The Great Man Speaks

General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the army, the soldier’s general, has lashed out at the government for asking too much of his men and at the MoD for not caring enough about them. The great man's presentation of the BBC's annual Richard Dimbleby lecture was a bravura performance. On the difficult problem of Iraq which is exercising so many great minds this week, he has thought long and hard, he says. Some of course – he won’t mention the name of his successor General Sir Richard Dannatt - have called for a swift withdrawal. But the great man has decided that it would be immoral simply to cut and run. Who could disagree with him? Put him on a pedestal, give him a seat in the House of Lords and let’s all stand back and admire the sheer personal courage of a thoroughly decent man who throughout his time in charge of the army tried his level best to hold back the ever increasing demands imposed on his men by the government and the evil monster that is the MoD.

(Rapturous applause)

Sorry, you say. Could this possibly be the same General Sir Mike Jackson who, when he was actually head of the army and they were actually his men, insisted against all the evidence that they were “stretched but not overstretched”? Is this the very same General Sir Mike Jackson who decided that fighting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan was such a bed of roses for his men that he could axe three frontline infantry battalions at a stroke? Is it the same great man - the soldier's general - who insisted that his men were ready to cross the start lines into Iraq with all they needed, amid major shortages of everything from toilet rolls to the chemical and biological filters to protect them against Saddam's so-called “weapons of mass destruction”? Could this possibly be the same General Sir Mike Jackson who when he sent several thousand extra troops into Afghanistan while thousands more were still stuck in Iraq, insisted that there were plenty of men to do the job? Asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr: Do you have enough people? The great man replied: “Yes, We've looked at this very carefully, we can do it - there is no doubt about that.”

But the mere fact that you have asked these foolishly simplistic questions is evidence enough that you clearly don’t understand. Those were dark, dark days and the great man could do nothing, crushed as he was by the evil monster that was the MoD. It didn’t care about his soldiers. It made too many demands on them and didn’t treat them properly. But there was nothing the great man could do because he didn’t even have control of his own budget. “I did not hold the budget for the Army, believe it or not,” he intones. “We have over-centralised in my view, and this has diminished the Chiefs of Staff's ability to take personal charge of the running of their Services. Their ability to determine, for example, personnel matters - pay, terms of service, accommodation; medical - we have not recovered from the disastrous decisions over the medical services which were made in the aftermath of the Cold War, especially where the hospitalisation of wounded soldiers is concerned. There is a perverse reluctance to acknowledge the psychological importance of comradeship in the ward as well as on the battlefield.”

So now surely you understand why the great man was unable to speak any of these great truths when he was actually in charge of his men and actually able to make a difference, why he repeatedly appeared in fact to say the complete opposite of what he says now.

Perhaps someone needs to explain all this to the great man’s successor General Sir Richard Dannatt because he clearly doesn’t understand the realities of life. Even though he is of course still mired in this MoD plot to do the army down, the first thing he did after replacing the great man was to point out how pathetically poorly British soldiers were being paid to be used for Taliban target practice in southern Afghanistan and astonishingly it produced more money. Not enough, the great man tells us wisely but surely something at least. The next thing Dannatt did was shout very loudly that the army was close to breaking point because of the demands made on it in Iraq and Afghanistan, embarassing the government into starting to talk about withdrawing from Iraq, and in between time he managed to ensure that wounded soldiers were treated properly in a military-only ward by telling the defence secretary in no uncertain terms that he was not prepared to accept that his men should be dumped into any bed that happened to be available in a civilian ward just to save money.

Great minds will no doubt ponder and argue among themselves for years to come how Dannatt managed to do all this within a few short weeks of taking over, while the great man could not do it in three long years. Perhaps the readers of this blog could help them unravel what must surely be one of the great mysteries of our time.

Comments

[The 3rd Column]

Simple, Mick, General Jackson didn't want to shake the status quo.

To put it bluntly, Jackson didn't know how to do it, wasn't sure it would yield results if he tried or that he would come out of it unscathed. His guts failed him at a time when they were most needed. Sadly, it's a common failing in a lot of good men in the grunt grunt service and in the other major services as well. Suppose it's got something to do with the training. Dannatt was an exception.

Who was it who said, evil triumphs when good men do nothing? Apt maxim for General Jackson you think?

