Was 2,000 a myth?

So, the generals are getting dragged into politics.

That'll be good for morale.

Still as long as the politicians look good, thats all that matters...

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

As head of the armed forces, Sir Jock has a duty to defend the government. This rule applies to very member of the armed forces. Sir Richard Dannatt was right to argue his point with the government but wrong to make his feelings known to the public while still serving.

I served as a soldier from 1972 for more than 24 years, went to a couple of wars, got shot at quite a few times, but we always made do and got on with the job, totally professionally at all times. I served under 5 prime ministers and they all treated us the same. As a volunteer professional armed forces who do a great job in very difficult conditions.

The political parties should stop using the armed forces as a political football, but this Afghan war is different and the government need to ensure that they have the resources to complete the mission. This means more boots on the ground and the best available equipment. There should be no more arguments from Gordon Brown about numbers. He needs to show that he means what he says and give the forces the support they are obliged to give him.

The sooner he provides the right levels of support, the quicker the job will be done properly, and the sooner our troops can come home.

I do believe that GB would have done what he feels is best for the troops, and in the end as nick says the generals have "effectively" got what they wanted in the first place.

This amount of in fighting that is going on over this and the war is incredible, and I don't think its achieving anything, no PM wants to commit more to a war he inherited thats obviously going to be a given. But some of the vitriol that has been directed Browns way has been disgusting. He COULD and SHOULD have listened to the generals on equipment issues to make sure that the troops there are doing the safest job possible considering the circumstances, but unfortunately he can't then provide more troops and the same level of support for them.

And some people had the temerity to say that Dannatt had allowed himself to be politicized...

Who'se hand is working Jock Stirrup now???

All Stirrup is trying to do is get one over on Dannatt and damage him as much as possible. Stirrup was extended in post as Cheif Of Defence Staff because Dannatt was too outspoken against Gordon. No other reason. The three services take it in turn to appoint the CDS and this is one of very very few times in living memory when this "buggins turn" has been interrupted.

If Dannatt DOES become a conservative Defence minister (a big if), Stirrups nose is going to be seriously out of joint.

"It is beyond question that the prime minister did turn down a request for a major new deployment of troops first made in February of this year. His critics say that it was purely on financial grounds. His allies insist that he was concerned to ensure that any new troops sent were properly equipped."

Properly equipped, my a**e.

"if the decision had been made earlier since it would have given the Army a clear sense of direction. He accepts that it might not have meant that troops were deployed much quicker. I asked him in an interview yesterday whether lives could have been saved and he said he honestly could not say."

Curious about Hutton keeping as low a profile as possible. Hoping to maybe pick up the peices after Gordon falls/jumps to the G20?

"What is clear is that the delay caused tension between ministers and the military - General Dannatt versus Gordon Brown; within the military high command - General Dannatt versus Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup and between the government and the press who began to air popular doubts about the success of the mission. "

The tension was already there and has been there for some considerable time.

"Incidentally, in the months since February, the Army "scrubbed through" their proposals looking for ways to carry out the same task with a slightly lower number of troops. Thus, yesterday's annuncement of a new 9,500 force limit was, I'm told, effectively the same as that which Army chiefs had first requested more than six months earlier."

More Brownian smoke and mirrors. And this time, the country's most senior member of the armed forces sells out in order to protect the same PM who has lied, spun, short-changed and had his hands round the throat of the UKs armed forces whilst wrapping himself in a union flag...

Stirrup, you are not fit to wear the uniform. Never have been, never ever will be.

Incidentally, on this subject, you might want to check this related article out in the Spectator....

https://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5438648/part_3/the-generals-must-share-the-blame.thtml

Boots on the ground should be twice the force limit. Unless they're hopping.

At the risk of sounding like a Daily Telegraph reader: This is outrageous! I am not the slightest bit interested in the semantics of whether it was 1500 or 2000 - the truth is that the military asked for an uplift eight months ago and it has only just been granted. What on earth have the Minstry of Defence and the Prime Minister been doing in that time? We know what the armed services have been doing - and we were reminded of the cost of that service to the country in the list read out yesterday before PMQs. I know that the Prime Minister has a reputation for dithering but this is dithering on a world class scale. It would be funny but for the fact that his approach has undoubtedly lead to the deaths and maiming of many soldiers during that time. PLEASE bring on an election - this is just shameful.

Nick

The number of troops out in Afghanistan needs to be put in context of:

How many stay at Camp Bastien all the time and are either medics, clerical staff, catering and military intelligence gatherers plus rear echelon HQ soldiers.

How may leave Camp Bastien to either fight the Taleban; train the Afghans; transport food, ammunition or other supplies to those on the front line; transport troops to and from front line including medevac; general guard duties enabling UK Aid workers to do their bit.


I think it is the count of those actually outside camp that matters. Of course logistics is important and do not get fobbed off by the "cannot discuss matters of security" nonsense spouted by Brown at the dispatch box every week.

Oh, and getting the low down from Jock Stirrup (btw has he been out there?) is not the same as going out in the field and seeing with your own eyes. Michael Yon does an impeccable job and his blog is a must read and a lot more informative than the MSM.

You might also want to ask the Air Chief Marshall why in letters written home by some of the troops (published in the Guardian a few months ago)that the RAF comes in for some scathing criticism - I cannot publish it here as the invective would break the House rules.

I find it peculiar that we can learn how many men are in theatre but not how many helicopters. After all the Taliban/AA can really only engage with the men. I must therefore observe that the secrecy is obfuscation.

To discover that the head of the army is engaging in politics to try to keep Brown "on side" is diabolical, and I wonder how many of his men will follow his words with disdain.

At the end of the day these men are being killed for the political ends of their masters, and with the quantity of unemployment it is unlikely that there is a drought of sign ups...for what...some bean counters...sounds like you need some reassessment of priorities

It is time for a re-evaluation of the mission and role in Afghanistan, and someone must speak the "end" that they are all working towards, rather than withdrawing in disarray and leaving another failed state

Its about time someone started to listen to the general public for a considerable time now they are appealing for the troops to be brought home
the cause is long past its sell by date .
Enough lives have been sacrificed in a god forsaken land .
troops with inferior equipment from the word go.
how many more times are we going to tell brown we want the men home and not in body bags thank you.
we are wasting our time out there.
Come on public tell them the game is up
Like nu labours time in office .

Nick

This is very interesting and balanced, adds something new to what we know, and gets to the heart of political policy making. And I have to say it is the most interesting blog you have made in recent months. Proper journalism! More please!

Infighting now between members of the UK high command while British about who said what, while mainly English soldiers die on the battlefield - its a complete disgrace and resignations are in order for those who squabble rather than get their backside chair jobs done.

2,000 or 20,000? - the troop numbers are woefully inadequate for the dangergously predictable patrols that UK soldiers are sent out on a daily basis - the tactics and strategy are incredibly naive and can only lead to more and more casualties.

British soldiers need to go native in mixed policing teams of Afghans/coalition combatants and speak basic Darior/ Hazagari/ Pashto/ Uzbek or a dialect depending on where they are operating, as most Afghans speak more than one language or dialect. They also need to dress in Afghan clothing and use more special forces and keep the Taliban guessing. For goodness sake change the strategy and tactics and get them right.

