Chilcot Enquiry To 'criticise Senior Military Figures'.

[sandyRoe]

A report on Radio 4 this morning stated that someone close to the enquiry has said senior military figures will be criticised and waiting on their rebuttal of that same criticism is partially responsible for the delay in its publication.
Soldiers, high or low, do their duty. If a general was directed by his political masters to take a poorly equipped force to war and he obeyed, where's the grounds for criticism?

[Zacs-Master]

'Soldiers, high or low, do their duty.'

If that's the premis your basing your argument on, then it's a bit naive.

[sandyRoe]

Some 'did their duty and are dead'. They, of course, are beyond criticism.
I probably am naive when it comes to the politics of senior people. What would they have needed to have done to avoid censure?

[sandyRoe]

* senior military people ^

[anotheoldgit]

If anyone needs to be criticised, then it is Chilcot.

The publishing of this enquiry is long overdue.

[andy-hughes]

I am sure that someone of Chlicot's experience in political and public life dictates that he is fully aware that the timescales of his enquiry are causing grave concern - so would it not be politic to advise people of just how far he has progressed, and more pertinently, how much further he has got to go, and a brief synopsis as to why it has, and is taking so long.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

And been so costly.

[youngmafbog]

It's taking so long because of the 'right to reply'

No doubt this is being used as a tactic by those in power, either Military or Political (although most likely both).

Expect a whitewash with most names removed 'for security purposes'

[bazwillrun]

Maxwellisation is all you need to know...

The person to take the blame in the UK is Phony B liar...nobody else

[andy-hughes]

A thought occurs - the clock has always been ticking on this, but as the unfeasibly large time frame stretches on and on each day, there is an expectation commensurate with that massive time frame, and an even larger expectation based on the cost to the tax payer.

What that boils down to is - Sir John had better be very very sure that his Report (assuming it does see the light of day!) has a seriously large amount of bang to justify the seriously large amount of tax-payers' buck!!