Political/Military interface
I was wondering...
If, following a Cabinet decision, CDS is told (by Des Browne) to plan for military intervention in A.N.Other country (say Russia, following US VP remarks), what happens if CDS says "No"?
To put this in context, if a rifleman is ordered to attention by an NCO and fails to do so, he is bang to rights. MML etc. If an RAF doctor is ordered to train and equip for deployment, and fails to do so, he is bang to rights..
If the CDS, CGS, CAS, 1SL etc reply "no" to a (albeit Cabinet level) civvy, where is the distinction? I cannot imagine a General/Air/Flag officer being CM'ed for such a decision.
More likely, he would be sacked and replaced by a "yes man". When said "yes man" finds something he cannot do in all conscience, he must say "no".
So where does the distinction lie?
Any NATO 4* or above cast any light? Failing that, anyone else to speculate....
(edited for (ashamedly) spelling)
Last edited by Roadster280; 8th May 2006 at 00:54.