This is what British soldiers are telling me who have served in Afghanistan, Iraq, Aden, Malaysia and other places.

Whatever numbers are there they need to end the naive predictability of these naive patrols that lead to so many casualties and target the drug crops and destroy them so that 'something substantial' is accomplished.

The British Army used to be best in the world at getting these things right but has now lost the ability due to massive mismanagement and interference by politicians.

Can anyone explain how the UK national interest is served by these ridiculously damaging patrols of 'no mans land'? At least if the drug crops are destroyed and/or seized and converted into ethically good medicine then something positive can be both achieved and sustained.

It looks like the 'lions led by donkeys' syndrome has returned and as caused or contributed to by the bunch of 'Wannabe Winstons' now in government.

The 500 seems to be a politically 'safe' number for Brown to try save face with the public and our forces. Think he thinks it will buy him some time as he can say to both parties "look i am doing something" without actually doing anything at all. Brown has to go. Such a shame that the professionalism and courage of our forces is not matched by our politicians.

Well, until recently, I would have believed General Dannatt, and assumed that Sir Jock was simply having to toe the party line as is his duty as the serving head of the armed forces.

However, given that General Dannatt was in the process of joining the next Tory government at the time, that, to my mind, puts a huge question mark over the reliability of anything he says.

What a shame. It would be nice if senior military officers could keep out of politics. Then we might be able to trust them.

Petty in fighting and politics need to be left out of this, the situation in Afghanistan is serious and warrants serious thought

We need more troops on the ground, everyone agrees on that: What should not be happening is political parties trying to make captital out of the numbers requested and granted. Who cares whether the numbers were 2000 or 1800, it doesn't make much of a difference anyway

What really matters is that our boys get the kit they need to do the job in hand and this has been sadly lacking. The MOD procurement process is a joke. Kit is spec'd properly and never arrives on time, most of the time when it does get there it isn't fit for purpose and breaks

I don't really care about the politics on this one, our troops need the best gear we can get them and they should get it sooner rather than later

The army should never be politicised and this is whats happening now, its a joke

If it was a myth then why did Labour try so hard to smear Gen Dannatt?

Clearly this is another GB trade to get what he wants, rather than what is necessary.

It's just another tory misgiving.Osborne tells us, it's the age of austerity and cuts in every area are required.Cameron tells us that Afghanistan is his first priority, confusing, isn't it, we can afford a war, thousands of miles from home (where they cant even control the drug growth) but we cant afford to build much needed homes?.

When you see clips of Afghan on the TV, it looks like their a 1000 years behind us in construction and so on and they hardly seem upto date with the latest military equipment, yet are very effective in defending themselves.

What are we trying to do in Afghan?.

Dear Nick,

I have to say you do pick some corking stories for your blog.

On a day when it's revealed that:
- the EU thinks the UK economy is marching towards structural unsustainability

- the Court of Appeal says that social security overpayments made as the result of bureaucratic errors cannot be re-claimed (so there goes a few more billions)

- DEFRA is again shown to be one of the most unfit-for-purposes part of government, wasting money hand-over-fist.

- many NHS Trusts are under-performing;

you choose to focus on a squabble between military leaders about exactly how many people they asked to be deloyed in Afghanistan (while it seems everybody accepts that, whatever the number was - it was refused).

And I still cannot for the life of me work out why there should be any doubt about whether personnel can be properly equipped. We've been in a conflict for 8 years - longer than WWII - in the same broad terrain, with the same opponents.

I simply don't understand how it can be such a shambles. After all, only 10% of the Army are deployed there at any one time. Far as I know, night-vision equipment, body armour and loads of military stuff isn't bespoke tailor made.

Seems that the USA are likely to deploy another 20,000 (or upwards) troops. How long do you think it will take them to equip their troops? Bearing in mind that the US citizens pay a lot more attention to the "body count" and invest enormously to provide rehabilitation of vets who need help.

Oh well, there you are. I think this is the wrong topic for you to choose but I guess it hits a raw nerve. So all the other major stuff gets side-tracked.

Ref #3

I too served Queen and Country for 21 years between 1969 and 1990 and it was very clear that Labour governments were not interested in the Armed Forces - in fact they treated us like mushrooms (kept us ine the dark and fed us ******. I recall pay awards which resulted in soldiers earning less as a result!

Accordingly, do not be surprised there is a disparity between what is wanted and what will be supplied - particularly if it involves Labour.

The figures will have been massaged and obfuscated to ensure that the requirement is lost. Pressure will have been brought to bear to ensure that dissent is crushed. Further, this government's tactic of announcing something once and then twice more and thus claiming that three times the requirement will be met will ensure that there will still be too few men and women trying to do too much with too little.

God save us (and more importantly the men and women on the front line) from the dishonourable and self-serving lot in power - and get us a government that understands basics such as responsibility and honour.

Jock Stirrup is a disgrace to the armed forces.
Once again he comes to the defence of Brown instead of his troops.

Next he will be telling us that Mastiff vehicle being converted and used in Afganistan is as good as the Boxer (MRAV) vehicle & the Pirhana Evolution Vehicle both rapid deployment vehicles & both programmes cancelled by Gordon Brown.

We are a heavily indebted poor country. We would have been less poor if we never got involved in Iraq and Afganistan. It is an unequal and unfair burden whose benefits, if nay, are enjoyed by many other countries who have not contributed proportional to the benefits and affordability. eg. Within Europe countries like Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein are far wealthier than we are, Switzerland also has well trained men.

I think we have done more than enough. Pull all the troops back now. Guard the UK only.

What are the benefits and disbenefits in this matter? The disbenefits, in financial terms are obvious, we have run out of money. Using more, means borrowing more. We must be reaching the point of no-return, where the interest payments are not keeping pace.

The other, human side is the continuing loss of soldiers' lives, totally unacceptable, in my view. I have never seen the figures for loss of numbers through death and/or injury being factored into the equation.

So we have two aspects. It goes without saying that human lives are far too important to be ignored. The finaces come a 2nd poor. Can we ever win this war? I support our troops 100% but not politicians, who are warm, safe in the UK. We are continually bomarded with the threat to our safety; where is the proof? Surely these troops would better serve Queen and Country, here in that Country? Bring them back as soon as is reasonably practicable.

2,000 here, 2,000 there. It will make no difference.

Afghanistan is no longer the problem. It's Pakstan that's the problem and a very big one at that. But, as usual, we'll be sidetracked by politicians who are unable to admit their mistakes.

I think the old saying needs to be updated - lies, damned lies, statistics and, now, semantics.

Who is being served by the fine points of whether around 8,000 and almost 10,000 is 2000, or not?

The result is we are woefully undermanned, have been , and will continue to be.

Stop being mealy mouthed please, and stop taking us for fools.

How many "Jock Strap " asked for is irrelevant, it is when they were asked for that is relevant , nearly eighteen months ago. It is an absolute disgrace that it has taken this length of time to provide our armed services with reinforcements. How long now , before they are equipped , trained and ready for deployment ? Another year ? Meanwhile many more poorly armed and protected British soldiers will die fighting in a war which now seems to be more about Brown's international stature than about Britain's national security.

