PM prepares for the Afghanistan argument

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Add to this the fact that The Times is reporting that the Government was lobbied by BP, a fact denied by Lord Mandleson who said that “It’s not only completely wrong to make such a suggestion it’s also quite offensive” and things are grim for Labour.

On R4 today this morning there was talk about letters from Minister of MOD to other Cabinet ministers to stop the smear against the Service personal top brass.

What a bunch of low life these other ministers are when others are dying for "alleged freedom" for a pitance with little cabinet support that translates to £££££££££££££££££££££££ just hot air an wind.

Good job we did not have these types in power 70 years ago

Joyce appears to confirm what the press had already latched on to, that Downing St has been smearing senior defence chiefs who go public in their criticism's.

It is the defence chiefs job to represent the interests of their troops and providing there is no hidden political agenda they should continue to speak up for the troops.

Much of what Joyce said seemed like common sense but already the spin machine is out briefing against him saying his letter was disjointed and confused.

Are we now to expect the usual leaked investigation into the expenses of Eric Joyce?

Given this government's predilection for innuendo with an intent to smear it seems almost inevitable that just like Sir Richard Dannnant before him we will now see an investigation inot the expenses of Eric Joyce.

Let's hope he shops at Aldi, takes the bus everywhere and cooks his own private dinners just like Sir Richard, so that this inept and incompetent government ends up with egg all over its face once agian.

As for your point about winning the argument, Nick.... can you be serious? When did newlabour ever attempt to win the argument; the past twelve years has been about them telling us we were wrong and they were right and we were idots if we belived any different.

I'm sure the public and the military, particularly our brave service personnel, have total and complete confidence in the strategic genius of Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth. Caledonian Comment

'Fortunately, for Gordon Brown, he has a speech already written as a reply to his critics.'
That'll have them Taliban shaking in their sandles!

Even if Brown donned his minimal combat gear and fought on the front line in Afghanistan, before bringing us bin Laden back to face justice, I still think he'd lose the election.

Meanwhile, while Gordon is worrying about appearances, our soldiers are dying.

If you get the chance too, try and ask the Defence Minister Ainsworth about whether or not he paid his capital gains tax from his house "flipping" too, it's a question he seems to keep avoiding repeatedly ;)

Brown has never had the backing of the military. Serving soldiers despise him.

Check the Army Rumour Service forums!

I wonder what justifications he will give for the war now. We seem to get different reasons each time some governmnet person tries to explain/justify this war.

Maye we should be trying to stop all these poppies from arriving in the UK as illegal drugs - or are we justifying British forces deaths using some different reason now ?

The fact that they will smear and put down the people who are out there fighting this pointless war, will ultimatly be their undoing. The people of Britain may not agree with the war on the whole but will always stand behind the troops. Labour here has made a grave mistake.

All democracies become war weary; it is in many ways a great benefit to the system.

However Brown has become such a bullet magnate and press black hole that we are teetering on the edge of pretty serious, and unhelpful, political change.

The majority of opinion washing around papers about the war, the economy and all other facets of UK policy is ill informed and full of bile. Few ideas about the war proposed on a daily basis have any merit whatsoever.

This is not to say that I support Brown, but disagreeing with him on particular points is very different from automatically believing everything he says or has ever thought about is toxic.

As the media continues to work itself up into a frenzy and opposition politicians increasingly fall into the trap of seedy populism, I wouldn't blame any number of ministers for leaving.

However, as a result, we are ever more in danger of the tail wagging the dog.

I am a fairly recently retires RAF Squadron Leader and know that Major (Retd) Joyce does not speak with any authority ‘for’ the military in many matters.

However, we are at war, there is no other way of putting it. As it stands, our government is not on a ‘war footing’ and is clueless about how to lead the country at this time. Make no mistake, this is about LEADERSHIP not POLITICS! Like or loathe their politics, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and even, to a point (although the case to go to war was not well made), Tony Blair demonstrated LEADERSHIP at a time when the armed forces and country as a whole needed it.

The fact that, as far as I am aware, not a single member of the cabinet has served in uniform is another sad example of a government totally out of its depth. If this really is a ‘Government of all the talents’, and in the absence of anyone in the Commons with the requisite experience, why have we not seen one of the Nobel Lords of former Senior Rank in the Armed forces, of which there are a number, invited to take ministerial office?

Brown is not worried about losing the backing of the military: he, quite rightly, never had it.

Besides, he's too busy writing books about courage to really care about soldiers.

@6

Did you see the cartoon of Bob Ainsworth and Gordon on The Times?
Sums up the thoughts in their heads nicely I feel. https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/

I think that Eric Joyce and The Sun are correct in their criticisms of Grodn Brown and the government. His contempt for the armed forces in general is obvious, and has been since 1997.

As for your comments :

"...He is most concerned though about losing the argument.

Today, he will try to convince his own MPs, the military and the public ..... If he does not begin to do that, he has a much much bigger problem .... "

Where in heavens name have you been for the past two years when Brown has been in charge ? Gordon Brown has displayed no leadership, direction, plans or anything positive on anything. He IS the problem. His handling of the Afghan war regrettably is typical of his inadequacy and incapacity. He is out of his depth, and everyone knows this. Nothing he can say or do will change that. It's not about winning arguments by making statements, as no one believes anything he says any more, and his every action or utterance is cloaked in deceit.

We need a change of leader or government now. Labour MPs should reflect on the cost - and I'm not talking about the cost to the labour party - of allowing Gordon Brown to continue any further as leader.

Brown has the reverse-Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to s***.

