Eyebags and eyewash
From Bruce Anderson Sir: I had no intention of suggesting that General Sir Mike Jackson's eyebags were removed for cosmetic reasons. In my original article, I had cited him as saying that the operation was necessary to protect his sight.
If only the proposed army changes were mere cosmetic surgery! Despite all the General's fancy footwork about redeployability (No way to write an article', 11 September), the latest reforms will mean an army with fewer battalions and fewer men. Does Mike Jackson really believe that in current world conditions we can afford another peace dividend at the army's expense?
The General makes a bold attempt to justify the changes, but as he is well aware, they are not being implemented on their merits. They are being forced through because of the Treasury's refusal to provide sufficient funds and because the PM feels the need to ration the number of battles he fights against the Chancellor.
The latest cutbacks may well persuade bright youngsters who were thinking of joining up that they would face a career of recurrent cutbacks. How disappointing that this should have happened while Mike Jackson was Chief of the General Staff. He was expected to be a soldier's soldier, not a Treasury spokesman. He should pay less attention to his eyes and more to the Army's teeth.
Bruce Anderson
London SW1
Previous page