[Nicholas Price]

Yes I agree that it is all rather curious. At what point did the man who, at the height of the crisis in Serbia in 1999 and thankfully, inform the glamour-boys at NATO Supreme HQ that he was not prepared to risk all because of the provocative appearance of Russian airborne troops, but instead artfully welcomed their belated joining of the 'International Coalition'? If only his attitude to military superiors in the field had been replicated to his political at Whitehall, a number of the army's present difficulties may heve been prevented. Surely an immensely wasted opportunity. Thank goodness the present boss, notwithstanding his supposed lack of 'reputation' has been honest and open about the dreadful realities. In short I agree with your premise - too little and far too late General Jackson. Enjoy your retirement.

[Frank Schnittger]

There is no mystery, Mick. When you go into battle the last thing you want to do is undermine the confidence and the morale of your own troops. If you have concerns you voice them privately.

You then do the decent things and retire and say all the things your successor cannot say because insubordination, when it starts at then top, cannot but filter right down the line. "If the Commander-n-chief doesn't think we should be doing this - then why are you asking me to do it?"

Accountability lies where the budget is held. If the MOD is holding the budget, then they are directly responsible. That is where the heads should be rolling.

The analogy with the current English Rugby team is apt. Sack the Captain, Sack the Coach, is the cry. But If the structures are wrong, the players are over stretched, half get injured because of this over-stretch, inexperienced players have to be brought in before they are ready - and yet more matches against top teams are laid on - who really should be shouldering the responsibility?

[Matt Radford]

While I wholeheartedly agree with the authors stance on the lack of care with which our servicemen are treated, I wonder if he is being entirely fair to Gen. Jackson. British generals are expected to carry out all lawful commands of the elected government of the day, not to criticise them,to do this undermines our very democracy. I seems, however, that this understanding is being abused and is used by politicans with no real understanding of the military to use and,frankly, abuse the armed forces. Perhaps Gen. Jackson is an old fashioned man of honour who felt that ,given time, the Government would do the honourable thing. They didn't. Now freed from the constraints of service he can speak out. His successor, no doubt also honourable, has realised that since the electorate do not seem to care enough to demand improvement from their MPs he has no choice but to speak out. How embarrassing that a nation that supposedly takes pride in its forces, and a government that has asked so much from them with so little, need to be shamed into doing just some of what should be done as a matter of course.

[Kenneth Armitage]

General Sir Michael Jackson is correct in everything he says and I sincerely hope that more Admirals and Generals, if they have the wherewithal, will also speak their mind without political pressure; it seems a pity that more do not do it when they are still serving. However, you only need to ask serving officers and men what they think about their conditions, equipment and remuneration and if they are honest, as the vast majority of servicemen and women are, they will speak their mind and tell you precisely how it is and where the problems are.

On the matter of the war in Iraq it has taken Mr Bush and Mr Blair 3 years to begin to understand that they were never in a position or situation to win given the insurgency and activities of the numerous factions in that country. However, the real weakness stems from the failure to prosecute the first Iraq war and deal with the issue then, but the people in power, in the US and UK, at that time made some incorrect decisions for reasons best known to themselves.

With respect to the war in Afghanistan - our Armed Forces were, allegedly and supposedly, sent to Afghanistan not to wage war or seek out and destroy terrorists but in order to provide the security conditions in which reconstruction could take place. Most of the deployed NATO troops are involved in reconstruction work but the British, as well as Canadians and the Netherlands, troops are in the very dangerous Helmand province near the border with Pakistan. In the event they have been fighting an all out war against the Taleban and suffering not just a breakdown in equipment and machinery but in some instances running out of ammunition and suffering death and casualties.

Given that there are frequent complaints about the quality, and sometimes the shortage, of equipment from the ‘front-line’ how on earth does the government expect men to operate with equipment and machinery that is not only 'not fit for purpose' but which was never designed to conduct warfare under those conditions? It is said that a poor man blames his tools, but if he does not have the proper tools, in the right numbers and of superior quality to those posed by the threat then he cannot be blamed. With ageing vehicles, ageing aircraft and ageing ships what has been happening in government and the MOD for the past decade or more?

On the matter of pay, British troops are well-trained, committed, reliable and capable but the government still pays lower ranks very badly; the quoted wage of £12,161 a year for an ordinary sailor, soldier or airman is pathetic when you consider that sum is less than 60% of the median wage in Britain. And, the same applies to pensions.

