Donate SIGN UP

Do We Have A Lot Tho Thank James Blunt For? - Or Should He Have Been Court Marshalled?

Avatar Image
jake-the-peg | 11:41 Mon 09th Sep 2013 | News
16 Answers
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

I've never been a great fan of James Blunt,
but he has certainly gone up in my estimation after reading that!
its all academic as the decision was overturned by General Clarks superior officer.
All respect to the chap for standing his ground, decision may have been ultimately overturned but if he had followed orders at the time without any reluctance things could have been very
* different
If a Court martial was deemed necessary then it would have been actioned, as it was he used not only his own nous but the instructions of a senior officer he trusted.
Interesting - this only comes to light because JB is now a high-profile musician.

It may be that this sort of response is common - but because Solder X is not a pop star, we never hear about it.
Question Author
It does rather bring up the question of if and when soldiers should disobey orders though doesn't it?

After all 'I was only obeying orders' was not a defence at Neurenberg
It might have led to embarrassment at higher levels but not to WW3, Jackson was speaking figuratively, 'I don't want to start world war 3' is a common expression.
He obeyed a senior UK officer, not exactly cause for court marshal and as for if he had disobeyed a gung-ho Yank then it's anyones guess what would have happened but most likely it would have been hushed up by US top brass.
And it a bit different to Genocide of innocent people Jake!
don't like his music much, but he was backed up by Mike Jackson, not an inconsiderable man to have on your side..
Nuremburg was chiefly about war crimes rather than genocide, so the comparison is apt.
Can I ask why we're discussing an almost 3 year old story in News?

He's alluded to this story several times in interviews/TV chat shows, just wondering why it's considered topical now?
Probably because it appears as a 'most read' story on the BBC website today, why that should be is another question.
Nice spin but it was General Sir Mike Jackson who was taking the heat, not his underlings, for his own apparent refusal to follow a direct order. In any event it was the MoD that blocked British involvement in the proposed action.

...'When Clark said that I was resisting his orders, Shelton suggested that he had an "authority problem".

Clark called me back into the room. "Mike, do you understand that as a Nato commander I'm giving you a legal order, and if you don't accept that order you'll have to resign your position and get out of the chain of command?"

"Saceur, I do."

"OK. I'm giving you an order to block the runways at Pristina airfield. I want it done. Is that clear?"

Saceur was insistent, despite the risk of a confrontation with the Russians. I suggested that armoured vehicles would be better suited to blocking the runways than helicopters, in the almost certain knowledge that the UK would decline such a provocative move. Clark agreed that the vehicles would be preferable.

I went out to pass the order for 4 (UK) Armoured Brigade to place a combat team on short notice to move to the airfield, knowing that it would be referred for national approval.

I returned to the room and reported to Clark that I had given the warning order. He tried to change the subject, but I wasn't prepared to leave it there.

"Saceur, you're just testing me, aren't you? You don't really want me to do this, do you?"

He denied any such motive. After a little more discussion I left again to check on what was happening. London had played the red card. British forces would not be allowed to block the runway as Clark insisted.'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562161/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-My-clash-with-Nato-chief.html

Reports at the time did appear despite the lack of any pop star connection.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/10/world/us-general-was-overruled-in-kosovo.html
Looks like he ignored a sceptic with the backing of a British officer so perhaps we should now remove him from his contemporary ryhming slang commitments!

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Do We Have A Lot Tho Thank James Blunt For? - Or Should He Have Been Court Marshalled?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.