Right, moderators.

Dont know what you didnt like about my original post, but I'm not going to give up on it.

Some people have got the temerity - particularly other MP's and that ridiculous old Brownian sock-puppet Foulkes - to complain that Dannatt had allowed the armed forces to be politicised.

And yet, funnily enough, when Jock Stirrup starts up, there is deafening silence. Because it suits their agenda.

Stirrup is no different. All he is doing is protecting HIS own interests, HIS own agenda. I first came into contact with Stirrup in 1993, I know what he's like. He's far more a politician himself than he ever is or was an airman.

"The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) is the professional head of the British Armed Forces and the principal military adviser to the British Government. Formally, the British Monarch is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and therefore is senior to the CDS. In practice the Government provide direction through the Defence Council of which the CDS is a member. The post was created in 1959 to reflect the new conceptions of joint operations that had come to the fore in World War II. Prior to the creation of the post, one of the three members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee was appointed chairman."

He is not there to protect the British Government. The government provide the instruction and direction and the CDS and Defence Council implement it, if it is possible. If he or they cant make it happen, they have the rank, the clout to say so.

This government has politicised everything it has touched in order to live from one news cycle to the next. It is hardly surprising - in fact its poetic justice - that at some point, such macromanaging behaviour should turn on them and bite them in the rear end.

You can politicise the treasury, nobody dies. You can politicise the police, few people die and are usually tarnished as ne-er do wells and rioters anyway. But when you politicise the military and the end result is coffins coming home or soldiers coming back minus limbs, the behaviour has a tangible end result.

Stirrup is just another political animal. RockBigPhil, you've also served, I see what you're saying. But the PM's you and I served under are completely different to this one.

Both sides, the current government and the Chiefs Of Staff have a case to answer. Between them, they have led us to this point.

"but they are only going if equiped properly"

hum was it not Brown that cut the helicopter budget back in 2003ish by 1.5 billion.

was it not brown that has resisted spending the required amounts to
equipe and support our troops.

Given that we have lost 2 SF helo's of the 3 that were supposed to be operational in afgan and the 10 or so MK3 that are being retro fitted back to Mk2/2a standard and will not prob be operational until after chritmas because of planning issues based around budget issues imposed by brown years ago.

the rest of the chinook fleet will not be upgraded into a MK4 version and be opperational for at least another 2 years.

I suggest that Brown should be removed from office on the grounds that he is far more a threat to the nations of the UK than the taliban

17#

Because your PM keeps on telling us how vital the mission is, Derek! Theres nothing more the troops would want than to leave the Afghans to it.

You didnt point out that one of Gordans conditions on the extra 500 troops (in fact his second condition) was he will only send them IF they are fully equipped for their role?

Is that an adminision that we have troops who are NOT fully equipped?

How can this possibily be the case as he keeps telling everyone that the funds are their for what ever the army need!

After all the army and TA are no longer allowed to use real bullets in training, someone forgot to order any helicopters and we have just had to buy battle field radios from Israil as ours didnt work. Didnt we send Ex Veitnam flack jackets brought off the amaricans to the troops when we invaded Iraq?

"4. At 11:41am on 15 Oct 2009, calmandhope wrote:
I do believe that GB would have done what he feels is best for the troops"

Sadly Gordon Brown does things in this order:

- What is best for Gordon Brown
- What is best for Gordon Brown
- What is best for the Labour Party
- What is best for everything else

Lest we forget, there is also the small issue of TA training being suspended.

If the battle for Afghanistan is so vital because it will keep terrorism off the streets of UK, then why does Gordon Brown then suspend part of the defence effort by stopping TA training.

It does smack a bit of a desperate government out of control being reactive rather than proactive.

Still, only 7 more months (but sadly an unknown number of further casualties) until we can vote Brown out.

"18. At 12:13pm on 15 Oct 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:
Dear Nick,

I have to say you do pick some corking stories for your blog.

On a day when it's revealed that:
- the EU thinks the UK economy is marching towards structural unsustainability

- the Court of Appeal says that social security overpayments made as the result of bureaucratic errors cannot be re-claimed (so there goes a few more billions)

- DEFRA is again shown to be one of the most unfit-for-purposes part of government, wasting money hand-over-fist.

- many NHS Trusts are under-performing;"

Open Minded.... dont mention these or some one on here will balime the Troys for all of them!

And you missed MPs not repaying and considering going to court over expenses, total shambles with student loans, Browns garage sale of every thing he can possibily off load, and pending blackouts in 5 years time!

20#

Hear Hear. He was only extended in post because Dannatt spoke out repeatedly about the breaking of the military covenant.

Jock Stirrup is quite happy for Gordon to wrap himself up in the union flag but not to be seen within a 100 miles every time a C17 comes back to Lyneham with more dead troops. Or for the MOD to send off the troops to theatres where they get blown up through lack of equipment (helicopters, mine detection equipment, IED resistant vehicles) then attempt to claw back any compensation they may be awarded through the courts.

I wonder just what he sees in the mirror every morning when he gets up and puts that uniform on, prior to being chauffered into Main Building?

#3 said : "As head of the armed forces, Sir Jock has a duty to defend the government. This rule applies to very member of the armed forces."

Sorry, #3, but it's the duty of the armed forces to defend the COUNTRY, not the government. And no matter how numerous or well equipped our brave soldiers were, could we really succeed in Afghanistan, with every camera waiting to record each civilian casualty, every human rights lawyer ready to bleat as soon as one of our soldiers fires a weapon, and every Taliban "victim" ready to sue for compensation as soon as they're fired on ? Even the Russians, without any of these considerations, couldn't win so what chance do we have. And as for the puerile argument that troops being in Afghanistan make Britain safer, perhaps home-grown terrorists would be better dissuaded by army patrols in places like Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. Caledonian Comment

Continued from my previous post if on the other hand you might say were in it and we are going to finish the job we started
Be it hell or high water ,
Then give the men the equipment they need .As an ex service man myself i mean give them more resources and special gear like the yanks money not not even in the equation.
Infiltration into their ranks by the S.A.S.Even more so than at present.And destroy the narcotics like another posted above.
But be prepared to dig in for a few more years as its going to take longer than you think.

Thinking of Helicopters, are the 8 chinook helicopters available yet?

I havn't heard any mention about the 45+ appachi attack helicopters we brought off the amaricans 10 years ago that we can use as our missiles distroy the windscreens when fired and we refused to use amarican missiles. I know they were mothballed but just wonder if they ever entered service?

Is this a joke?

The actual troop request rejected by Brown turned out to be 1500 rather than 2000 - can someone explain to me how this is a defense of Brown at all? Looks like General Dannatt was right to me - the government did leave troops under-resourced on the grounds of cost.

I really don't buy Brown's explanation that he wanted to make sure the troops were properly equipped before going out. He is simply leaving 8,000 men in the desert without proper support. Surely equipment levels should have been checked before going to war? Surely they have had enough time to purchase more equipment by now?