You try telling any British civilian, and the majority do not really give a damn that is unless they have fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, aunts or uncles serving, that there are young men putting their lives at risk, pursuing our government's foreign policy, in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo and Northern Ireland, let alone those deployed under UN missions in Ethiopia, Liberia and Sierra Leone for far less than such similar jobs as, almost, a firemen and a policemen combined. Oh, and sometimes they have been called upon to remove rubbish!

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB), "an independent body of distinguished men and women from public life and industry", allegedly gather information to advise the Prime Minister on pay for the Armed Forces, but they have never really compared, and how can they, the conditions that servicemen and women work under when compared to civilian jobs; there is no comparison.

The result is that the pay, and pension schemes, of UK service personnel is not as good as our former colonial cousins in Australia, Canada and New Zealand let alone our American cousins and neither do we have access to naval and military hospitals, as is the case with the American Veterans.

With respect to the provision of naval and military hospitals, many of us have been pointing out for years the danger associated with closing naval and military hospitals but it falls on deaf ears. This issues is particularly relevant after the incident with the wounded soldier in a Birmingham hospital being abused by a visitor to the hospital, allegedly a Muslim, that there is a need for greater security. There have been reported incidences of troops returning being told to go and see their GP because they cannot be treated by the MOD. I can only hope that someone in the MOD is not so stupid and crass to have taken such a decision and that it is not the case? If they have then there can be no excuse but an explanation is paramount.

However, the government must provide a secure combined naval and military hospital with all the necessary facilities and equipment in a secure establishment and guarded by our own servicemen and women to ensure those injured serving their country are given treatment similar to that provided to US Servicemen and women.

On the matter of accommodation – of course many barracks and accommodation facilities have not been revamped, refurbished or upgraded for decades but that is only part of the problem. Why should a young man serving under muck and bullets still be charged ‘Council Tax’ when he is serving abroad; and, if he is out of the country for 12 months or more why does he pay income tax?

No doubt many Admirals and Generals have quoted on the subject of strategy but the Chinese Warlord Sun Tzu, circa 400 BC, got it right when he suggested that, "He who wishes to fight must first count the cost”, and, “I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.”

In other words you cannot conduct warfare on the cheap and if yu wish to flex muscles then you must have the resources; it takes a great deal of time, effort, planning and money if you wish to get involved in any conflict no matter how small; and, any conflict must be conducted as swiftly, efficiently and effectively as possible, with the lowest possible loss of life, otherwise you will never win any battle. Again, to quote Sun Tzu, "Generally in warfare: If you are ten times the enemy’s strength, then surround them; if you are five times, attack them; if double their strength, divide them; if equal, be able to fight them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, avoid them.”

You cannot keep cutting the defence budget, which is precisely what has been happening in Britain over many decades, and expect men and machinery to prosecute any war or conflict and to function without more than sufficient replacements, on roulement, to continue with the task.

It seems that it is not only the Home Office that is, "not fit for purpose"; some other government departments need to examine their strategies.

[Neil Murphy]

Good article. It says everything about this government. They behave like schoolyard bullies - they will push you around until you say enough, then they cower like the cowards they are.

[alistair]

Mr Smith,

Given that General Dannatt was felt by many to be verging on causing a constitutional crisis by saying what he said, perhaps we can give General Jackson a little benefit of the doubt?

Perhaps Dannatt only spoke out so quickly because he had witnessed his predecessors private concerns go unheeded. Indeed the pledge Dannatt won from Blair that the army could have 'everything it asks for' has been (as Jackson pointed out) largely useless thus far.

You say that Jackson disseminated about overstretch but I don't see that - the Army has managed to cope with both operations, therefore was not 'overstretched'. Jackson's point was that we should not expect the army to go on coping in this way just so we can get away with spending 2% of GDP on our national defence despite being under 'the gravest threat since WW2' if Reid is to be believed.

If you've ever worked in a bureaucracy, I think you should have a little more sympathy for Jackson even if he did misjudge when to speak out. Most organisations like that are a total nightmare, let alone when the consequence could be that one of your men dies for lack of simple body armour, as oner soldier shamefully did.

I find it strange that of all the things to pick up on about his speech you choose to have a go at him for speaking out at all. If a retired soldier (of 45 years' service) can have his motives for speaking questioned like this, a journalist most certainly can too...!

[Steve Ipswich]

At least Jackson has spoken out. He has in fact come to the support of Sir Richard. No doubt Jackson does have more political guile than Dannatt. The latter is without doubt a soldier first.

