On the take from the top.. again.
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6973618.stm

Its all very well for General Sir Mike Jackson to declare that the Americans' policy in Iraq was short sighted and intellectually bankrupt, but why say it now?

Oh, sorry. He has a book coming out. :rolleyes:

In the cold light of day, I wonder if there's much difference at all between him and Faye Turney. They would make uneasy companions in the agent's waiting room I'd imagine, but money is a great leveller of rank whan all's said and done.

Once again, a retired leader who only stands up now to make the comments he perhaps could have done when in post, only now it is to help sell his book. Whilst I am aware of the need to manintain unity of effort in war and it would have been ill-advised to make that statement as we were preparing to go through the berms, this again uses the efforts of others to make money.

How do you know he didn't make waves when he was in the job? It is only now he is a civilian that he can speak publicly.

I remember having a discussion with a 3* officer about the seeming lack of any senior officers in any of the armed forces being willing to speak out publicly in situations like this. His reply was that were he or any colleagues willing to do this, then they would almost certainly be sacked or asked to resign, loss of pension and utter vilification by the MoD/Whitehall PR machine. You might make a splash for about 24hrs but you would very quickly be forgotten and utterly humiliated.

You can blame the senior staffs, but you should be looking at the utterly shameless senior civil servants and their political masters.

He stood up to be counted the time it really mattered....

.......One of (General Wesley) Clark's most argued decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation at Priština International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. Russian forces had arrived in Kosovo and were heading for the airport on June 12, 1999, two days after the bombing campaign ended, expecting to help police that section of Kosovo. Clark, on the other hand, had planned for the Kosovo Force to police the area. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, and was told "of course you have to get to the airport" and "you have transfer of authority" in the area.

The British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, however refused to block the Russians through military action saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you.".......

Clockwork said;

In a way, that makes it worse. Sure, you can't leave with a tantrum about everything you don't like, you pick your battles, but this was a battle worth fighting for don't you think? The way he didn't say this after he left, when he mentioned other things, only accentuates the cynic in me. If he did raise merry hell privately, and he got ignored, why didn't he realise that he didn't have the confidence of his employer and walk? The arguement that he has used about resignation only being effective for 24 hours is neither here nor there, and I think, a touch dissingenious. One resigns because one thinks one's position is impossible, not because one wants to make a statement for more than 24 hours.

The issue of integrity aside, it still doesn't excuse the publishing of a memoir for personal gain. I served under him in UNPROFOR and KFOR.. you can bet your bottom dollar that there'll be talk of him showing the Russkis what for at Pristina in there. Just as Turney had a go at her chain of command, so is he. If he wanted to help injured servicemen, he should have got his arse down to Ashtead the other week.

He devalues and sullies the position he held, he makes it harder for those who follow him (DLB isn't known as dirty lying bastard at Hereford for nothing.. allegadly), he dilutes the effectiveness of those who follow because we know that however hard we'll work like mad for £15k+ for them at the top, they'll always have one one eye on making that in a month. All that talk of integrity and morality doesn't mean a bean. All that talk of the nation and the military covenant doesn't mean jack if all along, you're snorting from the same trough as Turney, but doing it in hardback and not tomorrow's fish and chip paper.

At least Blair has decided to apply the safety catch and keep the publisher pointing down the range for a bit.

The only officer I can remember who has benefited from loss of face. :}

On the real issue, who cares what he really thinks now - it's the book that counts, and believe me he'll be doing a lot of counting.

Golf Echo said, regarding a conversation with a 3* and senior officers speaking out.....

'...were he or any colleagues willing to do this, then they would almost certainly be sacked or asked to resign, loss of pension and utter vilification by the MoD/Whitehall PR machine....'

Why would they lose their pension? Surely, whether they are sacked or resign then they are entitled to the pension rights they have earned up to that date?

As to being vilified by the MoD PR machine ..... my experience of MoD PR is such that most private PR firms could run rings around them.

His reply was that were he or any colleagues willing to do this, then they would almost certainly be sacked or asked to resign, loss of pension and utter vilification by the MoD/Whitehall PR machine.

Ummm, hmmm, a general officer faced with a choice between doing what he believes to be the right thing and loss of his pension should protect his pension. Just great. An inspiring example for all the lower ranks.

I was involved in Kosovo at the time. The Russians when they eventually arrived at Pristina were a rag tag bunch. Out of petrol food and water, borrowing and begging from western troops. It certainly didn't look like world war 3.

