any of the following:

Disrespect to the Leader of the Opposition,

Disagreement or disapproval of the Leader of the Opposition's political views nor his intention to scrap or undermine the UK's nuclear deterrent,

Morale in the Armed Forces,

Judge Corbyn's suitability to become Prime Minister,

"Answer a specific question relating to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition's previously expressed distaste of a nuclear deterrent" (he commented ONLY about his worry about the public expression of such a thought,

Use the Andrew Marr programme as any kind of platform.

I highly recommend to those that are so outraged by your own perception that this is a military leader making political comment that you go and find the transcripts of more of Marr's programmes and then think a little more. You may just find that you have been induced to react by Corbyn's embarrassment at his own folly and by some press sensationalism that followed.

As to continuing conspiracy theories about a mythical BBC agenda, to those that still think the Board push people out for political reasons, just look at the very wide (political and social) range of programmes the Corporation airs, many not actually made by the BBC and many that are totally opposed to your supposed BBC stance.

[Mach Two]

Courtney Mil,

A very well reasoned post, thank you. The line between military openly answering such important questions and treading on politicians' vegetable patches is very fuzzy. In this case, CDS has trod very carefully and skilfully, as he always does - you should try speaking at one of his meetings without thinking it through very carefully.

I see your point and fully concur. I hope the hard of thinking will actually take the time to read it all. :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

You think, Mach? I suspect not, but thank you anyway.

P.S. Congrats on new post.

[ShotOne]

..and it is exactly this predictive statement which shows Corbyn's judgement in such a poor light. I defend his right to be a unilateralist, to campaign on the subject and even his right not to press the button in the final event. But to make the public pronouncements about what he would do at this stage shows the most galloping self -indulgence and lack of judgement.

[MACH2NUMBER]

CM,
Good well reasoned post, CDS trod very carefully, others lost all reason.

[NutLoose]

Never fear they have the top team now on the shadow defence side..... errr Ken Livingstone..


Ken Livingstone has refused to apologise for comments about a shadow defence minister despite Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urging him to do so.
Mr Livingstone told the Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-would-not-press-6544513) Kevan Jones - who has suffered with depression - needed "psychiatric help".


He ( the Shadow Defence Minister) should fit right in


Mr Corbyn's spokesman said he was "incredibly concerned that people with mental health problems shouldn't be stigmatised".
He added: "He has worked with Kevan in the past on this issue and is impressed by his bravery in speaking out on his own mental health issues. Ken should apologise to him straight away."


Now PC'ness aside, is that really a person you want deciding Military policies ?


Ken Livingstone refuses to apologise for 'mental health' comment about shadow minister - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34853430)

[glad rag]

The trouble is, for OUR democracy to work properly you need an effective and viable opposition.....

What a bunch of twunts the current opposition [liarbour] are indeed.

[Easy Street]

NutLoose,

I think you need to clarify your post. Are you suggesting that Kevan Jones or Ken Livingstone is really 'a person you want deciding Military policies'?

Kevan Jones was Veterans' Minister in the MoD during the Brown government and had been on the Defence Select Committee before that. As I recall, he was a knowledgeable and thoughtful individual and did "fit right in" as you suggestively put it. I don't see why having had a past depressive episode should cast any doubt on his ability to fulfil that role. I think it is probably desirable that ministers bring a range of different life experiences into government. In any case, I suspect a great many more servicemen (senior decision-makers included) have suffered mental illnesses than any statistics could reveal, for the very reason that Mr Jones stated in the house - they don't talk about it.

Now, if you are saying that Ken is unfit to be involved in military policy-making, I would tend to agree - not because of his left-wing views, which he is entitled to hold and apply to policy, but because of his long history of association with and support for individuals and movements antithetical to our national interest. Of course that can't stop Corbyn appointing him - but it should stop anyone taking the results of their policy commission seriously. Does anyone think that Ken might have a "lightbulb moment" and suddenly sign up to Trident renewal? No, I didn't think so.

[Chugalug2]

The trouble is, for OUR democracy to work properly you need an effective and viable opposition.....

Wise words, glad rag. Some here boasted that they had paid their £3 sub and voted for Corbyn. Well they succeeded and, according to "a senior Conservative Minister", we are about to go to war. At the very time that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition should be holding the Government to account, they are instead going into self destruct mode. That may make life easy for the Prime Minister, but it bodes ill for this country.