Jackson did bite the government by refusing to "start the third world war" and that may well have used up his capital. In the same way we will probably hear no more from Dannatt. It may be fair to say that having faced the governemnt down once he feared being replaced by a yes man who would follow the party line of jelly spined politicians next time and precipitate such a conflagration. At least while he was at the helm they knew and he knew he wouldn't.

Hence swallowing some very bitter pills on behalf of the army.

The bottom line is that this government does not deserve the army that protects its and our interests. As we don't shout loudly enough as civilians nor do we deserve them. They would protect our right to disagree even with the existance of their organisation. Yet they are asked to leave public places as the sight of their uniform is offensive. Barred from pubs because they are soldiers and told to take off their uniform in hospitals when they arrive wounded so as not to offend anyone. All of these scenarios have and continue to happen.

[Michael Boyd-Carpenter]

Why is it that retired Archbishops,Generals,Policemen et al can not keep their traps shut when they leave the job,especially when in most cases they have cocked it up in whilst in the job.
Bad form!

[John Flunder]

Given the choice between General Mike Jackson (who fought for a living)) and Mike Smith (who writes for a living)) I go for the General.

Our servicemen and women should have the very best equipment money can buy and when MOD staff receive cash bonuses for "going that extra mile " (the politicians words) whilst our service men and women risk death because of lack of ammunition, body armour, military hospital facilities, etc we should be asking whose side those who authorised these "bonus payments"are on.

Perhaps Mr Smith would like to do an in depth study on the terms and conditions applied to these "bonus payments" within the MOD so that we may all know if the payments were linked to financial savings/cut backs to the military at a time when the Prime Minister was promising that they would get whatever they wanted to fight the war in Iraq. Did the shortage of helicopters help pay the MOD bonuses ? - Perhaps Mr Smith can "research" this for us !

[Mick says: This would all be very valid if it werent for the fact that Mr Smith has been writing and researching on this subject for the past five years exposing all sorts of mistreatment of our troops while the general was not even simply keeping quiet but actually saying that this mistreatment did not exist.]

[The 3rd Column]

I actually sympathize with General Jackson. He must have spoken, complained about the Army's problem a number of times to the powers that be in private and was ignored so like a good soldier that he was, he kept quiet and toed the line.

But Mick is right, Sir Mike missed the boat. He also had all of 2 to 3 months (before Sir Richard's complaints came out) following his retirement to speak out but not a squeak from the great man. (And by the way, Mr Flunder, Mick's been writing about the chronic problems with MoD regularly and for quite a while, been following his writings, something I suspect facilitated Dannatt's media blitzkrieg too...)

Everybody had been expecting Jackson to come out publicly about MoD devil may care attitude vis a vis the troops on the ground, problems besetting the Army, the problems of the troops, problems with pay, etc. until the last minute, i.e., on his retirement day, after all he had nothing to lose anymore but everything to gain, but he chose to stay mute and waited all of 4 months after retiring to do it.

By then General Dannatt had stolen the thunder!

It is unfortunate that Dannatt coming out in public the way he did probably killed his chance of being promoted to Chief Defence Forces. Having said this I believe he is all the more admirable because it shows his great moral courage.

The measure of greatness of a soldier is sometimes not about all the good things he did as a soldier but about making the important ultimate decision when it mattered most. Jackson, sadly failed when it came to the crunch.

[A Royal Marine's Mum]

For what it is worth I just want to add this: my son went to Helmand Province in September, as soon as he arrived he had to buy a duvet for his bed. Prior to leaving he had to purchase clothing and equipment necessary to his deployment. As General Sir Mike Jackson says, his pay is little over £1000 a month and out of this he has to pay an expensive kit insurance. Since he has been there 3 of his colleagues have died, the latest on Tuesday - a lad of 21, the same age as my son. Is it any wonder that morale is so low and Royal Marines are leaving the service quicker than they can be recruited and trained? Some fool on Radio 4's World at One yesterday denied that morale was low; whoever he was, he clearly knows nothing. When Tony Blair made his surprise visit to Camp Bastion the other week, any Marine who was considered a possible heckler was confined to tent (as that is their accommodation in the desert). No, the MOD and government do not value or respect our troops; thank goodness General Sir Mike Jackson has spoken out.

