Small Wars Journal

Sir Jock Stirrup Axed, U.K. Troops Next?

Sat, 06/12/2010 - 9:28pm
Defence Chief to be Axed - Michael Smith and Jonathan Oliver, The Times.

Britain's most senior military officer is to be axed as the new government seeks to draw a line under past failures in Afghanistan. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, told The Sunday Times the chief of the defence staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, would resign in the autumn before the end of his term.

Sir Bill Jeffrey, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence (MoD), will go at the same time. The clean sweep at the top is intended to improve the military's performance on the Afghan front line, as well as cutting Whitehall waste. In an interview Fox indicated that Stirrup and Jeffrey, both close to the old Labour regime, would be replaced at the conclusion of a strategic defence review (SDR).

Fox said he wanted "the best people to be in the appropriate posts" once the review was over. "We have to be able to maintain full stability and the full confidence of the people who work for us, not least because we're in a very dangerous armed conflict," he said.

Stirrup has been criticised for not doing enough to support frontline troops. The decision to replace them coincides with one of the worst weeks for Nato forces since the start of the war in Afghanistan in 2001. Thirty-two Nato troops, including three Britons, have been killed since last Sunday. The latest Briton to die was a soldier in the 1st Battalion, the Mercian Regiment, who was killed in an explosion in Helmand province yesterday...

More at The Times.

Troops Could be Cut as Fox Sharpens his Axe - Michael Smith and Jonathan Oliver, The Times.

The number of Britain's soldiers, sailors and airmen could be cut as part of the government's new security review. In an interview with The Sunday Times, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, said nothing had been been ruled out — even cuts to the numbers of uniformed personnel.

"Every single bit of the operation must come under scrutiny. Every single thing must be justified," Fox said. Until now the coalition government has insisted that savings would come principally from cuts in the bloated bureaucracy and over-budget equipment programmes of the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Fox conceded last week that there might not be as much "fat in the system" as he had previously thought. While the overall defence budget would be protected, dramatic savings would still have to be made, he said.

More at The Times.

Comments

Vito (not verified)

Sun, 06/13/2010 - 10:04pm

Second key quote: <i>Colonel Stuart Tootal, a former commander of 3 Para in Afghanistan, said: "It makes absolute sense to try to get a new team in as quickly as possible. There is a well-tried military maxim that he who plans, must also execute."</i>

Vito (not verified)

Sun, 06/13/2010 - 10:01pm

More at Monday's London Times: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7149581.ece">Lame duck defence chief Sir Jock Stirrup 'must go now</a>. Key quote: <i>"It seems illogical to keep someone in place as the head of the Armed Forces who is not going to be in charge of implementing the defence review," said Major-General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded 7th Armoured Brigade in the Gulf War. "It seems to make more sense to make the change before the majority of the review is carried out."</i>

The last two governments (Conservative (79-97) and Labour (97-2010) have been in for longer then the norm (2 terms of Conservative followed by one term of Labour has been the general norm since 1950). What this has meant is that the senior jobs in both military and civil service have been increasingly tied to one party for an extended period.
Unlike the US system we do not have a bipartisan approach to appointing senior officers vis-a-vis confirmation hearings. The appointment of very senior officers is by the in power government based on recommendations from the chain of command.
A senior and very experienced poltician once described generals to me as being of 3 types: Politicians, Warriors, and Warriors with Political Instincts. Warriors frighten politicians and tend not to be selected unless National Survival is at stake. Warriors with political instincts who can navigate the murky Whitehall waters are very scarce - General Guthrie is generally reckoned to be the last; which leave the politicians...
There is a feeling that over the long life of the labour government very senior officers got more concerned about what the politicians wanted to hear, and less concerned about what they should hear. One only has to look at the role of our Permanent Joint HQ (PJHQ) (our operational level HQ for overseas ops whose job is stated as being amongst others 'to provide politically aware advice to the Government'

A British Officer (not verified)

Sun, 06/13/2010 - 5:41pm

Interesting debate. Fact is that 'The Times' newspaper has correctly identified a real issue: Senior British military personnel have, for the last 9 years, offered British politicians 'politically aware' military advice.

Those with views that might have jarred with the party line have been ignored. Those who argued for resources, including equipment and manpower, that have been subsequently been proved essential were, and still are, told to keep quiet or risk 'pricing our involvement out of the market'.

The fact is that there is no UK Joint appetite to give British troops the equipment necessary to do the job at the expense of treasured single Service programmes.

Vito (not verified)

Sun, 06/13/2010 - 5:24pm

Ditto Old Eagle's request for our British friends to chime in here. The relationship is indeed special - especially the military one as U.K. military forces are quite the pros and are depended on much by their U.S. counterparts.

Old Eagle

Sun, 06/13/2010 - 4:44pm

If the true cause of the changeover was lack of support for troops, all's well and good.

The sentence that both were close to the former Labour, however, raises a red flag. One expects political appointees to rotate with new governments, but not military professionals.

With Britain's famous civil service system, significant changeover may be necessary (Yes, Minister!) I still am concerned about the military side.

Having served with British military professionals for decades, I never really discerned the existence of political hackery among them. Of course, that doesn't preclude its existence.

Similarly, I have served in countries where military promotions and appointments were political rewards, sometimes down to the bn cmd level. I can tell you that none of the countries with reasonably professional forces want to go down that rabbit hole.

I would greatly appreciate our British friends weighing in and possibly 'splainin' what's really at work here.

Good riddance to Stirrup's and Jeffrey. They failed the soldiers who relied on their ability to convince their political masters what were the correct troop numbers, equipment and strategies to prosecute the conflict they were sent to. The dead have families who remember them and the wounded lives to get on with. Stirrup's and Jeffrey have a Knighthood a pension. Hopefully they do not feel hard done by however I have my doubts.
If their replacements feel a reduction in troop numbers is appropriate so be it.