Blog powered by Typepad

« It's enough to make you shiver | Main | 'Mantyhose' - where I lead others seek to follow »

Wednesday, 07 March 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

These instances simply prove the truism that politicians/bureaucrats only trust/believe other politicians/bureaucrats.

The cases of politicians ignoring scientific advice (that is from real scientists as opposed to political appointees), engineering (ditto), economic (ditto), military (ditto), let's not forget they ignore the electorate continually and consistently.

Looking at what has been perpetrated against our servicemen and women in recent years one wonders what similar occurrences have happened in meetings with, let's say, a certain Mr Blair. The result? A navy with more Admirals than ships, the RAF soon to be reduced to one squadron of hideously expensive planes (not long at the current rate of reductions, an exaggeration sure, but look at how many are actually tasked for air-defense of the entire British isles airspace), and an Army where soldiers still have to buy their own body-armour and can't afford to eat.

It's guaranteed that somebody with not one bit of actual experience or knowledge made the crucial advice to the politician who then authorised it. I'm just cynical enough to believe there aren't any military leaders, in posts senior enough to challenge this idiocy, who actually have any real understanding as they all been replaced by 'politically sensitive officers'.

Fortunately David, a video of the incident has been uploaded to YouTube.

But they never resign, do they, these professional military men? Gutless, the lot of them.

Just an aside DM, "our" last one that comes to mind was General Zinni [USMC] following the attack on the USS Cole.


I came across something in my email that "kinda" relates to the why of the CIA's position at the time - the pertinent part having to do with a pre-existing UN decree. You "may" recall my past comment that the first American killed in Viet Nam was in the year 1948? He was CIA.


in 1966 General Johnson was ready to resign, and changed his mind going to the Pentagon. A decision he regretted fo the rest of his life. I did not realize the atmosphere was that bad..

The general attitude I found in the US military to language is that you it's pointless to try to stop cussing in the barracks or on the tank line, but NCO's and officers are professionals and that is unprofessional. What do you do in any profession when you find your boss is someone you fire for cause? They had enough seniorty that they could retire with a pension. Retiring may have cost them two stars but an major generals pension is not that bad. They should have resigned.

I think I posted this here before, I think my comments on LBJ may have been to mild.

And actually I posted this yesterday before I saw this article.

Able, there is, has been and always will be, an area of severe friction between leaders at the highest level dealing with matters of war and peace. It seems to me that the politicians have lost the art of managing it and the people who reach the highest ranks in the military are the creeps and the cowards. Churchill drove his generals to fury with his constant arguments but, and it's a big 'but', if they stuck to their guns, as Alan Brook did, he never once over-ruled them.

Kevin, thanks for that film, made me laugh.

DM, I can't remember it ever happening.

JK, thanks for the link, slightly pressed this morning but I'll get round to it later.

Hank, likewise to you, I will get round to your links later. Grown men swear amongst each other but for a president to act like a drill sergeant to his most senior staff is I think despicable.

The comments to this entry are closed.