[Chuck Unsworth]

A few observations - and I'm well aware of the Lions' Den here:

Frank Schnittger: 'Accountability lies where the budget is held'. That's possibly the case for accountants, but are we not here discussing moral accountability and responsibility?

Matt Radford: 'British generals are expected to carry out all lawful commands of the elected government of the day, not to criticise them,to do this undermines our very democracy'. Well, Yes and No. Generals are entitled to speak out in the same way as everyone else. There is no contractual obligation on their part to do otherwise. I think that a few more serving Generals speaking out would, in fact, strengthen democracy. To 'Hear, See and Speak no evil' is sometimes particularly evil in itself.

Kenneth Armitage: 'The Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB), "an independent body of distinguished men and women from public life and industry"'. Yes indeed, 'distinguished' in whose eyes? And what might be the process of selection and qualification for such exalted work? The AFPRB sadly has almost no representation from the ordinary rank and file, whereas it should be a true negotiation forum.

Alistair: 'the Army has managed to cope with both operations, therefore was not 'overstretched'. I'd like to think that in any situation we should not expect our Army to just 'cope'.

Alistair: 'If you've ever worked in a bureaucracy, I think you should have a little more sympathy for Jackson even if he did misjudge when to speak out.'. Perhaps Whitehall has finally triumphed and the armed forces actually are now a giant bureaucracy. As for 'misjudgement', it's my view that Jackson has judged this one extremely carefully, and has decided what would be best in his own interests - not unusual for the good General. His much trumpeted speech will be seen in many quarters as a belated statement of the bleeding obvious. Why now, after Bush and Blair have already decided to flee from Iraq? Has Jackson added to the total sum of human knowledge by his tardy intervention?

Steve Ipswich:'He has in fact come to the support of Sir Richard. No doubt Jackson does have more political guile than Dannatt'. I'm not sure that Dannatt would necessarily welcome the 'support' of Jackson. Equally I suspect that Dannatt may be displaying rather more guile than his predecessor. Whether it's sufficient is another discussion.

John Flunder:'Given the choice between General Mike Jackson (who fought for a living)) and Mike Smith (who writes for a living)) I go for the General.'. How much actual 'fighting' did Jackson get involved in? Are we to ignore Mick Smith's military career? Often it's those lower down the feeding chain who exhibit real courage, integrity and sound common sense. Sadly, experience, length of service and rank do not always provide wisdom.

[Francis Tuttle]

Jackson may have complained in private. But the fact is that Dannatt put his head above the parapet, risked getting it shot off, but in fact came away triumphant. Fortuna favet etc. Ask his better paid men and look at the government's shift of policy.

Excellent article, Mick.

[nigel gilbert]

A quote direct from a soldier. " his job was to act in the best interest of the Country by ensuring that the Army was adequately staffed and equipped and to look after the welfare of his troops. He has done none of this as he has been instrumental in disbanding units and scrapping hundreds of years of history and for what gains, absolutely none as he has helped to drive out more and more members of the Army who have been leaving in their droves."

I agree with every word.

[Frank Schnittger]

Chuck - I'm sure you are more than able to hold your own in the lions den! Let's not split hairs. I take Accountability to mean financial and political accountability. On that basis alone heads should roll.

Moral responsibility - you expect that of politicians and bureaucrats? Good luck!

Blair has said he will answer to God. But the reality that is now Iraq has already spoken in response. He may now try to redeem himself by acting as peacemaker in Israel/Palestine, but it is questionable whether either side will trust his judgement as to how a better, more peaceful and stable democratic constitutional structure can be achieved.

Politicians are essentially amateurs when it comes to make wars. They have to decide whether war should be made. They are very silly to ignore the advice of professionals on how it can be made - within the constraints of budgets, resources and a clearly thought out set of war aims.

We have seen the folly of Rumsfeld applying business theory to military problems, and Bush and Blair applying Christian democracy theory to Iraq. We don't want Generals running Government but we ignore them at our peril when it comes to making war.

[Cllr Keith Standring]

Without question, these past weeks have been controversial ones for supporters of the British and American presence in Iraq. First, in October, a medical report commissioned by The Lancet estimated that some 655,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion in 2003. Then, in a sensational interview in the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, broke ranks with the government. The army chief claimed that the intervention had been ‘naïve’, that UK troops ‘exacerbate’ security problems in Iraq and elsewhere in the world and that ‘we should get ourselves out some time soon’.

