Yea, but what do the MOD know about military leadership?

I think a PSW politician is the man to choose these things...

The last four-star Marine served in 1977.

Rather later than that, according to the attached biography of General Sir Peter John Frederick Whiteley

Jack

Come on! Rotation is finished. Best man got the job. RN will get a go if the right man is available. Why not see if this guy is good enough?

How do you justify that statement?

He is not the man that the MOD recommended.

He is a politicians choice.
That is not a universally recognised stamp of quality in military bosses.....

This thread would give the impression that the RAF finds him a universally popular choice and a generally all round good bloke.

I don't know the man, but I currently work with 95% ex RAF.

A little bit of asking the RAF/Army guys got these responses.

RAF chap 1:- "Tw@t. Typical F3 angry nav"

RAF chap 2:- "Quite clever, utter @~~t"

(personally, I find that latter response quite heartening since that is exactly what I do want running the military)

Army chap "Used to work with him and Admiral Z at different times when I was in PJHQ. Admiral Z is a lovely bloke, used to make me drink with him. Completely barking like Melchett off Blackadder. Mad as a fish. New CDS however is an awful arrogant ill-mannered human being"

The Army chap also had some very interesting info re the behind the scenes manoeuvring and why it has turned out like it has which I await with interest to see what the future holds. He thinks that the Marine might be being prepared for the top job.

He thinks that the Marine might be being prepared for the top job.

Moi aussi!:ok:

Jack

Tourist,

I wouldn't rely on the opinion of your first RAF mate - Stu Peach never flew in F3s (except if he ever had a pax ride!)

Fair enough! It's possible I misheard the type. He seemed quite confident of his assessment though.

Hmm, this is the MOD that has destroyed an airworthiness system, tried to blame the MoK pilots, attempted to procure the Nimrod AEW3 and MRA4 and, who's most recent track record is to prove its inability to manage a fleet of air cadet gliders.

Why would any sensible politician accede to the MOD's advice?

Oh, and Tourist, I have served on the same sqn as Peachy and utterly refute your ex-RAF mates denigration of him.

I am with Courtney Mil: the best man for the job.

Tourist

If you're still serving you should PVR immediately in disgust. That'll show them.;)

After all, that's what many on the 'shop floor' demand our VSOs should do when they don't get what they want.....

Love it!:D

Politicians are better than MOD at choosing military men!

Ah, no!

The job of a CDS is to advise the Prime Minister.
The previous guys either put across bad plans for the wars or failed to dissuade ministers from employing bad plans.

Either way, it is not disgust they should resign in, but shame!
They have failed to do their primary task.

We know this because we lost.
Twice!
There is never an excuse for losing a war of our own choosing....

I, by contrast, do my task with an average amount of success, thus no impetus to resign whatsoever:ok:

Tourist,
I also served with him and I do think him to be the best man for the job. I also disagree with your ex-RAF chaps' comments: he's not quite clever, he's very clever. Apart from that, they're totally spot on!

Tourist, you seemed a little cynical about:

"Politicians are better than MOD at choosing military men!"

You do know who/what MOD is?

Chiefs of the Defence Staff are appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Defence to the Prime Minister

Tourist,

Your straw poll of EX-RAF mates is not representative of CURRENT mates, RAF or otherwise. I'm sure you will hear and beleive what you choose to hear and your obvious bitterness that it's not a RN guy will continue. All I can tell you is that the vast majority of currently serving "chaps" are delighted with the selection and seem, mysteriously, not to share the opinion of your cynical, retired has-beens that have lost touch with today's military - no offence intended to those retired "chaps" that post here with considerable knowledge.

MT,

Matthew 13:5/6

And no offence taken.

Perhaps the current chaps were not exposed to the new man when he was at Wg Cdr/ Gp Capt level.

My understanding is that the MoD Senior Appointments Committee which consists of the Chiefs and various other VSOs recommends 3 candidates to the SoS and the PM then chooses. The MoD has been briefing that the military's preferred choice was Gen Barron but the PM preferred ACM Peach.
I don't know any of them, I'm sure they are all equally good but it is a political appointment. Had the PM chosen someone else I'm sure others would say he was the best man over Peach. I think (?) this is the point Tourist is making which has been lost in an inter service slanging match.

Chinny, you are pretty much right, as is London Eye. The submissions go up, through the Secretary to the PM. The process this time was not as cut and dried as you may have "heard" and whilst there was some unofficial briefing, it did not necessarily reflect what was going on. What you may not be aware of is the balls of the PM in picking the man most likely to give the polis the biggest headache on behalf of the Armed Forces. A very interesting choice and not without its reasons.

As for tribalism, be a little careful about whom you level that accusation at.

Tourist should be able to speak for himself although he's a long time out of the Forces, so I doubt his familiarity with the process or the personalities involved.

However it happened I hope the appointment is a success.

As for being careful, it's the Internet no one is careful on the Internet as some of the above posts show but it's not me flaming. Tourist I'm sure will be along in the fullness of time to comment on my assumptions about his opinions.

I love the fact that Ex RAF who agree with you are "chaps that post here with considerable knowledge" and ones that disagree are cynical retired has-beens, and yes, as intimated a few posts back, these are guys that knew him as he climbed the slippery pole, not those who he now waves down upon from above. Where do you think one should go to judge character?

Incidentally, where do you get the impression I am a long time out of the forces?

I have never met the new CDS, but it is obvious from the responses on here that the general trend if not the detail of my advisors is fairly accurate.

Chinny is basically correct. I don't think that it is a position that should be chosen by the PM, and I do think that rotation keeps the worst aspects of tribalism at bay.
The RN will always think their guy is the most suitable, the RAF their guy etc etc.

Personally I believe that tribalism is a good thing in the main, and helps to give something to strive for. Militaries which have gone single service have found it not very satisfying, and while jointery is always sold as fantastic by higher ups, it is often painful as operators for all concerned seemingly often ending up lowest common denominator rather than highest.
A good example is the RN and RM. Totally separate, fiercely tribal, but work fantastically well together

The simple fact is that after x years in a service, you are going to be institutionalised to some degree.
No RN Admiral is ever going to suggest that we should get rid of carriers.
No RAF Air Marshall is ever going to think that the Army are the best people to operate Apache etc etc.

Too much time with any one service at the top will inevitably cause bias at the political level.