Commanding presence

One of the pleasures of journalism is the opportunity to meet eminent persons: bankers, businessmen, civil servants, diplomats, politicians, vignerons. Although there are occasional exceptions, such as Theresa May and around one-third of the current cabinet, it is usually easy to see why these characters attained their eminence. That is especially true when it comes to the ablest group of them all, the soldiers.

There is a good reason for this. It is hard to believe that any large organisation on earth devotes as much effort to training as the British army takes for granted. (I am sure that the same is true of the navy and the RAF, but I do not know them as well). Army officers are rigorously assessed. To rise in the profession of arms, they must prove that they can fight, lead and think. No wonder that they are so impressive. I remember having breakfast in a Green Jackets’ mess in Bosnia. All the young officers — and, God, they all looked young to me, including the CO — were reading books. Some of them intended to write books. But they had also run up the local equivalent of Ben Nevis before breakfast.

This all helps to explain why sensible prime ministers come to value soldiers so highly, which does not prevent them from leaving the army underfunded. A domestic political difficulty emerges. The PM summons a conclave of permanent secretaries. The answer is predictable: ‘We will prepare a report for you, prime minister. Would Easter do?’ The PM is aware that one of the recommendations will be ‘more resources’.

A military problem arises. Then, it is a question of: ‘Okay if we have an answer by close of play Friday?’ The PM will also know that even if the generals would like more cash, they are resigned to living in a world of make-do-and-mend.