Macho Jacko - Has he lived up to his image?

Gen Sir Mike Jackson is about to retire as Chief of the General Staff, the head of the British army, which seems a good moment to assess the state of the army after just over three years on the watch of the man who was seen as the soldiers’ soldier, the great hope for the future of the army. He has overseen a controversial restructuring of the army, the participation of British troops in an even more controversial war in Iraq, and as head of the army must have ultimate responsible for the latest controversy, the disgraceful lack of resources available to our troops in Afghanistan. So how many marks out of ten does Jacko get?

He had a bad start, insisting shortly after taking over as Chief of General Staff, in the run-up to the Iraq War, that everything was hunky dory, and that every soldier had all the equipment he needed, when in fact there were major shortages of desert boots, ammunition, filters to protect tank crews against the chemical and biological weapons Saddam Hussein was supposed to have and, as we heard last week, the body armour that would have saved the life of at least one soldier.

Jackson’s claims that all was well when it was clearly not have seen him compared unfavourably to Lord Guthrie, the former SAS soldier who as Chief of the Defence Staff was said to have “marched across Whitehall” to tell Blair the defence budget must be increased. It was certainly Jackson who has been the main target of the mutterings from former generals that their successors’  failure to stand up to the politicians has left the army in a perilous state.

The alleged failure to stand up to the politicians was scarcely evident when the Conservative MP Andrew Robathan claimed Jackson “lacked the courage to stand up for his soldiers”. Robathan told MPs last month that he received a swift telephone call from the man himself. “He hectored me down the telephone for 30 minutes in a somewhat bullying way.” Robathan is not the first to feel that way. Jackson has been a robust defender of what critics say was a carefully cultivated image designed to smooth his way to the top.

The former paratrooper’s appointment as Chief of the General Staff, shortly before the Iraq War, was widely welcomed among the ranks, where he was seen as the army’s best hope. He was dubbed “Macho Jacko” after responding to orders from US General Wesley Clark to block Russian troops landing in Kosovo with the words: “I’m not starting World War Three for you.” But he wasted no time in consolidating on that image. The war in Kosovo was followed by an Hello-style newspaper interview with his wife Sarah and surgery on his trademark droopy eyelids, allegedly urged by his wife, but which he insisted was designed “to improve his battle vision”.

Jackson “is definitely very, very image conscious,” one former senior officer said. “His entire persona was a lovingly hand-crafted exercise in media relations: his every utterance made with the next job in mind. He cultivated his ‘whisky voice and cigar’ image quite deliberately. All photos had to be vetted by him personally. I doubt you’ll find many in which he isn’t wearing combats and a paratrooper’s red beret.”

Strong stuff. But is it fair? The tarnishing of that image is partly the result of his repeated Iraq War denials of any equipment problems and his controversial decision to scrap the old “famous name” infantry regiments. While the loss of the famous names angered old soldiers, for those still serving the bigger problem was Jackson’s willingness to axe three front-line infantry battalions at a time when the army is stretched to breaking point by commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans.

Critics also charge that he should have defended the army more in the race for new equipment. A deal to secure a new family of armoured vehicles – the so-called Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) -  remains uncertain, while the RAF gets a couple of hundred Eurofighters and the navy two new aircraft carriers. “Jacko is brave, forceful and knowledgeable about tactics,” one former aide said. “But fighting our corner against Eurofighter, or the new aircraft carriers, simply bored him. If a non-operational problem required more than one side of A4 to brief him, he wasn’t interested.”

Jackson has been blamed, unfairly, for the spate of post-Iraq courts martial – the decisions were all made by the army’s independent prosecuting authority, over which Jackson has no control. But whatever the truth of the manifold allegations against him, it was on Jackson’s watch - and as a direct result of a belief that the chain of command wasn’t looking after them - that a number of soldiers led the formation of the new British Armed Forces Federation.

Doug Young, the federation’s chairman, concedes that rightly or wrongly Jackson’s name has been attached to “a number of controversial issues”, but is reluctant to criticise him personally. “Have senior officers been failing to stand up to politicians, or have politicians just been failing to listen? Probably a bit of both,” Young says. “We will probably never know to what extent the chain of command has actually tried to educate politicians on the facts of life. What is beyond dispute is that the Government has loaded more and more tasks on the forces while at the same time cutting numbers.”

