I wish ..

[Churchills Ghost]

.. there would be a new structure installed to govern our Armed Forces.

For, at the end of the day if you have a cabinet who fail to appreciate the crucial nature of successfully managing the military, or who are in any way indisposed to the military, then the Armed Forces will forever be kicked about and mistreated.

In Thatcher's day (despite her lack of service experience) this was not a problem but subsequently, well, that's another story.

What I would like to see is an utterly reformed hierarchical arrangement within the government with the appointment of a military Chief of Staff who's powers incorporate those of the Defence Minister.

This Chief of Staff would be a member of the cabinet and there would no longer be a Defence Minister, the Chief of Staff would assume the minister's responsibilities as well as acting as the primary adviser to cabinet on all matters pertaining to the military.

There should be a cross-party agreement that the post of Chief of Staff (Defence) be non-politically aligned and the post occupied by a candidate elected from among the three services and rotated (as at present) between them.

The Chief of Staff then serves the nation by managing the Armed Forces with the executive powers formerly held by the Minister of Defence, by acting as primary adviser to the government on defence issues (as a member of cabinet) and by supporting the work and life of the Forces with the benefit of his own experience as an active serviceman.

Such a person, if chosen well from a board of senior staff across the services, would have the opportunity to develop the potential of the Armed Forces, to "sell" this potential to the government at every opportunity and, crucially, the defend the Forces from within the heart of government.

One of the key strategies of this new structure would be to eliminate much of the bureaucracy within the Ministry of Defence and to streamline this with significantly smaller administrative units (perhaps in some cases devolving authority to specific units and branches).

An arrangement along these lines would give our Armed Forces a chance at survival, of developing their own unique abilities and enabling them to truly serve our country to the very best of their ability.

As I say, a wish!

[Ken Scott]

I can't see the politicians going for that one, placing the armed forces out of direct political control. The COS would obviously oppose all attempts to cut his budget which wouldn't suit any party. As a non-MP he wouldn't be able to answer questions in Parliament either which would mean that someone else would have to do so instead - PM or Foreign Sec? Defence would therefore lose its direct voice in the House of Commons. It would also mean that the Head of the Armed Forces was an appointee rather than elected which is not really the way our democracy functions.

Still, given the irrelevance that defence commands in the eyes of most of the population & its elected representatives then perhaps removing it from their immediate sight would not be a bad thing, they could continue to ignore it until such time that they might want to invade or attack something.

[Churchills Ghost]

It would also mean that the Head of the Armed Forces was an appointee rather than elected which is not really the way our democracy functions.

The way it is functioning at present is not to everyone's pleasure.

Though the CoS wouldn't be elected from a normal constituency he would be elected from among senior members of all three services. The finer details of how something like this might work are somewhat irrelevant but I am interested to hear any views on how a head of defence who has the sort of powers I have outlined might serve not only the Armed Forces but the nation.

[ShotOne]

Right, so you want our armed forces to be answerable only to an unelected unaccountable individual who can't be removed? There's certainly plenty of precedent. Just go to North Korea or latterly Egypt or any number of places where soldiers strut about in reflective ray-bans.

[Churchills Ghost]

Not what I'm suggesting - at all. The "details" of how such an appointment would operate are so hypothetical that it does not merit setting-out such a plan, only (for me at least) the contemplation of a situation where you have a theoretical chief of defence who cannot be bullied by government.

Having said this, in my "model" the CoS would be answerable to cabinet who would have to agree to his suggestions and recommendations, much as they do in managing decisions at present. The difference in the model I am suggesting is that you are removing important layers of bureaucracy as well as replacing the political head with a serviceman.

Can anyone see what I'm getting at?

[Roland Pulfrew]

as well as replacing the political head with a serviceman.

I can see what you are getting at, but how about a different tack? Firstly mandate it that SofS and a number of the Ministers must have served a sensible minimum (TBD) length of time in the military before being eligible to become a minister or SofS Defence.

