Just been flicking through an old copy of The Officer magazine and found this interesting little nugget: "There are currently 58 General Officers serving in the Regular Army, of whom 12 have never had any Operational responsibilities in a conflict zone". Ministerial Answer, 14 Nov 05. Now, I have no idea of the context of the question, no knowledge of the responsibilities that the 12 have had/currently have nor any knowledge of what operational experience the other 46 have had (nor when it was). Starting from this limited position, I find it a bit worrying that these chaps have made the rank that they have without having experienced operational responsibilities. These individuals may be absolute geniuses in doctrine, defence logistics, HR policy, the working of the MOD, procurement etc and I appreciate that they are not idiots or else they would not have got to where they are. I know that the dark days of the 80s saw limited opportunities for deployment but since GRANBY started and Blair's election in 97, all everybody has been able to talk about is going on ops. Given this, I find it worrying that 20% of our Generals have not deployed. Aside from it being a bit embarassing on parade, they've never passed the ops experience test. These individuals will advise ministers, approve doctrine, make policy and sit on promotion boards, courts-martial, procurement executives and the like where their rank and uniform gives the impression of having "being there, done that" when they haven't. Any thoughts?