Head of French armed forces resigns over budget cuts row

#3
Zoot allors!
The Head shed will be in full "We can fight our corner far better by accepting cuts, trying to convince our subordinates that a 1% pay rise and rise in food and accomodation costs are a win, being more concerned with minority causes than the welfare of the majority and maintaining that retention issues are not a problem if we remain in our posts until our pensions and Board positions on Defence contract filling companies are secure.
Rather than rashly showing some balls!" mode.
 
#4
Zoot allors!
The Head shed will be in full "We can fight our corner far better by accepting cuts, trying to convince our subordinates that a 1% pay rise and rise in food and accomodation costs are a win, being more concerned with minority causes than the welfare of the majority and maintaining that retention issues are not a problem if we remain in our posts until our pensions and Board positions on Defence contract filling companies are secure.
Rather than rashly showing some balls!" mode.
You clearly don't understand 'Buggin's Turn'
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#5
In fairness, he was somewhat forced into it. His comments from a private hearing were leaked to the press resulting in an invitation for a private discussion with Macron this Friday which probably would have ended with him being sacked.

I know we like our fantasies about VSO resignations every time a government decision goes against the armed forces, but I'm not convinced that a mass sign off over cuts is always the best way to fight our corner.
 
#6
Well, according to the BBC this morning some 85,000 troops are due to leave the army over the next few years.

I assume that this represents those leaving at the end of their careers as well as those signing off early.

Our leaders won't need to resign - with the general lack of new recruits they won't have much of an army left to lead in a few years. A couple of 1* should be able to cope with the main role of defending London...
 
#7
I know we like our fantasies about VSO resignations every time a government decision goes against the armed forces, but I'm not convinced that a mass sign off over cuts is always the best way to fight our corner.
Room 'shun! The CDS has entered the room!
 
#10
In the 1960s, the Admiralty resigned pretty much en masse over the CVA01 decision. Nothing changed and they ended up being replaced.

Military resignations very rarely acheive much, and for this I am grateful. It otherwise implies that the Military have a means to influence and subvert the democratically elected Government policy decisions if they know that to threaten to resign could influence and alter the policy in their favour. I am glad this is not an option for them.
 
#11
.....or, AKA "winning the battle but losing the war".

Asculum 279BC anybody?
You know someone's going to google that battle. Me for instance. You horrid person.
 
#13
Well, according to the BBC this morning some 85,000 troops are due to leave the army over the next few years.

I assume that this represents those leaving at the end of their careers as well as those signing off early.

Our leaders won't need to resign - with the general lack of new recruits they won't have much of an army left to lead in a few years. A couple of 1* should be able to cope with the main role of defending London...
Surely recruitment from the Commonwealth, the Brighton area and MOD co-operation on another 3 series of 'Our Girl' will make up any shortfall?
 
#14
In the 1960s, the Admiralty resigned pretty much en masse over the CVA01 decision. Nothing changed and they ended up being replaced.

Military resignations very rarely acheive much, and for this I am grateful. It otherwise implies that the Military have a means to influence and subvert the democratically elected Government policy decisions if they know that to threaten to resign could influence and alter the policy in their favour. I am glad this is not an option for them.

Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.


Thank You Humphrey...
 
#16
.....or, AKA "winning the battle but losing the war".

Asculum 279BC anybody?
The origin of the 'Pyrrhic victory'
Every day a school day
 
#17
#18
Military resignations very rarely acheive much, and for this I am grateful. It otherwise implies that the Military have a means to influence and subvert the democratically elected Government policy decisions if they know that to threaten to resign could influence and alter the policy in their favour. I am glad this is not an option for them.
Why subvert? And the use of the first definition found in Google isn't the answer by any means! Are you suggesting that the resignation of a VSO is an attempt to overturn the Government and not to merely show in public that said VSO disagrees strongly with the decisions taken by a Government on in this case Defence Policy, feel unable to continue in their role and therefore resign? Some would call it honourable behaviour, particularly if the VSO believes the Defence of the Realm to be at stake.

Because we don't live in a Dictatorship, yet.


On a more pragmatic note though. Who will now supply the body bag component of the much vaunted European Army if the French are "right sizing"?

Edited to add - I have just fined myself a night on the urine for allowing US spelling to creep in via spallchock. Mea maxima culpa

Edited again :( I defend my rights to Defend the Ream but I concede this is hardly the place to be discussing my particular err,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so spelling also changed.
 
Last edited:
#19
In the 1960s, the Admiralty resigned pretty much en masse over the CVA01 decision. Nothing changed and they ended up being replaced.

Military resignations very rarely acheive much, and for this I am grateful. It otherwise implies that the Military have a means to influence and subvert the democratically elected Government policy decisions if they know that to threaten to resign could influence and alter the policy in their favour. I am glad this is not an option for them.
Surely the government are democratically elected to make policy on the basis of their collective good sense, which must include things like financial considerations, priority and received wisdom from experts.

It might not be desirable to be seen making knee-jerk changes to policy on the basis of resignation threats from such experts, but the politician must at least be curious about the reasons why a man who had served his country for a lifetime- probably with a flawless record of overachieving- decides to implode. They must appreciate that a bloke who knows stuff is telling them something in the strongest terms he knows how, short of going postal with a Famas- or, as he's French, a military coup :)
 
#20
Why subvert? And the use of the first definition found in Google isn't the answer by any means! Are you suggesting that the resignation of a VSO is an attempt to overturn the Government and not to merely show in public that said VSO disagrees strongly with the decisions taken by a Government on in this case Defence Policy, feel unable to continue in their role and therefore resign? Some would call it honourable behavior, particularly if the VSO believes the Defence of the Ream to be at stake. .

Because we don't live in a Dictatorship, yet.


On a more pragmatic note though. Who will now supply the body bag component of the much vaunted European Army if the French are "right sizing"?
I think Macron summed that point up quite nicely

"“If the [Armed Forces] chief of staff has an issue with the President of the Republique, it is the chief of staff who will change his position.”
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top