Did Jackson do anything to stop that? The answer I’m afraid has to be no. Marks out of ten? If you had asked me three and a half years ago how many I thought Jackson would get, I would have told you eight or nine, no problem. Sadly as he leaves the army more stretched than at any time I can remember, and having embarked on a deployment in Afghanistan with far too few troops and not enough helicopters even to keep the troops that are there re-supplied, I would have to say that in my book he gets no more than four points maximum, and that’s being really, really generous.

Comments

[dave t]

Good post. Jacko is a classic case of someone we thought would be 'our' CGS as Guthie actually had a reputation for being too close to Blair! Jacko's predecessor, Wheeler was absolutely useless so we really thought Jacko would fight our corner. He should have stayed at Comd Land Army or a field appointment rather than get dragged into the politial arena.

At the end of the day though the biggest problem is that MoD is FULL of civil servants who are uneducated in the ways of the military and the needs of the soldier on the ground. They are storing up a massive bill up for the next government which will lead to even more cuts to the endangerment of this country and her Forces. We have civil servants making decisions about equipment from their luxury offices in Abbey Wood etc based on the cheapest tender not what is most effective. Witness the latest farce - we are spending 100 million on Cougars to replace Land Rovers yet the Cougars we are buying are far too big and heavy to do the same job! Pinzchers are also being brought yet the driver sits right above the wheel where most mines will hit - at 400,000 a vehicle these are nothing less than mobile coffins if used in The Stan or Iraq!

All this should have been resisted by Jacko - that he didn't shows his legacy will be that he destroyed the Army for his political masters to save money and got nothing in return but dead soldiers who need not have died in many cases had they been given the protection etc they deserved. 4 out of ten? Most of the Jocks I know give him 2!

[Frank Schnittger]

To a foreign and distant observer, the British Armed Services still seem the last redoubt of the British class system. It seems specious to criticise Jackson for image consciousness if that is what is required to succeed in such a culture and promotional system.

Jackson appears to be the victim of a Nation which still has ideas above its station in the world. You cannot behave like a World Power if you are not prepared or able to fund an Armed Forces capable of backing up your rhetoric.

Jackson is much criticised for saying that there was no problem with equipment, and perhaps that was unwise. However do we know what he was saying in private meetings with ministers? Public whinging about equipment can give the appearance of hand wringing incompetence, a lack of confidence and resolution, and of looking for excuses for failure before the battle has even been fought. You do not want your generals to sound defeatist before going into war.

At least he took responsibility for making the best of what he had. In a democracy it is for the Government, ultimately, to decide what roles and resources to assign to the Armed Forces. And in a disciplined service the Government should expect that differences of opinion are shared privately. We do not want to be ruled by an "industrial-military complex". However that also means that it is the Government's responsibility, ultimately, if the resources assigned are insufficient for the tasks in hand.

[MD Tasker]

Isn't it time that the British Army took care of its greatest enemy once and for all- Tony Blair.

[david murphy]

If Jackson genuinely believed all was well then he is an idiot. If he didn't, he should have resigned and publicly castigated the government.

Our grossly under resourced military is being used as a tool to implement Blair's grandiose schemes and if we are notr careful we will wreck our great army in the same way the Americnas wrecked theirs in Vietnam.

[Chuck Unsworth]

It takes a certain kind of person to be a truly successful CGS. But it would be as well to establish a benchmark for 'success'. Any assessment of performance - hence 'success' or otherwise - necessitates a proper understanding of the role and function of a CGS, so one might also seek some sort of job description to aid analysis.

A CGS will of necessity deal with many disparate groups, all of whom will have a wide range of hopes and expectations. To name a few; politicians, the public, the MoD, the media, industry (particularly the arms industry) and - naturally - the armed forces all make demands on his time and energy. However, at that exalted rank, a CGS may choose where to place his greatest effort.

Demands from these parties frequently conflict, so independence of thought, incisive intellect and courage of conviction come high on the list of necessary personal attributes. At CGS level it can be truly said that the military abilty of successful field officers is of diminishing value. What is needed is massive breadth of vision coupled, with first class negotiation and communication skills. But this is as nothing compared with the need to deliver.

