We are not ill-equiped, we are not under-funded

[Razor61]

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Aug. 30, 2006)



Defence Secretary Des Browne has responded to claims in the 29 August 2006 issue of The Guardian newspaper that British troops are ill-equipped and that the defence budget is insufficient.

Writing in The Guardian's 'Response' column, which can be found on Page 7 of [the Aug. 30] main edition, Mr Browne put forward the following reply to Michael Moriarty's claims:

"Michael Moriarty’s article on these pages yesterday is liberally scattered with accusations against British politicians and military commanders about operations in Afghanistan. Mr Moriarty claims that both I and the Chief of the Defence Staff have “acknowledged” that force levels and equipment in Afghanistan are insufficient.

This is untrue. What is true – in Afghanistan as in every other campaign – is that the longer the operation goes on, the more we learn, and that includes learning about what we need, and responding accordingly. That can mean providing more people and equipment – or different types of people and equipment. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has said, this is "normal military business".

The bigger charge at the heart of Mr Moriarty’s article is that the defence budget is not large enough, and that "the climate of financial threat" generated by the Treasury has encouraged military chiefs to take on discretionary operations in order to justify their budgets. As a former soldier, he should know better than to think the chiefs of staff would deploy their people into operations they saw as inadequately planned or funded in order to please the Treasury – or anyone else for that matter.

Mr Moriarty is wrong to say we’re short of money or that the Treasury is demanding cuts. At the planning stage of the Afghan operation, I was at the Treasury. I know what the MOD asked for, and I know what it got. They are one and the same thing.

The operation is fully funded – and this includes extra costs which emerge, as they always do during military operations.

There is a well-established procedure for approving these. People should be reassured that every time, without exception, I have gone to the Treasury to fund these extra costs, it has done so. Of course it asks for justifications, as it should with every use of taxpayers’ money, but it has recognised the need in each of these cases.

Similarly, I have identified a number of urgent equipment issues at Defence which needed addressing – including the rapid acquisition of new armoured vehicles – and again the Treasury has made new money available. And crucially, these operational costs are all funded from the Special Reserve – in other words the idea that the Defence budget is threatened by operational costs is completely groundless.

In any case, Mr Moriarty’s suggestions about the Defence budget itself are not right. He complains that it has only risen in line with inflation since 2001. Actually the annual defence budget has risen by five billion pounds over the last five years - well in excess of inflation.

But we still have to stay within that budget, of course. And we have to make sure we get the most out of it. We are looking to "cut the fat" wherever we can to ensure that cash goes to the front line – something all departments do, if a little less literally. It’s not because we are short of money, it’s because it’s the right thing to do.

Finally Mr Moriarty suggests morale in Afghanistan is suffering. Rather than me suggesting he’s wrong from here in Basra, I think a recent comment by Lt Col Stuart Tootal, commander of 3 Para in Helmand, where the fighting has been most intense, sums it up. 'I have never seen the morale of my men as high. This is exactly what they are trained to do'."
-End of-

-------------
I was watching Mr Bush do his thing this afternoon in Salt Lake City, his words were in the lines of "We shall supply all the equipment they need to our troops in the Middle East to get the job done"

You won't hear that from our Government.....:rolleyes:
"We will get the equipment our troops need out in the Middle East, when we get it, in the meantime, buy it yourself."

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Funny how we've been "cutting the fat" for well over 20 years and we still, apparently, have some left. It's worth remembering that the Rt Hon Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is a barrister by trade and a Treasury man. He is also a strong ally of Brown, no "e"; the man who seems to resent every penny voted to defence and war fighting. Clearly, defence is in safe hands then.

[enginesuck]

When Bliar finally does up sticks, his replacement, i feel will be the final nail in the coffin for Britsh armed forces. With funding levels for a 41k Raf set at 38k
we are expected to get on with the the job, which undoubtedly we will do, consistently flogging the dead horse. Not much chance for a decent pay rise methinks.....:ugh:

[cockneyrock]

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Aug. 30, 2006)Similarly, I have identified a number of urgent equipment issues at Defence which needed addressing – including the rapid acquisition of new armoured vehicles – and again the Treasury has made new money available. And crucially, these operational costs are all funded from the Special Reserve – in other words the idea that the Defence budget is threatened by operational costs is completely groundless.
Mmmm
Seems to be in conflict with the comment below from the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/25/wirq225.xml

Many soldiers have said that the policy of using Land Rovers has, in part, been foisted on the Army by a lack of more heavily armoured vehicles in Iraq - a claim the Ministry of Defence denies.
I seem to recall that good old Des didn’t identify a shortage of armour red vehicle, wasn't it the opposition of ripped into him about the issue, which he contested as being rubbish. It now appears that procuring new armoured vehicles was all Des Browne's idea (even though the MOD say we don't need them)!!!!
Thanks God Defence is in such safe hands!!!!