30 Ian_Taylor

"Sadly Gordon Brown does things in this order:

- What is best for Gordon Brown
- What is best for Gordon Brown
- What is best for the Labour Party
- What is best for everything else "

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

Really ? Most of us are still waiting to see him progress past the first two.

#28

Come on fubar! Cameron wants to extend the war, Obama has just received the noble peace prize, does he them commit a further 20,000 troops that will only enlarge the target for the Taliban?

It's vietnam mark 11, the military experts know they cant win in Afghan.

Is this some sort of wind up or is the head of our armed forces really named "Jock Stirrup"?!!!

@30

Sadly proves my point, he feels he's doing the best for everyone and anyone elses expert opinion is irrelevant.

I just reread my post and realized it could come over not quite as I intended it to.

So in January Brown WAS asked for extra troops and he said NO.

I don't care if the request was for 1 ration pack or 10,000 troops the fact is Brown refused a direct, and hence needed, request for extra support for the men in the field on the grounds of Cost!

39#

Cameron doesnt know what he wants apart from to be elected. The Vietnam analogy is an apt one.

Just because no-one else is showing visionary leadership about Afghan is not an excuse for Gordon to abrogate it. Other countries are withdrawing. We should either work out what the hell the mission is, equip the appropriate number of troops applicably and focus on it or get the hell out.

OK, so 1500 is the new 2000 in these potentially deflationary times that's acceptable.
Oh wait a minute ..Do you mean 500 is the new 2000 ?
That's stretching it a bit far.

I mean is even 1 extra, ''additional'' in 'normal' times, or actually 1999 less ?
*
When DOES 1+1=2 ??
Doesn't there have to be an agreed 'time frame' for this ?
But the 'present' is hard to catch...time passes,a nanosecond, by and it becomes the 'past'.
Simultaneous calculations? Maybe in theory,but then you start on space.
Can two things occupy the same space,accountable from the same angle ??
*

Nick,
It appears to me that the war is not 'winnable'. How do we, or indeed the armed forces, know when the end point has been achieved. Is this another 'Vietnam'. Guerilla warfare that goes on and on until the last man/woman is standing.
It has become clear over the last few weeks that the current American leadership have no confidence in this war. They cannot see an end that they can sell to the American public. The whole point of this action is to reduce global terrorism. Everyone know that terrorism can move from one country to another with little difficulty. It also appears that the local government is doing little or nothing to bring the situation under control.
So where is our involvement? Why are we there?
The British Government appears to be under some mis-conceived assumption that they are participating in a global action against terrorism.
Soon the American public will become bored with the whole action and there will be pressure for the Americans to withdraw.
Where will that leave the British?
Alone....defending an action that has no support in the international community!

#34 Caledonian I am with you all the way on that one .Troops in all Major city's in the UK Start finding the enemy from with in .
Then start looking for trouble if and when it comes to the shores of the UK.

#39,

Barker - I actually agree with you on this point, we can't win Afghanistan. No-one ever has and probably never will

I think we should just get the troops out and bring them home, you can't impose a way of life on a people that just don't want it

Fighting if Afghanistan does not make the streets of Britain safer, anyone with any sense knows this

Let them get on with it

There is surely only one way to win this war and that is with a massive increase in forces in the area.

Complete saturation, heavy losses to be expected and fought on three fronts.

Pakistan need to commit from their end as well and in huge numbers.

Then strangulate the villages, mountain regions and remote areas, move all and sundry behind big stone walls with checkpoints in and out.

Completely remove the liberty of the Afghan people.

Finally put NuLabour and their xenophobic surveillance society in place to keep order while swamping them with propoganda about how good Gordon Brown is and how there are no casulties but instead a restructuring of population figures.

Then we will have won. Or at least we will have according to the NuLabour office of national statistics and the treasury spokesman.

This has now reached the realms of the ridiculous! Politicians and politicised generals are playing games with our soldiers lives. All for a cause that cannot be won and based on the spurious belief that it will keep us safe from terrorism.
Any terrorist threat is already in the UK. Years of open borders have allowed that to happen.
We are blowing up Afghanistan while all the Al-Queda training camps are in Pakistan. Why aren't we in there too?
The Taliban are financed by the drugs trade and this year has brought a record crop in Afghanistan. What are we firing at them - bags of fertilizer?
I'm sorry but the sooner our lads are brought out the better.
We are only there now because it makes Brown look like a big player on the World stage, when in fact he is a pathetic little man who has lost all credibility in his own Country and doesn't have the guts to admit it.

#36 see my post #27

but I'm about to loss my job as the goverenemt will not fund doing the PUMA LEP so that there is a common cockpit based on the Mk2/2a Mk4 cockpit, but not the MK3 version as that not cleared to fly in UK airspace.

the PUMP LEP is going to get another less suitable cockpit short life and need a whole lot more training.

And they are goign to do some improvement to some Sea kings with a different cockpit.


why they were not sent to Afgan first , train there and used there I a big question the MOD should be asking.

Maybe Nick could find out

Jock stirrup to 8+ cockpit cockup on our fleet of 400 alleged helo's

I would have thought that these numbers at least should be devoid of spin.

In February a request was made for more troops. It was not granted. In October the PM said that if this and if that he would commit 500. So I am not convinced that they will go. Whether the request was for 2000 or 10,000 it has still not been granted. In the meantime soldiers die.

fubar what is it like to be right all the time

".......A former head of the civil service has called the appointment of ex-Army chief Sir Richard Dannatt as a Tory defence adviser "a major error of judgement".
Lord Turnbull, who from 2002-2005 was cabinet secretary, was giving evidence to a House of Commons committee.
It could subvert the chain of command and see an Army man deciding on cuts across all three services, he said.
Lord Turnbull told the MPs: "You talk to admirals and they are incandescent about this....."

of course any SMT would be.

Why are you constantly undermining the armed forces?

#26:

Fubar, I don't often find myself agreeing with you, but on this occasion I must say I think that's an excellent post. Well said!

How many more of our troops will have to die; How many more innocent civilians will be need to be killed, before Gordon gets his Nobel Peace Prize?

Nicholas:

While we're on the subject - and something has just struck me...

The Gray report that your colleague Laura showed us some of the allegedly leaked slides from back in August, when it was decreed that it was a spoofed leak, from surprise, surprise, those nasty baby eaters at Conservative HQ - has finally been published today, according to eGov - any reaction, for a start?

And also... this peice of sock puppetry from Stirrup isnt a peice of raw meat being thrown to the lobby in order to distract them from the publishing of said Gray Report whilst more tins of dulux are ordered, is it?

#47 I completely disagree Afghanistan is winnable but it depends on the political will in western countries.By winning I mean establishing a level of peace where the majority of the Taleban are brought into the political process. Northern Ireland is an example and Malaya perhaps a better.

It will require more troops (some of which will unfortunately lose their lives)and a long term commitment (another 10 years perhaps) but it can be done.

Personally I can't see politicians sticking with it and so my concern is we will leave the country to look after itself. The Taleban will be back and then the lives already lost really will have been wasted.

