Why didn't the British Generals say anything sooner?

[myron myron]

[Lena]

I saw that general on BBCAMERICA news ..............Michael Jackson ? Wonder if he ever moonwalks ? After having been around soldiers for 17 year now as one time army brat and living in a army town seeing them daily was amazed at how he looks just like one of our soldiers . I guess it's a global look ? Wonder if bartenders in the UK look like me ?

Soldiers do what the politicians say and keeping quiet about any diagreements it is part of the job .Seems plenty of America generals were doupters too, rememebr the calls by the men after retirement for rumsfled to go and also doupts about how Iraq was being fought ?

Good the UK is leaving Iraq, it's a disaster and no one should have to die there .

[myron myron]

[Lena]

I know but thats the way the game is played .Nothings perfect Also I guess thats better then letting generals run the countrys like in Africa and south America.

But happy to see the retired generals come out against rumsfeld and his civilian aids who blew it so bad in Iraq.

Can't get the image out of my head of the UK general Michael Jackson moonwalking in his uniform ...............

[myron myron]

[The Colonel]

myron myron, you once again should quite an ignorance in this area. I am only responing here as it is the correct thread to do so.

First, Britain does not follow the US "master plan", the UK has complete autonomy in Basra, and follows it's own plans (like you have seen yesterday in Basra against the wishes of many US generals). British generals are not automatically subordinate to US generals.

For example, just because a man (Bush) has the title "Commander in Chief", does that make him capable?

Second, Britain is not withdrawing from Iraq. A tactical withdrawal has been made to Basra airfield.

Third, British generals and officers do not automatically bash a plan from a foreign power, especially if it does not involve them directly. Also, in the UK generals tend to keep out of politics unless absolutely necessary. (Note that General Sir Michael is now retired, and a civilian like myself) He is now entitled to speak as he wishes subject to the possible constraints of the Armed Forces Acts and the Official Secrets Act (1911 to 1989).

The reason the UK did not refuse to follow the plans is - because we never followed them in the first place!

The objectives in Iraq are identical, but the UK and US approaches are different.

[myron myron]

[Lena]

I think the US called the shots over there. bush wudn't have said anything anyway since he was so desperate for allies .

Really a mess , no one's army could handle it over there but soldiers do what there told . Thats the whole game . Saw my step-dad go off to 2 wars and am sure he had no idea where they were or what they were about but went anyhow ....................

[The Colonel]

Are you saying that the British military in Iraq was completely independent of the Americans in military planning and operations?

American Generals in active duty also cannot speak publicly against the military policy of a presiding Administration. It is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for any active military person to insult or criticize the President because, under the United States Constitution, the President is Commander in Chief of all American armed forces. If a General is given orders he cannot in good conscience follow, it is understood in America that the General is morally obligated and legally permitted to resign immediately.

I am not aware if planning was completey independent, I imagine to start with it was not (i.e the invasion and aftermath). The UK does however, have the ability to make and follow it's own plans in Basra, just as you are seeing now.

In the UK, the Commander in Chief is Her Majesty. Officers of the military are officers of the Crown. We serve Her Majesty, not the government. (Though of course, Her Majesty instructs the army to follow her governments instructions.) Therefore, a general/officer cannot speak out publicly, as it is Her Majesty's place to decide.

Her Majesty's Royal Pregogative Powers are always exercised on her behalf by the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, we swear allegiance to the Crown. The Crown of course, is apolitical (except where necessary).

[The Colonel]

I think the US called the shots over there. bush wudn't have said anything anyway since he was so desperate for allies .

Really a mess , no one's army could handle it over there but soldiers do what there told . Thats the whole game . Saw my step-dad go off to 2 wars and am sure he had no idea where they were or what they were about but went anyhow ....................

The US do not call the shots in Iraq. It is a coalition.

[myron myron]

[The Colonel]

First I should say thing have changed a lot in recent years for obvious reasons.

Do you agree that if a General is given orders he cannot in good conscience follow, that General is morally obligated to resign immediately?

Morally, yes. Legally is a different matter, and would depend on the situation. All officers have the right to resign/retired, but not for example, in the middle of a battle, where he/she may be given an order of that nature.

Would it be illegal or otherwise proscribed in the UK for a British military officer in active duty to speak out publicly against American military planning or operations in Iraq?

It is not illegal as such, especially with regard to US planning and operations. It is more convention (which carries the force of law) not to do so. An officer would be likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the army (depending on the circumstances).

[myron myron]

Then how did General Sir Michael Jackson avoid punishment for insubordination in Kosovo for directly refusing to follow orders (irrational though they may have been) given by American General Wesley Clark, who was SACEUR of NATO and thus Jackson's superior?

[The Colonel]

Then how did General Sir Michael Jackson avoid punishment for insubordination in Kosovo for directly refusing to follow orders (irrational though they may have been) given by American General Wesley Clark, who was SACEUR of NATO and thus Jackson's superior?

The answer to that think is simple, though I am unfamilar with the case and I am making assumptions based upon what is likely.

However, I should say I am not an expert in the law, or British military law, though I am familiar with both. Therefore the information I can give is based upon my knowledge and experience, which might not be as substantial as someone more versed on the subject.

However, in relation to the question about General Jackson, the answer is fairly simple. First of all, he is one of the most senior British generals, which therefore puts him in a substantial position to be able to refuse orders. (In other words a general refusing orders would be different to, for example, a captain refusing orders)

Furthermore, the fact that his superior was a US general may well have had an impact. If his superior was another British general or Field Marshal, things may have been different.

However, the overriding item is that every case is dealt with separately and given consideration. For example, just because you refuse an order (regardless of reasons) doesn’t automatically incur punishment. I am unaware of whether the same is applicable in the US or not. Therefore, he will have been questioned on why he refused the orders of General Clark, and evidently, the reasons were deemed sufficient to warrant refusal. Therefore, there was no punishment. Because of his rank, any punishment would have had to have had the approval of Her Majesty, which I might argue would be unlikely for her to approve. Also, the Prime Minister may well have agreed with General Jackson on the political front.

In my career I have only sat at three proceedings, none of which dealt with refusal of orders or similar. Therefore I cannot comment further, and my legal knowledge in the area can go no further.

[Lena]

Thought it was logical but also really bizarre when little georgey went to Iraq over the week-end

Have to give the over-grown spoiled child /sheep- in -wolves clothing credit . Unlike the fly in on the carrier a few years ago when he arrived looking like a fighter pilot just back from Iraq declaring " MISSION ACCOMPLISHED " he was in civilain clothes not pretending to be a warrior . Knowing him and his immaturity you wud have expected him to shown up on the ground looking like RAMBO with a head band , and two ammo belts across his bare chest

But he skipped Bagdad where it's not safe and since the big democratic government he promised wud take over does not exist .Also he got a whole lot LESS friendly welcome from the poor soldiers trapped there .Hi did a lot of big talk about how we're fighting terrorists there not here.Guess he forgot how we're also fighting terrorists in Afganistan along with in Iraq sunnis and shia's too who don't seem to have any interest in attacking us here at home..................