[ZH875]

Would't it be a shock if a very large number from all 3 armed services PVR'd in a short space of time, even if they held a 12 month notice period, they would have a problem.

What the government may need to remember, is that we are all VOLUNTEERS, and can apply to leave just after the last straw has broken the last camels back.

Per Ardua Ad Desert

[South Bound]

ZH - would be interesting, but always worth remembering that one applies to PVR, it is not a right and can be refused. This is yet another example of why we are different to civilians and need to be treated differently and we need to be everso careful about aligning ourselves along best-practise civilian working practices (lack of perks!) as a result.

[The Swinging Monkey]

South Bound,
Whilst you are correct in your perception of being 'different' sadly it is not recognised by the lunatics in the government who are currently running the asylum!
The time has come when those of you that are left (and I'm not one anymore) need to make a decision on your futures, and I don't think you need to be careful at all. If you want to PVR then go for it, and put yourself first for a change.

One thing is certain, you will not receive any more or less thanks what ever you choose.
Kind regards

TSM

[GreenKnight121]

Incoming Prime Minister Gordo unveils new MOD policy... "In order to best apply scarce pounds to the defense of the UK, the MOD will now be "Fitted for, but not with an active military component".

All RAF, RN, and RA components will be converted to reserve units with a cap of 30 days active service per annum, and day-to-day operations will be contracted to civilian providers on an "as needed" basis.

[Roadster280]

Incoming Prime Minister Gordo unveils new MOD policy... "In order to best apply scarce pounds to the defense of the UK, the MOD will now be "Fitted for, but not with an active military component".

All RAF, RN, and RA components will be converted to reserve units with a cap of 30 days active service per annum, and day-to-day operations will be contracted to civilian providers on an "as needed" basis.

I think you hit the nail on the head. "Defense of the UK". The direct military threat is not really there in terms of classic warfare, whether land, sea or air based. More, it is in terms of the destruction of regimes prepared to sponsor "illegitmate warfare". The same could be said of the US. So perhaps the view in the Treasury is that we don't need hordes of troops and equipment. Except to subdue these regimes on several fronts concurrently of course.....

Point of order: RA=Royal Artillery. Just one component of the "British Army". The "Royal" title has to be earned or inherited.

[tablet_eraser]

Point of order: 'Defence' has a 'c' in it. :8

So, this story is that an ex-Treasury man, now entrusted with protecting and running the MoD, claims that the Treasury gives the MoD what it needs. It's almost as shocking as headlines like "BLAIR TELLS FIBS".

Okay... so what about the penny-pinching capped actuals which have crippled our ability to claim advances for overseas duty? Working in the US for a week a short while back showed how inefficient and difficult the system is, as 5 out of the 6 of us didn't have our claims paid at all. All because of a stingy system to claw back money that, traditionally, was an entitlement, and swamping admin staff with receipts as a consequence.

Oh, then there's Resource Account Budgeting, which robs back money already given to the MoD. I don't have the exact figures, but I suspect that even with a £5bn per year increase in the budget we're still getting less than inflation as a net increase. Of course, budget increases don't mean anything if not spent properly. NHS budget doubled? Two words: "sacked nurses". I wouldn't trust this Government to spend 10p of my money.

What's that? Defence cuts? Ah, yes. 7,500 RAF personnel cut from the books. Dozens of aircraft taken out of service or orders cancelled. The RN reducing to become smaller than the French Navy for the first time in nearly 250 years. The Army reducing closer and closer to 100,000 personnel. Tanks taken out of service. RAF bases closed, so that we become dependent on fewer runways and lose redundancy. No replacement for the ancient VC10. Not enough money spent on the airbridge to the sandpit. Caterers slowly ditched in favour of cheap, inefficient and poor-quality contractors. Decaying buildings not cared for. Not enough body armour.

Oh, and Mr Browne:
... the longer the operation goes on, the more we learn, and that includes learning about what we need, and responding accordingly ...

Indeedy. But as any fule kno, there's no point claiming we can increase capability if we don't have enough to start with. That's not how wars should fought. We didn't succeed at the D-Day landings with the War Office saying, "ah, they might need those new gliders and some artillery pieces, but we'll keep hold of them and see how they do". It's absurd. We need the kit NOW, not when things go wrong and demonstrate just how badly we need it.

[vecvechookattack]

Southbound is correct. We may all be volunteers but we are only volunters whilst we are outside of the recruiting office. Once we walk over that threshold we are pressed men and can do little about it.

[Biggus]

vecvec.....blah

That's pretty rich coming from you when on thread after thread you come on here telling everyone how wonderful life is in the RN/lynx fleet. How morale is great, your flying is wonderful, you wouldn't change your job for the world.......blah, blah, blah......