Why are people upset that No10 is using smear tactics,they have done so quite successfully for the last 10 years.It has served them well.

When will you get the fact that the absolute killer blow to this Government was to bring back Lord Mandelson,who is despised by the rank and file labour party and the general public as a whole.

It will be an anchor around Labours neck for many many years because unlike an MP,the public cannot now get rid of him he has been given a nice safe position.Perhaps this is the reason that they are now suggesting set term peers.I do wish they would make there mind up.

What ever happened to the 2 peers who were caught with their fingers in the till ???

Robin, I'm afraid he does'nt!
Some hefty expenses over the years and a possible hiccup over capital gains tax.

That said, I would like to think that he has made a principled stance over this, he is an ex soldier and understands what they are up against , what they are being denied in equipment, denied in compensation after appallling injuries endured,denied in a decent wage, denied in decent accommodation and denied in truth.

Good on him!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think it is doubtful that we (the public) have all the facts about the situation in Afghanistan - and whilst the conflict is ongoing, that is probably understandable. If the fighting were ONLY about brining democracy to Afghanistan, then the latest flawed election results would be a disappointment. But there is much more at stake. The Taliban are not particularly interested in national borders and also operate from within neighbouring Pakistan where they have gained a foothold. Pakistan has lately looked rather wobbly, and given that they now have nuclear weapons, it is obviously vital that they do not fall into the hands of Taliban, Al Quaeda or any other extremist group. Sitting in the comfort of our armchairs, we can't know how serious that threat is, but it is more complicated than simply 'preventing terrorism back home'.

It's very unfortunate that some time ago India and Pakistan committed themselves to a nuclear arms race. For Pakistan, the real threat is not India but insurgents.

One would hope that in the future countries opposed to extremism will work more closely together rather than just focus on their own borders. We have recently seen improved international co-operation on issues such as carbon emissions, the banking crisis and swine flu. People are rightly worried about global climate change, yet haven't quite woken up to the dangers of global extremism. When dealing with extremism and terrorism, countries need to look at the bigger picture rather than just their own short term national interests.

lady Harhar had more combat protect in london that some our boys/men (which they are mostly) have in theatre and thats not the type of theatre that ladt Harhar performs in ie parliament

Little more than we would expect from this government and our mealey mouthed PM. It's all just words, nothing behind it and when he is found out he'll deny it all.
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. I'm tired of it all to be honest but am resigned to the fact he'll hold on as long as possible - or possibly until the Irish have ratified the European treaty so there is no going back.
Those who died for this country would have been ashamed of us

Nick Robinson:

I am glad, that the Prime Minister will be making a statement (Argument) for the Afghan War and its ongoing problems...

=Dennis Junior=

I guess, Nick, that you've seen the writing on the wall for Gordon Brown? The Sun, who claim to have won the election for Tony Blair in '97, appears to have turned on Brown.

The PM may deliver a fine speech, but unless he follows this with real action e.g. more helicopters, better armoured vehicles etc, he is likely to attract the worst criticism of his unelected premiership. He also needs to get rid of Bob Ainsworth who is the worst Defence Secretary I've ever seen, and after an Army career spanning 24 years, I've seen a few!

As the UK body count rises almost daily, anything that Brown says is likely to be discounted as spin and empty promises.

Real action please Mr Brown!

The trouble that Brown and his administration has is that many people have been complaining about the way this war has been waged for a long time and he hasn't shown the least bit of interest.

The public were told before our troops were deployed in Helmand that this was reconstruction. So we all took the view it was building bridges, roads and helping the Afghanis develop their own infrastructure. Sadly, this was the usual lack of candour displayed by the Blair administration and in no time we had the Paras and the Commandos engaged in a massive firefight with the local hoodlums in the course of which local infrastructure was degraded rather than regraded. Since then all we have heard about is casualties caused by insufficiently armoured kit and a lack of helicopters.

There has been no grip on this war; just as there has been no grip on the economy, no grip on crime, no grip on education, no grip on anything. Government in the UK has become something like osmosis: it does nothing other than get bigger.

It has been my belief from the beginning that the war in Afghanistan is winnable. However, its context needs to be recognised and this must necessarily mean winning the hearts and minds of the locals which includes those members of the Taliban who scrub up well. Given that we are expending blood and treasure we have some ownership of the situation and that must be impressed on the local government.

Above all else though the reality that is war requires an absolute focus by the government waging it. Half-hearted bleating and hand wringing is not enough: you have to get stuck in, get equipped, get trained and pursue final victory as hard as possible.

I don't think this government is capable: so for all of our sakes go!

Being completely hard-nosed and analytical about this - How many UK residents would have been killed in the UK by terrorists in the time since we entered Afghanistan?

Is it higher than the number of soldiers who have sadly given their lives to the cause?

I don't think so.....

Whatever PM Brown says on Afghanistan he is on a losing wicket: The last 2 to 3 years have severely dampened all his supposed gunpowder of being the "experienced man-in-charge" ('economy safe in my hands', 'no more stop-go economy', 'pensions are secure', 'reliable mortgages and savings' etc.) to a point where he and NuLab are done for at the next General Election no matter what develops.

Of course none of that means the PM is wrong about British involvement in Afghanistan and the relevance to reducing terrorism worldwide and in the UK.


For me, the interesting point is what the next PM has to say on the matter?
David Cameron has always insisted the campaign in Afghanistan is critical to GB's longterm security: Thus, how he manages to find fault with the PM's speech today (which he must do or disappoint all his supporters - - I am def not one) and yet press for the exact same defence policy as Brown, will make for some difficult balancing acts by this ad-man of almost no substance!?