Second, encourage retiring service personnel to stand as MPs. I find it a little galling that both labour and the coalition keep encouraging retiring service personnel to join the teaching profession/police/fire service/NHS etc but studiously ignore becoming an MP. If you look at some of the Hansards from the 20s there were a significant number of MPs speaking in the House who were former serviceman. Lets face it, any reasonably decent serviceman can turn his hand to any number of jobs in civvie street and can usually become very successful in the companies for which they work. I'm pretty certain that some of us could do a significantly better job of running some government departments than the current or previous incumbents, particularly those career politicians who don't really have any proper skills!

[smujsmith]

Roland, Sir,

Succinctly put. No doubt the more, dyed in the wool PPruners, might grate at such heresy regarding "professional politicians". Sometimes the facts are hard to take.

Smudge :ok:

[Ken Scott]

Roland,

A fine suggestion but how many ex-servicemen are there currently in the House of Commons? Maybe half a dozen? Previous generations served in the world wars so that most had a period of military service behind them but these days very few of the population even know someone who's served let alone been in themselves.

Encouraging ex-servicemen to stand for election would mean overcoming their feelings of revulsion at having to associate with the type of person that normally does that kind of thing.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ken

Don't disagree with you, I've met a few politicians in my time and to quote, was it Blackadder (?), I wouldn't trust some of them to sit the right way round on a toilet. But one has to start somewhere; bringing some decent leadership, moral courage, honour and standards to the ranks of the political "class" might be a good thing!

[Easy Street]

Clausewitz is trotted out excessively, but on this topic his "war is a continuation of politics by other means" is exactly the appropriate quotation. There are only 2 ways to avoid the awkward political - military interface: to have a military government or to have a civilian armed force. Neither of those options are particularly appetising. What we have is not perfect, but it is better than the alternatives.

[ShotOne]

Excellent points, Roland. I can see, and agree with what Churchill is trying to achieve but democracy just doesn't and can't work the way he set out. The core problem is that "people like us" are increasingly disengaged from politics. It would be good to see more ex servicemen standing, or even just becoming involved with (any) political party.

[Torquelink]

A worthy objective but, for the reasons cited, unlikely to come to pass.

Perhaps, (only slightly) more realistically, the military should be taken out of party politics altogether by establishing a multi-party agreement a) that the armed forces cannot be subject to every short term whim of whichever party happens to be in power and b), therefore, the armed forces strategy, objectives, budget and equipment will be agreed on a cross party basis which will maintain oversight but which can only review and change at fixed intervals and then only with a significant majority of all parties so agreeing. If this can allied to a mechanism whereby the military exercise greater direct control over e.g. procurement to ensure less "spec creep" and fewer cost overruns, so much the better.

[Churchills Ghost]

Roland, this would be fine but I suspect that the sort of ex-servicemen who would be of greatest benefit to government really don't want to go anywhere near parliament (as has been mentioned). Moreover, the trend is for politicians to distance themselves from military service. It isn't too hard to imagine Lib/Lab types seeing any kind of military service (in their own career) as something of an anathema.

Torquelink, this would be a good start.

[Roland Pulfrew]

to have a military government or to have a civilian armed force. Neither of those options are particularly appetising.

Oh I don't know - a military government might not be such a bad thing..... :suspect::E;)

[Basil]

Although I'm aware of exceptions such as LT, I doubt that many of those for whom this website was created would be interested in standing for Parliament.
I do know a couple of Army officers who may have considered politics; must ask.

[MSOCS]

The Conservative Party | People | Members of Parliament | Bob Stewart DSO MP (http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_Parliament/Stewart_Bob.aspx)

Col Bob has always been a firm advocate of Defence through his limited political career since leaving the British Army.

I for one wonder if it has become an unwritten rule these days to prevent ex-mil to reach the highest levels of cabinet, especially when some recently problematic Pol/Mil relationships have been outwardly embarrassing (e.g. Hoon/West).

[4ROCK]

Roland's right - lets get some more representation in the Commons - but I don't think 'hiding' amongst the pathetic shambles that currently exist is the way to go about it...........how about our own party - the Khaki Party..?!

Deposits being taken for anyone interested.......!

[Jimlad1]

I strongly disagree - I think it is vital for a civilian to lead on defence, and preferably one who comes at it 'fresh'. The reason being is that Ministers will come without baggage, and be willing to question sacred cows and ask hard questions. This encourages people to really think about why something is happening or not.