I wonder what the aim of this next adventure is. There isn't one? Who'd have thought?

[NutLoose]

Yes, Ken Livingstone, Easy.

[RileyDove]

'wonder what the aim of this next adventure is. There isn't one? Who'd have thought? '

Preventing POW pilots being burnt alive after social media votes -stopping gay people being thrown from buildings -airliners being blown up - city centres being attacked !

Chugalug - is internet search disabled on your pc or have you decided not to watch television or read papes ?

I guess you think ISIS are 'misunderstood' !

[Chugalug2]

'wonder what the aim of this next adventure is. There isn't one? Who'd have thought? '

Preventing POW pilots being burnt alive after social media votes -stopping gay people being thrown from buildings -airliners being blown up - city centres being attacked !

Chugalug - is internet search disabled on your pc or have you decided not to watch television or read papes ?

I guess you think ISIS are 'misunderstood' !
Riley Dove, my PC is for a change functioning well, thank you. I doubt very very much that the aims you suggest will be achieved by bombing. On the contrary they are likely to be exacerbated. I suggest that your aims, and any other similar ones, can only be achieved by seizing and holding ground where these and other atrocities are being carried out. How are you going to do that if, as we are continually being assured, there are to be no boots on the ground?

The Iraqi Army is just a bad joke, achieving the dubious distinction of being second only to Saudi Arabia as the principle supporter of ISIS (or whatever we are supposed to call those monsters this week). The Syrian Army is too busy tackling its President's real opponents to bother too much with ISIS. The Kurds are the best bet, but supplying them is a no no because they are marginalised by Turkey, a NATO member. So whose boots will you put there, RD? Yours?

How many of these ill advised adventures does it take before the penny finally drops? The real Elephant in the Room is Saudi Arabia. Is that the war we want, or simply the one we will be dragged into? Wars are very easy to get into, especially when urged on by such as yourself. The tricky part is winning them and kidding yourself that what you set out to achieve has been...achieved. As I said before, what is the aim?

[RileyDove]

Who said there are no boots on the ground? There are plenty of advisors on the ground.

'The Kurds are the best bet, but supplying them is a no no because they are marginalised by Turkey, a NATO member'

Except for the fact that Canadian forces have been helping them on the ground.


Indeed get on with it ! Maybe you should look into the treatment of the American woman who had her finger nails removed and was tortured and raped in the hands of ISIS if you feel that justification for war is 'thin' .

Wage an air campaign - remove the ability to regroup day and night -make movement impossible and watch them splinter as you degrade their ability to function. When that is achieved -let the ground forces finish them.

[Lonewolf_50]

The Iraqi Army is just a bad joke, achieving the dubious distinction of being second only to Saudi Arabia as the principle supporter of ISIS (or whatever we are supposed to call those monsters this week).
Actually, the current Iraqi army is fighting ISIS, and recently took back Baiji. But I don't consider them a very strong fighting force.
The Syrian Army is too busy tackling its President's real opponents to bother too much with ISIS. They are limited in effectiveness, to be sure.
The Kurds are the best bet, but supplying them is a no no because they are marginalised by Turkey, a NATO member. So whose boots will you put there, RD? Yours? Believe it or not, the US support for Kurds continues. Hopefully the UK will join in providing some support to them if they have not already. (I hear that the Israelis were supporting some Kurds a few years ago, but I'm not sure where or for how long or how credible that report was).
The real Elephant in the Room is Saudi Arabia. Agree.
As I said before, what is the aim?Fair question, and each head of state seems to have a different answer.

[Chugalug2]

There are plenty of advisors on the ground. I wonder if you have any idea of the bells that phrase rings? Vietnam started with advisors and ended with an army of conscripts defeated by little men with bicycles.

...let the ground forces finish them. What ground forces? Assad has no need to send in ground forces to deal with ISIS that are being bombed "day and night". His priority is defeating the Free Syrian Army and the rest of the Syrian opposition. Putin wants his Mediterranean Bases so that he can assert his power there, and can do so as long as Assad is in power. The Kurds I grant are fierce fighters, but their ambition is for a Kurdish Nation, and once they have seized that territory their interest in rescuing those such as the American woman you instance will be marginal. This is Real Politik, and the UK should only go to war if it cannot be avoided and if it can win. Win what? I ask again, what is the aim?