My goodness, the cameroon attack dogs are back. What I would like to know is who in on here and in the UK support our actions in Afganistan, and why. It is no use whittering on about 'our brave heroes' if you really believe they should not be there.

I have every confidence in our Armed Force, but sadly they are Lions led by monkeys.
It all boils down to whom you want to believe?
Personally, I would rather listen to Army Officers, who have their eyes & ears on the job, than Brown in his Walter Mitty world.

If the Government won’t give these guys the backing they deserve, then surely it’s time for them to come home.
It’s time for Brown to put up or shut up, but it seems he can do neither.

To anybody who might be wondering why we are there, please remember that
Afghanistan has as much as 36 trillion cubic feet of natural gas & 3.6 billion barrels of oil and condensate reserves.

Shades of Libya maybe?

The War on Terror, or the War on Oil?

Many people have been pointing out ever since it was first made, that the argument that military action in Afghanistan is keeping terrorism off the streets of the UK, is an insult to our intelligence and that probably the opposite is true.

Eric Joyce, in the past, was one of the most enthusiastic MP supporters of both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before he became PM, Gordon Brown rarely spoke out in favour of either war, and it was widely believed that he had doubts about them.

It is really rather rich that the newly converted and former champion drum beater, Major Joyce, should be criticising the PM, who was probably intelligent enough to realise the dubious nature of the arguments put forward at the time by his boss Tony Blair, even though he did not speak out.

Brown and Co's argument for keeping troops in Afghanistan is that they're needed to help keep 'terrorism off our streets'; The 'terrorists on our streets' however aren't the Taliban (who our troops are fighting) but ordinary UK citizens living in places like Leeds and Luton. As to the Yanks, likewise, the 'terrorists on their streets' (9/11) weren't Taliban but citizens of the Yank's big friend Saudi Arabia. Your argument Mr Brown is as dishonest and poor as your chum Tony Blair's argument about invading Iraq to stop the so called 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' (Remember them?)

The problem that Gordon Brown has along with practically every member of this disjointed and disgusting Government is that NO ONE BELIEVES A WORD THEY SAY ANY MORE.

Now that's what I call a problem.

Nick - you say he is more concerned about losing the argument. If the latest furore had come from an opposition MP or the media he could rebuff it quite easily as anti-government rhetoric. The fact it has come from a member of his government and from someone who understands the military carries far more credibility which Brown cannot just brush aside. The press should not let him.

Brown is so arrogant he still has this master plan for the world and frightening us with potential terror on our streets is one of his tactics.

Any "terror" was actually started by him - well Blair and him - for stirring up the middle east for reasons they will not divulge.

The other frightener he will have to account for soon is the swine flu. In my lifetime there have been lots of viruses etc. circulating but no government has done such an over the top reaction nor spent so much (leaflets to every household when they could have just done it via the media). Doctors surgeries are worn to a frazzle trying to contain the hysteria.

Climate change - how arrogant to think WE can change the climate.

Come on Brown, step down.

Where's the latest on Straw being lobbied by BP?

Anyone seen the Defence Minister?, he seems to have gone AWOL, but not to worry people, Gordon Brown dispatches a certain disgraced Mr McNulty to do the media rounds to explain defence issues.... Mr McNulty looking to be the new Defence Secretary? looks like Labour really have reached the botton of the talent pool

"He is most concerned though about losing the argument."

Sadly, I suspect you're right about that. What a shame he's not similarly concerned about losing the lives of British service personnel.

I think that the political argument for our troops being in Afghanistan, simply stated by the politicians as "to stop terrorism occuring on our streets" is something that the people do not connect with.

It seems to be too remote, especially when the real problem is 'next door' in Pakistan, where there really is a inbuilt two-way conduit into this country for possibly unreliable characters.

However, none of this would be so high profile if our so-called partners in NATO and the EU would pull their weight.

We cannot and should not shoulder this level of military burden and our politicians need to stop being so 'diplomatic' and speak more bluntly to those NATO/EU backsiders and tell them they must put more resources into the Afghan campaign.

After all, this brand of Islamo-Fascist terrorism is just as likely to hit them as us.

I still surprised that when I commented around the Expenses scandal how defence matters would come to the political foreground. It has been apparent for a long while that the MOD has been a back water for this Labour government, even during the Second Gulf War.

If GB's attempt to convince us all that he and his government are doing a good job and that it will all work out for the best, fails. Are we likely to see the Men in Grey suits appear at the party conference with a loaded revolver and a bottle of whiskey? A swift coronation and then a snap election?

20. dsotm4:

Well said. I personally love the part of his letter praising Brown and his party for:

"Labour was returned to power in 1997 on the back of your great success in turning the Economy from a weakness into a strength for Labour.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry — what self-serving rubbish.. Not only is Joyce a stranger to the facts, but he seems to be attempting to rewrite history... as we all know Labour inherited the sound economy from the Conservatives and have since trashed it.

Furthermore, ex-Major Joyce has never been on active service, he was in the cushy teaching sector of the Army.

What does it say about Labour's attitude to our armed services that a party-line apologist like Joyce was one of the few they had with any military experience? And his undistinguished service hardly makes him an expert in anything beyond furthering his own career.

The overwhelming majority of Labour MPs are career politicians who have never had any sort of real job, let alone the courage to put on a uniform and risk their lives serving their country.

Yet Brown continues to mumble his spin and treat the forces as an expendable political asset, while our brave servicemen and women face death and disfigurement daily. They deserve better and so do we. The election cannot come soon enough.

