I fully understand your point. I think that my thinking has been distorted by what happened with General Sir Mike Jackson who seems to be have done very well out the Iraq war and occupation. There was 'stuff' happening under his watch which many have found totally unacceptable. Also the way that he revealed in his recently published book that he took legal advice before accpeting the orders to go to war in Iraq. I don't think that enough has been made of that.
Furthermore, we also know that there is now an inquiry into the Iraq war, the situation before the war, the war, and the subsequent reconstruction, although I would prefer to use the term occupation. Remember, that it was in February that Hutton had to to admit in parliament that previous holders of his post had not given correct answers when asked in the commons about the numbers detained by British soldiers. There is a problem because of the trial of Colonel Mendonca and the finding guilty of one soldier who had to go to jail and was discharged from the army.
So, I fully understand what you are saying about Gen Dannett, it is always regretable that there are too many instances of people who do their job and then come out on retirement or close to it. As another example look at the governor of the bank of England who has been reappointed but is only now coming out and not being as supportive of the government as he possibly was before his appointment was extended into a second term. Please note that I am not a junior minister of the government who has been told to stop briefing against individuals, all these are my own thoughts on these subjects. It is just that I have my own experience of those who are being silenced by High Court Injunctions on quite spurious grounds because they don't follow the line.
I think that there is a problem with regard to the compensation culture which means that family members benefit from the death or injury to one of our soldiers, which does not compare to previous conflicts, and where all payments are subject to confidentiality clauses which mean that they are at risk if comments are publicly made without prior perusal by the MoD. The very same MoD which is actually bigger than the army which actually fights the battles. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians if you ask me.
The Generals
I fully understand your point. I think that my thinking has been distorted by what happened with General Sir Mike Jackson who seems to be have done very well out the Iraq war and occupation. There was 'stuff' happening under his watch which many have found totally unacceptable. Also the way that he revealed in his recently published book that he took legal advice before accpeting the orders to go to war in Iraq. I don't think that enough has been made of that.
Furthermore, we also know that there is now an inquiry into the Iraq war, the situation before the war, the war, and the subsequent reconstruction, although I would prefer to use the term occupation. Remember, that it was in February that Hutton had to to admit in parliament that previous holders of his post had not given correct answers when asked in the commons about the numbers detained by British soldiers. There is a problem because of the trial of Colonel Mendonca and the finding guilty of one soldier who had to go to jail and was discharged from the army.
So, I fully understand what you are saying about Gen Dannett, it is always regretable that there are too many instances of people who do their job and then come out on retirement or close to it. As another example look at the governor of the bank of England who has been reappointed but is only now coming out and not being as supportive of the government as he possibly was before his appointment was extended into a second term. Please note that I am not a junior minister of the government who has been told to stop briefing against individuals, all these are my own thoughts on these subjects. It is just that I have my own experience of those who are being silenced by High Court Injunctions on quite spurious grounds because they don't follow the line.
I think that there is a problem with regard to the compensation culture which means that family members benefit from the death or injury to one of our soldiers, which does not compare to previous conflicts, and where all payments are subject to confidentiality clauses which mean that they are at risk if comments are publicly made without prior perusal by the MoD. The very same MoD which is actually bigger than the army which actually fights the battles. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians if you ask me.