MaroonMan4
9th Jan 2005, 11:25
As we are still at the faff-not enough money-faff-not enough UK helicopters-faff-not enough field hospitals- faff stage, I thought that I would just copy a few extracts from an article in the Sunday Telegraph. I normally wade though the majority of broadsheets on a Sunday from all political viewpoints (and I believe that I am genuinely apolitical), but given the current PPRUNE debate on 'where is the UK military in the whole Eastern Debate' I thought that it may add some intelligent and informed discussion:
The Sunday Telegraph - Jan 9 2005
P 14 Hidden Strength - 'Don't mention the navy' is the BBC's line
Last week we were subjected to one of the most extrodinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia's tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round the clock relief operation providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.
The BBC went out of its way not to report this. Only when when one BBC reporter, Ben Brown, hitched a lift form one of the Abraham Lincoln's Sea Hawk helicopters to report from the Sumatran coast was there the faintest hint of the part that the Americans aided by the Australian navy, were playing.
Instead the BBC's coverage was dominated by the self important vapourings of a stream of politicians, led by UN's Kofi Annan;the EU's 'three minute silence';the publics amazing response fund-raising appeals; and a Unicef-inspired scare story about orphanred children being targeted by sex traffickers. The overall effect was to turn the whole drama into a heart-tugging soap opera.
The real story of the week should be thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisation, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground
The article concludes with:
One real lesson of this disaster, as others before, is that all the international aid in the world is worthless unless one has the hardware and organisational know-how to deliver it. That is what the US and Australia have been showing us, as the UN and the EU are powerless to do. But because, to the BBC,it is a case of 'UN' and 'EU' good, US and military bad, the story is surpressed. The BBC's performance has become a national scandal.
For what it is worth, my tuppence worth:
1. May I humbly thank the US/Australian military operators (not politicians/generals, but those at the coal face) for their efforts - the general public may not note that it is a US Sea Hawk and LCAC in the background of many of Skys/BBC reports. I do.
2. Judging from the posts on PPRUNE we in the UK military all feel impotent and helpless as the political treacle wrapped in a a govt that is savagely cutting the MoDs resources in key areas results in us being able to do nothing. Rapid Reaction my @rse! With all due respect to Help-in-Hands attempt on these threads to recruit pilots for the UN, why should he or his company/UN department be forced to do this?. However experienced his crews are after recruitment, they will not be as trained, teamed with military skills (e.g. NVG load lifting) that is obviously resulting in a positive effect on the ground by the US and Aussie crews.
3. So lets just imagine what would have happened if it had been UK? Or something closer to home? Or even a WMD in large connurbation - is it all going to be taken on risk? Sky news reported that the RAF were on standby to evacuate 8000 people from Carlisle yesterday. With no crew duty time, ignoring MAUM even the most efficient crews (3 x Sea King and 1 x CH47 I believe) would have been struggling to evacuate 8000 people before it was too late.
4. The Indonesians said no to the UK's offer of 140 Ghurkas. Hmmh - so how come the US and Australian military are continuing their work in this region. Did anyone offer the US or Australian forces on the ground the Ghurkas as the Indonesian Govt have not said anything about the US/Australian forces operating on their soil.
5. I believe the article is right in its conclusion. The world has seen enough disasters now (admittedly not on such a large scale, but still huge losses of life) to have identified lessons. I do not mind things not going according to plan and flexibly approaching any situation, providing we learn from it and put into practice. It does not take the graduate of the Disaster Planning Course at Londn University to know that all disasters will require rapidly deployable hospitals and transport (trucks or helicopters). So why are we amazed when UK plc has neither! Obviously lesson not progressed beyond those that drafted the last post disaster report stating the requirement for rapidly deployable helicopters and hospitals.
6. I think it was a bit of combat indicator to the UK MoD even the independent and secretive Indonesia saying yes to the Brunei 212s (no thanks to Ghurkas) - so did the UK Govt say to the Indonesian Govt, oh its helicopters you want - how many would you like and we will see what we can do?
The good news is that another 650 troops are being deployed to Iraq - now that really will sort the situation out on the run up to the elections or answer (b) have absolutely no real tactical effect whatsoever!
Can someone please tell me when this is going to stop? I have seen Frontline First through to SDR and now the 'in the wings' cuts (Airfield Rationalisition, Infantry Bns, SH). What is the point of these expensive reports (e.g. NAO Battlefield Helicopters) if the Govt that they are aimed at not only ignore, but actively go against the advice given.
A last thought - do you think that the British public would be more acceptable to Defence spending (as per the usual why not on schools, health and transport argument) if at times like the tsunami and other world disasters (Sudan, Somalia, Turkish earthquake etc) we rapidly offered and followed through with a rapid assistance force. All of the skills required for this force have usage in the full scale warfighting scenario and so would not be wasting both MoD, Foreign Office, and International Dev public money.
Anyway - back to faff - not enough money-faff-not enough helicopters-faff.
