What to make of the comments of General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the Defence Staff? The Daily Telegraph report from Friday, widely covered elsewhere, has the UK’s top soldier laying down a marker than former squaddies should not face prosecution for Troubles-era incidents.

My suspicion is that his remarks, which seem off the cuff in a general briefing with journalists, are just an inelegant and impulsive response, which will have guaranteed a kick up the backside from his political masters for straying into controversy.

The Daily Telegraph on 3 August.

But what if this is part of a subtle kite-flying exercise designed to pave the way for prosecutions actually taking place?

His comments could be read as an attempt to triangulate a position between those who believe – in principle – soldiers should benefit from a statute of limitations for their alleged crimes during their tours of Northern Ireland and the families of victims determined – in principle – to pursue them through the courts to get justice for their loved ones.

Let’s look at exactly what he said (courtesy of the BBC):

“It is right and proper that if our soldiers have done something wrong they should clearly be investigated and held to account for it, but only if they’ve genuinely done something wrong,” he said.

“What is fundamentally wrong though is if they are chased by people who are making vexatious claims. That will not happen on my watch.”

He added: “If you end up with a clutch of vexatious claims then that undermines morale and has the risk of undermining our combat ethos and our fighting spirit.”

The second and third sentences seem like a reference to the notorious lawyer, Phil Shiner, who made a fortune pursuing British soldiers who served in Iraq with false human rights abuse claims.

There’s clearly a false equivalence here with Northern Ireland though, where cases are more rigorous evidenced and historically-documented. (Lord Saville’s Bloody Sunday inquiry being a case in point).

But splitting the difference, recognising that some former soldiers in some circumstances should face prosecution, then seems like the middle way.

Perhaps this is meant to make it feel less shocking once, or if, actual prosecutions take place, allowing ministers to portray it affecting a small number of ex-soldiers in all but the most the most clear-cut examples.

So, rather than rattling his ceremonial sabre about the prosecution of former soldiers in principle, perhaps what Sir Nick is doing is bracing the military for the very prospect of it happening.

Of course, this all presumes a level of subterfuge and careful co-ordination that British government is not usually well-equipped to execute.

But there will be enormous trepidation in Whitehall about actual prosecutions, all the more likely, of course, because a statute of limitations was not included in Karen Bradley’s consultation document on dealing with legacy issues.

Of course, the General’s remarks could just be a cock up, or, indeed, what he actually thinks.