Printable View
REported in the UK Daily Telegraph comments by the UK's Chief of Defence Staff (equivalent to JCS Chairman): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ghanistan.html
Posted here after scanning where was best.
I note the similarity to previous comments by American military leaders and threads on SWC.
Earlier story from UK The Times, on SAS commander resigning, citing similar reasons: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4087644.ece
davidbfpo
And therein lies the difference - the US may be having some of the same problems, but - difficult though it may be - there is at least a good amount of political support for spending the money needed to try to ease the situation.
I know the student population at a university in any country isn't the best polling group, but based on the people I met and talked to, I can't imagine the Government (frankly, Labour or Tory) putting in the money and effort to ease this situation.
Do you think these reports will put any pressure on to accelerate the winding down of the Basra commitment?
Finally, the ex-SAS commander's case also vividly illustrates the difference between political and popular climate and perception of the military between our countries. For all people here have (rightly, most of the time) pointed out the political brouhahas over body armor, HMMWVs, and the like; the fact is that if, say, Dell Dailey or some other USSOCOM official resigned over the poor condition of US equipment, the media and political storm would be fast and furious.
You have to take the bad along with the good when it comes to flawed systems, I guess. . .
Regards,
Matt
Matt,
As you know from our RVP and previous threads I suspect public support for our presence in Iraq has long evaporated and is dwindling over Afghanistan. It is the cumulative effect of casualties, despair at the situation, the GWOT principally seen as American-led, poor equipment - notably "Snatch" Land Rovers and no forseeable end.
What are our (British) war aims for staying in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, ministers, the opposition, soldiers and others can present an argument to be there. Vocal opposition comes from the traditional Left, non-parliamentary groups, some Muslims and the Liberal Democrats. In the middle there is resignation. To my surprise the comments on The Daily Telegraph, when defence stories appear, are often hostile to any troops being there; again not a good barometer of opinion - like your students.
Secondly, the UK is spending a lot of money on defence, but not apparently on the best kit available for the troops in danger. It is a moot point whether the UK taxpayer would want to spend more.
davidbfpo
I was in the UK last week, and was fascinated by the depth, detail and attention that Afghanistan was getting on TV and in the press. Far greater than what we get here in the States.
We in Germany have almost no coverage, except that our SecDef proposes an increase from 3,500 to 4,500. An increase to 4,000 was discussed earlier this year, so 4,500 is probably just a starting position for some political trading in the grand coalition.
We've got a stable majority against the whole mission in the population.
The Bundeswehr is also quite stretched, but in some people's opinion (this includes soldiers) it was already kind of broken before, so few care about it.
Goods points Matt, and just goes to underscore how more or less indifferent public opinion (and public opinion-makers) really are to all this. Is there media controversy? Sure, at times. Does it really matter to most people? Of course not.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by MattC86
and davidbfpo wrote:
There is an old Canadian Government saying that reveals the true nature of what the role of the Military is, "The Armed Forces are a diplomatic suitcase that is to be kept as light as possible." Their only true function being, of course, to provide a token of participation and solidarity with one's Allies - particularly The Ally, the U.S. Although I suppose that, since all (or at least most) politics is local, the Armed Forces' primary function may to be provide Government largesse to select constituencies and stakeholders. Starting in the 1990's this same approach was effectively adopted by the British Government. Given the deterioration of the Armed Forces for the past decade and a half, the present state of the British Armed Forces increasingly constrains the Government from being able to do otherwise, even if it wanted to.Quote:
What are our (British) war aims for staying in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, ministers, the opposition, soldiers and others can present an argument to be there. Vocal opposition comes from the traditional Left, non-parliamentary groups, some Muslims and the Liberal Democrats. In the middle there is resignation. To my surprise the comments on The Daily Telegraph, when defence stories appear, are often hostile to any troops being there; again not a good barometer of opinion - like your students.
Secondly, the UK is spending a lot of money on defence, but not apparently on the best kit available for the troops in danger. It is a moot point whether the UK taxpayer would want to spend more.
I think most of that comes from this (politically-driven) desire to buy British, even if it costs way more. The defense blog you linked to noted that Augusta-Westland helicopter factory in the West Country is being kept open with another order, although it would be far, far cheaper for Britain to buy U.S. helicopters. When Britain decided it wanted Apaches a few years ago, it didn't buy them from the U.S. at $25 million apiece (what the Israelis paid at the same time), it set up a whole new licensed production line at the Westland factory, for just 59 helicopters, at more than triple the cost to buy from the U.S. All to keep a few hundred engineers employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
I'd tend to think the UK could get a pretty good military for what it spends now, if it wasn't pouring tens of billions into Cold War procurement programs and domestic vote-buying. That goes double for the U.S. of course.