That said, Jackson, has shoved his boot in with the Americans at a particularly sensitive time in Basra and Iraq. This is the General who gave the green light to his political bosses at the start of the war when he knew full well that essential kit was not in place in theatre. I can hear criticism of Iraq from anyone but him. The man who willingly took part in huge reductions of manpower in the British Army at a time of war.

Beyond the pale.

Let us just hope that he now intends to make up for his decision making when he could have made a difference. I rather doubt it.

Before you all give Jacko a kicking for being spineless, make sure you kick him for the right thing. Even he was expected to execute the policies and decrees of the Politicians who own his ass. Yes he can argue the details of the policy execution, but not the policy itself. Officers of the Armed Forces are an instrument of the elected Government, they get the opportunity to decide on Defence policy at every General Election, other than that they get on with the duties "and all such Orders and Instructions as you shall from time to time receive from Us or from your Superior Officers for Her Majesty's Service."

It's not a debating shop or the Politburo, it's the Armed Forces for goodness sake.

Like all the whining over the Government gag order, what the hell do you think you are getting into when you swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty? Is there not some clue here that it's a little more binding than a Dixon's extended warranty, or has more gravitas than being in charge of oil changes at Kwik Fit? Did anyone think that just because the Oath didn't mention gobbing off on Blogs or Chat Rooms it wasn't covered? Did "Conduct Prejudicial to good Military Order and Discipline" mean anything at all on those courses you did? Or did you think that just applied to enlisted folk?

Even when Jackson was CDS he had a boss who expected him to get on with his job. Whether he agreed with Military Policy or not, once he had finsihed complaining about it, he was expected to execute it. Sounds like this radical idea of duty and loyalty to the Crown belongs to the "I remember when" thread.

I've never really understood this statement as it relates to the 'loss of pension'. How exactly does the pension system work for these people? I am pretty sure that if I were asked to leave the Service, then I would be doing so with no negative effect on my pension - I have already earned this, and the only thing I would lose would be the opportunity to improve on it over the years I have left in the Service. Ditto the gratuity.
Do these people retire on half pay? Do they remain on the active list? The rates (pay and pensions) available on the internet only go up to 1*. Can anyone shed light?

I would be surprised if someone 'asked to resign' did so without a significant 'pay-off'.

Edited to add:

Where did you get that from?

STH

It's on his Commission parchment! Mine too!

Two's In - of course we have to carry out our superiors' orders.

But the perception now amongst serving personnel of all ranks - right or wrong - is that we are not being adequately and sufficiently backed financially ie politically, manning levels, procurement and equipment.

We are not the power that we once were - that desparately needs to be accepted now. It is long overdue.

Covec
I heartily agree with you but I wonder from your post, who must understand that we are not the power that we once were. The forces or the politicians???
My own personal thoughts are that the forces know we are getting the short end with not enough kit and blokes/esses to do the job, but do the politicians.
IIRC the first Cold War dividend brought howls of protest etc about the very subjects but the Treasury said well if you haven't got the Kit/Men then you wont be able to go will you. We all laughed our little cotton socks of at that!!!
:ugh:

Similar on mine (light blue), but slightly different wording ... I just wondered whether it had changed.

STH

Credit to Mick Smith (ST), for the following article.


December 07, 2006

The Great Man Speaks

General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the army, the soldier’s general, has lashed out at the government for asking too much of his men and at the MoD for not caring enough about them. The great man's presentation of the BBC's annual Richard Dimbleby lecture was a bravura performance. On the difficult problem of Iraq which is exercising so many great minds this week, he has thought long and hard, he says. Some of course – he won’t mention the name of his successor General Sir Richard Dannatt - have called for a swift withdrawal. But the great man has decided that it would be immoral simply to cut and run. Who could disagree with him? Put him on a pedestal, give him a seat in the House of Lords and let’s all stand back and admire the sheer personal courage of a thoroughly decent man who throughout his time in charge of the army tried his level best to hold back the ever increasing demands imposed on his men by the government and the evil monster that is the MoD.
(Rapturous applause)

