Secretary of State for Defence
He didn't do to well against Paxman either !!! Jeremey's snearing looks said it all.
To me a Defence Secretary is there for the troops, anything else is secondary. Unfortunately the current crop of politicians have NO knowledge of war and its consequences, being more content to be legal and social professionals, if I can call them that. Far away from anything dangerous and isolated from the real world that the rest of us live in, and that includes their offsprings, who will no doubt try to be politicians like their parents.
I'd give him stage fright, preferably in downtown Hellmand Province out on patrol with the troops, for a couple of weeks. Soon change his attitude,and most probably his underwear, but that comes from the top. Send him plus wife as well.
Like all governments it is easy to send someone else's son or daughter to war, you do not have to worry about them coming home in a body bag or a coffin.
In some ways national service would be a good idea, in that those who aspire to govern us have a hard taste of reality.
At the rate we are going and recruitment falling, I would not be surprised if Tony and his mob do not try to reintroduce conscription, as the US is reportedly thinks of restarting the draft for the US forces.
I support the troops 100%, but where are the Field Air and Flag rank officers, the government 0%.
I can only say" Browne get of your well padded and complaiciant A**E and do something" before the situation gets worse. He should read Chistina Lamb's front page in the Sunday Times, and don't even start me on whinging footballers, they are not fit to tie the bootlaces of the servicemen and women.
To me a Defence Secretary is there for the troops, anything else is secondary. Unfortunately the current crop of politicians have NO knowledge of war and its consequences, being more content to be legal and social professionals, if I can call them that. Far away from anything dangerous and isolated from the real world that the rest of us live in, and that includes their offsprings, who will no doubt try to be politicians like their parents.
I'd give him stage fright, preferably in downtown Hellmand Province out on patrol with the troops, for a couple of weeks. Soon change his attitude,and most probably his underwear, but that comes from the top. Send him plus wife as well.
Like all governments it is easy to send someone else's son or daughter to war, you do not have to worry about them coming home in a body bag or a coffin.
In some ways national service would be a good idea, in that those who aspire to govern us have a hard taste of reality.
At the rate we are going and recruitment falling, I would not be surprised if Tony and his mob do not try to reintroduce conscription, as the US is reportedly thinks of restarting the draft for the US forces.
I support the troops 100%, but where are the Field Air and Flag rank officers, the government 0%.
I can only say" Browne get of your well padded and complaiciant A**E and do something" before the situation gets worse. He should read Chistina Lamb's front page in the Sunday Times, and don't even start me on whinging footballers, they are not fit to tie the bootlaces of the servicemen and women.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hell will freeze over before a Labour government reintroduces conscription.
BTW - small correction. It's "General officers" for the Army, not "Field", who are lower in rank (Major + non-commanding Lt Cols).
BTW - small correction. It's "General officers" for the Army, not "Field", who are lower in rank (Major + non-commanding Lt Cols).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just before Disappearing Des takes all the blame. Read this interesting response from the Govt to HCDC:
Govt response to the Defence Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2005/06. The UK Deployment to Afghanistan:
HCDC
We note MOD’s assurances that the force package to Helmand is fit for purpose. The threat from improvised explosive devices will need to be kept under constant review. (Paragraph 71)
MOD
31. The force package the UK is sending to Southern Afghanistan was based on recommendations made by the relevant military planning staffs, and was fully endorsed by the Chiefs of Staff. We will keep our planning assumptions under review and will adjust the force package if deemed necessary. All known threats to British troops, including from IEDs, are kept under constant review.
Govt response to the Defence Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2005/06. The UK Deployment to Afghanistan:
HCDC
We note MOD’s assurances that the force package to Helmand is fit for purpose. The threat from improvised explosive devices will need to be kept under constant review. (Paragraph 71)
MOD
31. The force package the UK is sending to Southern Afghanistan was based on recommendations made by the relevant military planning staffs, and was fully endorsed by the Chiefs of Staff. We will keep our planning assumptions under review and will adjust the force package if deemed necessary. All known threats to British troops, including from IEDs, are kept under constant review.
Last edited by nigegilb; 4th Jul 2006 at 17:59.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If conscription were ever to be introduced the Yoof of today would destroy the country single handed. There are no where near enough prison places to put those who would openly refuse and challenge authority.
Would like to see that myself!
