J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of governme

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by brazenhussy, Apr 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Another fence sitter :lol: :lol:
  2. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    I've always Sir Michael in high regard, he make some very pertinent and telling points about the mindset of the VSO's… too interested in brown nosing for their Knighthoods and not enough backbone.
  3. Another one taking the tabloid shilling to promote his new book. Pot, Kettle, Black
  4. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    aaahhhh... Good old general rose. All perfectly correct except the facts that:

    1) The RN hasn't been to war since 1945. Thats right. The army who single handedly defeated the argies in 1982 got to the Benny islands using the Tardis...

    2) Nobody in the andrew can think for themselves. Except for example during damage control.

    Other than that General Rose, yes you can have the morale high ground. Just like he did when he was UN ProFor c-in-c and left a British citizen to bleed to death outside his camp gate.
  5. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    Good article. Some mistakes but ........................
  6. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    I agree with the sentiments of where he is trying to go RR, don't get me wrong, but what this needs is an admiral (any will do, there are more of them than surface ships now) to sort the Navy out.

    Although to be fair to the people in the andrew now, they are doing a bloody good job. Whether its the right job, with the right kit, with the right leadership is something that the General Rose et als of this world can discuss at book signings.
  7. IMHO I have no knowledge of General Rose or in fact brown jobs in total what he did say in one part of his article is just correct.

    "Rose believes it is vital that we now retrain, re-motivate and, above all, renege on the damaging clause in the Treaty of Rome which submits the Armed Forces to civilian rules and jurisdiction."

    The MOD and all three forces should be removed from all legislation such as Human Rights, Health and Safety etc. and a New Armed Forces Act constructed. (I will volunteer Maxi, ACC, UncleAlbert, Slim and myself for the job)

    All currently serving personnel would be given the choice of being made redundant with compensating for Change of Contract as all who remain would be paid compensation for change of contract. Then start to rebuild outing any who will not change their "Nanny" approach to Service Life.

    We of course would have to with draw from most active duties for a few years.


    But we are of course safe as I am regularly told by members of this board because we have a Nuclear Deterrent so nobody will kidnap our Servicemen. (Its called tongue in cheek OK)
  8. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    I think where he is trying to go is to ensure he maximises the sales of his new book, it really is pretty poor to use one of he papers which failed in it's bid to get L/S Turney's story to then have a go at the whole episode.
  9. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    Agree with sweeney - I'll ask my dad what he was doing ashore in the jungles of malaysia/borneo with the booties - arsing about in boats up the river then??? maybe the medal he got for being wounded in action from the malaysia Gov was for that nasty spider bite he got - and ask the families of the naval gunners who supported our RM mates there who where kileed :evil: :evil: :evil:

    ...now breathing deeply and calming down..
  10. So unlike you Nutty.
  11. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove


    Lets be fair about this the Royal Marines have been fighting continuously since 1945 at some place in the world. Dishing it out and receiving incoming fire which means taking casualties. When in the same period did the RN take or be under risk of incoming fire to any thing resembling a warship. 1950 Korea, 1956 Suez (albeit for a very brief period) and 1982 Falklands. Hardly a long record of active service the last being 25 years ago. Lessons learnt in WW11 had long been forgotten by 1982, Aluminum in ship construction, toxic wire insulation, melting No.8ts. etc.

    My guess is that the Marines were just included in the boots on the ground troops commitment and not as part of the Navy but as a separate entity of ground troops.

    I think in this whole debacle the Corps honor still rides high which cannot be said of the all the others involved from ratings, Officers in local command, Admirals, MOD and Politicians

  12. Strange that he never felt the urge to say any of this when he was in uniform, responsible for and in a position to actually do something about it himself. Of course that might have affected his pension.