#49 zydeco Idid'nt know that you could use a ramrod on an a.k.47 Ain't the barrels a little two small for firing s..t
Although browns capable of any thing. Perhaps cheaper than bullets?

500, 2000 or even 5000 extra UK troops is not going to make a lot of difference to the outcome in Afghanistan. Obama realises that and has strong reservations about sending 45,000 more US troops. Sure they will kill more Taliban fighters and kick them out of targeted areas each time they launch their surges...but they can't keep it up indefinitely and the Taliban are too smart to accommodate them with decisive confrontations. Obama and Brown are mixing political aspirations (to get out) with military strategy (to win a war)and they are incompatible. The architects of the Afhanistan and Iraq adventures anticipated a short shock and awe victory and had no intention of being stuck with occupation and nation building. The generals' priorities are their armies' honour and morale..they will never call "uncle". The politicians have to give them a way out and come up with a different strategy.

29. At 12:43pm on 15 Oct 2009, icewombat wrote:

Didnt we send Ex Veitnam flack jackets brought off the amaricans to the troops when we invaded Iraq?
===============================
I guess history does repeat itself, I remember reading about the 50 destroyers the US sold us at the start of the 2nd world war, they were, apparently, hardly fit for service.

I would laugh, only I have relatives out there riding shotgun on those pathetic excuses for armoured vehicles.

32 icewombat

"...pending blackouts in 5 years time"

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

You will not need to wait that long. Half of Amersham (Bucks) was blacked out for a couple of hours last night. The other half had to endure flickering lights. It reminded me of Brazil in the 1970's - oh joy! Not.

This all comes down to one factor.

If you go to war, then you go to war.

You don't go to war just to play around or to just satisfy a political agenda, you go to war to win.

If more troops are needed, more troops should be provided.
If more and better equipment is needed, it should be provided.
If equipment takes time to procure, we've been at war for years and then there was the planning that took place beforehand, there should have been plans in place to ensure that there was plenty of equipment in reserve for any future contingencies and not just saying "Well we have some relics lying around that are practically no good to anyone, that'll do for our soldiers". That type of thinking is no good to anyone.
If money is an issue, why wasn't this considered when our government made the decision to go to war.

This argument could go on for a while. The government aren't committed to war, they're committed to being politicians and the only way they can appear to be at the heart of the matter is to constantly make everything political. We always see these types of people being dragged in to the politics where they have to speak the government line and defend the politicians.

It would clearly be bad for our country and the morale of the forces if soldiers came on and were whinging, complaining and just portrayng everything to be doom and gloom. These brave soldiers are putting their lives on the line for this country, not for our praise or acknowledgement, they're doing what they believe and deserve our full support. However, I may support the soldiers out on these missions, I can't support the actions taken by politicians in to making this a game.

War isn't pieces on a board that can simply be removed from the board or put back on or cn be stood up after falling down. War is lives, I have never been in war and nor do I ever want to have to participate but I have great admiration for what the soldiers do and what they achieve given the circumstances and conditions they're forced to operate in. The only problem is that they are paid by the government and act on what the government tells them to do. If the government tells them to do something, they will. I always remember the story of the Charge of the Light Brigade that I was told about at school, to me that summarised the true bravery of soldiers and what they're prepared to do, to put their lives on the line for their country and its people.

The politicians are nothing but a bunch of cowards too afraid to face the public alone so they have to drag in our soldiers to play their games all in the name of government spin. This is not what soldiers are trained for and it's not what they're paid for. Of course there need to be discussions between government and the forces but to drag the whole thing in to the public arena is government abusing the position of the troops for their own benefit.

I may not know war but I can imagine it. All the soldiers out there have my deepest respect and admiration that words alone can't express and I am 100% behind our forces. They do the toughest job imaginable and don't complain because that's the type of people they are. They're trained to follow orders and to get on with the task however they can with the resources available to hand and I'd like to see Gordon Brown out there getting a true taste of what it means to be at war because then maybe he would see things a bit differently and not just see a war in terms of numbers, statistics and money. War is lives, the longer this goes on for just to play a political game, the greater the punishment to the soldiers.

It's too late to turn back the clock, the country is at war, we're either committed or we're not, we're either in it to win or to lose. The way things currently stand, the government have chosen the losing option after wasting many lives and taxpayer's money on an under resourced effort just to satisfy the whims of George Bush.

The basis of this war was a lie, but what is started must be finished one way or another. Considering the long history of war in the region and the inability of our troops to fight effectively in such conditions clearly wasn't taken in to account in the planning stage, nobody has ever been able to attain true victory on their turf so was going to war really the right thing because we should have known that it would take effort, time and resources to attain victory.

The alliance has set the standard, nobody wants to commit, nobody wants to put in the effort, everybody wants to pull out, it's been quite a few years now and for what. So here we are severely lacking in what we need to engage in effective warfare. This war has become nothing but a political sham now with our soldiers in the middle of it all.

History has taught us all many things so why can't some people learn from it. Where did the UK start out? We weren't always a democracy you know (not that I consider the country one now) and simply telling everyone what to do is not the way forward for countries that aren't like ours. The most effective change doesn't come through force, especially when you consider the long history of war and hatred that has happened between the West and the Middle East.

Gordon, Fight or Flight, which is it?
Because middle ground, vagueness, lies and games is not an answer, especially when done to your own people and involving our soldiers in your own petty political games.

If you want someone to do a job, you give them what they need to do it, so what exactly is the job Gordon? What has been the job specification over these many years? Is 'war' nothing but an empty word? How can you stand up in Parliament expressing your regrets when you put them out there without proper planning before the war and inadequate resources during it?

The politicians are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, if they want a war, let's send them all out there on the fornt lines and see what the survivors have to say when they get back.

If, as the Gray report seems to indicate, the MoD is overspending by £2billion per annum, how is it that our troops are under-equipped with sub-standard kit?

Has anyone got round to a political solution yet out there?
What not the west buy up all the poppy crop? The price would go down to the "insurgents" and the drugs would be taken off the streets. And would work out cheaper if you look at all the budgets for the police, health services and enforcement agencies.

It might just work out to everyones advantage.

The the troops could come home in one whole piece

"Zydeco wrote:
How many more of our troops will have to die; How many more innocent civilians will be need to be killed, before Gordon gets his Nobel Peace Prize?"

I think Gordon has been in the job to long to win it now after all the current winner was only in the job a matter of weeks when nominations closed!

#56 Richard,

I see your point and I do think that we are lacking the political will to take the decisions needed to make any headway, but I don't think that we can win - not within any reasonable (ie the next 3 years) timeframe

The simple reason is that the majority of the Afghan people aren't interested in living a western lifestyle. They're not really interested in our form of democracy either, they are happier with sharia law and the taliban. These people have been living a tribal existence for centuries - who are we to tell them it's wrong? (I do believe that there are many Afghans who do want democracy as well)

Whilst I agree that the taliban needed removing from power you can't force a people to change their enitre way of life and belief structure. I don't really see parallels with NI here, it's totally different. Malaya I can see some similarities with but Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish

If the Russians (who lets face it werent as friendly as our guys) couldn't make any headway even using illegal weaponry and outright brutalism then I don't see what we can achieve with far fewer troops in far fewer areas with stricter rules of engagement can

Changing subject for a minute I see Harriet has warned that the Legg Review must abide by the rules that were in effect at the time.

