Why Do Our Current Leaders Sound Like Politicians?
 

Discuss..................................................... .......

In earlier days in the MOD we had a military line and a political line. The lines are increasingly blurred.

We need to get back to a clear delineation between what is good for the Treasury, what is good for the Country and what is good for the Military.

Probably the same reason that the Military is now a referred to as a business.

Probably because, with one or two exceptions, that's exactly what they are; manoeuvring with an eye on the main chance for their next promotion - or am I being too harsh?:*

Probably because if their lips are moving then you know they are lying, the Brize debacle is living proof of that :(

Oh! for Gods sake, the top leaders of all 3 services have always been politicians…….that’s why they became the top leaders. There is nothing new here…..get away from reading the Sun, Mail and News of the World and try reading some decent history books……….sorry...... I bit:ugh::ugh:

I would suggest that if they weren't then we'd be even more f*cked than we are at the moment....

In the last Century "War" was something that all Politicians were familiar with - for example Winston Churchill had charged with the 21st lancers at Omdurman in 1896, escaped from capture in the Boer War - became 1st Lord of the Admiralty prior to WW1 and later Commanded an Infantry Battalion in France. Clement Attle was known throughout his political career as "The Major" having commanded an Infantry battalion in France in WW1.

NONE OF THE PARTY LEADERS IN PARLIAMENT TODAY HAVE ANY MILITARY EXPERIENCE.

It therefore follows that as the Politicians do not understand the Military then the Leaders of the Military have to express themselves in terms that the Politicians DO understand.

You're 50 and I'm retired. We must both remember "Leaders." Remember when only Leadership and not Management appeared on a F1369?

During my first tour in MOD in the 80s, I remember when organisations such as DJW and the FPMG actually had teeth. During my last tour I had to read the MOD "line" which looked terribly familiar! I'm a big IO practitioner but we need to break the link between the media line and the Services needs.

I must check out the Sun. Don't get to read it now I'm retired and don't have access to the Mess. Not sure the broadsheets offer any more enlightened views nowadays..........

Cazatou,

A very good point you make, but you fail to mention that in those days’ politicians and top military leaders saw the masses of servicemen as cannon fodder. Those leaders did not have to consider the death of a single airman, squaddie or seaman with the fear that it would be reported all over Sky News. They were able to “just do it” without any question. Today’s leaders have a far greater responsibility to look after the troops and they have a far harder job to do than their predecessors from history.

Bruggen in the mid 70's Johnny W____r now there was a leader, the only politics he was interested in was what was best for his station and it's people.

Yes Sir!!!!!!!!! Oooh geehovah you are so butch and masterful.


Watching a documentary, recently, about one of our more inspirational politicians and leaders, Winston Churchill, in which it was said that his proud boast was that he, had “never visited a shop”. If a man born in a palace and into the aristocracy could capture the hearts of the masses and convinced them to suffer and die for their country...
I wondered just how important it is for Air Officers to be men/women of the ordinary Officer or Airman/Woman. Some of the current Whitehall lot get accused of being 'toffs' - with the implication that this means they are out of touch with reality - but which is more important? That they have good leadership qualities and have the courage to take tough, even unpopular decisions ... or that they 'feel our pain', empathise more than impose, and are nothing much out of the ordinary?

At the surface level, they sound like politicians because they've all had the same media awareness training.

At the next level, it's because we all know there's no point fighting battles you can't win. So our Lords and Masters have decided to do their best in trying cicumstances, then take the Sir-ship and retire. I mean it was either that or PVR. Maybe a mass resignation at some point might have made a difference, but given subsequent events I doubt it.

Come on; since the Cold War our PMs have successively been:
The son of a clown, with no O levels.
"A complete pain in the backside" who even dodged the Cadet corps at school.
A man who cut military budgets 4 times during wars then lied about it.

What hope did they have of getting any sense out of any of them?

It's enough to make you PVR and emigrate. So I did.

I ask this as a genuine question rather than a social dig, but would a certain aloofness and social dislocation from those they lead not actually make it easier to take the tough and unpopular decisions?

The use of 'Leadership' and 'Management' monikers is an irrelevance. Neither make you 'Political' or 'non Political'. As SENNAPS stated our leaders have always been political animals otherwise they wouldn't survive at that level amongst the career politicians. So maybe there should be a differentiation made between those that are politically astute rather than those that have become politicians? We need our senior bods to be politically astute to save getting shafted even more by the governing elite.

Since you phrased it in an academic fashion, allow me to quote a dead German:

"War is a continuation of politics by other means" - C. von Clausewitz

The boundary between the military and politics has to happen somewhere in the command chain; the place where that happens in our current structure is between the 4* and 3* ranks. If you read the doctrine about command, you'll see that "strategic" encompasses politicians and the very top level of the military (ie CDS and his staff)... therefore it's not much of a stretch to say that CDS and the single-service chiefs are effectively politicians, not commanders. The senior operational commander is CJO, a mere 3*.

One alternative is to have civilian leaders with military command responsibilities. The Americans do - kind of. The Germans used to in the 1940s. I'm not sure we need to mess with our current system, which keeps the military aspect of things neatly decoupled from government.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a.... ;)

A passed over Rear Admiral once told me: 'The upper ranks are like a game of snakes and ladders, only there a lot more snakes than ladders'.