To bring a military guy into post would merely put someone who has spent a career thinking one way, and who subconciously probably has a series of biases or views, which they are less likely to question.

Frankly, if the military are unable to make a good case for themselves when briefing new Ministers, then they should ask whether this is the fault of the Minister, or their fault for being unable to articulate clearly what they need.

As for culling bureaucracy, my experience is that the Armed Forces excell at creating it, not cutting it!

[Heathrow Harry]

How would this Military God figure interact when the Treasury "no cash available squire"?

He/She would have no authority, no public backing and no constituency

What we need is more CROSS PARTY Agreement on defence so that a newly elected Govt doesn't just trash their predecessors ideas out of hand

PS and remember that the Blessed Margaret wasn't as big a fan of the military as you think - she was behind the Nott Review, supported a £240 mm cut in the defence budget in 1983, delayed and cut back innumerable programs etc etc

[Churchills Ghost]

PS and remember that the Blessed Margaret wasn't as big a fan of the military as you think - she was behind the Nott Review, supported a £240 mm cut in the defence budget in 1983, delayed and cut back innumerable programs etc etc

I know she was not unequivocally supportive of every pro-military initiative but I also well remember her willingness to support defence overall, much of which seems lacking today.

but I don't think 'hiding' amongst the pathetic shambles that currently exist is the way to go about it...........how about our own party

Perhaps the best suggestion yet.

[ShotOne]

While I agree with the motivation behind your suggestion, Churchill, your namesake would have been appalled. Winston famously described our constitutional system as the worst possible way of running a country....with the exception of all the other systems tried so far! Alternatively you could move to Burma!

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Great thread CG. :D

Bliar, Brown, Camoron - what next for Britain? :sad:

4ROCK sign me up for the Khaki Party. :ok:

[high spirits]

On the other hand.....

Dannatt, Jackson, West, Stirrup.

No thanks. They all let the side down in one way or another.

[Churchills Ghost]

high spirits I think you may have been taking a little too much of your own medicine, either that or you never met Richard Dannatt!

You must be off your rocker if you think he didn't try and do his level best to support our boys at every turn during his time as CGS!

Criticise people by all means (if you must) but get your facts straight first! I am genuinely stunned! Dannatt was made of the right stuff. :ugh:

[high spirits]

CG,

I don't doubt that they were all well intentioned. But each were partly responsible for an enormous budget overspend of the last 2 decades, and did nothing about it.

Hence the brutal cuts we have just been through that have seen some 'good men and true' leave the 3 Services out of bitterness and despair.

In my book, they are all just as culpable as the politicians. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your point of view. It's purely my opinion...

[Churchills Ghost]

No problem with the conflicting point of view, just that in Richard's case he actually went to extraordinary lengths to defend the forces and so I wouldn't have put him in such a list, in fact, quite the opposite.

[smujsmith]

Jimlad1,

"I strongly disagree - I think it is vital for a civilian to lead on defence, and preferably one who comes at it 'fresh'. The reason being is that Ministers will come without baggage, and be willing to question sacred cows and ask hard questions."

Ministers come with the baggage of "collective responsibility". Jesse Norman is a prime example. Sacked for not voting in line with the PMs requirements. Hardly a sign of encouraging a "fresh approach". And all pollies come with baggage AFAIK. Some things need taking away from the childish, often obsessive, foibles of professional politicians. Just try to explain the logic of cutting force levels, and committing to more military tasking to anyone with a brain. No offence mate, but if you are going to run your military on a shoestring budget, you need to let the military choose where and how it gets spent, then step back.

Smudge

[high spirits]

CG,
I'm sure that they all defended 'our boys'. But they all ignored the ever growing elephant in the room. Those that are left are now living with the legacy of the last 2 decades. Fleets of aircraft and ships gone. Redundancies and poor morale. I could go on but you've no doubt heard it all before.

I for one am tired of seeing them on sky news every time something new crops up. I'd rather they just quietly retired and considered what they have left behind. I respect them as men who tried to stand up to the pollies. But ultimately they are neck deep guilty of the mess we are in now.