    Still, on the bright side, it's bloody lucky for him that he chose to go public with his disgust at the same time as he has a book that needs promoting. What are the odds eh?
  13. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    ...and what about the time me and me oppo almost ended up coming to blows with a particularly aggressive shitehawk on the flag deck of leeds castle? Feck me nutty it was brutal. Anti flash and pussers neat all over the shop. Windy was totally correct to agree with me.
  14. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    fair point nutty - It just seemed that he was having a go, being a squaddie an all :wink:
  15. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove

    you should carry on agreeing with me windy. Nutty is pretty much ******* bonkers. I'm right.
  16. Re: J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of gove


    well sweeney, they do say shore is hell :roll:
  17. I don't agree with some of what General Rose says (that the Iran Hostages should have laid down their lives rather than be captured, for instance) but he does make some very valid points. The crux of his point is that the Navy is, sadly, not fit for purpose any more & this is what needs to be discussed at every level, as a matter of some urgency. What is the Navy for and what does it need to carry out its functions (equipment, training, political support, culture)?

    Whilst we have to retain some semblance of high end ASuW and ASW capability etc in an offshore environment etc in order to meet the possibility of threats as yet ill defined, we do not seem to have grasped what it is that is needed in order to operate effectively in the assymetric and littoral environments. We are still trying to carry out tasks with unsuitable equipment because there is ongoing "group think" that results in us consistently equipping ourselves with small(ish) numbers of "blue water" type assets when these are not suitable for a significant number of the tasks that are required of them.

    This is not the first time that this criticism has been aired. I once interviewed the late Alan Clark MP - then MIn DP - in connection with my In Servce Degree thesis (c1991-92) and he complained that the "Admirals had not realised that the cold war was over and were still too busy trying to justify outdated cold war procurement decisions for kit that was no longer needed". Sadly, I think that he was right and Gen Rose would probably argue that nothing has changed.
  18. Smoothbore.

    Some good points, and you effectively highlight a fundamental problem for the services as a whole, the lack of a formal agreement between the government of the day of what the country needs from the services and the provision of the resources to achieve this.

    I agree the Cold War I was involved in no longer exists, although not all of that threat has evaporated, Russia is probaly more unstable than it was during the cold war and a traditional way of leaders dealing with such instability is to indulge in a little bit of foreign war, Remember Galtieri. Just last night there was a bit on the news about some Russian publicly declaring his intent to topple Putin. At the same time we are also far mor involved in what is euphemistically called 'Peace Keeping' or Nation Building etc. So the needs for the services are more diverse than the Cold War but the resources less and continually under threat.

    The lack of balance between what the polititians want to do and be able to do and the funding they are prepared to supply to achieve that needs to be addressed with some real urgency. Until this is done we will continue to see the forces failing in the eyes of the public and the downward spiral continuing.

    Now having said that I would in no way suggest that the men and women serving are any less than those who served with me, all they need are the tools and support.
  19. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Much of what the "General" says is merely common sense and sweeping generalisation, I agree with most of it in a sort of "overview, not very constructive but needed to be said" sort of way, it loses credibility due to the obviously self serving way it has been timed.

    Management of the Armed Forces from a governmental perspective has been poor since the end of the Cold War, the constant state of flux in response to exactly what our role is has merely served to perpetuate a persistant sense of reactionary procurement and reactionary leadership.

    When you couple this with the way that the Government has constantly forged on with unpopular Human Rights and civilian management/ finance initiatives by applying them to Government departments first (as an example) it is no wonder we are in the perceived state of today.

    It is all well and good harping back to the good old days when the Armed Forces were huge and morals reflected those broadly felt in civvi street but it doesn't help. The current situation where we are engaged in two large and unpopular conflicts serves to only seperate us from the civilian population who in turn feel that their taxes are being squandered on inappropriate, expensive and in their view unnecessary equipment (they after all do not need a bullet proof vest which actually stops bullets)

    Politics has become a media game as has, to its detriment, the Armed Forces. No longer is the most needy cause supported but the cause that can shout the loudest, attract the most sympathy (although desensitisation by over exposure has become a serious problem) and has the best contacts within the media industry benefits, even when the competition for that support is between the individual Armed Services.

    The Armed Forces is nothing more than a reflection of our society, it always has been and probably always will, to deflect our society from their self obsessed, narrow, "wealth by litigation" and equality for all course is the name of the game. How you do that I have not got a bloody clue!

Share This Page