Prasius

iTrader: (1)

More retired-senior officers in the House of Lords criticising Brown and the Labour Government for continued lack of funding for the armed forces.

Now the facts are that we have a part-time Armed Forces Minister (I think we get him between 1400 - 1600 on every other Thursday afternoon ), defence spending has dropped from almost 5% of GDP in the early 1980's to almost 2.5% now, the average Royal Navy Frigate and Destroyer spends more time at sea than its WW2 counterpart did.

Of course, pay has improved a bit, and we have finally got the type of front line equipment that we have always needed but this has come at the expense of procurement of new equipment, cancellation/delay of improvements to infrastructure/accomodation at UK bases (I'm currently living in a room around 6ft x 12ft in a block that should have been replaced years ago - we have recently been told new blocks won't be built at this major RAF base until 2012 at the very earliest), and a massive cut in the amount of excercises and adventure training being conducted.

Is it a simple case that Defence is not a priority of the Tax Payer?

I wouldn't like to see this decend into anti-war rants, because, frankly, it is irrelivent. Even the most hardcore of Guardian or Independent readers would like us to deploy to various locations in the world to carry out humanitarian operations where NGO's are totally unequipped to do so due because of the security situation in these countries. To do so, we need exactly the same equipment, training, and welfare as on any other operation. People will still try to kill us

To quote Gen. Dannatt, "[the Armed Forces are] the instrument of foreign policy conducted by a democratically-elected government acting in the name of the people".

So why doesn't anyone seem to want to pay for us? And if you do want to pay for us, where do you want the money to come from?

alpha charlie

I'm with you mate

No-one seems to care about the current HM Forces and where they are or what they are doing. While the equipment has finally caught up with other countries Military Forces it has been at a cost, the amount of red tape and IT dependancy has slowed everything down to a snails pace and made everyone inflexable!!

Thankfully I was lucky to escape on redundancy and while I work downstairs from you in an office with no windows I am actually treated as a human being for once

Cheers
AC

SetoN

I care.

/saute

SetoN

NACRO

I wouldn't and I don't read either of the establishment rags you allude to either. The so-called humanitarian operations are invariably political power based operations with lip service paid to any humanitarian effort.

I care about the armed forces in as much as I'd like to see spending cut backs and the people indoctrinated in them discharged and given therapy.

Abdabz

If I am honest, defence is never at the top of my political spending rants when the inpetitude of the current governments spend and debt problems come up for debate.
I (like many others) always go for Education, Law and Order and Health Care...
I think apathy due to the middle east invasion hasnt helped the armed forces depiction in the eyes of many of the public wannabe experts (me included). It's hard to see any justice in taking money away from an operating theatre in a British hospital to see the money spent on an armoured car that will drive around Iraq until it is blown up by a roadside bomb.
I also think that having invested a few more billion in the renewal of trident recently, makes most of us feel safe... We dont feel under threat from a real invasion in this country and that too quashes calls for more public money to be spent on defence.
I do feel sorry for the under equipped soldiers out there as a result of this government. To send them into battle without the right tools for the job is disgusting.
That said, I would rather pull them out, reduce troop numbers and use the money on our home grown problems than keep on throwing money at our international missions of folley.

Brendan Hughes

Your 1980s-now comparison immediately makes me think - end of Cold War / threat of massive invasion.

When you take that huge issue into account, are the changes still so dramatic, or are they actually quite proportional? (I accept the answer "yes we scaled down but never re-prioritised for the new threats" )

Much as I am truly against the Iraq war on every count possible, I think TB fecked up BIG time by linking it with Afghanistan. There, they had the moral right of invasion (catch OBL after 9/11), they can stick with the anti-opium work, etc etc. It's an advert for the armed forces, if it was marketed as such. Instead, due to TB's "Al Quaeda" insinuations, people now lump it with Iraq and think it's just an immoral war against Islam.

Not sure about Africa and the Balkans, as other recent examples.

HankScorpio

Previous threads on here have shown people do care and want the armed forces looked after and properly equipped, unfortunately, Whitehall is not populated with people off here!

I'm sure there's so much money actually wasted that things would be done better if competent people were running the show.

And if you're having a good day and want it ruined and have your blood boil, have a read of this:
Shocking behaviour.

Holy Ghost

**

uh-oh. in the nicest possible way, our resident anarcho-fantasist is off on one. you're entitled to your view but i think you'll find yourself in the very tiny minority of SWP-types that are grumpily and blindly opposed to the way the world works - and always has done. like tony benn and michael foot, waste of an intellect i'd say.

prasius, valid point. labour hates the armed forces because they think they're all tories, particularly the officers. all very shoddy. don't expect it to improve any time soon.