[Basil]

Great thread, and courteously discussed. I certainly appreciate the views stated here.
(Just don't mention VC10 Cosford :E)

[Party Animal]

CG,


You must be off your rocker if you think he didn't try and do his level best to support our boys at every turn during his time as CGS!




And that was the problem! Great man to fight the Army corner on every level but not good for UK plc. CAS and CNS were just as bad though fighting for FJ, carriers and submarines. Personally, I would like to see our military leaders removed from the debate on the future structure and capability of our Armed Forces, so that a neutral cross party organisation could get the balance right for the UK and fund it accordingly, as well as having a long term plan that succesive governments would have already signed up to.

Dannatt was probably 'the' key advisor to Cameron and Fox in opposition leading to political bias in favour of the Army once in power. Good for the Army for sure but is it really best for Britain? Is our balance appropriate right now? If so, please tell me why as an island race with 90% of our commerce delivered by sea, we have no Maritime Patrol Aircraft of any sort?

[Churchills Ghost]

And what is then, in your opinion, the "right balance"?

What I want to see is the Armed Forces protected and not trashed and which I fear may happen.

Re: the maritime patrol aircraft, this was just one of many MoD c*ck-ups (on a grand scale) and was never planned to have happened (the abrupt decommissioning of the Nimrod). It was a purely political move. However I know for a fact that the Boeing Poseidon is being touted as a potential replacement. This is where a pro-military person in a position of responsibility can be of effect.

[Hangarshuffle]

I know this is done to death but he successive Government Ministers around the period 1974 to about the late 1980s had:
Callaghan (RN), Heath (I think Army Intelligence), Enoch Powell (Army Intelligence?) Pym (Army I think), Benn (fighter pilot), Healey (Army), Whitelaw (Army), Carrington (Tanks) and so on and so on - all or most had served. Most with WW2 combat experience. But perhaps crucially all were non professional - simply had to serve because of the circumstances and their time.
It must have given them a feeling,an understanding and a massive advantage understanding for the problems faced by service people of all ranks at all levels.

There is simply a complete absence of that sort of experience on the present opposing benches, and so it shows, deeply and almost every week.

Many of the 1940-45 Churchill war cabinet had WW1 combat experience and service.
Different times, people, country.
Hardly helpful to this thread, do carry on.

[Party Animal]

CG,

Unfortunately, the reality is that an Army CDS would join in with CGS to insist on the parochial view that more tanks and more infantry is what is needed, out trumping the single arguments of CAS arguing for more FJ sqns and CNS arguing for more submarines. The debate is there to be had on what is the right balance for the UK but independant defence analysts with pan Westminster input would hopefully listen to the defence chiefs but ultimately make an unbiased judgement on the path to follow - with a strategic plan out to 30 years agreed by all parties.

[Churchills Ghost]

Hangarshuffle, true words indeed.

PA - is that political Party Animal by any chance? ;)

[Heathrow Harry]

Hangarshuffle - you forget that Heath was in the artillery as well - even commanded a firing squad post-war

his conclusion was that a united Europe was a good thing

Callaghan stood head and shoulders above the rest in using his military experience in power

Of the non-servers Heseltine was a disaster whereas the vile Portillo was apparently actually very switched on

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Alternatively you could move to Burma!

Having read through most of this, I think that simple sentence makes a very important point. Total authority isn't always a good thing. Additionally, we have this minor impediment; the Constitution. That leads me to a secondary point that the head of our Constitution is dear Aunty Betty. Instead of pursuing some of the totally unconstitutionally feasible wishes expressed here, why not change Her Majesty's constitutional status? Allow her the right to overule Parliament on military matters?

Carping about the military credentials of former and current politicians is largely irrelevant: they are politicians. Remenber that it was former assault Beachmaster Healy who confessed on the BBC that he, (as Deputy PM) would not have authorised a nuclear counter strike!

[Heathrow Harry]

we do not have a written Constitution - it's a mish-mash of tradition, custom & practice and bits of law

I am sure that HMQ will remember what happened on Tuesday, 30 January 1649 to the last Monarch who overode parliament and gave directions to the Military............. :(:(