At what point should the head of a military organization take direct responsibility for a foul-up?
The theoretical answer is - very early on. However, for the current issue, which is what one would earnestly hope was in the nature of an one-off, I'm not sure that I would expect it to merit a resignation at that level.
This is especially relevant when one considers that on the occasion of the last notable resignation in the UK, when in 1966 the then First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir David Luce, resigned in protest over the issue of the cancellation of CVA-01, which I hope I may describe as a much more serious long-term issue, it scarcely caused a ripple even in the short-term.
I appreciate that this was not strictly a foul up as such, since the real villain of the piece was Denis Healey, but that to my mind only serves to enhance the level of Admiral Luce's integrity.
In the same context, it will be interesting to see what happens at the top if/when the Royal Navy's two promised carriers are cancelled.....
Incidentally, in 1966, the entire Admiralty Board, including the Navy Minister, tendered their resignations but were subsequently dissuaded from doing so by Admiral Luce on the basis that such an act would have far too great long term consequences for the Navy.
Jack
PS Back to la belle France - I appreciate that General is not a para, but did he jump or was he pushed?