³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Gen Dannet....'plain speaking soldiers general'? and soon to be kicked upstairs!

In the urgently needed Defence Review it is essential that inter-service rivalry is forgotten and that service chief's swallow their pride for the greater good of all service personnel.

If the mission in Afghanistan were to fail it would be a massive blow to the morale and standing of Britain's armed forces as a whole, not to mention a betrayal of the sacrifices made by personnel from all three branches of those forces. So, sorry senior service but it's time to trim the massively over inflated numbers of your senior officers and downsize your organisation to match the size of your fleet, which at present the country cannot afford to expand.

I would love to see British super carriers on the waves but right now we can't have such hugely expensive assets anachronistically sailing along providing nothing the yanks don't already provide when everyone knows it's more boots on the ground we need. Troop surge and investment in infrastructure or defeat. It's a simple matter of military historical fact.

P.S thanks for not sending the extra troops when they've been requested P.M, just confirms what I already thought about you.

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

the british army must ultimately be judged on its ability to defend the uk not fighting neocon wars far away that have no prospect of a military solution.

All this media attempt to fan up the idea that neocon wars come first as 'british defence' could be looked at as sabotaging the uk ability to defend itself.

tony's wars were a mistake. the uk is bankrupt thanks to his determination to promote market fundamentalism of fig leaf regulation of financial markets. Some who think the uk still has an empire are being egged on by those states who have an agenda.

we know the narrative of the war on terror is a false one. Acts by uk citizens in the uk is not 'a war' [unless its a civil one]. People don't need to go to afghanistan to get 'trained'. They can do that in hundred places. So what we are going to have? a world wide war with no end? Hopiung form country to country where dossiers tell us 'terrorist training' is going on? No. Time to give up this false narrative and bring the troops home and start thinking rather than reacting. Currently the uk etc does not have the initiative which is why the taliban are winning.

if they had built up the previously peaceful parts of afghanistan to show what are the benefits of peace ie roads, schools, hospitals, jobs that coulkd serve as an education to the rest of the afghan all the cash is spent on war. now even the previous quiet areas are flaring up.

all because of that stupid evil narrative. a war against something is not the same as a war for something. The negative sentence structure [war against terror]is weaker than the positive [war for human rights and progress].

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

Fight for resources ? He will be overseeing cuts for the next few years.

BookHimDano,

Interesting post. Given Bin Laden's residence and support for the Taleban in Afghanistan in 2001, I'm not sure there was an alternative to an overthrow of the soon to be ruling Taleban. Iraq is a completely different kettle of fish, the alliance overthrew a strong autocratic government who ruthlessly cracked down on terrorists (yes I do mean Saddam, not the Saudi's, and replaced it with anarchy. The world in general is a less safe place without Saddam, even if GB Jr has made his daddy proud.

The current regime in Afghanistan is undoubtedly corrupt. Why do people link democracy and freedom? Beats me. What the western world needs from Afghanistan right now is an autocratic psycho (along the lines of Saddam, pinochet or George Bush Junior). That is the only way the Taleban will be defeated (although a change of the negligent rules of engagement would help as well).

Alternatively, let's get out of the country, and leave them to it.

I don't know the answer, and I have yet to see anyone else who does.

I for one hope that the planned carriers do not get cancelled. I agree that right now we need troops on the ground and hellcopters to support them, but the carriers are not for right now, they are for the future. We cannot as a nation afford to be completely relient on the US for projection of power, there are never any guarentees that they will help us if we need it. We as a country still have a number of overseas commitments we need to fufill and to do that we need a navy. Another point is that with the carriers it will enable us to improve the strength and capabilites of any EU/NATO missions we are a psrt of in the future. I hope that the government does not sacrifice the future of the Royal Navy on the alter of convinience and inter service bickering.

We must not keep the war going because of the lives already lost . This must not be a factor in strategic decisions. Nor must the money spent , be a factor .Sunk costs , whether in our best young people or our hard earned cash , are just that: sunk .
The goal cannot be , winning . Nobody wins in war .

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

Nice to know that the British/American Army is fighting for the right of Afghan men to starve their wives if they refuse sex.

It's all well and good to say 'we don't need the carriers', well just consider how the Army would have done in an unexpected conflict in 1982 in the South Atlantic, if the RN did not have even the limited capability the fleet had then (and now).
They'd have stayed in their barracks, like the vast majority of the RAF (and all their supersonic aircraft) were stuck at airfields in the UK and Germany.

