Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Corbin and CDS Squaring-Up

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Corbin and CDS Squaring-Up

Old 10th Nov 2015, 05:09
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
....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.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 07:32
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,397
Received 40 Likes on 22 Posts
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.

Last edited by beardy; 10th Nov 2015 at 07:42.
beardy is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 10:09
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 553
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
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.
t43562 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 10:47
  #64 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,131
Received 215 Likes on 62 Posts
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.
Herod is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 12:37
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe the public do need educating Herod but it is not CDS job to do so.
Chinny Crewman is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 12:58
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Essex
Age: 65
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wot Chinny said.

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.

Last edited by exuw; 10th Nov 2015 at 17:45.
exuw is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 13:39
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,397
Received 40 Likes on 22 Posts
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.
beardy is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 15:10
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,196
Received 415 Likes on 191 Posts
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.

Last edited by langleybaston; 10th Nov 2015 at 15:12. Reason: errata
langleybaston is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 16:13
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,397
Received 40 Likes on 22 Posts
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.
beardy is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 16:15
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,196
Received 415 Likes on 191 Posts
Beardy have you read Hennessy please?
langleybaston is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 16:57
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,397
Received 40 Likes on 22 Posts
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.

Last edited by beardy; 10th Nov 2015 at 17:08.
beardy is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 17:22
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,397
Received 40 Likes on 22 Posts
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.
beardy is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 19:05
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
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.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 19:35
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Essex
Age: 65
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
exuw is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 19:49
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 661
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 20:42
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,851
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
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
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 20:44
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
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
SOSL is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 20:50
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
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.

Last edited by Melchett01; 10th Nov 2015 at 21:04.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 21:30
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Essex
Age: 65
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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.
exuw is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 21:46
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
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.
Melchett01 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.