Corbyn and the military.

[BashfulAnthony]

The Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, has abundant advice from experts in all fields.  He does not need serving generals to over-step the mark with out-of-order comments.  It is a dangerous precedent to allow serving officers to take political stances.

[ProfessorDavey]

My problem with Corbyn's comments and their target is that, regardless of Corbyn's credentials in politics he is NOT a soldier or even an ex-soldier and he most certainly is not a ex-high ranking soldier.

General Houghton is all these things that Jeremy Corbyn is not and therefore he is doing the right thing in pointing out to a potential Prime Minister and possible flaw in his political agenda!

The job of a soldier is to implement the defence policy of the government, not to decide it. And just because someone is a very good soldier (i.e. very good at implementing policy) doesn't mean they are any better at deciding the policy than anyone else.

The issue here is, effectively, whether we should have an independent nuclear deterrent or not. I'm struggling to see why a soldier, even a very senior one, has a unique angle on that debate due to their profession.

[Shaker]

The job of a soldier is to implement the defence policy of the government, not to decide it. And just because someone is a very good soldier (i.e. very good at implementing policy) doesn't mean they are any better at deciding the policy than anyone else.

The issue here is, effectively, whether we should have an independent nuclear deterrent or not. I'm struggling to see why a soldier, even a very senior one, has a unique angle on that debate due to their profession.

Hear hear to all that. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is five years away from even being in with a whisper of a chance of being PM (and thus capable of deciding defence policy) means that Houghton was clearly playing politics - not his field - and was doubtless looking for any opportunity to have a pop at Corbyn in public.

[Jack Knave]

The Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, has abundant advice from experts in all fields.  He does not need serving generals to over-step the mark with out-of-order comments.  It is a dangerous precedent to allow serving officers to take political stances.

I think Owlswing was referring to the public domain not just to specific potential leaders.

[jakswan]

Corbyn would play hardball with any terrorist attack in uk water pistols, shoot to lightly wet.

[floo]

Corbyn would play hardball with any terrorist attack in uk water pistols, shoot to lightly wet.

Not very wet of course that would be cruel to the poor terrorist! Corbyn is an idiot! The sooner there is a Labour leadership challenge the better!

[Shaker]

Feel free to disagree with his political stances if you will, preferably with reasons, but the one thing Corbyn is very far from is an idiot.

[wigginhall]

Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.  He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria.   And then what?  For me, he is the voice of sanity.

[Nearly Sane]

It illustrates the problems in being a politician that Corbyn's attempts at looking at the nuances of policy are immediately caricatured in this way. Let's remember that for many years the Tory govt denied that there was any such thing as a shoot to kill policy.

[jakswan]

Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.  He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria.   And then what?  For me, he is the voice of sanity.

I don't think he is an idiot, he is true to his principles. If Corbyn had been leader no Afghanistan either.

Who wants to invade Syria? 

[BashfulAnthony]

Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.  He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria.   And then what?  For me, he is the voice of sanity.

A voice that asserted in interview yesterday, that even faced with murderous terrorists it i s wrong to shoot to kill.  If you saw the footage of the murderers firing at the French police on Friday, what would ypu instruct the police to do:  throw stones?

[Nearly Sane]

A voice that asserted in interview yesterday, that even faced with murderous terrorists it i s wrong to shoot to kill.  If you saw the footage of the murderers firing at the French police on Friday, what would ypu instruct the police to do:  throw stones?

No, one that questioned having a shoot to kill policy understanding the whole range of what that means. Note this is not this is the very reason why in relation to tragedies in NI, the Tory govt denied having any such thing as a shoot to kill policy.

[wigginhall]

I don't think he is an idiot, he is true to his principles. If Corbyn had been leader no Afghanistan either.

Who wants to invade Syria?

Obama is under massive pressure to go to war.   IS know this, so they are now baiting the West, as they would love a Western invasion.   Thankfully, Obama is also sane, but there are plenty of voices urging invasion, and if IS mount another atrocity, he may have to give in.     

Cameron is just being an idiot, when he says that killing Jihadi John struck a blow at the heart of IS.  Wow, and this guy is making the decisions?  Help.

Hopefully, in the background the intelligence people are actually thinking about the Sunni revivalism going on - how do you deal with it?  If it isn't dealt with, IS will flourish.  The Sunni arc stretches from Iraq through Syria, into Turkey, and of course, the Saudis.   Where else do IS get money and supplies?