The danger is that a core future capability for the longer term is lost for the short term now.
And it's not as if tackling the near term equipment issues for the army will be budget busters, despite the often partisan and almost always ill informed media, a lot of new equipment, usually by way of 'Urgent Operational Requirements' has and is being procured.
However, the expansion of the deployment in Afghanistan has often outpaced this effort.

The idea that 1) the US has no equipment issues and 2) this is the first conflict where equipment has been an issue are both wrong.
The US found that their Hummers were even more vulnerable than 'Snatch Landrovers', (Rumsfeld got a roasting once in Iraq by US troops who were having to salvage scrap metal to try and uparmour them), the aforementioned war in the South Atlantic was fought with forces unsuited for the task in their configuration and often equipment-after the previous 15 years of concentrating on NATO in Europe.

Carriers are by their nature versatile, have very long service lives, I do think however that the Trident replacement is looking dubious, at least a 5 year delay should be considered.

The RAF, like it or not, need new fast jets since the Tornado fleet are just about all over 20 years old, the average GR.4 more like 25.

The Navy should be (and I understand they are) looking at a class of cheaper light Frigates, to do the anti piracy, anti drug runners sort of work, thus allowing the inevitably smaller core fleet of 'full up' complex vessels to act mainly as escorts for major units like the carriers and the Amphibious Ready Group.
(One area where the RN has seen major improvements in recent times is with the Amphibious Warfare Vessels).
UK yards are building some capable light Frigates for Oman, these could form the basis of a future light Frigate for the RN.
The French fleet has long been like this, deploying a smaller number of high cost escorts but doing a lot of their worldwide work (and they've nabbed the most pirates recently) with such cheaper but lower capability vessels.

The helicopter saga is nothing new, I read an editorial in Flight International bemoaning the shortage of support helicopters for the UK forces, but this was back in 1986!
For all that, the RAF do have Europe's most capable support helicopter fleet, however it is too small for the current purpose.
(Oddly, despite having a larger fleet overall by some margin, the French have nothing at all in the Chinook class, a surprising lapse which must be a serious restriction).

The most logical procurement for the UK fleet is replacing the RN's support Sea King HC.4's (some of which are in Afghanistan) with more EH-101 Merlins.
A top up buy of a small number of Chinooks-the US and others are upgrading their fleet to the new CH-47F standard, a batch of these should be brought as a prelude to eventually upgrading the rest of the RAF fleet-which will need to be done if the 2040 out of service date is to be reached.
The AW419 to fly this year, is a logical replacement for the RAF's aging Puma helicopters.

I hope we do not make the massive mistake of not renewing the detterent, I would be massively worried if anyone in charge of this country is naive enough to think we can somehow stop all nuclear arms increases by giving ours up. In my opinion the Number One responsiblity for any government is the Safety of the country and its peoples, and like it or not a nuclear deterrent is the ultimate defence.

And we certainly need a new frigate as the ones we have are getting on in years.No matter how good the digger ships are you they can only be in one place at a time. Hopefully one thing that will come is some form of imporvment in the procurement systems, though I do not agree that it should be privatised as some have suggested.

"undermining the case of the other two services in the forthcoming Defence Review."

Well if he does do this then he doesn't understand the Afghan theatre at all. A huge proportion of Royal Navy personnel are deployed there.Mainly made of personnel from the Commando Helicopter Support units,845,846 and 847 squadrons, but also on the Harrier support wings as well. The Royal Navy is supplying many of the needed helicopters in theatre and further cuts will destroy them.

Given the parlous state of the UK's public finances (well, perhaps more catastrophic than parlous) and the almost certain pressure there will be on the MoD to cut costs like every other government department, it's hard to see how the Army will secure more resources. OK, so the RN and the RAF could take hits, but in the end we're a nation heading for bankruptcy right now. Our armed forces will be weaker not stronger within a couple of parliaments.

The truth is that the British armed forces will not effect strategic change in Afghanistan. It's a moot point whether even a mighty coalition centred on American military forces can do the business. Unless/until the Afghans themselves want some way of life other than that which they lead now, no amount of western military intrusion will improve the situation in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, if we're deadly serious about destroying the threat posed to our free western homelands, then our political elites need to treat the Afghanistan situation for what it really is: a war. In which case we'd need to open the cheque book, take our gloves off and psych ourselves up for a 30 year conflict and nation restructuring programme.

I'm not convinced we're ready for that. In which case, we need a total defence and security re-think centred on homeland security (starting with an end to unfettered immigration and the instigation of tight border controls) with focused clandestine operations projected around the globe delivered by small numbers of highly trained military/secret service types. In other words, let's play the fanatical terrorists at their own game.