NACRO

I probably despise the SWP as much as you do. Dismissing someone's viewpoint in that way is the real waste of intellect IMO.

On a more prosaic topic imagining that government bases it's decisions regarding the armed forces on any sort of party political basis is naive in the extreme. Do you think Thatcher really gave a toss about the people killed in the Falklands or the fact they were pathetically equipped and prepared to defend themselves against the threat of weapons like exocet? The political elite views the army in much the same way as I do, a tool to do a job.
From my own perspective it's a tool I'd treat with a great deal more respect than them while not giving it nearly as much importance.

stilover

I care.

Although I don't believe that we should be involved in Irag/Afghanistan, I want out troops equipped to do the best job they can, and not get killed.

I wouldn't do their job, so they demand respect putting there head literally on the line every day.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Okay -

I'll deal with a few of the comments:

Specific examples please?

The intervention in the Former Yugoslavia, while hindered by political nannying from the UN, undoubtably saved many lives. Sierra Leone - the cynic in me accepts that the primary aim was to ensure British Diamond companies didn't suffer from the lack of security in the country, however, the intervention and associated humanitarian effort by us have turned that country around massively. East Timor, Pakistan, St Helena have all had various levels of humanitarian/peace keeping assistance in recent years.

In many countries, NGO's are totally unable to operate in order to provide assistance to the local population because of armed clans, militias, renegade government forces, and plain old criminality. In those cases, support by a politically motivated Armed Force is the only way to prevent further suffering of innocent, suffering people.

I won't dip the atmosphere in this thread down by giving a reply to the very unsubtely worded insult to myself in that particular reply; other than that hardcore pacifists are the most sheltered, naive, individuals I have ever had to deal with. It is very easy to be an idealist when your living in a luxurious 1st world country with everything you could possibly want, watching the world pan out in the media. Humanity is generally very unpleasant, no amount of free love and daisys are going to change that.

Personally, I'm a bit iffy about Trident myself - mainly because I don't think our current Government would have the bottle to use it even if we really needed to. Keeping in mind how timid the Goverment is of a Soldier actually shooting somone, what do you think the chances are of them wiping a city containing several million men, women and children from the face of the planet are? Of course, Trident isn't about military capability - its a political status-symbol; it retains our place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, among a whole number of other political benefits of being a Nuclear power. Which, to be honest, is fine by me.

As regards to not feeling under threat of invasion - I'm pretty sure 1920's UK didn't feel under threat of invasion either, hence the massive degredation of the British military capability in that period. We all know what happend shortly after that.

The damage done by inadequate funding of the military is not something that can be quickly fixed - new systems can take decades to enter service, units that are heavily manpower intensive such as Infantry Regiments, take years to recruit and train. The lack of investment now equates into an incapable an inadequate military in 20 years time.

A Tank or Fighter Aircraft of today costs far more than one designed in 1970. While we have scaled down, re-prioritised and re-trained to meet new challenges, the equipment we need to do the job is far more sophisticated, hence, expensive, than that from the cold war. Without that investment, you end up with a military who's capability is inferior to that of a potential enemy. Contary to popular belief, and without any goverment propoganda (although some here won't believe that), we are probably facing a greater threat now than at any time in since WW2. The Soviets were no more interested in starting a nuclear war with the west than we were them. Common sense and common decency prevented either side from stepping over the mark which would have resulted in all-out war. However, we now face the potential of an enemy, likely to be religiously motivated, having no fear of death, setting off a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon, and waging clandestine and unconventional warfare on our streets. To fight such an enemy requires an aweful lot of manpower, and a lot of very sophisticated, very expensive equipment of various types.

Whats the easiest way to describe it? A bit of bodged Alien vs Predator script.. The military is like a Condom. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. And if your going to have it - you might as well have a good one without any holes in

Martin2005

Afganistan? Why are you against our involvement there?

pslewis

When you say, renewal, do you mean simply extending the life of Trident and underwriting the current Stockpile? Or a replacement?

Holy Ghost

**

i'm not dismissing your viewpoint at all. merely observing, in as vinegary and blunt a fashion as you, that you will find yourself in a minority on this topic. and why shouldn't i say that? it's ball-park accurate. so please feel free to expand because despite my not agreeing with you, your perspective does throw up interesting points.

for the record, i think you'll find that the ideological left wing have long been deeply suspicious of the armed services and its culture - just look at CND. that governments of all persuasions under-invest and over-stretch is just a fact of life. that this government seems to give even less of a sh*t - with a part-time defence minister in the midst of two difficult micro-wars and a former chancellor who refused to attend MOD briefings for starters - is interesting in itself. and both of these phenomenons would appear to be governmental firsts. you have to ask yourself 'why is that?'

