It is being assumed that these gentlemen know their codes of honour and all the Utopian stuff.

They also know that in our system hardly ever does anyone assume the responsibility of his office, pack up and go. Now that this the practice of the Maltese governments, whose members never pack up and go, having assumed political responsibility why should any of their subordinates go by the diktat?

I do understand the responsibility of officers toward their subordinates which at times comes at a very high cost which the family of the officer will have to bear the brunt of. I experienced this on a personal level.

Just to mention one instance, a policeman had two bad eggs thrown at him in my presence. I immediately issued charges for prosecution. I was directed by my superior officer to withdraw the case. I refused. After the umpteenth time of disobeying that order with as many transfers that followed, I am faced with my Personal Dossier.

That is the red light glowing in the path of disciplinary action.

I challenged my superior and wrote bluntly that if, like me, he had all the proof, it was his duty to proceed to the Public Service Commission and the Criminal Courts (the claim was that I was disobedient, insubordinate and rebellious – serious charges against a police officer) in the same manner that I did when I had proof at hand.

The question arises, having been loyal to my service, faithful to my men and my duty, what would have happened had I been dismissed? What about my family? What about their future? Their education? Their daily bread and butter?

So let us not be rash and let us take the opportunity to go a step ahead and farther in establishing procedures and rules.

In this particular instance, the Brigadier would have stood for his men, would have done what everyone is wishing here he would have done. Bravo. Come the Minister and ORDERS him to hand in his resignation. What then? Who would be defending the Brigadier`s men?

We must not forget the Effie Bencini case in the Police Force. He tried to take a stand only to find that Mintoff was demanding his resignation. How far have we come in all these years? As Dr Saliba states, have we learned anything since? Is there political consensus regarding matters such as these?

Have we forgotten the de Grey case of ’58 and Mintoff`s reaction? Are we oblivious to the humiliation de Grey was made to go through? I still do not see any monument to honour any Police Commissioner or Army Brigadier.

I do believe that rather than take sides, waste time, let us start building from the foundations up and analyse the events past and present and establish what these high-ranking officers should be doing within the framework of our invasive politics, which has permeated and seeped into everything going on in this land.

Finally, may I be allowed to express my understanding of these very difficult moments for all the officers of the Army and their families who surely are not enjoying the ride. My solidarity with all of you, for old times’ sake.

Since I have no superiors but the Truth, I’ll fix my bayonet and wade in.

In Western democracies, the role of the chief of the armed forces (i.e. the highest-ranking officer in the services, the AFM Commander in Malta, the Chief of Defence Staff in the UK, the Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr in Germany, the Chef d’État-Major des Armées in France, etc.) is defined as the execution of the political will of the Commander-in-Chief.

Now the Commander-in-Chief is usually the head of state. In some Western Democracies, the head of state is also the executive head of government. In the UK, she’s not. In Germany, he’s not.

But you get the point. The chain of command goes like:

Head of government -> chief of military.

And that’s that.

The role of the defence minister is to PROVIDE THE TOOLS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THOSE ORDERS. That is why the defence minister is responsible for the defence budget and the allocation of resources.

The three – CiC, armed forces commander and minister – have to work together.

But at no point is the armed forces commander subordinate to anyone.

I expect such nuances will be lost on most of my fellow citizens. There was a ginormous outcry recently in France because Hollande changed the terms of reference for the defence minister in a way that could imply the minister was actually the one giving the orders to the CEMA. The short-arsed nincompoop Hollande had to come out and explain himself to the media to clarify that he was merely giving more budgetary discretion to the minister, not command over the armed forces, which would always be under the President’s authority.

In Malta, the media would have been chasing some other story such as Pope Francis’s humbleness, the ascent of Everest by Ira Losco in a bikini, or Etoile and Soileil’s matching Hello Kitty outfits.

The point is that in Western democracies, such nuances are part and parcel of daily political debate and on everyone’s radar. But then is Malta a Western democracy?

On that occasion the inept handling of that emergency by an MLP lawyer politician who disdained the expert assistance of the USA Delta Force and relied on the “expertise” provided by an ersatz MLP colonel commandant of the Task Force resulted in the most inglorious record of the most tragic hijack in aviation history up to that date.

Will we never learn?

[Daphne – David, you are one of the few people who really wear me out. The Commander AFM has no superiors; that is why he is called the Commander. The fact that he is appointed and serves at the will of politicians, as we have so dramatically seen, does not make those politicians his superiors. It’s a difficult concept, but in time you may come to understand it. I can’t say I blame you, though, because much of the problem with this perception that many people share is the result of it being made far too obvious that there is political interference in the army. This sort of interference is associated with undemocratic states. You would never be able to suggest, in more developed democracies, that politicians elected for five years are the superiors of the supreme commander of the armed forces, or the equivalent.]

Civil servants usually also have a sense of loyalty and duty which means that they often implement decisions they may not agree with but still feel they should continue working for their country.

[Daphne – Soldiers/officers are not civil servants, David. The military does have its civilian employees, yes, but they are separate to the actual military structure. They might include secretaries and accounts clerks, that kind of thing. They are in an entirely different position and governed by different regulations.]

Therefore the brigadier may have felt that he cannot defy his superiors or just resign but must continue working with the current authority as he feels it is his duty to do so to and continue to serve in the army until or unless he is asked to resign.

[Daphne – I don’t really know where to begin with that last statement, David, but let’s try. 1. Brigadiers, in the Maltese military system, have no superiors. There is only ever one (the others are retired) and he is right at the top, the commanding officer. 2. While undue political interference makes it seem to people in Malta that the commanding officer of the army must take orders from his political masters, in reality he should not – no more than the Police Commissioner should. The Commander AFM is the supreme authority in his field just as the Police Commissioner is (or should be) in his. Of course, there is an anomaly in our system in that both the Commander AFM and the Police Commissioner appear to come into being and survive at the leisure and pleasure of temporary holders of cabinet office, creating the impression that these are the ‘superiors and masters’ of both the Police Commissioner and the Commander AFM. The Commander AFM and the Police Commissioner cannot be asked to resign unless there has been a serious transgression. They can only be removed. This happens because the Maltese system lacks democratic safeguards against the depredations of those who cannot be relied upon to respect ethical/democratic norms. In reality, a politician would not – for example, in Britain – be able to remove the supreme commander or the top policeman, still less for political reasons.]

Please allow me to say it in Maltese “It-tigrija sal-barkun” In this case the lighter was only in sight. I agree with Mr. Briffa. Mr Xuereb did not make it. He failed. Shame on him.

And from my impressions of him not a particularly bright officer, either. Let me just say that operationally, the AFM under his command has made some dubious acquisitions in terms of hardware.

They get equipment that can do much less for a higher cost than most. I don’t even think it’s corruption, rather manufacturers benefiting from lack of know-how and expertise on this island.