Mark:

I hope that the new Army Chief will fight for resources, but, I have my doubts still.....

=Dennis Junior=

Good evening MU.
You wrote...

"It was frustration with the constitutionally defined limits of the job..."

'constitutionally defined'??

More of an oxymoronic than a tautological phrase given the unwritten nature of our what-ye-call-it.

Perhaps his was the common or garden frustration. He is not alone there.

#13 - Icklebitt

I strongly disagree.

The nuclear deterent was of enormous value during the days when MAD was about the only thing that prevented itchy fingers on either side of the Iron Curtain from pressing red. We no longer play that particular game and, as I have posted before, the chances of the UK having to wipe out tens of thousands of people and devastate vast areas of tracts at the push of a button are nigh on non-exitent. I am not a unilateralist but the existing systems, properly maintained, are good for our purposes for many years to come.

Given the harsh new financial realities, spending a large slice of the medium term cake on the Trident update when it could be much better spent on carriers, helicopters and modern conventional equipment is an absurd waste of money and seems far more about maintaining some mythical 'superpower status' than the defence of the realm.

RIGHT ON THE BUTTON (#18)

Hi threnodio. I have posted before regarding the Westminster board-game - with us as pawns, and have pointed out that at the top level of government, MPs get to play on the 'world board', with whole countries as 'pieces'. These elevated juveniles SO want to be moving a high-value piece but, as you indicate, though expressed via weaponry it is not about defence - and when through 'trading status' it is totally divorced from the EMOTIONAL 'wealth' of the citizenry.

It is poignant that the 'western sickness', spread by money, made the world very ill. But by clever tweaking of money (as with a weakened virus) the pandemic was halted AND WE CONTINUE IN THE OLD UNHEALTHY WAY UNTIL MONEY MUTATES AND BRINGS US DOWN.

Money is power, power is money; wisdom and philosophy are of no monetary value.

General Richards ideas though with some merit, are very myopic,
It's often said that Generals plan to fight the last war, General Richards seems to be planning to fight todays war above all else, The Army, more so the other services are designed to fight all types of conflict,
but to cancel major weapon systems designed for conventional War, will leave our armed forces vulnerable if required to fight nation states.
if anything tells us about the last 60 years, that our military forces have found themselves in conflicts,they never planned for!
A military well balanced and able to engage in all aspects of warfare at all levels is only the real insurance policy the country can accept. otherwise we end up with a army only able to conduct Coin operations and the other forces not able to untake any viable Air and Naval campaigns.

#18 threnodio

OK I am NOT a stalker or nothing. You are your own independent poster.

You may remember a thread from a ways back where there were those who promoted "agnosticism" on the Holocaust.

I am sure you are careful, but not daunted, but barriesingleton belongs to that group of posters like Jaded_Jean who see "alternatives" to democracy. This one is a lot more tangential and less offensive but ....

So I am just saying.

By the way good to see you posting and as usual I largely agree. Myself I would like a cheaper genuinely independent nuclear deterrent possibly shared with the French.

On the other hand with an election looming and public sympathy for the Army they should be hoping for a bidding war.

I think they could do with some Predators or a UK version that would take out the IED bomb makers and placers in Afghanistan. Possibly also new signals equipment.

Lets hope some of the unsympathetic elements in Pakistan don't work in a version of GCHQ (so they can listen in to our troops in the field). Probably not.

Thus ends my contribution to the thread and bye.

One more addition to the thread:

"Gen Dannatt gained a reputation as a plain speaking soldiers' general.

His successor is more likely to use Whitehall black arts - cultivating opinion formers, using his international contacts, and undermining the case of the other two services in the forthcoming Defence Review. "

I see what Mark Urban is saying and I am sure it is accurate but if I was a soldier with barely adequate troop transport and very limited helicopters, and in my world possibly compromised signals equipment, I would probably use every trick in the book.

So would the Navy or the RAF.

But there is the need to balance strategic need and immediate need.

The other thing is I hope the review starts after the general election ...

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

We really really need more troops to be put into Afghanistan. That is where the real battle is, not Iraq.


Justin, creator of:

There is not the public will, and eventually there will not be the political will to continue i Afghanistan. A strategic withdrawal policy could well win our next General Election.

Let us protect our national borders instead of tramping blindfold about Afghanistan.

If the "civil rights" of incomers are compromised, so be it, proveded the civil rights of Britons (ie the right to life) are not.