There have been 200 fatalities since start of the war to 16th August 2009, averaging less than 30 per year, another eight fatalities since then in less than three weeks which would average about 140 per year. We have also been forced to blow up two of our Chinook helicopters within a month. The election we have been helping seems highly flawed and set to return Hamid Karzai despite deep distrust of him in large parts of the country. The human and financial cost of this war is escalating sharply and all to support a flawed and corrupt regime. Is this really making the UK a safer place?

Joyce was the point man for the Govt at times during the WND debate. He's the one as an anti this war person I liked the least and he cannot stomach this nonsense either.

Personally I would love someone from the Govt to tell us what the strategy is. They defend the strategy even when the Americans change it. They never talk specifics.

This conflict has not no stated and achievable goals hence I have doubts what a strategy means without that starting point. It's been going 7 years and is still in search of a point.

We clearly cannot impose democracy and women's rights and are still doing a worse job than the Taleban and UN stopping poppy production even if that has improved. Those of course are not strategic goals but motherhood statements. We would not go to war over any of these issues collectively or individually so these are not strategic goals in any sense.

Al Queda are no longer there. Clearly terrorists can by their very nature train anywhere. So that the original driver with revenge is no longer applicable.

We've been there 7 years and there are no meaningful goals and without goals how can you have a strategy. Instead we have a shifting strategy which has no aim or purpose. We can keep constantly defeating an enemy but without an aim it's pointless. There is no end point.

Worse unlike our cyphers the US now knows this is a waste of time. Obama's now got a choice do the right thing our guys appear clueless beyond Joyce.

# 12
"However Brown has become such a bullet magnate ..."

Does he have an arms business on the side that he hasn't told us about? :)

It's a shame that nobody asks Gordon Brown, how being in Afghanistan protects us on the streets of Britain, when all the people that have attacked us, have been British Muslims from the un-integrated Islamic ghettos of Britain. As the facts bear out, it is clear that the biggest threat to national security comes from within our own population not from the mountains of Afghanistan. Better immigration controls and integration of ethnic groups will do more than a war on foreign soil to protect us from attacks.

So the prime minister isn't so much worried about Joyce's resignation. Have you been taken in by the great big Downing Street spin?

The guy is a Labour loyalist and ex-major. His views chime with those of the rank and file and many backbench MPs. Brown has good reason to be worried. It's a hopeless unwinnable war and he's running out of excuses. There's a Party conference round the corner to struggle through and a general election.

This is Brown's war and he's lost the battle for hearts and minds and votes. The Sun is capturing and reflecting that public mood.

How can anyone trust corporal Brown and his Dad's Army bunch of ministerial misfits?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/cpl-browns-dads-army-fightback.html

'Fortunately, for Gordon Brown, he has a speech already written as a reply to his critics.'

Isn't this the real condemnation of his position that after so many years of our involvement and soldiers dying that no-one seems to be clear why we are there or what we intend to achieve.

A speech should not be necessary after 7 odd years of action....

So far this year alone the Public Accounts Committee has on their website criticised Westminster and the MOD about overbudget, late and poor quality of delivery of at least twelve military projects. It has been thus for at least the last decade with claims repeated annually by the Civil Service that they have " learned the lessons". They demonstrably haven't!

If you waste money on the scale that the MOD ( and actually much of Whitehall)does there never is enough money now matter how big the taxes or the budgets. If the projects are years late then the Military clearly don't get the kit in the timescales intended which means lost lives. And of course if the kit fails its key performance criteria then one compromises lives and our strategic defense capability.

In over a decade this government has shown neither the will nor ability to address an of these shortcomings at the MOD and in many other Whitehall departments.

The question isn't "Is being in Iraq the right thing to do" ( although probably worth asking as a separate issue) but whether the MOD and this governments track record on delivering the resources to the Military for the job they are required to do ( in Iraq or elsewhere) credible and "Fit for Purpose". The hard evidence is abundantly NO!

Is he going to tell the army why, given he has reteatedly stated that money is no object and they can have what equipment they need, they now not allowed to use live amo when training UNLESS they are just about to be deployed?

I am truly sick and tired of this government now. What type of nutter visits Afghanistan in a suit and tie?
Kudos to the resigning PPS for saying what we're all thinking. Danger of terrorism? Standard Jim Royle response methinks. Bringing democracy to Afghanistan - Florida style democracy it seems.
I am from the North East, where a disproportionate amount of soldiers stem from. It is tragic seeing these lads being killed and maimed. I can only hope they know that the population is behind them at the same time that we can despise the politicians who put them there in the first place. Operation Panthers Claw - god only knows what the history books make of that one.
I'll finish with what I said at the start - truly sick and tired. I could rant on every blog, but I just want this shrivelled lightweight to go. Now.

Is this conflict about preventing terrorism? Or destroying the poppyfields to combat heroin abuse? Or installing democracy? Revenge for 9/11 and 7/7? Or is it all just about damage limitation for Gordon Brown's ego?

Well, I have read part of the transcript of Browns speech on the Beeb website and do not agree that our NATO/EU partners are giving their full support.

I particularly want to see the German military let off the leash in Afghanistan.

Historically the Germans have been very good fighters with superb kit.

Maybe they have 'gone a bit soft' having not seen any action for quite some time, for understandable political reasons, but their kit is still outstanding.

Mauser, for instance, produce top quality gear (but even they could'nt really patch up the badly designed British Army SA80 rifle).

US General McCrystal has specified what I think will be a successful strategy in the region but again, our so-called NATO/EU partners must pull their weight.