[BellEndBob]

errmmm, I think that was Southside

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Is there a difference?

[vecvechookattack]

But life is good. The flying is fab. The boys are on form...working hard, playing hard and generally having a laugh. The % of aircrew who have their letters in and who are leaving the RN on my unit is.....0 %. So, life must be pretty good.

The future is looking sound. New aircraft has just joined...RTS issued soon (if not already)...New simulator and ground trainer to follow. SCMR on its way.... RN ski champs are in the planning process...2 weeks hurtling down a mountain (or stood at the bar).......yep...life is ok Ta.

[formertonkaplum]

Do more work, with less resources and faster......

As we continue to be more like the Army as part of Jointry, what do they do like us?

The only common ground really amongst the 3 services is the budget, or lack there of......Yet we are guilty of acheiving more with less and faster, as those fat directors in Westminster decree.

3% standard pay rise every year under Labour if memory serves and yet what is the pay an MP draws (before benefits, travel costs, living in London expenses, entertainment allowance and Stringfellows membership) ?

[vecvechookattack]

Its all well and good moaning about the rights and privaleges of our elected representatives.....but thats much the same as moaning that the pub landlord gets paid more than you.... If you are jealous of someone getting beter pay and conditions than you then you know the answer don't you.

[blackwithwhitestripe]

i hope des browne is eating his fu@@ing words today as we lose 14 good souls to an overused to the point of exhaustion airframe. Politicians can shove there fu@@ing promises up their fu@@ing ass. We need more resources to do this job browne you tw@t

[blackwithwhitestripe]

with the above this is not a money as in pay or privilages rant. I think my life is great but then if people said military flying wasnt dangerous would you get on an airline losing as many airframes as the raf. This is a dig at pennypinching mofos at westminister eating our budgets for drug rehab schemes or benefits or africa. Seems to me we want to control the world without paying for it i call it punching above our weight. pay up westminster or ship us out
:\

[formertonkaplum]

Its all well and good moaning about the rights and privaleges of our elected representatives.....but thats much the same as moaning that the pub landlord gets paid more than you.... If you are jealous of someone getting beter pay and conditions than you then you know the answer don't you.

I'd just like to say, after reading numerous of your comments.....

Christ almighty, what a wan**r you are!!

[L J R]

Impeccable timing Dez!

[GlosMikeP]

ZH - would be interesting, but always worth remembering that one applies to PVR, it is not a right and can be refused. This is yet another example of why we are different to civilians and need to be treated differently and we need to be everso careful about aligning ourselves along best-practise civilian working practices (lack of perks!) as a result.

As I remember it, this was challenged in the High Court some years back and the Services were forced to set a maximum time limit for release. Not certain of fine details now but I think it was 18 months.

[TheInquisitor]

As a former soldier, he should know better than to think the chiefs of staff would deploy their people into operations they saw as inadequately planned or funded in order to please the Treasury – or anyone else for that matter.
As a former soldier, he knows this is EXACTLY what happens. Hence the comment.
The operation is fully funded – and this includes extra costs which emerge, as they always do during military operations.
So why did we have to spend 4 weeks borrowing a palouste from the spams, without which our aircraft would not have been able to get airborne at all, because of something as simple as no money available for a battery bay to charge the palouste batteries? It's the little things that impact the big picture as well.
In any case, Mr Moriarty’s suggestions about the Defence budget itself are not right. He complains that it has only risen in line with inflation since 2001. Actually the annual defence budget has risen by five billion pounds over the last five years - well in excess of inflation.
...but it hasn't risen in line with commitments, which is what counts in the real world. When are you going to grasp the simple concept, Mr Brown(e), that Defence is not a quantifyable expense that you can plan for years in advance - it is an insurance policy that you hope you will not have to use, but if you do "put a claim in", your "premium" will rise far above any measure of inflation.
Finally Mr Moriarty suggests morale in Afghanistan is suffering. Rather than me suggesting he’s wrong from here in Basra, I think a recent comment by Lt Col Stuart Tootal, commander of 3 Para in Helmand, where the fighting has been most intense, sums it up. 'I have never seen the morale of my men as high. This is exactly what they are trained to do'.
Do you think, Mr Brown(e), that a military commander with a career to think about, especially given the ever-increasing career competitiveness inevitable in an ever-shrinking organisation, will tell you, to your face, that his men are actually knackered and fed up?

Mr Brown(e), you are rapidly becoming a poor parody of "Comical Ali" giving his "there eez no Americans 'ere in Baghdad" speech, as the plain truth rolls into view over the brow of the hill behind you. You should seriously consider a move to the Heritage or Sport departments where you can't do any real damage. Or better still, the "Chiltern Hundreds".