This is coming from the woman who brought the "court of public opinion" into play over Fred the Shred's pension!

Oh the irony! Oh the hypocrisy!

500, 1000, 1500, 2000, whatever.

The 'numbers game'.

And not particularly interesting in itself, which incidentally was why this blogger could not be bothered to comment on the previous blog re: the unemployment numbers, which can be bent in almost infinite ways.

IMHO, only a handful of really significant objectives are required in Afghanistan right now (in no particular order) :

a) many more drones

b) ramping up the Afghan National Army's capabilities asap

c) protecting civilians in major population areas (using more American military as per McChrystal's plan)

d) building the Afghan civilian infrastructure e.g. roads, schools, hospitals etc.

If the 'British' politicians and to a lesser extent, the military, could somehow come to grips with the fact that we no longer have an empire and are in fact, a relatively small player in political and military terms on the world stage, and furthermore, will, at some point, be a (key) component of the EU's political and military wings, then that would be a very helpful perspective.

#39, derekbarker wrote:
"#28
Come on fubar! Cameron wants to extend the war, Obama has just received the noble peace prize, does he them commit a further 20,000 troops that will only enlarge the target for the Taliban?

It's vietnam mark 11, the military experts know they cant win in Afghan."

Derek,

I rather fear that history proves that nobody wins in Afghanistan.

In the past, most of the attempts at occupation was about claiming "space" i.e. land as a buffer. The Brits tried it a couple of times. Didn't work.
More recently, the USSR were worried about disruptive ideas that could have been a problem, on what were then Soviet borders. Trying to keep a Marxist government in power, while the USA supported the Mujahideen. The USSR put in what, 100,000-200,000 troops? And then disengaged. Well were forced to crawl away, really.
The US didn't really have a clue that they were supporting an idea they didn't comprehend and aiding a group of people so far removed from anything that fits inside their (rather inspiring) Constitution.

That's the problem. It's hard to kill an idea with a bullet.

I have no idea why religions that acknowledge a common God (Jews, Christians, Muslims) find it so easy to fight each other.

But find it really hard, on a day by day practical level, to understand why so much tax-take is p**d away by people who claim to be looking after "the people".

Ironic isn't it that when it comes to moat cleaning and duck houses and mock Tudor beams cash flow no problem ?
But life and death situations can go begging on a war front.
But then what can you expect from the Muppet brigade?

"Harriet Harman has warned that Sir Thomas Legg's review of MPs' expenses must be based on the "rules and standards that obtained at the time".

"To do anything else would be arbitrary," the Commons leader said."

That's a BBC extract. Doesn't really feel off topic, though I guess somebody would say it is.

I mean, deciding whether to send 1 or 2,000 troops to Afghanistan seems rather "arbitrary", wouldn't it, if you sat in a comfy office in Westminster?

I don't understand whether there really were any rules and standards in existence.

But I guess most servicemen and women would have liked that "flexibility" to also be supported from the public purse, when what they actually needed was a bit of body armour. Or good boots.

I can't work out how a set of rules, set by a club, can be allowed to operate outside the rules that are normally applied by HMRC.

And why a guy who was the Treasurer of the Labour Party, but didn't understand or worry about the difference between a gift or a loan, should be lined up for a seat in the next parliament.

I'd prefer far less MPs. Only doing what they think is right. Refusing to nod through laws and regulations they haven't actually looked at.

There's no chance of that. But somebody somewhere must care enough to equip people we send to war with a reasonable standard of gear...

52#

Sorry, was that a question directed at me? Why are you constantly undermining the Armed Forces?

I served for 16 years between 1983 and 1999. That gives me an insight as to what it used to be like during the cold war and how it changed afterwards.

I dont undermine those who actively serve. Never have, never will. I do despair however at the way that they are led and have said on several occasions that once an officer reaches star rank, it becomes less about leadership of men and more about preservation of pension and advancement of rank, or ego.

With very few exceptions, most lions at this point morph into donkeys. This has happened for many years, before Dannatt was a twinkle in his fathers eye. Because its always been that way is not good enough reason for it to continue. Part of the chain of command is not only the responsibility to the government for the prosecution of their military objectives. As part of the military covenant, the other part of command is the responsibility to those who are going to shed blood on your orders. I remain convinced that the only ones that I am aware of who have reached this rank and retained that vision and are prepared to make the kind of noise that can end careers when it is warranted have been Richard Dannatt and Peter De La Billiere.

Now, the civil servants dont like it. Tough. We have a politicised civil service, of course they dont like it. Most civil servants have no comprehension of what it is like to order men into battle where they are facing death as an occupational hazard. The other service chiefs do not like it because all of the slithering, selling out, butt-kissing they've had to do to climb the greasy pole to a 4 star pension could be for naught because one of their number has the temerity to say "hang on, this isnt right". The government of the day refuses to listen and hangs him out to dry. So, what does he do? He talks to someone who says "I will listen".

Just because he no longer has to wear the uniform, the consequences of his decisions are still being felt on a daily basis by people who are serving and dying on a daily basis in a far away land.

Do you think the military just take off their uniforms at the end of the day and just forget about it all, in the way you can do if you work in a non-military environment? That is not the way it happens and it never has done.

So, having known defence and the army all his life, Dannatt decides he still has something to contribute and whether the reasons are cynical or not, it remains to be seen, Cameron approaches him and Dannatt says yes.

That is his decision. He has seen other cross bench retired Cheifs Of Defence Staff in the Lords, like Guthrie occasionally beating their gums about equipment and numbers and housing and what happens as a result? A mere gnat bite for the serving administration, because they have no political clout, nothing gets done and all that happens is that hot air gets expended for no change, no result. The headlines are busy for a couple of days and thats it.

Meantime, the C17's keep coming back into Lyneham and more families lose fathers, sons and daughters and mothers to active service.

The civil service and the existing senior military have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Its called "I'm alright Jack, keep your paws off my pension. Dont rock the boat."

I admire Dannatt for having the guts to have his career curtailed to speak out on behalf of his troops, to break that cycle and stand up and be counted rather than being just another HoL inhabitant who suddenly finds the courage of his convictions once his pension is safe.

And you know what? Those out there in Afghanistan who are catching the bullets or flying helicopters or trying to prosecute the war largely do so too.

And if that means I'm undermining the forces, then yes, I'm guilty. I know what it means to me.

If someone asked Brown what his name was he would have difficulty giving an honest answer.

Why are we waiting? While Brown is still fiddling about with a will we or won't we approach to sending more troops to Afghanistan we still await
the big new strategy from the US.

500 extra troops can only be replacing those who have alreadyy been killed or injured so they cannot be considered as extra troops but replacement troops.

There appears to be no real leadership in all of this and shows a distinct lack of will from politicians to carry on with this war.

If the will is not there politically then there is only one option and that is to pull out.

Perhaps then they will be free to assess the real problem of Pakistan and form a more successful strategy to deal with it free from the insurmountable problems of Afghanistan.