The USA has even more right than us to complain about a lack of political and military support but the Yanks just get on with it.

Is it just my imagination, or does Bob Ainsworth bear a strong resemblance to Blakey from On The Buses?

"Labour was returned to power in 1997 on the back of your great success in turning the Economy from a weakness into a strength for Labour."

Major Joyce may have served in the UK army (in the UK), but he has little grasp of history.

Labour came INTO power in 1997 BEFORE Grodon Brown got his hands on the economy!!!

Brown famously said he would follow the Tories economic plans for 3 years. Which he did. Then he did his own thing and created an economy with a massively higher dependency on the finance sector than had ever been seen previously. Hence our problems today.

The then-improving economy had been managed by Ken Clarke.

1997 was also the last year when the UK ran a positive balance-of-trade. Nobody talks about that nowadays, but we (under Brown's sterling leadership) run a trade deficit of about 2/3s GBP BIL per week!

The UK has been involved in Afghanistan since 2001. I'd have thought that 8 years was quite long enough to work out the reasons why we are there, the military and political objectives and the exit strategy.

We are all aware that Brown likes to think things through for a long time - but 8 years???

1. Action, Brown cuts chopper budget by 1.5 Billion pounds

2. Action, Troops start dying due to not enough air mobility.

3. Words, Brown makes a speech to say he really does care.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

#13:

"why have we not seen one of the Nobel Lords of former Senior Rank in the Armed forces, of which there are a number, invited to take ministerial office?"

Actually, we have. Lord West, who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Security and Counter-terrorism, used to be the First Sea Lord.

Listening to him being interviewed on Newsnight last night, however, it was easy to forget that he'd been a senior Naval officer. He seems to have been in government long enough now that he's "gone native". He just trotted out the party line and failed to answer any questions, same as any other politician.

21. DistantTraveller wrote:

The Taliban are not particularly interested in national borders and also operate from within neighbouring Pakistan where they have gained a foothold. Pakistan has lately looked rather wobbly, and given that they now have nuclear weapons, it is obviously vital that they do not fall into the hands of Taliban, Al Quaeda or any other extremist group.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of which makes you wonder why the nuclear issue was not used by Brown as the latest excuse for us being in Afghanistan?

If it concerned the UK Government so much, why didn’t they advocate sanctions (or another actions) against Pakistan at the time they achieved nuclear status?
Didn’t they break the Proliferation Treaty by obtaining them?

As you rightly point out, the Taliban (or any other terrorist group to come to think of it), don’t work within national borders, which brings into question why we are fighting a war within borders then?

I think we would be better off looking at our immigration policies since we seem only too willing to let people from the countries, which pose a thrat into ours.
The terrorism threat is within our borders, & the war in Afghanistan mealy exacerbates this threat.

As I said before, this has more to do with oil & gas potential than Terrorism.
Think Libya & Iraq.

Weapons of mass destruction anybody?

@57

Thanks for putting me right - as you say, he must have 'gone native'. I guess anyone prepared to tell GB that he is 'wrong' wouldn't get a look in!

#56 beleve there was a report this week that stated that if we did not start spending on defence soon we will have no industry left.

can cut £1.5 from the chopter budget then give trillions away over the last 13 to years to all sorts of mad projects and bankers etc .

#51, Yes compare Brown's stiff and formal trips to Afghanistan with John Major addressing the Desert Rats from the front of a Challenger tank in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War wearing casual trousers and shirt.

Journalists who covered that trip remarked that the troops really connected with Major and that image helped to build up the "nice guy" image which was so instrumental in the 1992 GE.

Unless he has some new revelation up his sleeve I can't see that anything he says making the slightest bit of difference.

I tend to agree with the "Lions led by Donkeys" analysis - we shouldn't be there, but the troops themselves deserve support - heroes? - yes, I guess so - certainly possessed of a type of courage which the likes of me not only don't have, but can't even imagine having - and while we're at it, let's not forget other types of bravery - less celebrated, but worthy of note for that very reason - the Diversity Officer at the large company, struggling to bring enlightenment to recruitment policy - she hears the jokes ... the snide remarks ... but she struggles on regardless - the EU Official in Brussels battling stoically (and against the odds) to introduce laws for the common good in the face of non stop hostility from individual member states - the Parking Warden out and about in all weathers, taking the stick ... the abuse ... but continuing to hand out those tickets - doing his job, in other words - these are heroes too

The strategy is clear now I have listened to brown reel off a bunch of tractor statistics. The old hogwash training up the Afghan national Army - GET REAL 80 PERCENT of the them are stoned out of their minds with hashish!!

This is not a strategy it is madness.

JPSLotus79 @ 61

Imagery and the associated perceptions it conveys are so important in politics.

So, would'nt it be refreshing to see our Prime Minister disembark in a combat zone from our single remaining serviceable chopper appropriately dressed.

Kitted out for instance, as The Terminator.

Or possibly as a Star Wars trooper.

Or the ultimate, if he's been working hard in the No. 10 gym and feeling really up for it ... as John Rambo.

But please, not Braveheart.

#63, sagamix wrote:

"I tend to agree with the "Lions led by Donkeys" analysis - we shouldn't be there, but the troops themselves deserve support - heroes? - yes, I guess so...
- and while we're at it, let's not forget other types of bravery .....- less celebrated, but worthy of note for that very reason - ... the EU Official in Brussels battling stoically (and against the odds) to introduce laws for the common good in the face of non stop hostility from individual member states ... - these are heroes too


You sometimes break me up, Saga.

