It is all very well to press for Browne's scalp, but the real need is for one or more inquiries to understand why the Navy did not live up to its Nelsonian tradition, and possibly some courts martial.
In praising and publicising the weaknesses and humiliations of the hostages, the senior admirals appear to have revealed an unedifying Byngism at the heart of the Navy, for which they are personally responsible.
The case against Browne is that he should have prevented the admirals acting the way they did. It is a view that presupposes the Navy did not have the authority to make its own decisions, and requires a strained interpretation of events to justify that view: viz. that the freed fifteen were being given permission to express views on politically controversial issues (which goes beyond simply giving an account of what happened).
It is in the country's and Navy's interest that weak and bureaucratic officers and officials are weeded out and there is a reassertion of Nelson's own principles and values: of independence and boldness of action, of delegation of responsibility, and always doing one's utmost to succeed; but this must be done with due process, and it is only when the Navy is understood to be failing itself that Browne can legitimately act to override it.
The Telegraph should know better than to engage in these cheap party political tricks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment