General threatens mutiny

So if we find out who is "the senior serving general" (senior of what? senior of them all or of the ones who are considering mutiny?) we can work out who said this (or is said to have said it - anyone cam claim that he has been told things by someone "speaking anonymously" who could be a bloke he met on a number 9 bus)

STB I would say the difference between a mutiny and a coup is that those mutineeing (mutineering?) just sit around saying, "No we won't," to orders, while those carrying out a coup have planned together to do something positive, like turf out those previously in charge and take over actually giving the orders.

It is a democracy - if the government in power wants to fight or not fight in any arena, the army has to do its bidding. They may not like it - but that is irrelevant and there could be many soldiers who are not keen on the political background to what they are being asked to do right now, but that is just tough. It is their job. Armies have always fought according to the wishes of their political masters, and their personal views are never taken into account.

I think this general is speaking out of turn - it is not his place to express a political view in his professional capacity; nor indeed to incite mutiny. I cannot help wondering if his words have more to do with protecting military jobs than strategic objections.

I would think that lots in the armed forces - ordinary soldiers and airmen, etc. - would be glad if Corbyn became PM. They would be very unlikely to end up in Syria in the hands of IS, or be captured by the Taliban.

I think it is extraordinary that a general can be allowed to make a statement like this while students and young people are supposed to be reported and face investigation if they appear to have even investigated fundamentalist views. Mind you a part of me thinks if the armed forces are going to resign en-masse that would save a lot of money!
Am I the only person who thinks that Corbyn's view of the IRA, and many others who thought likewise, was largely the reason we reached a peace agreement and the bombing stopped?

I think the article is nonsense - saying that the army would not allow the PM to jeopardise the country is crazy - he/she would need the backing of parliament for any decisions. Not that Corbyn is seriously likely to become PM - but he is at least providing an opposition that is not a watered-down version of the government - that has to be good for democracy.

I do not know the details of how the peace agreement was reached in N Ireland, but progress is only made towards peace by holding conversations with those we might dislike - however distasteful that might be. Where would S Africa be without its peace and reconciliation under the leadership of Mandela?

Soldiers went to war when Tony Blair told them lies; that is how the system works. How must those poor soldiers feel now that they know the information on which the decisions were made was false? But that is how it goes - parliament says yes, and off they have to go and risk their lives. So sad. But armies do not take part in the politics, and as far as I am aware, never have.

Nobody should worry, Corbyn will never be PM.

The military are entitled to resign en masse I would have thought.

No, soon they don't just resign like the general public can from a job.
They sign on for a specific number of years.
The term is much shorter than it used to be, but you can't just give a week's notice.

I also wonder if this is real.
Gracesgran me too, that's why I asked if it is half-term

Am I the only person who thinks that Corbyn's view of the IRA, and many others who thought likewise, was largely the reason we reached a peace agreement and the bombing stopped?

No doubt history will be re-written to make it appear so.

I remember the contribution that Mo Mowlam made, but sadly, she is not here to speak up for herself.

Mo Mowlam was heavily criticised in the press for allegedly calling an IRA leader "babe" in a phone call. She went in to the Maze prison and spoke to Loyalist and IRA prisoners. On the conciliation website she says of the IRA "I was prepared to shake hands and treat them as human beings, because otherwise you won't get a good relationship for talking. I believe in talking rather than shooting. That's my basic philosophy on how to bring people to peace"
www.c-r.org/accord/engaging-armed-groups/assessing-groups-and-opportunities-former-government-minister-s

rq post 17.30pm
They could still all just walk out though.

Luckygirl post 16.06pm
* but progress is only made towards peace by holding conversations with those we might dislike - however distasteful that might be.*

Peace is sometimes achieved by killing the opposition. The nazis were not stopped by peace negotiations.

dj post 15.41pm Not what the alleged general is saying.
The military do sign up for combat.

It is a democracy - if the government in power wants to fight or not fight in any arena, the army has to do its bidding. They may not like it - but that is irrelevant and there could be many soldiers who are not keen on the political background to what they are being asked to do right now, but that is just tough. It is their job. Armies have always fought according to the wishes of their political masters, and their personal views are never taken into account

That is certainly not true in a lot of countries. It doesnt mean it is going to stay that way in this country.

