General threatens mutiny

I accept, and respect, that such an experience would colour your opinion. My experience, as I said, has been different and I can only stand by what I said before. As to the political decisions on deployments, as I said before, the Chiefs of Staff can advise, but ultimately if the government of the day want to embark on some grand military fools errand, the military have to go.

greyduster I admit my contact with armed forces officers is limited to my BsiL and their friends but they were senior and one high command level in NATO.. but that is what they are like!

One wrote to DH when we were newly married & students trying to ban us from attending CND etc demos. We rarely saw him & he would not have known what our day to day lives were like so guessed we had been spotted and identified by someone!

To clarify I am not anti-individual military.. the armed forces are a necessary aspect of life. What I do not like are some of the political decisions to deploy the armed forces. There is a difference.

As I said in my earlier Bufton Tufton post I suspect it was not a serving officer but a case of report from a contact of a contact etc to undermine Corbyn!

A number of very senior officer have resigned recently because they can't countenance the scale of the defence cuts. This is a huge loss to the Army, as they are men of high calibre and will be sadly missed. Such people don't mutiny - they vote with their feet.

soon The government rules the country by agreement with the citizens, not by yielding to military force.

A mutiny with enough backing to remove a prime minister wouldn't pay any attention to those who put that prime minister into office. They would apply pressure to appoint a leader of their own choosing. A government that was asked to do that would refuse, no elected government would stand for it.

A government that "did" give in to the pressure of a mutiny by the military would face rebellion from the population.

Either way, it would lead to civil war.

But Greyduster is right, this is not a mutiny but a statement of his dissatisfaction with the prospect of a PM who could possibly dismantle national security.

Who would lead the government that a mutiny would put in place? Who would be daft enough to accept that poisoned chalice - "You are only here for as long as the military approve

The government would carry on if a mutiny took place.

Greyduster hurrah and hats off to your post!

One general can't mutiny on his own, he may feel mutinous but it takes more than one to tango mutiny

Hard-earned!

As I heard it, the unnamed general is supposed to have said that if Corbyn became PM many senior officers would resign. The mutiny term is said to have been conjured up by the media. This seems to be a much more likely scenario than a serving general talking about mutiny. You don't get to be a general by shooting your mouth off and saying daft things that are likely to get you locked up. Most civilians have a preconceived idea of what senior service officers are like - hence the Bufton-Tufton Tory grandee label. Those I have met, and worked for, have been highly intelligent, rational, thinking individuals who know that they are there to serve their Monarch and do the bidding of the Government of the day, even if that bidding is flawed, which we know it often is. They can advise; they do not dictate, and they are not stupid enough to put their hard own careers on the line by laying their personal opinions bare before the press.

If he is only speaking for himself, then he can hardly claim that there will be wholesale rebellion in the forces.

If he has discussed it with fellow "senior serving officers", then he is laying himself wide open to a charge of planning a mutiny, which is a very serious offence. He is on very dangerous ground there, and trying to set a precedent that could lead to the situation that exists in some third- world countries - dictatorship moderated by assassination.

There have been mutinies in the forces in the past, but none of them were against the elected government and prime minister of the land. Armies have been raised and used by opposing factions (as in the civil war) but the army itself is not a power factor in a democracy.

Who would lead the government that a mutiny would put in place? Who would be daft enough to accept that poisoned chalice - "You are only here for as long as the military approve".

Who would have the backing of parliament if the mutiny were against a decision reached democratically by that parliament?

Why does he believe that Corby is more likely than any other PM to get parliament to agree to pass a law purely on his own preference? It would be discussed and voted on, like all other legislation in this non-dictator democracy

And why is he so sure that Corbyn will even become PM that he has to make such a threat in expectation of it?

I wonder what he meant by "a mutiny"? Is he implying a military coup? If so I am afraid I will be on the barricades and part of a rebellion. If he is a military man he should know that such regimes don't work especially if the population doesn't support it.

Corbryn said it in 1999, not 2015 , so if you are accepting he still wants this then you also accept Cammeron is still a supporter of apartheid ?

Perhaps it is because Corbyn has said, should he become PM, that he would like people to be able to opt out of paying that portion of their tax that goes towards paying for the armed forces.

Can I opt out of that portion of my tax that goes towards politicians' expenses, the House of Lords, etc please ?

Assuming isn't always wise soon, perhaps best to ask a direct question?

I am puzzled actually.

I sort of assumed that those who dont want trident, on the whole dont want a fighting military either.
So a mass mutiny would be beneficial?

He's a soldier and presumably has spent his life battling people who don't like his views!!

He is not saying anything very different to the government. He is just saying it to give it a bit more "welly" as he is, supposedly, speaking from the horses mouth!

Scaremongering to think he would suffer any more than Corbyn for expressing his point of view! A storm in a teacup!

If a mass mutiny, doubt anyone left to conduct the court marshal
Yes, I said that too.

Is he talking about all the services or the Army?
Mind you, the Senior Service has mutinied before, they have previous .....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invergordon_Mutiny
Perhaps the RAF could conduct a court martial

Not a brave soldier then if he cannot find the courage to speak out and face the consequences

Penstemmon - from those who disagree with his views, obviously...

You can't seriously believe that if he went public there would be no repercussions?

Ana who from?

Especially not about a professional and paid army like the British one.

soon it is abundantly clear that you know little about the military.

Anniebach 1st paragraph 18.12pm yes

Not sure how many in the military now, but jails are full or nearly full at the best of times.
The normal prison guards would not be any match for them all.

Tresco, not saying at all that they should, but they could.

I dont know much about the military though. But I never always think that the status quo on anything is always going to carry on.
Life changes.

He may be free to speak if he's retired, but why would he lay himself (and his family) open to vitriolic and possibly physical retaliation?

If he is a senior serving general he would have a route to get his opinion heard, enough right wing politicians would be happy to voice his thoughts. If he is retired then he is free to speak and be named!

If a mass mutiny, doubt anyone left to conduct the court marshal