Brendan Hughes

I'm sorry, I don't see this. To fight such an enemy requires massive investment in intelligence, customs, surveillance etc. It does NOT require a half a million strong army with a thousand tanks and aircraft. Your question was about the armed forces. If the armed forces are scaled down so that MI5/6 get a lot more budget, that seems like an appropriate response to me.

(Some would argue that in fact it requires considerably less armed forces than are being deployed at present, as the current deployments are actually generating that threat. I'm in no position to judge either way.)

Holy Ghost

fair point brendan. but whatever the budget split and spend, the bottom line has to be that those at the tip of the spear have everything they need and the best of it too - and that 'make do and mend' is the exception rather than the rule.

DCI Gene Hunt

I'm for spending all our cash on EDUCATION then one day in the future, when we're all intelligent we'll realise that war is, and always has been, a complete waste of time

Brendan Hughes

HG - That, I'm never in disagreement with.

To think that I once applied for the Fleet Air Arm <shudder>..

Brendan Hughes

Feckin left-wing intellectual

DCI Gene Hunt

I'm having a feckin Ghandi moment

Holy Ghost

**

didn't they fly swordfish then ...

Brendan Hughes

I'm only 39





...so yeah, you're probably right

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

If we're going to talk about the UK for a moment - the general belief is that we have a number of small, un-connected cells which have the aspiration to start a conflict in order to further their religious aims. At the moment, your right - this is a job for the civilian, domestic intelligence agencies and police. However, there comes a tipping point where an irritating problem with terrorists (which we have in the UK now) becomes a more open, concentrated, co-ordinated effort where these groups aim to control ground, and turns into something more resembling an insurgency. Its this later evolution the Armed Forces have to be prepared to face; as well as the threat of facing a conventional enemy. In addition to that, many different areas of the British Military *are* involved in exactly the type of work you are talking about, and remain under-funded.

(Hope we won't wander too far off topic now!)

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

National Memorial Arboretum. Go there and not be moved to reconsider your tthought on the military and the effort we put into our current ability to lead a free life.

The Gulf was/is political. Oil was being paid for in Euro's before the invasion, Rumsfeld was an executive in the company paid to "reconstruct" Iraq. Sometimes better the devil you know!

I have lost mates and am helping a family to come to terms with their loss, 20year old widow with a three year old son!

Better kit may have helped, funding issues........................silk purse and a sows ear.

Afghanistan is a bag of worms, Russia blew it, the British blew it, now unless there is a major change politically or militarily then it may go the same way.

But do you support the fact that currently the Armed Forces are in a pretty bad way and are being rode over by Gordon Brair, yes or no that is the issue and the question posed?

Brendan Hughes

I applied to FAA in 1991 and there were almost no places due to massive cutbacks. RAF were having bases closed all over the shop. That was after 11 years of Tories, and Maggie had only left a few months previously so doubtless she'd started it. I don't think political colours matter TBH.

Dan W

I care.

Brendan Hughes

I have big problems reconciling the following two statements:


Assuming you're talking about Islamism, I think 2% of the UK population is Muslim, and we can assume that a chunk of them won't want to fight. So 1% of the UK population vs the rest, and you're saying there is a bigger risk of large-scale insurgency warfare than there was of war during 1955-1989? I can't buy that at all.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

As far as the UK comment was concerned; it was an example of the type of threat that we might be facing. Only a small percentage of the population was involved in the troubles in Northern Ireland.. for that matter, only a small percentage of Iraqis are involved in the insurgency in Iraq.

My "greater threat" comment was from a global perspective rather than the threat of islamic insurgency occuring in the UK -one of the major problems with Pakistan at the moment is a threat of the country descending into civil war, and the more extreme members of the population gaining control over Pakistani nuclear weapons; or Pakistans conventional arms for that matter - which I'm not sure the Indians would be very happy about either. A large, heavily armed, predicatble enemy is far better than a bunch of loons running around with their heads full of all crazy ideas.

But anyhow - back on topic - Funding.

dsmith

In short I care.

I am daily part of the massive NHS IT expenditure. Much of it is valuable and needed. Much is wasted. Goals constantly shift and real leadership and vision is rare. Mone could be saved. I see many other areas where government spending is at best wasteful.

I would support a greater percentage of of total spending on the armed forces. But overall spending is too high and frankly unstustainable in the long term. Gordons house of cards will come crashing down and I fear it will be a long lean decade ahead for the armed forces.

billythekid

I care for everyone except MCM REMFs .