I think it probably does, soontobe. What would be the point of recruiting an army if they're not going to obey rules/commands?

The military do sign up for combat. This may be true in theory and is how many civilians view the miliotary. The first Gulf War was not that long ago and there was a great deal of outrage and wringing of hands at that time because young men who had joined the army, basically to train as electricians, engineers, mechanics, cooks, etc., were sent into combat. Neither they nor their families had anticipated that. Of course, it may be different now since Tony Blair involved British troops in five - or was it six - wars.

They joined the army just to get free training as electricians, engineers etc? Surely it would have been part of the signing-up procedure to point out that if it was called for they'd have to engage in combat?

If any young person tells me they are going to join the armed forces, my first question is "Are you prepared to kill people?" That's what military forces are for in the long run. They are not simply for providing free training, "adventure" or even disaster help. They are also not democracies and never can be. They act (or should do) according to the will of Parliament. That doesn't make them mindless automatons, but it does mean they cannot pick and choose which orders to obey.

"Peace is sometimes achieved by killing the opposition." Heavens above soon - do you reject all attempts at finding peaceful solutions? Is this from the OT maybe?

Negotiation has to be the only reasonable way forward in all conflicts - physical violence must be the last resort.

I really don't think you can compare the motivation or behaviour of the IRA to that of the Nazis.

The Nazis had a notion that they could create a "pure" Aryan race by wiping out what they felt were defective strains of human beings which included Jews, ethnic Poles, Russians, etc., - together with gypsies, the physically and mentally disabled/chronically ill and people they called "degenerates", which included homosexuals.

The IRA's aim was to expel the British from Northern Ireland because they believed Ireland should be one united independent nation, not part of the United Kingdom, rather than two separate countries with separate governments.

Whilst the IRA undoubtedly committed many atrocities in the course of its fight for a united Ireland (as did the UDA also), it could not be said that its aim was to "cleanse" the country of "sub-humans". I would imagine most people would find it more acceptable to negotiate with, and try to form working relationships with, people whose aim is self-rule rather than with people whose aim is annihilation of millions of people.

I think all of us would kill someone if the conditions made it necessary; to protect our DC and DGC for exaample, if you were attacked directly by someone and your life was at risk, if we had principles we were prepared to die for.

We have had 7 decades free from direct war in western Europe I think we have perhaps forgotten what it is like to be in real fear for our lives as individuals or a nation. We look back at the last war from the knowledge that we won, but I have recently read a couple of books, one written by Vera Brittain, Shirley Williams mother, that were written in 1940 when the outcome of the war was very uncertain and a lot was known of how the Germans behaved in occupied countries. Vere Britain was a pacifist but she saw and understood the real fear people felt and their willingness to do anything to protect themselves.

I come from a military family, members of it died in WW1 and served in WW2, none of them were personally inclined to violence or jingoistic or of an 'up and at' em mentality. They joined the army to protect their country when it was under threat and continued to do so for decades afterwards. Military recruiters will reject anyone who wants to join up who shows any sign of blood lust.

Fighting and killing is an action of last resort when all else has failed and like it or not there will be times when all the peace efforts and negotiations fail. For them to work you need reasonable people on both sides.

Whose for rational and peaceable negotiations with ISIL?

In peacetime many young men and women join the Forces and expect to get a very good training; going off to war is a possibility that is at the back of their mind but, unless or until it happens they may train for it but it is not a constant at the forefront of their minds until politicians decide otherwise.

They will not mutiny or take over in a coup in this country however much they may dislike the government that is in power.

stopwar.org.uk/news/if-uk-army-rises-up-against-anyone-it-won-t-be-jeremy-corbyn-says-ex-soldier

Frankly, I don't want the army to rise up against anybody - that is not their job.

Countries where the army has risen up and staged a coup invariably end up as military dictatorships - there is no other route forward once the military arm has declared itself to be the maker of policies and laws instead of the defender of that country against those who would invade it and impose policies and laws onto it.

What motive has this "senior serving officer" for making such a challenging statement at this particular time? It has a very fishy smell to me.