MoD Bans Defence Chief From 'Blair Wars' Book?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Brick, Jul 19, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

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

  1. Must admit this is the first I've heard of the book, although the area isn't something I follow much. Anyone happen to know anything about it and the apparent backstage arguments going on? The fact that the MoD doesn't seem to be liking parts of it does rather suggest on the face of it that it might not just be our normal whitewash of things. Would of been quite interested to read what General Shirreff had to say, from what I've heard, granted second or third hand, his proposed Op Sinbad had him calling for large increases in forces to go after the militias properly but got refused so had to make do with what he had and a battalion or two extra for a bit IIRC.
     
  2. It sounds like interesting reading, if the MOD has security concerns regarding the publishing then that`s fair, publish it to a closed shop as a training book for the military only.
    If on the other hand as I suspect, the criticisms would embarass certain military and political establishments then this country is in the shitty state that it thought it was in.
    As an afterthought, the US military learns quickly and adapts, because of their past experiences in South East Asia. They went through a very big shake up during the late 70s and early 80s, and a lot of junior and mid level officers would be in fairly senior positions in recent years and wouldn`t want to see the same mistakes made.
     
  3. Sounds a promising read.

    It makes me ashamed to be British that Blair has escaped almost without a word of criticism from what he did. I hear the Chilcott report has been edited to death.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Blair will get his come uppance, anyone remember the chap who tried to citizen arrest him at the airport. Wonder what happened to him?
     
  5. I doubt it, there are far too many civil servants, military officers and officials that could possibly end up in the dock alongside him if he were to ever have his collar felt. A shared risk of ending up in the cacky is more than likely to see it chalked up as 'not in the public interest' if it ever got that far.
     
  6. The soon-to-be exculpated Political classes are going to have a Devil of a job promoting to the public the 'authority', 'integrity' and 'objectivity' of the Chilcott report when it is eventually published without Generals publishing anything that might be inconsistent with its findings and recommendations.
     
  7. The International Criminal Court in the Hague is a creature of the Security Council who fund it and make referrals to it. Given that we are permanent member of the Security Council, the chances of anyone from this country ever appearing in the Dock are pretty remote.

    The ICC exists to try nasty war criminals, not nice ones like ours!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Well, hes buggered if he wants to visit New Zealand any time soon, as this is on their Visa app:

    "...You must tell us if you have ever committed a war crime or a crime against humanity as this may affect your ability to meet the good character requirement."
     

  9. How will any of the military Officers end up in the dock? Military officers are obliged to follow any legal orders. Many at the time questioned whether the invasion of Iraq was legal and the "advice" of the country's senior legal advisor was supposedly that it was legal. Little were we to know that the legal advisor had been pressurised into giving the correct and convenient answer.

    In this day and age any political misdemeanor seems to be excusable but as far as I am concerned sending an Army to war on the basis of a lie is bad enough without it being an illegal war to boot. It is this which distinguished Blair from the remainder of self-serving mendacious scum that call themselves politicians.
     
  10. Went down, I believe, with some virus related to over-attendance at public convenience social gatherings.
     
  11. It wasn't the MoD that imposed this machiavellian ban on CDS, it was an individual or two. If so, who and why? It smacks of individuals protecting senior politicians and military personnel and seeking to prevent their mistakes being exposed - in other words a cover up, to protect the reputation of some mediocre individuals at the expense of learning lessons for future conflict. The reputation and capability of the UK military is far more important than the reputation of yesterday's jumped-up politicos and generals.

    This culture of a fear of identifying, articulating and examining failure is endemic in the MoD; it is pernicious, arrogant and a contributing factor to future failures. It forms the basis of military hubris, which was, in turn, one of the factors that contributed to such poor strategic and operational planning for conflict and post conflict in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Some of these lessons are clearly identified in Frank Ledwidge's excellent book "Losing Small Wars". It is a perspicacious analysis of why the military failed and ought to be mandatory reading for all young officers, in order that they may have the wisdom to admit errors and the strategic ability to rectify them. It is no longer good enough to witter on about Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus and NI, as if success in past campaigns is a guarantor for success in future campaigns. Let the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan be exposed and understood lest future Generals and politicos tread the same path to failure that this generation of politicos and Generals took in Iraq and Afghanistan.
     
  12. Rivetting.
     
  13. Urm, do they not represent the MoD when imposing such bans? Therefore, it was the MoD who have imposed the ban!
     
  14. I’m not going to get too outraged yet, after all they are still serving. People are always bashing on about the service test only applying to junior ranks (including me).

    So we can hardly complain, when it is seen to be applied to senior officers. Just because their criticisms may confirm our own beliefs.

    No doubt as soon as they are safely ennobled pensioners, they will treat us to another set of military memoirs. Probably along the lines of “I was great, but those interfering T***s above me were crap”. As is the case in 90% of all such memoirs (Again including mine).

    I will still read the book though.
     
  15. The problem is that the Army, specifically, quite freely made political hay over a lot of decisions over Afg and Iraq (I'm looking at you Gen Dannatt). For what earthly reason would any sensible Politician open up a series of articles about how "they" bungled things. Hell, look at this thread - cock all discussion about Military Strategy, the self-licking lollipop that is PJHQ (even to this day), our inability to educate Senior Officers, the innate conservatism that sees a "return to contingency" as an excuse to get back into the Fulda Gap, and instead people are talking 'Blair' as if he dragged the British Armed Forces, kicking and screaming, into the career opportunity (from Pte to Gen) that most would've given their eye teeth for.
     
    • Like Like x 9