Now that General Dannatt's view has been agreed and more troops are to be sent we do need to concentrate on Brown's caveat about troop reinforcements being agreed on the basis of greater involvement from our NATO allies. That means the French and the Germans, and others, coming out of their bunkers in the safe areas and rotating with British, Americans and those other UN forces who do share the load. I dont think that is what they have in mind, but it would help them to remember that one of the ingredients on the wish list of the EU Constitution/Treaty is a European Army, where all good europeans come together in one army. And presumably share the load through integration.

Incidentally, while I can see the argument about Dannatt speaking out or not speaking out according to your taste I think the whole thing was triggered by Brown and the Defence Secretary in the first place. You had the CGS saying initially in a coded way that more troops were needed but the Government insisting (in Parliament) that the people on the ground (the army spokesmen - a Lt Col and a Brigadier from memory) were saying that more troops were not needed. It was, from my experience, a sad use of junior officers to undermine their boss in public. They didnt do it deliberately, using the opportunity to turn the argument away from troop numbers to shortages of equipment, but the result was just what Brown wanted. The same thing happened with helicopter numbers.

#68 fairlyopenmind

Why does little Britian hold to the big atittude, that it's second to America in power and might, why should this rather small European nation have the second biggest Armed forces numbers in Afghan?

Are we truly the crusaders? with the silver godly bullets?.

#66 Well said Mr Player, although I don't think you'll have a logo on next year's car.

Herpesron, and other people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones, and she has now proved herself to be a hypocrite. I'm sorry, but just relaised that's sexist, it has proved itself to be a hypocrite will get me out of trouble, I'm sure.

As I've said before, they don't like it up 'em, do they?

Roll on that election.

"That is why Stirrup, who wants to end stories about disputes with ministers, can describe 2,000 as a myth. He may also want to damage his old rival General Dannatt who continues to use the figure. However, the row about troop deployments is anything but a myth."

===

So Jock Stirrup is just a NewLabour apologist, playing political games for personal benefit. Pretty much the same accusations (unfairly) levelled against General Sir Richard Dannatt.

Just a thought. I wonder how much Sir Jock has been claiming on HIS expenses? Do you think that Labour toad, Kevan Jones, will issue a Freedom of Information request about those?

My bet is Sir Jock doesn't shop at Tesco and Lidl!

Well said Fubar.

I walked the streets of Northern Ireland and the fields of South Armagh, not having your length of service but I agree with the sentiments you express.

Farah Hockley was another "knew" him as a Brigadier in Aldershot.

#75, derekbarker wrote:
"#68 fairlyopenmind

Why does little Britian hold to the big atittude, that it's second to America in power and might, why should this rather small European nation have the second biggest Armed forces numbers in Afghan?
Are we truly the crusaders? with the silver godly bullets?."

Derek,

I didn't support the party line that took us into Afghanistan. Did you?

The UN supported all that stuff, which is why a lot of countries are "involved" - but most of them don't really get near the real dodge-the-bullet front line.

Silver bullets? Goodness knows, Derek, as far as I can see, this government sends troops off without the basic equipment they need.

Don't think they would invest in silver bullets, do you?

Far better to have a "Diversity advisor".

What does one of those actually do?

70. At 3:09pm on 15 Oct 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:"..

"...I can't work out how a set of rules, set by a club, can be allowed to operate outside the rules that are normally applied by HMRC.

And why a guy who was the Treasurer of the Labour Party, but didn't understand or worry about the difference between a gift or a loan, should be lined up for a seat in the next parliament...."

===

Because he is Harriet's husband. Simple!

#66 and #76 that has just cheer me up no end.

my post at 50 is having trouble with the mods, prob because I was spilling the beans on the helo's mess of the last 10 years. But the public have a right to know and in detail otherwise they cannot determine whom is fit to run the country.

let the court of public opionion decide call an election

66. At 2:46pm on 15 Oct 2009, JPSLotus79 wrote:
Changing subject for a minute I see Harriet has warned that the Legg Review must abide by the rules that were in effect at the time.

This is coming from the woman who brought the "court of public opinion" into play over Fred the Shred's pension!

Oh the irony! Oh the hypocrisy!
*************************

The 'Posh totty' making another play for the leadership??

From the BBC feature on the Gray Report;
The review, commissioned by the MoD, said too many types of equipment were being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification.
**********************

Who draws up the shopping list for this equipment?
Is it anyone who actually knows what it is like to be in a war theatre?

Interesting to get accurate information without any of the spin from the political parties and now, even from the military.

I was going to make some incisive comment about the Gray report but having read the posts on this blog and thinking of the way mendacious Brown and his No. 10-ites continue to wriggle and obfuscate leaving good men and women to die or be maimed - I am just too sick to my stomach!

Insufficient troops and resources is the easiest excuse for military failure. The US and UK governments would be failing in their duty, if the did not insist on a thorough analysis, political and military, of the reasons for the lack of success before granting the generals' repeated requests.

Simply re-enforcing failure is usually a bad idea, so alternative strategies and tactics must be considered. These should include early withdrawal, which is probably the wisest option. But unfortunately it is one that those who have advocated the war in the past find difficult to accept.

Any other option will cost more lives, and politicians and senior staff officers should match the bravery of the troops on the ground, by for once admitting that they got it wrong.

#23 Got it in one. Its Pakistan that should be the true target. Eliminate the training camps in Afghanistan and what happens? They move across the border to join the others.

Only Pakistan is whole new ball game. What about the second and third generation that are valued citizens here? What about the disenfranchised youth of those proud parents?

This whole thing is bad.

And there was me thinking that Blackadder Goes Forth was a satirical comedy but you report that Stirrup and Dannat are swinging handbags at each other in the security of HQ while the poor saps on the front line are being blown up by IEDs.

I'm sure your report of the Westminster gossip factory is of great comfort to the troops Nick.

#3 rockBigPhil

I think you make a really good point... the five prime ministers you served under treated you the same way.

Correct me if I'm wrong but looking back, say at the Falklands, I think the situation was worse. The conflict was not only entered into hastily, and therefore the forces were really ill equiped, but supply lines were severely stretched and the troops were massively outnumbered by a reasonably equiped conventional army that was able to call on an array of hardware including warplanes and missiles.

This I think partly explains the high number of dead and injured in the space of 74 days.

We, of course, won so the voters were happy and the government were delighted to spin the conflict as a successful outcome for a noble cause. It didn't though prevent the government from not allowing the injured into the memorial service and using the whole thing as a political football generally.

Contrast this with Afghanistan and the picture is very different.... it's a guerilla war and our forces are far far better equiped (planes, helicopters, drones and then standard kit) than the 'enemy' and 'enemy' in inverted commas because, once again, we followed the Americans in without doing any homework.

I would always petition for our army to have the best kit but what is the best kit in a guerilla war where your enemy is lightly armed with AK47 assault rifles (some of the them 50 years old), RPGs of questionable age and knackered old Chinese GPMGs, oh yes, plus gunpowder and explosive?