Just to reitterate - thanks spams and Aussies, I am the first to banter up large and knock the US warfighting ethos, but on this occasion you are doing a much appreciated job by those in europe that recognise your efforts.
Well done and thanks.
:ok:
The Sunday Telegraph - Jan 9 2005
P 14 Hidden Strength - 'Don't mention the navy' is the BBC's line
Last week we were subjected to one of the most extrodinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia's tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round the clock relief operation providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.
The BBC went out of its way not to report this. Only when when one BBC reporter, Ben Brown, hitched a lift form one of the Abraham Lincoln's Sea Hawk helicopters to report from the Sumatran coast was there the faintest hint of the part that the Americans aided by the Australian navy, were playing.
Instead the BBC's coverage was dominated by the self important vapourings of a stream of politicians, led by UN's Kofi Annan;the EU's 'three minute silence';the publics amazing response fund-raising appeals; and a Unicef-inspired scare story about orphanred children being targeted by sex traffickers. The overall effect was to turn the whole drama into a heart-tugging soap opera.
The real story of the week should be thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisation, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground
The article concludes with:
One real lesson of this disaster, as others before, is that all the international aid in the world is worthless unless one has the hardware and organisational know-how to deliver it. That is what the US and Australia have been showing us, as the UN and the EU are powerless to do. But because, to the BBC,it is a case of 'UN' and 'EU' good, US and military bad, the story is surpressed. The BBC's performance has become a national scandal.
For what it is worth, my tuppence worth:
1. May I humbly thank the US/Australian military operators (not politicians/generals, but those at the coal face) for their efforts - the general public may not note that it is a US Sea Hawk and LCAC in the background of many of Skys/BBC reports. I do.
2. Judging from the posts on PPRUNE we in the UK military all feel impotent and helpless as the political treacle wrapped in a a govt that is savagely cutting the MoDs resources in key areas results in us being able to do nothing. Rapid Reaction my @rse! With all due respect to Help-in-Hands attempt on these threads to recruit pilots for the UN, why should he or his company/UN department be forced to do this?. However experienced his crews are after recruitment, they will not be as trained, teamed with military skills (e.g. NVG load lifting) that is obviously resulting in a positive effect on the ground by the US and Aussie crews.
3. So lets just imagine what would have happened if it had been UK? Or something closer to home? Or even a WMD in large connurbation - is it all going to be taken on risk? Sky news reported that the RAF were on standby to evacuate 8000 people from Carlisle yesterday. With no crew duty time, ignoring MAUM even the most efficient crews (3 x Sea King and 1 x CH47 I believe) would have been struggling to evacuate 8000 people before it was too late.
4. The Indonesians said no to the UK's offer of 140 Ghurkas. Hmmh - so how come the US and Australian military are continuing their work in this region. Did anyone offer the US or Australian forces on the ground the Ghurkas as the Indonesian Govt have not said anything about the US/Australian forces operating on their soil.
5. I believe the article is right in its conclusion. The world has seen enough disasters now (admittedly not on such a large scale, but still huge losses of life) to have identified lessons. I do not mind things not going according to plan and flexibly approaching any situation, providing we learn from it and put into practice. It does not take the graduate of the Disaster Planning Course at Londn University to know that all disasters will require rapidly deployable hospitals and transport (trucks or helicopters). So why are we amazed when UK plc has neither! Obviously lesson not progressed beyond those that drafted the last post disaster report stating the requirement for rapidly deployable helicopters and hospitals.
6. I think it was a bit of combat indicator to the UK MoD even the independent and secretive Indonesia saying yes to the Brunei 212s (no thanks to Ghurkas) - so did the UK Govt say to the Indonesian Govt, oh its helicopters you want - how many would you like and we will see what we can do?
The good news is that another 650 troops are being deployed to Iraq - now that really will sort the situation out on the run up to the elections or answer (b) have absolutely no real tactical effect whatsoever!
Can someone please tell me when this is going to stop? I have seen Frontline First through to SDR and now the 'in the wings' cuts (Airfield Rationalisition, Infantry Bns, SH). What is the point of these expensive reports (e.g. NAO Battlefield Helicopters) if the Govt that they are aimed at not only ignore, but actively go against the advice given.
A last thought - do you think that the British public would be more acceptable to Defence spending (as per the usual why not on schools, health and transport argument) if at times like the tsunami and other world disasters (Sudan, Somalia, Turkish earthquake etc) we rapidly offered and followed through with a rapid assistance force. All of the skills required for this force have usage in the full scale warfighting scenario and so would not be wasting both MoD, Foreign Office, and International Dev public money.
Anyway - back to faff - not enough money-faff-not enough helicopters-faff.
Just to reitterate - thanks spams and Aussies, I am the first to banter up large and knock the US warfighting ethos, but on this occasion you are doing a much appreciated job by those in europe that recognise your efforts.
Well done and thanks.
:ok: