Hi All, I've been reading a lot of posts lately on these boards concerning the 'leaders' of the army and people at the top, and there seems by many people here, and understandably, to be under the misunderstanding of what Blairs actual role is in this conflict, or indeed ANY conflict with regards the forces. Just as an example, one comment was made in another thread that said, "To support our troops you actually have to also support the leaders of those troops (at least for the duration of the conflict)..and that's Tony B liar." This is NOT the case. Bush is President of the US, and as President he is CIC the armed forces, meaning he is the leader of those forces and the head coddy. Blair is not President, he is Prime Minister of the UK, if you like he is a bureaucrat, a politician and the chief executive of the Government of the UK, but he is NOT Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He does not even have a rank as such. He is now NOTHING to do with the armed forces, nada, zip, zilch. He can send them, with Parliaments blessing, or he can bring them back, again with Parliaments blessing, but he has nothing to do with what they do inbetween. He isn't even privvy to the planning of the war in any tactical or strategic sense. The Chiefs of Staff are the commanders of the UK armed forces, and while they answer to him, or rather inform to him, he has no input. This seems strange to some people when you tell them this, but is the case. BTW: Technically, the Queen is the CIC of the armed forces, and also, technically, Blairs boss. She has the constitutional power to sack him as PM, and the Government, and bring the troops back.