British troops have for centuries gone to fight wars that politicians decide upon. Sometimes you could say the were "good wars", but sometimes quite bad wars, based on faulty political perceptions or bad information. I have enormous respect for people who will attempt to do "the right thing" under appalling conditions, while fairly poorly paid, under-equiped, badly treated in terms of housing, rehabilitation and re-integration into a broader society.

I'm struggling to understand how the EU official who forced through the "low energy lightbulb" was a hero... They are expensive, certainly don't do what it says on the label, don't last as long as claimed and represent a hazard when life-expired. In other words just another bit of EU nonsense brought in by a - what? A hero?

Get some perspective, Saga.

#63 Saga

..but the Parking Warden earns more than some of the soldiers.

#58 forgottenukcitizen

"I think we would be better off looking at our immigration policies since we seem only too willing to let people from the countries, which pose a thrat into ours.
The terrorism threat is within our borders, & the war in Afghanistan mealy exacerbates this threat."

Immigration policies on their own will not curb the threat of global extremism. The type of extremism that poses a global threat doesn't originate from any one particular place. As you rightly point out, extremists can be found within our own borders as we know from the 7/7 London bombings, 2005. The issue isn't so much about where people are born, but how they 'grow up'. There is obviously a strong case from preventing certain known 'preachers of hate' visiting the country, but much more needs to be done - including better education.

It's not just about religion either - although that is often used as an excuse. Intolerance ands aggression are all to often the norm. You hear young people say "respect has to be earned". No!!!! Actually, showing respect to others should be the default position. If people have the attitude that I will not show you respect unless you first show me respect, then we will get nowhere.

excellentcatblogger @ 64

As it happens, being stoned out-of-your-mind has historically been a very good way of coping with the enormous stress of battle.

Most military personnel who find themselves at the sharp end go through three clear psychological stages:

a) it won't happen to me because I'm lucky/loved/skilful etc

b) it might happen to me, so I'd better keep my head down

c) it will happen to me unless I can somehow get out of here

That is the reason why the tour-of-duty concept came about post-WWII, to give the military person some hope that he/she would emerge from it.

Reference : Prof. Paul Fussell's (ex-US 103rd Infantry during WWII) brutally explicit book 'Wartime'.

63 sagamix

"I tend to agree with the "Lions led by Donkeys" analysis - we shouldn't be there, but the troops themselves deserve support - heroes? - yes, I guess so - certainly possessed of a type of courage which the likes of me not only don't have, but can't even imagine having - and while we're at it, let's not forget other types of bravery - less celebrated, but worthy of note for that very reason - the Diversity Officer at the large company, struggling to bring enlightenment to recruitment policy - she hears the jokes ... the snide remarks ... but she struggles on regardless - the EU Official in Brussels battling stoically (and against the odds) to introduce laws for the common good in the face of non stop hostility from individual member states - the Parking Warden out and about in all weathers, taking the stick ... the abuse ... but continuing to hand out those tickets - doing his job, in other words - these are heroes too"

========================

???????????????????

I'm sorry saga but you've lost me here.

Perhaps if the government valued our troops more than traffic wardens and Diversity Officers then we would not be in the position we are in today.

I wish the BBC would mention the smearing aspect in this; that was one of the main points of Joyce's resignation letter but the BBC aren't mentioning it anywhere on their reporting of the resignation.

The BBC, as always, has misreported the entire point/situation, and is trying to avoid airing any accusations of smearing done by brown and his heavies.

@63

Please tell me you weren't actually comparing a EU officials job with a soldier in Afghanistan? Possibly one of the best things I've heard all day.

Oh and parking wardens aren't heros. They're pests (the mods won't let me say anything stronger).

Bring our troops home now. Why should our troops do the bidding of a misguided and dysfunctional Government? The election process in AFG has proved to be completely corrupt.Why should our troops make the ultimate sacrifice for a bunch of corrupt officials?
Brown has completely mismanaged the situation.

Theories about Black Holes can be found on the science page as well. Odd how in most countries a soldier can be trained in months while in that region of the world it can't be done in many years. They seem to be willing over feuds and personal vendettas but not for any common purpose. Part of the frustration is that they are unwilling to fight for corrupt governments and we are. We need to get some banks involved in that country so they can understand real power.

Browns Speech!

Short concise passionate convincing?

None of these.

Tedious longwinded confusing from a man living in utopia who imagines what he wants but knows no way of achieving it.

We now have the problem of Pakistan to worry about.

A simple solution to that is to insist on nuclear disarmament before any more aid is given.

"Today, he will try to convince his own MPs, the military and the public of the value of his war mission, to describe what success looks like and to prove that our troops are not being left under-resourced."

Was anyone out there convinced? Having read his speech, I certainly wasn't.

Is Brown on heavy medication? Or is it just the first day back after a long holiday?

He seemed to deliver the speech with even more mediocrity than normal, dead pan and flat.

Maybe he doesn't believe it either.

77. At 3:38pm on 04 Sep 2009, StrongholdBarricades wrote:
Is Brown on heavy medication? Or is it just the first day back after a long holiday?

---------------------------------------

Yes the pronunciation was even more mangled than usual. He also stumbled over some of the passages - he might be having difficulty reading the text. He is the same age as Mandelson but looks decades older.

57#

West, as well as being a liberal peer is a complete and utter embarrasment to the Senior Service. How he got to be 1st Sea Lord, I will never know.