Sorry, you say. Could this possibly be the same General Sir Mike Jackson who, when he was actually head of the army and they were actually his men, insisted against all the evidence that they were “stretched but not overstretched”? Is this the very same General Sir Mike Jackson who decided that fighting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan was such a bed of roses for his men that he could axe three frontline infantry battalions at a stroke? Is it the same great man - the soldier's general - who insisted that his men were ready to cross the start lines into Iraq with all they needed, amid major shortages of everything from toilet rolls to the chemical and biological filters to protect them against Saddam's so-called “weapons of mass destruction”? Could this possibly be the same General Sir Mike Jackson who when he sent several thousand extra troops into Afghanistan while thousands more were still stuck in Iraq, insisted that there were plenty of men to do the job? Asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr: Do you have enough people? The great man replied: “Yes, We've looked at this very carefully, we can do it - there is no doubt about that.”
But the mere fact that you have asked these foolishly simplistic questions is evidence enough that you clearly don’t understand. Those were dark, dark days and the great man could do nothing, crushed as he was by the evil monster that was the MoD. It didn’t care about his soldiers. It made too many demands on them and didn’t treat them properly. But there was nothing the great man could do because he didn’t even have control of his own budget. “I did not hold the budget for the Army, believe it or not,” he intones. “We have over-centralised in my view, and this has diminished the Chiefs of Staff's ability to take personal charge of the running of their Services. Their ability to determine, for example, personnel matters - pay, terms of service, accommodation; medical - we have not recovered from the disastrous decisions over the medical services which were made in the aftermath of the Cold War, especially where the hospitalisation of wounded soldiers is concerned. There is a perverse reluctance to acknowledge the psychological importance of comradeship in the ward as well as on the battlefield.”
So now surely you understand why the great man was unable to speak any of these great truths when he was actually in charge of his men and actually able to make a difference, why he repeatedly appeared in fact to say the complete opposite of what he says now.
Perhaps someone needs to explain all this to the great man’s successor General Sir Richard Dannatt because he clearly doesn’t understand the realities of life. Even though he is of course still mired in this MoD plot to do the army down, the first thing he did after replacing the great man was to point out how pathetically poorly British soldiers were being paid to be used for Taliban target practice in southern Afghanistan and astonishingly it produced more money. Not enough, the great man tells us wisely but surely something at least. The next thing Dannatt did was shout very loudly that the army was close to breaking point because of the demands made on it in Iraq and Afghanistan, embarassing the government into starting to talk about withdrawing from Iraq, and in between time he managed to ensure that wounded soldiers were treated properly in a military-only ward by telling the defence secretary in no uncertain terms that he was not prepared to accept that his men should be dumped into any bed that happened to be available in a civilian ward just to save money.
Great minds will no doubt ponder and argue among themselves for years to come how Dannatt managed to do all this within a few short weeks of taking over, while the great man could not do it in three long years. Perhaps the readers of this blog could help them unravel what must surely be one of the great mysteries of our time.

Without trying to defend Jackson's inaction in post, we all seem to be in violent agreement that it is the grey men around him in the MoD who are driving the agenda to emsculate and denude the fighting capability of our Armed Forces. The bean counters are totally in control, and as the compensation threads for gravely wounded servicemen/women demonstrate, the price of Glory is indeed a fixed and disgraceful value thanks to Tony and Gordon's "winning wars on a Budget" approach. Generals need to be fighting wars, not politicians, that's what they are trained to do.

Blair's disgraceful removal of military capability through lack of funding will appear to be like the actions of a sabre-rattling South American General by the time Gordon Brown has finished raping the MoD coffers.

When serving Queen and Country became synonymous with acting as an agent of the Chancellor, I think you were given a genuine reason to throw in the towel and not be a part of this National disgrace.

And lots of people are doing just that. However, if the lack of planning was intellectually bankrupt why were the 2 Generals happy to send their men into a nightmare scenario? Why did Jackson help plan and sign up to the Afg war at the same time. They are just bleating now. Dannat probably knows we are sending the Iraqis down the river, but his prime concern is the longevity and integrity of the British Army. Something his predecessors have placed in danger.

Thanks for reminding us of that and at the time I wasn't clear about what he meant. He was the TLB holder for his FLC and I assumed he meant his Logs "tail". That, of course, was in the hands of CDL (with his own TLB) who held equal rank to him and with equal authority on the Defence Council. Somehow I'd missed the point of That said, CDL did have the facility to move funds into the Land Environment by siphoning them away from Sea and Air; which he did. Needless to say, that still wasn't enough and papered over the basic weakness of Blare taking on wars that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wasn't prepared to adequately finance.