Re: OT: British Army Chief calls for Iraq withdrawal



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why doesn't he quit grandstanding and simply launch a coup?

John

Yes, scary, it was my thought as well.
In 'olden days' the military acted (rightly or wrongly) on behalf of our
politicians (i.e the nation) and kept their thoughts to themselves. Loyalty
to the crown an absolute requirement.
This gobby twat should be quickly removed from office, or better offered an
honourable discharge via his service revolver.

Tony Blair isn't 'the Crown' yet.

Nor is the Army responsible to a narrow elitist clique within New Labour.

Then who do they report to?

Unlike you lot, our 'Premier' isn't the C-in-C. I believe the Queen notionally
holds that position.

I don't know the precise details but I imagine they're effectively responsible to
the MoD ( like your DoD ).

---
From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_Kingdom

The title Commander-in-Chief is rarely used by the Sovereign, but
usually refers to local or service commanders-in-chief. However, it
would not be incorrect to describe the Sovereign as being the
Commander-in-Chief. Through longstanding parliamentary practice, the
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has de facto command and
control powers over the British Armed Forces.
---

Having said that, they behave responsibly on their own accord.

---
Sir Richard's remarks can hardly be construed as "behaving
responsibly". Properly, he should have directed his remarks to his
government

It's widely believed he did.


instead of aiding and abetting the enemy by directing
them to the media, assuring their world-wide dissemination.

So, If we had a kind of 'Hitler' running the place you'd agree to the Army doing
illegal things ?

Graham

.