[RileyDove]

There is nothing to 'win' its not poker ! Its about stopping people who have no moral compunction and respect no borders . Do you not remember Bin Laden ?

Do you really think Assad cares about the Free Syrian Army ? He has the might of Russia on his side -peace talks will soon mean a departure for Assad for a nice vacation home on the Red Sea and the factions will decide that they want Syria and not ISIS.

[Easy Street]

Riley,

Events in Sangin amply demonstrate that if the aim is to deny safe haven to extremists, the only answers are permanent occupation or strong, competent sovereign government. Our Syrian strategy delivers neither.

[Chugalug2]

RD:-
There is nothing to 'win'Well you know that, and now that you've told me so do I. I just wonder though if the Saudis do, or their proxies, ISIS?

its not poker ! Thank heavens for that, or the guy with the poker face from the East would have taken the dupes, Obama, Cameron, Hollande, and Merkel to the cleaners!

LW50:-
Believe it or not, the US support for Kurds continues. Hopefully the UK will join in providing some support to them if they have not already I wonder what the price of that support might be? What have the Kurds been promised? Will those promises be kept? If it is to become a nation in their own right, it will be at the cost of Syria, Iraq and Turkey who will surround it and presumably be hostile. The Kurds will be dependant thereafter for continual financial aid and armaments from their sponsors. Remind us of a nearby state?

It seems to me that this adventure will depend on assurances made to Russia and to the Kurds by the West. The former will make the most of that in renewed influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. The latter would be well advised that the solemn and binding undertakings agreed upon are worth any paper whatsoever.

[NutLoose]

I wonder if you have any idea of the bells that phrase rings? Vietnam started with advisors and ended with an army of conscripts defeated by little men with bicycles.



Ahh, but there was a lot of them, and they did Raleigh to the cause...


I'll get my coat :rolleyes:

[glad rag]

Wise words, glad rag. Some here boasted that they had paid their £3 sub and voted for Corbyn. Well they succeeded and, according to "a senior Conservative Minister", we are about to go to war. At the very time that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition should be holding the Government to account, they are instead going into self destruct mode. That may make life easy for the Prime Minister, but it bodes ill for this country.

I wonder what the aim of this next adventure is.

Pseudo Autocracy by the back door.

"whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control"

[glad rag]

http://thumbsnap.com/s/LGsV19z6.jpg


"Just Do It."

[skridlov]

The current chaos in Syria seems to defeat any reasonable prescription, even if its genesis is all too obvious to anyone who isn't viewing it from the preconceived position that most western politicians take. Let's just observe that we don't hear the phrase "Arab Spring" too much these days.

One source of excellent reporting on the region comes from what many might regard as an unlikely source, namely the New York Review of Books whose website makes some of the content available to non-subscribers. The following link is from a recent issue and describes the activities of the Kurdish opposition. The Kurds are in the unenviable position of having their heartland split between Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran and have been steadily consolidating their interests over many decades, against fierce opposition, with the ultimate objective being an independent Kurdistan.

It may well be that the Kurds are the only faction likely to come out of the current conflict with any benefit. Of course the Turks (who have contributed hugely to the current devastation of Syria) are scared witless of an increasingly militarily equipped and experienced Kurdish autonomous region. The article's well worth reading by anyone with more than a superficial interest in the conflict.

The Syrian Kurds Are Winning! by Jonathan Steele | The New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/dec/03/syrian-kurds-are-winning/)

[Hangarshuffle]

The whole war countdown is so useful for the Conservatives on so many levels. They have very successfully focused attention onto Corbyn and away from the close scrutiny of the debate. All 4 major UK broadsheets have focused on Labour splits to a greater extent than the real issue.
Its a crying shame for our democracy, and generally shows up the current incredibly shallow level of attention of our nation.
Glads yes he dresses poorly in that photo and obviously lives amongst the ordinary people, is that such a bad thing, really? I'm more interested in what he and many are saying about the state of the debate, our so called free press, the reason for war, and many other uncomfortable topics of the minute.

[Kitbag]

If Corbyn could come up with a coherent and adult argument that would sort of help hold the government to account (the role of HM Loyal Opposition). The Labour Party have saddled themselves with a kind of Pinocchio figure; he wants to be a real politician but he isn't mature enough to not need all his strings pulling.