Would like to see that myself!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Government response is made by the MOD. In the introduction they reiterate that the force package the UK is sending has been fully endorsed by the Chiefs of Staff as the right mix of capabilities to enable out troops to carry out the mission. I do find it extraordinary that the original plan was to bring the Harriers home in June and use someone elses F16s in Kabul. It is already clear that the paras are getting fatigued and that more infantry more rotary and more fixed wing assets are required. Blair has already said he will send in more troops if requested. The MoD assured HCDC that more assets would come from our NATO partners. Whilst I can see that helicopters are available from other countries I doubt they will send infantry. They know if they delay long enough UK will have to send its own troops. Time to rename harmony guidelines, disharmony guidelines. Field Marshall Peter Inge has already warned the Govt that harmony guidelines will not be reached until late 2007.
Whilst I have always believed in the Afg cause much more so than Iraq this mission does not appear to have been thought through. Does anyone know why we have only 6 Apaches in Afg? Unrestricted answers only please.
The following statement was made by Tom Watson, Junior Minister yesterday. Remember our original mission involved defensive counter insurgency. However as soon as our troops arrived they were enrolled in US led, OEF, Op Mountain Thrust, an offensive operation to kill Talibs. This was, not to my knowledge, mentioned in the original presentation to MPs. Somehow the locals are supposed to discriminate between Brit Troops on OEF and at the end of July same troops on an ISAF Op. This has added to confusion and made the job harder for the guys on the ground. I also believe HMG has been economical with the truth- again.
Tom Watson "Yes, our armed forces have been in action against the Taliban. That was only to be expected. That was why we sent an air-mobile battlegroup, artillery and Apache attack helicopters. Let me be candid. We would not have deployed such a formidable package if we did not think that there was a genuine threat to the safety of our armed forces. It was not pulled together on a whim. We did not pick and choose. We sent what the top military advice in the country—the chiefs of staff—said that we
3 July 2006 : Column 518
should send. So I want to make it absolutely plain that there has never been a sense that our aims and objectives were unfocused."
Whilst I have always believed in the Afg cause much more so than Iraq this mission does not appear to have been thought through. Does anyone know why we have only 6 Apaches in Afg? Unrestricted answers only please.
The following statement was made by Tom Watson, Junior Minister yesterday. Remember our original mission involved defensive counter insurgency. However as soon as our troops arrived they were enrolled in US led, OEF, Op Mountain Thrust, an offensive operation to kill Talibs. This was, not to my knowledge, mentioned in the original presentation to MPs. Somehow the locals are supposed to discriminate between Brit Troops on OEF and at the end of July same troops on an ISAF Op. This has added to confusion and made the job harder for the guys on the ground. I also believe HMG has been economical with the truth- again.
Tom Watson "Yes, our armed forces have been in action against the Taliban. That was only to be expected. That was why we sent an air-mobile battlegroup, artillery and Apache attack helicopters. Let me be candid. We would not have deployed such a formidable package if we did not think that there was a genuine threat to the safety of our armed forces. It was not pulled together on a whim. We did not pick and choose. We sent what the top military advice in the country—the chiefs of staff—said that we
3 July 2006 : Column 518
should send. So I want to make it absolutely plain that there has never been a sense that our aims and objectives were unfocused."
Last edited by nigegilb; 4th Jul 2006 at 19:20.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was an an awesome tactic in warfare when the russians were able to rout (more or less) the overwhelming superiority of force posed by the Germans. The reasons the russians won was that they used an age old tactic in warfare (goes all the way back to Sun Tzu), that of imposing serious fatigue on the enemy. They kept the germans up all night with loud speakers and small but numerous skirmishes and attacks, the german soldiers never got an ounce of rest. Within two weeks the german soldiers were on their knees, totally utterly fatigued, combined with seriously cold weather. It is with some alarm that i now find that it appears the Taliban are using the same tactics, in seriously hot weather. They are planning skirmishes every night on the various bases, the troops (most of them, including the support personnel) are spending most nights now having to kip in bunkers, with no aircon or fans, and sleeping very little. Fatigue is becoming an issue. Me thinks that the brits and the US trained the Taliban to well. With the current number of troops in theatre i dont believe our effort will be sustainable. We are going to have to increase the number of troops from all services in theatre. Our troops are having a much harder time than the news would indicate ( the media is far more interested in whether Rooney will T**T Ronaldo). If the new Defence Secretary does anything, please let it be to give maximum support to our troops out there (like industrial aircon etc etc just so they can rest, let alone the air support), I dont see the US troops going without (quite rightly) effective cooling systems in their accommodation, and they certainly do not want for air support of any kind.