This would appear to indicate that Joyce appears to be a more pragmatic politician than he ever was a military officer. However, he must have known the effects that his comments would have and, if you compare them to John Hutton's when he left the poisoned chalice of SecDef, they are markedly different. Joyce most certainly appears to be burning his bridges.

"fortunately he has a speech prepared...." I sincerely hope that along with a particular glint in your eyes, Nicholas that your tongue is lodged sooooo firmly into your cheek that it is practically bursting through??? I'm sure it is....

29#

And your point is.....? What the hell has it got to do with Cameron?

Have you served out there, by any chance or do you know anyone who has?

I somehow doubt it.

@77

Got the impression that he's feeling pretty defeated and uninspired myself. Lets hope he feels so down he'll call an election.

#73

"Why should our troops do the bidding of a misguided and dysfunctional Government?'

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy the armed forces do not act independently of Government. You are right about this Government being misguided and dysfunction - and this will be addressed by voters at the next election rather than tanks pulling up outside the Houses of Parliament.

"The election process in AFG has proved to be completely corrupt.Why should our troops make the ultimate sacrifice for a bunch of corrupt officials?"

Installing a perfect democracy in Afghanistan, while desirable, is not the main mission. See #21

Wearing a tie as he visited the troops. Completely sends the wrong message-who is advising this clown ?

#75 virtualsilverlady

"A simple solution to that is to insist on nuclear disarmament before any more aid is given"

If only it were that simple. Part of the danger now is that if Pakistan is destabilised, their nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

In his statement, Brown says "terrorism knows no borders", which is why the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan are linked. Brown also says that "others too must take their share of the responsibility" - doubtless a dig at Nato allies who are not offering sufficient support.

Brown's Statement: https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8237207.stm

It's not often I find myself agreeing with anything Gordon Brown says, but he is correct in identifying the nature of the problem. But how we deal with it is the most vexing moral question.

We are confronted by a new type of global danger. We are under threat, not from a particular country, but rather an ideology that wants to destroy anyone who does not conform to its idea for the new world order.

I agree with anyone who says let's 'give peace a chance'. But do we just turn away when we see others being attacked, brutalised or massacred?

War is always a terrible thing. It would be great if we could just sit down with these people and have a nice chat over a cup of tea and sort out our differences. Maybe we should give that a try...

68. DistantTraveller.

Thank’s for the articulate reply – couldn’t have put it better myself.
Since we both agree that the problem of extremism is a global one, I still find myself wondering why we are fighting in Afghanistan at all?

Surely we just push extremism from one place to another.
Let’s not forget that there wasn’t any terrorism problem in Iraq until we decided to stick our noses in, & now look where we are?

History tells us that whenever the UK (or US to come to think of it) stick their noses into Countries & cultures they don’t understand, that bloodshed & extremism are sure to follow.

To put it bluntly – We export terror with our foreign policies & import it with our slack immigration policies.

I think it was Harold Wilson that ordered troops into Northern Ireland, believing that they would only be there for a few weeks.
How wrong he was.

What’s the betting that this debate will rumble on for the next 20 years or more?
Who knows, maybe the UK Government is in secret talks with our enemies even as we speak.
(Oh no they aren’t, they never deal with terrorists, LOL).

This whole War on Terror thing can be used as a very effective smoke screen on the bigger picture.

@ 51

What type of nutter visits Afghanistan in a suit and tie?

look, GB is a politician of the wooden "no pizzaz" variety - that's what we wanted after Blair, no? - so why push him into trying to be a performer? - wasn't that You Tube thing enough of a turn off? - sometimes it appears to me as if everyone's just picking on the poor guy - disingenuous too, because ... let's be honest about this, shall we? ... show me someone who says they wouldn't have mocked Gordon if he'd turned up in low slung 501s and a leather combat vest, and I'll show you a Fibber of the highest order

Another autopilot, cliche-ridden, platitudal speech from a tired failure who ran out of ideas long ago, and whose only agenda is to cling onto power even he obviously has no idea what to do with it.

He writes books about courage despite ducking responsibility at every turn, and blathers on about his policies being "the right thing to do" as though just saying the words makes it true.

Please will someone get rid of this man!

fairly @ 66

I'm struggling to understand how the EU official who forced through the "low energy lightbulb" was a hero

I thought you of all people WOULD understand - no way am I comparing a soldier in Afghanistan to an EU official in Brussels, that would be plain silly - the one is risking his life fighting the Taleban, the other is piloting through an unpopular, but necessary, piece of legislation in the teeth of venomous opposition from reactionary forces - it's apples and pears - and all I'm saying is yes, talk about the apples ... by all means talk about the apples ... but don't totally forget about the pears

@85

I think the idea of Brown in leather is one of the most disturbing thoughts ever.

At No. 65, yes the parking wardens, probably are paid more than soldiers and like our troops also pay income tax whilst in a war theatre. You have not mentioned this in your blogs; neither is mentioned about the soldier, who asked Brown, in Afgahnistan recently why he paid tax but the Americans do not.
This may matter little to top earners but it does to the squaddie. He/she has not as yet had an answer that I have heard or read about but it is a talking point in the wider community. It is matters like this that have a great impact and can be persuasive on the voters.

I'll be interested to see what Brown has to say when he delivers his speech - not that I can bear to listen to him any more.

The use of the 'T' word - Terrorism - has been used in umpteen ways over the last few years; it was used to instigate the use of ID cards; it is now blandly used to defend the use of our troops in Afghanistan. The arguments used to keep them there are: a) to keep terrorism off our streets and b) because we can't simply walk away.

We seem to have forgotten that the London bombings were by some of our own countrymen trained in Pakistan and these evens have happened while we had troops in Afghanistan - you could argue we were in the wrong country.