A CGS is, by the nature of the role, a servant. The CGS must serve the State (or maybe one should say The Crown) and political masters. But it is also true that a CGS has a duty of care and must serve his subordinates, right down to the lowest ranks.

The question that is posed here is how has Jackson performed as our servant? Judging from some comment there are those who feel that he's done pretty well. Equally others clearly feel that he's done pretty well for himself.

I'll be interested to read the biographies - authorised or not - which will surely appear in due course.

[David Murphy]

As another thought, can anyone exolain why we are so short of troops? We have 36 infantry batallions, plus a number of armoured and artillery regiments that apparently can do infantry work. We have five batallions in Iraq, one and a bit in Afghanistan, the only combat areas. Where are all the rest of them and why is it so hard to deploy two to three more batallions from other areas to Afghanistan?

Also, why the focus on armoured carroers for the troops. Even the Palestinians have managed to destroy a Merkava and the Hezbollah several more, and these are amongst the heaviest armoured vehicles around. Its sounding like the middle ages - keep adding armour to fight off the predators, until the soldier is so armoured he can't actually do his job any more.

[JD]

David: for any single Battalion on a deployment, as a rough rule of thumb, you can assume that this takes 3 Bns out of availability: the one there, the one that has come back, and the one training to go. Any attempt to treat deployments as a back to back thing just exacerbates the overstretch and morale problems - not to mention the need for training.

Then there's the rump left in Northern Ireland - where the boyos are being a bit lively again at the moment... By the time you also want to do some general training to keep skills up, we're a wee bit short.

As to the armour, it's not so much about armouring to fight, as armouring to move from a to b, in the absence of a useable helicopter fleet.

In essence, the crows of a policy of underfunding and acquiesence are coming home to roost...

[Gideon Flynn]

The UK needs to face up to the fact it is no longer a world power and withdraw its troops from Iraq/Afganistan.Not only are these 2 'deployments' a severe financial drain the fact that our troops are in these countries oppressing Muslims is turning our own Muslim community against us. The fact that the UK army is over stretched and tired is of little concern to me. No one forced them to join in the first place!!I would rather see money spent on the NHS or education etc than 'new boots and ammunition' for the army. And why do we need 2 huge very expensive carriers? Who is this nation trying to kid? We ae just a small offshore island not a global superpower.I appluad Blair for cutting the defence budget! its about time.

[JD]

"I would rather see money spent on the NHS or education etc than 'new boots and ammunition' for the army."

Precisely what has been happening throughout this government's watch, Gideon: NHS spending, in real terms, has increased constantly (see King's fund papers online for specifics), while schools capital spending has grown, on average, an extraordinary 17% pa... And yet all opinion polls and statistics show both areas as having declined in the same timeframe. Conversely, military spending has declined - and yet our armed forces are still perceived as highly effective at what they do...

You make the classic mistake of confusing spending with effectiveness. The money is not 'spent', it is largely wasted in the NHS and education systems. Until people appreciate the difference between value and cost, this will only get worse.

You are right to question whether we need some elements of our planned military capability, but your attitude reveals a certain bias...

[Nick]

The numerous comments about the lack of sufficient infantry and `kit`in Afghanistan etc seems to blame Blair.

This, I feel, is blaming the wrong man. Gordon Brown (our real 'Joint' PM) is the real villein. I heard once that he said "don't talk to me about defence, I don't understand it". He holds the purse strings. He seems to prefer to waist it on the NHS/ Edukashun (sic) etc....to no apparent effect. Has anybody noticed that the Australian Army is expanding its infantry?.....In proportion we require another 15 Battalions of infantry ..plus the best kit money can buy, including many more attack and transport helicopters. I suspect that the reduction of one or two Eurofighters (Typhoon)
( which we don't need) should cover it). Though we do need the (two) new Aircraft Carriers...(three would be better)to support the "boys on the ground"

Ps When pressed the `Para` CGS scores 1 with my Army Friends. They hated the "reorganisation" of their old and proud regiments, though they would, paradoxically, be happy to see the Paras expanded to 6 battalions.And the Gurkhas as well. Some of the best infantry we have.

PPS How many of the present House of Commons (or in Government) have served in HM forces? I suspect a handful at most...all on the Tory side....'New' Labour seem to be all lawyers! QED.