Despite the fact that we entered Iraq on the basis of lies to Parliament by Tony Blair, we went there and as an ex-regular Grenadier Guardsman and a Conservative, I considered it was the duty of the UK to stand by its Forces until the ‘job was done’.

Since then the UK Forces have been, and are, grossly under equipped in such a fashion that the extra pay the government has recently authorised (whilst most welcome) doesn’t provide added safeguards. Indeed, in the last few days as part of the Dimbleby Lecture, General Sir Mike Jackson, the former Army chief, condemned the lack of support given to the armed forces by the Government and the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are crucial to the protection of the nation and to the defence of freedom. All around the world British people lay their lives on the line to serve their country, and it is shameful that their reward for doing their job with the utmost professionalism is neglect. Because they bravely struggle on to success despite the failings of Government, the MoD seems to think this justifies continued under funding.

Those who fight on our behalf deserve good pay, the best equipment and strong medical and personal support. That they are all too often denied those things is a disgrace.

I regard the statement by Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt to be entirely appropriate. Unlike WW1, these UK Service personnel are not “lions led by donkeys”, they are “lions led by a lion”. Perhaps it’s time to consider deploying some of our Service personnel on homeland security duties?

The lack of experience in the Armed Services by any responsible Labour politician means that they have been and are speaking from where the sun doesn’t shine. The British people have generally given unconditional support to our people on armed service. We should now give them and their Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt every support in expediting what he has said.

[EX 3 PARA]

Good article Mick.
For my two peneth I would like to direct readers of this Blog to this

http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2006/05/would_baff_work.html#more

Then read the letter from this month's Soldier Magazine below.

Good to see the MOD have learnt something. A good example of how the MOD got it right for once. Would the incident involving Chandler Biddiss have been a different story if Andrew K, Bob P or Mike N had not been part of the Chain Of Command and had not had an agenda against a soldier under their command or not had a general to protect them when things got out of hand? who knows, Its too late for young Chandler Biddiss but at least this letter shows he did not suffer in vain 7 years ago.

http://soldiermagazine.co.uk/ll/mail1.htm
Our triple treasure

WE soldiers are quick to run the Army down, and the Talkback pages are testimony to that, regularly filled with complaints. But I wanted to write to highlight the fact that there are times when the Army pulls out all the stops to support soldiers at times when they need it most.

My wife Lucie and I were based in Brunei, where I was attached to the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles. We underwent IVF treatment there, but soon after discovering the wonderful news that we were expecting triplets, we were told that a rare medical condition threatened the lives of all three babies.

Our only hope was to return to the UK as soon as possible and be supervised for the remainder of the pregnancy by a world leader in foetal medicine in London.
The CO of 2 RGR took instant action and arranged our flights, an attachment for me to the Army School of Physical Training in Aldershot and a married quarter nearby.

Eight working days later we were in England where the post and quarter were ready for us. The ASPT arranged for me to leave three times a week for hospital appointments so I could be there for my wife throughout her high-risk pregnancy and after the birth.

The support we received has been fantastic. Military personnel at 2 RGR in Brunei and the ASPT in Aldershot understood the seriousness of our situation and dealt with it in the swiftest, most sensitive and sympathetic manner.

We are eternally grateful.

Although the triplets were born seven weeks premature on June 28, weighing just 3lb each, and had to spend the first month in intensive care, they are fine now. I amacutely aware that without the amazing support we received from the Army our story may not have had such a happy ending. – WO2 (QMSI) Matt Wigley, APTC, Aldershot.

[T Atkins]

The most effective CGS is the one who builds a relationship with the ministers based on mutual trust. When trust exists, the ability to influence is enhanced. CGS's who conduct their business in public win battles but lose wars.

[Gareth Rhymes]

I believe that General Danneat's Christainity is the decisive factor. Speaking as a Christian I can say how this faith demands action, dirrected by true Biblical love and genuine practical concern. Christ's second commandment is 'Love your nabour as yourself' and those in leadership roles are consistently charged with the responsibility for their subordinates's welfare. I believe General Dannatt is merely fulfilling these commands.

Christs's first commandment is 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength' and this is the key to being enabled, by God's power alone, to fulfill the second. General Dannatt has demonstrated this well and may he, by God's grace, continue to. God Bless,

Yours Sincerely,

Gareth Rhymes, Hull

[Chuck Unsworth]

I'm just going to have a brief lie-down in a darkened room.

I think I'm getting one of my headaches...