Oh dear we have trouble with the new head of the British Army

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046822.stm

It is unheard of that the Army every question Foriegn policy, as the roles of Parliment and the Army are two clear seperate things, given by :

The Self denying Ordinance :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Denying_Ordinance
& the new model army :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army

Next thing you know the Army will be voting on wether to follow orders given by our elected Parliment. ....

Sounds more like he said alot of things in general and the media blew up the one part they liked.
They do the same thing here constantly... take a sentence out of an entire discussion and make it everything.


If that isn't the case(though it clearly is) and he thinks he can state what policy shoudl be then I assume he'll be retiring soon along with a swift kick in the butt by the Queen and Parliament.

yes the boy is only just starting his new job as head of the Army - I don't see him lasting long if you can't keep his mouth shut in public and stop giving interviews to the "gutter" press.

If he has concerns then there are propper channels that he should go through.

But I am sure that the British Army will continue to do its duty.

The fact that it is unheard of should be some indication of the seriousness of what he is saying. Or don't you see it like that? Do you think he's a fool or telling the truth or a fool for telling the truth?

If the guy is saying coalition forces are exacerbating the violence then he either knows what he's talking about or he's talking crap. Obviously the press are going to pick up on such a comment - we're fighting two very unpopular wars, and Bush and Blair are hardly going to give us a true picture.

It is clearly not his place to make public comment - I have not and never did call him a "fool".


But I will put it down to him making a silly mistake whilst new on the job and will let it go as everyone can make a mistake - but don't let it happen again type of thing.

I do not think trying to use public opinion to alter foreign policy is a good thing to do.

Whether this particular guy should be doing it the way he is is debatable. But what's wrong with trying to shift public opinion or encourage public debate to change policy? Maybe it's not good for his position and maybe he should be fired, but I don't see anything wrong with him stating his opinion to the public in general. As long as he doesn't take any action outside of policy.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III
what your pet really thinks of you...

It is in his Job description as an offier in the British Army (NewModelArmy & Self-denying ordinance) he knows that.

The public opinion was gauged during the last General election that voted in the current Government.

Sure the public can have an opinion - and the public (inc. me) are free to discuss, debate and even shout it out to others.

But unless we start to have Referendum on every topic that causes public debate - which I do not want. (Although I may go for compulsary voting)
Then the State must take those decisions in our name wether we agree with it or not!

If you don't like it - then vote the buggers out next time round ...

But the kicker is that if you do see a problem in policy that the public might not based on your closeness to it, how do you go about fixing it when the proper channels fail? Is it moral to stop trying?
Perhaps he should step down if he wants to go public, but going public seems the only alternative.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III
what your pet really thinks of you...

Exactly - If the normal channels fail he must keep his mouth shut and do his duty. Or resign his commision - when he will be free to say what he likes.

It died fast-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6049126.stm