Fighting alongside the Americans will always give other nations a headache. Whereas the defence budget for the US is round about a trillion dollars it's not for anyone else in the world. In fact, China is the next biggest spender on defence at roughly 10 per cent of that - we obviously come further down.

You say Gordon Brown needs to give the military more support but just how much do you suggest? You also say with more support the troops will get the 'job' done and come home sooner but what is the 'job'?

The Americans are in charge of saying what the 'job' is, and for now, there doesn't really seem to be one as Afghanistan is a country of battling tribes and warlords each generally as bad as the other.

Support, in my mind, is to bring the troops home - there won't be a win to spin even if we stayed another ten years. Problem with that is that the Brits don't want Europe, they want us to continue to rule the waves (so we have to act as an independent state) and the Americans in that scenario would probably stop talking to us like they did with the French (because the French didn't back Iraq).

I'd like to know what Cameron and Dannatt would do.

Nick, this is all very interesting, but any comment on Harman's latest whining about how the Legg review is all very arbitrary?

I wonder what the Court of Public Opinion would have to say about it?

#80, yellowbelly1959 wrote:
70. At 3:09pm on 15 Oct 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:"..

"...I can't work out how a set of rules, set by a club, can be allowed to operate outside the rules that are normally applied by HMRC.
And why a guy who was the Treasurer of the Labour Party, but didn't understand or worry about the difference between a gift or a loan, should be lined up for a seat in the next parliament...."
===

Because he is Harriet's husband. Simple!"

Yellow,

I sort of realised that. And I gather he could have an adjacent - or very local to her's - constituency.

It was just the worry that somebody who couldn't bother to find out whether the cash in the bank was actually a gift or a loan had enough financial nouse to become a....

Oh. Just dawned on me...

Sad, though, isn't it?

Somebody posted that a bit of "Posh Totty" was exerting a lot of power. Well, I know she's posh, but I think it's Saga who reckons she's either physical or intellectual totty.

The politicians start these wars but then often meddle with the operational requirements e.g. numbers of troops or helicopters, which can endanger the outcome.

Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII, tried to resist interfering in military matters once he became President of the United States in the 1950's.

Bluntly, once politicians have started a war, they need to resist the urge to get involved with practical military matters and just stick to managing the wider political aspects of the conflict.

Maybe these politicians just like playing soldiers.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8228316.stm

That is a link to Brown stating 200 extra troops in Autumn during his bank holiday visit to AFG in August, are these 500 really 300 or 700 or are the 200 IED specialist not now going.

I like others on here served in the forces and while in Ireland on one tour in 74/75 we were told to take it easy not to go hard on the streets, orders from Merlyn Rees, at the time we were making big gains against IRA/PIRA, that let up on the streets let the IRA/PIRA regroup for another 30 years of troubles. Every labour gov I served under crapped on the army then Cons supported us. From what I see read an get firsthand from lads now serving, nothings changed and as for ACM Stirrup well he his still in and has got his eye on his own peerage, at least Dannatt (who I have served with) had the guts to say it during his time in the army, then who smeared him, labour and its lords cronies.

While I could hardly pretend that this story was *not* political, I find myself prompted to ask why "Defence" does not seem to be a category recognised as a worthy topic for a blog. Looking at the "Blogs" Home Page some headings have a multiplicity of contributors ("Arts" being a prime example) and yet Defence has no appearance in its own right.
I would welcome a section for Defence; has Caroline Wyatt upset someone or does she just not want to participate?
The subject is too important just to be slotted in to other topics.

3 and 89

I dont blame General Dannatt - as I have posted earlier I watched in disgust as the Government cynically used officers junior to Dannatt to win their point in Parliament and outside about why they were not meeting the General's assessment of the requirement for extra men and proper equipment in Afghanistan. "We would prefer to take the view of the man on the ground who has first hand experience of what is needed" was the line. The point the officer on the ground was trying to make was more connected with the lack of equipment and helicopters, and it was more of a "we have enough manpower but we are short of the right equipment". Given the way that I believe Dannatt was briefed against I was not at all surprised when he broke ranks from tradition and spoke out. I believe he was putting his men first, and believed he had to speak out. Good luck to him - I know the genie is out of the bottle but the next CGS can be the man who puts it back in again.

In my 31 years service, spanning Churchill to Thatcher, the media behaved itself and while there clearly were rows the public were not aware of what was going on. Churchill himself, according to the memoirs of retired Generals, was as bad as it gets in that connection, but the media focus was not on the details of the likes of Korea, Malaya, Kenya and Aden.

The British public overwhelmingly oppose this war, but, as always overwhelmingly support our troops. There is also the further Inquiry into Iraq on the horizon and that will stoke up passions even further, including the role of Tony Blair. I would not absolve Brown from that process - I have no doubt that as Paymaster of the war he was every bit in the frame as Blair - he had the power to stop it had he spoken up like the late and great Robin Cooke did.

We cant get out now, but we can get our allies out of their cosy bunkers to share the load so that when we do extract ourselves we will feel that the burden has been shared.

Yes, why exactly are the British troops allocated, full time, the most dangerous province, Helmand? Why don't the other Nato (apart from the US) members take turns of tours of duty there?

Why isn't Brown negotiating a better deal for our troops with other Nato leaders, instead of squabbling and fermenting division amongst his own generals? After all, he's saved the world, and he's World Statesman of the Year.

General (soon to be 'Lord') Dannatt and Mr Cameron would appear to have been playing very sordid 'politics' with the lives of the UK Armed Forces personnel.
Despicable behaviour and it speaks volumes for the inadequacy of the present House of Lords that such a man will take a seat within that Chamber.
As for HM's Loyal Opposition Leader! A devastatingly serious failure of judgement which reveals how very little this fellow knows about the quality of proper Leadership of a Nation.

All that said 'Jock' Brown sat on his hands whilst PM Blair committed UK Armed Forces to 2 military campaigns that they clearly were unprepared for either in terms of equipment or strategy.
Hence Messrs Brown, Hutton (ex Minister), Ainsworth etc. are condemned by their own rhetoric of "..we support the troops 100%.." whilst choosing to expose UK Armed Forces personnel to a degree of danger wholly out of proportion to the Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors provisions, training and expectation.

There is a stink eminating from the Palace of Westminster, No.10, the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office that is of a particularly hypocritical and odious quality. Lives have been lost or damaged beyond repair by at best very poor 'internal political-military' policy-making. The last time this level of stench occured was Palmerston's Crimean campaign and more recently General French - Lloyd George's concoction of "..not enough shells.." for the 1915 Battle of Loos in order to remove Asquith!

Pity, we cannot remove Brown and Cameron as neither is fit for Office!

97#

"General (soon to be 'Lord') Dannatt and Mr Cameron would appear to have been playing very sordid 'politics' with the lives of the UK Armed Forces personnel.
Despicable behaviour and it speaks volumes for the inadequacy of the present House of Lords that such a man will take a seat within that Chamber."

May I ask how you work that out? And what you know of Dannatt to make such a pronouncement on his character? I I'm not bothered about what you say about Cameron, but I'd like to know what basis you have for this particular slur on Dannatts character, if you dont mind?

May I refer you to my 71 for clarification...