[BashfulAnthony]

No, one that questioned having a shoot to kill policy understanding the whole range of what that means. Note this is not this is the very reason why in relation to tragedies in NI, the Tory govt denied having any such thing as a shoot to kill policy...

When under murderous attack by homicidal maniacs, what can you do but fire back, and it is virtually impossible to guarantee that you can be sure to simply wound, and not kill.  It does not even have to come under a shoot to kill directive, but just a shoot to defend yourself.

[Nearly Sane]

When under murderous attack by homicidal maniacs, what can you do but fire back, and it is virtually impossible to guarantee that you can be sure to simply wound, and not kill.  It does not even have to come under a shoot to kill directive, but just a shoot to defend yourself.

Again, that isn't what a shoot to kill policy means in the broad sense. It doesn't need you to be being shot at, hence Jean Charles de Menezes, or the shootings of the IRA members in Gibraltar. It's not about aiming to kill as opposed to wound, it's about the circumstances when you would shoot.

[BashfulAnthony]

Again, that isn't what a shoot to kill policy means in the broad sense. It doesn't need you to be being shot at, hence Jean Charles de Menezes, or the shootings of the IRA members in Gibraltar. It's not about aiming to kill as opposed to wound, it's about the circumstances when you would shoot.

I agree. So no more to say.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree. So no more to say.

Good of you to admit that you were wrong about what Corbyn said.

[BashfulAnthony]

Good of you to admit that you were wrong about what Corbyn said.

I think you had to see the interview with Laura Koenssberg of the BBC, to appreciate what he was actually advocating, the nuances of his very defensive attitude.  He kept quoting Iraq, and suggests that we Talk to ISIS.. Perhaps he would go to Syria and speak to them personally.  If he did, would you be thoughtful enough to buy the first bunch of flowers.  It's commendable to have principles, but you also have to deal with the real world.
..

[Nearly Sane]

I did watch it. That's the point. In relation to shoot to kill he was talking about the policy of when you shoot to kill and not about shooting to wound if you are being shot at which is where you started.


As for negotiation, that is part of the real world, see NI.

[jeremyp]

Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. 

Yes there would. It would have been just the Americans by themselves though.

He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria.   And then what?  For me, he is the voice of sanity.

Is anybody advocating invading Syria?

[Owlswing]

I think you had to see the interview with Laura Koenssberg of the BBC, to appreciate what he was actually advocating, the nuances of his very defensive attitude.  He kept quoting Iraq, and suggests that we Talk to ISIS.. Perhaps he would go to Syria and speak to them personally.  If he did, would you be thoughtful enough to buy the first bunch of flowers.  It's commendable to have principles, but you also have to deal with the real world.
..

. . . and, if he went to Syria, either as Leader of the Labour Party or as Prime Minister of the U K, just what kind of odds would you give on his being allowed to leave Syria with his head still attached to his shoulders?

[jeremyp]

Again, that isn't what a shoot to kill policy means in the broad sense. It doesn't need you to be being shot at, hence Jean Charles de Menezes, or the shootings of the IRA members in Gibraltar. It's not about aiming to kill as opposed to wound, it's about the circumstances when you would shoot.

Arguably neither of those were the result of a "shoot to kill" policy. In both cases, the point men with guns were not in possession of all the facts.

[Nearly Sane]

Arguably neither of those were the result of a "shoot to kill" policy. In both cases, the point men with guns were not in possession of all the facts.

Agreed, the point I was trying to make there is shooting to kill is not dependent on people shooting at you. You don't shoot to wound in any such circumstances, but the times you shoot are what is at question

[Owlswing]

Agreed, the point I was trying to make there is shooting to kill is not dependent on people shooting at you. You don't shoot to wound in any such circumstances, but the times you shoot are what is at question

The rules, at the time of Gibraltar, were that you shot if you considered that, by not shooting you placed yourself or others in mortal danger.

It is a truism that "shooting to wound" is almost impossible; a shot at a moving target that would, at the time the trigger is pulled, be a "shot to wound", could very well be, by the time the bullet hit the target, be a "shot to kill"!

[jeremyp]

Agreed, the point I was trying to make there is shooting to kill is not dependent on people shooting at you. You don't shoot to wound in any such circumstances, but the times you shoot are what is at question

I agree with you there. There is no such thing IRL as "shoot to wound", that's just for the movies and the alleged "shoot to kill" policy had nothing to do with that.

My understanding of the alleged "shoot to kill" policy was that there was an alleged secret order not to try to arrest terrorists even if there was no immediate danger to life and limb but to kill them to avoid tedious things like trials.