I think it is abundantly clear that the "plan" for Afghanistan is not working. Our brave troops efforts to assist in the democratic election of a government has had a high price and limited benefits. The benefits are limited by the existence of a corrupt government.

One of the other reasons for our troops to be there was said to be because of poppy production. We were supposed to stop the production of opium/heroin to keep our streets free from drugs. This has been undermined by the Afghan government itself. Each time we say what our objectives are, they are overturned by the Afghans, so we find new reasons to remain there.

We must have a sensible exit strategy, but I doubt we are going to create a democratic society in Afghanistan. It is more likely the Taliban will return in time whatever we do - then exactly where are we?

b-b-jack @ 89

I saw that piece where the soldier asked Brown why they had to pay taxes whist abroad and the Americans did not.

Brown told him that 'technically' he (the soldier) was still a UK employee and one could see that the soldier was deeply unimpressed with that answer.

Some things never change.

My own father, returning from WWII told me he and his chums got a demob suit and a kitbag.

The Americans came home to the GI Bill, which gave them low-cost housing, continuing education and all sorts of perks.

My father could not even go back to University in Manchester but had to find work and I imagine that he was'nt the only one who never managed to complete his education because of WWII.

Yes, we, or more precisely our Government, has always dumped on those who have served their country best.

Perverse in extremis.

87 sagamix

"the one is risking his life fighting the Taleban, the other is piloting through an unpopular, but necessary, piece of legislation in the teeth of venomous opposition from reactionary forces - it's apples and pears - and all I'm saying is yes, talk about the apples ... by all means talk about the apples ... but don't totally forget about the pears"

---------------------------------

Your posts are starting to sound a couple of melons short of a fruitbowl, even by your own standards.

Brown is better off without Joyce. He was an Army officer - so what? When he failed to get promoted he made pathetic excuses about the class system and then left. Now he is leaving a position under false pretences yet again. Bottom line - he is useless; he has a history of cutting and running when out of his depth. His constituency would do well to vote him out.

85. sagamix wrote:

Saga, I think they meant just losing the jacket and tie would have been more appropriate...
Sounds like Brown's getting your sympathy vote?

Honest to goodness, Gordon Brown epitemises the query raised by Jacqui Smith about how "up to the job" ministers are when given their posts with no experience in those fields.

Brown, Commander in Chief of the British Forces? Do leave off. Blair wasn't much better. Both have been naive enough to imagine that a tribal society like Afghanistan can ever submit to a western democratic model. It's possible in centuries but in the next 10 years, hardly likely.

Haven't the politicians learned from over 150 years of foreign intervention? And how, when those foreigners get out having either given up or assumed they won, the Taliban bounces back and soon it's business as usual.

If Brown (and indeed Obama) think they are going to defeat the Taliban they are living in cloud cuckoo-land.

The problem as I see it is that the Taliban will not be amused by those who converted to western ideologies. Far from helping them we might be lining them up for some fairly nasty punishments when we eventually do leave...and that's going to happen sooner or later.

It isn't a war we can win and raising hopes that we're getting there is simple deceit.

sagamix wroteat 63
"... let's not forget other types of bravery ...the Diversity Officer at the large company, struggling to bring enlightenment to recruitment policy - she hears the jokes ... the snide remarks ... but she struggles on regardless - the EU Official in Brussels battling stoically (and against the odds) to introduce laws for the common good in the face of non stop hostility from individual member states - the Parking Warden out and about in all weathers, taking the stick ... the abuse ... but continuing"

Sagamix,
I have often disagreed with you, but your latest offering is beyond belief!
You equate the "bravery" Diversity Officers, EU Officials and Parking Attendants with heroic troops fighting an armed war!
You really should be ashamed of yourself.
As far as most of us are concerned the sort of officials you list would be better used in REAL productive jobs....or used by our troops as target practice.

pickled @ 92

Your posts are starting to sound a couple of melons short of a fruitbowl, even by your own standards

can't think "outside the box" that's your trouble, SP - if it wasn't for me, unsung domestic battlers like Traffic Wardens wouldn't even get a mention in the Afghan debate

blame @ 94

I think they meant just losing the jacket and tie would have been more appropriate

thin end of the wedge though, isn't it? - Brown is jacket/tie, a meat and two veg man through and through - soon as he moves away from that in an attempt to look "cool" ... look more like Mortimax, for example ... you don't know where it's going to stop

parliment should remove itself from direct action reguarding the military of this country due to the inept handling of our military by recent governments. the only honest thing the pm can do is apologies to the families of those killed in action or due to poor equipment then resign along with his whole party.

Does anyone of us commentators believe what the Government is saying?

#87, sagamix wrote:
fairly 66

I'm struggling to understand how the EU official who forced through the "low energy lightbulb" was a hero

I thought you of all people WOULD understand - no way am I comparing a soldier in Afghanistan to an EU official in Brussels, that would be plain silly - the one is risking his life fighting the Taleban, the other is piloting through an unpopular, but necessary, piece of legislation in the teeth of venomous opposition from reactionary forces -

Saga - just your bad examples!

There are lots of people who perform genuinely heroic acts in the civilian world. Firemen, paramedics, police, nurses, many more...

It may take a little courage to introduce new ideas in business, but all you risk is your job...

I don't think any EU official needs courage to push through daft regulations. Nobody's going to shoot their backsides off if they fail - or even if they succeed!

Sad thing is that there not enough with the courage to say "Do we really need to keep pumping out all this garbage?"