View Full Version : Jock Stirrup - even a US surge won't beat The Taliban
Sir Jock Stirrup: Even a US surge won’t beat the Taliban - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5626682.ece)
<He is described by many in the services as “Gordon’s favourite defence chief” - and it is not meant as a compliment. At a time when the armed forces are stuck in two unpopular wars, Stirrup has come under heavy fire for his willingness to work with his political masters. Typically, he brushes aside suggestions that the defence budget is in trouble. There is “serious pressure” he admits, but “we have to adjust our programme so that we can live within the available resources”. It is not hard to see why this frustrates troops waiting on the ground in Afghanistan for a helicopter that may or may not arrive to deliver supplies. But political insiders say Stirrup has won Whitehall battles that more flamboyant generals would have botched.>
soddim
1st Feb 2009, 13:06
Having served his time flying Strikemasters during Britain’s “secret war” in Oman in the 1970s and a Jaguar reconnaissance aircraft during the cold war, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, now chief of the defence staff, knows something about steering a difficult course into hostile territory.
Oh, really! Guess the jaguar flying was the most dangerous with F4s around looking for an easy shot.
14greens
1st Feb 2009, 17:35
so whats the shock!!!! has he not said what just about everybody else with any sense already knows!!!
sisemen
2nd Feb 2009, 00:08
...and this follows on from his "we're too smug" comments where he admits we are too cocky in telling the cousins how to run things????
Ah well, he is aircrew and, as has been said time and time and time again - they're the rightful branch to cock things up at the top (sorry, I meant "run") :yuk:
althenick
2nd Feb 2009, 00:14
“We would expect, where the Americans are operating in Afghanistan, that they might do things a little differently from the way that we do them,” he says, still carefully choosing his words. “But nevertheless we will be aiming towards the same objective.”
A true Politician in the making. :ugh: Is it no wonder that the majority of new Liar-Bore's polie's with former military experience come from the RAF.
Sorry - I cant handle Military people that start talking (a) Management or (b) Political Utter bollox :*
14greens said; so whats the shock!!!! has he not said what just about everybody else with any sense already knows!!!
.. wouldn't necessarily argue with any of that.
Rather, I thought the headline was a bad one and completely out of keeping with content and tone of the piece. I thought he said the right things (little bit in there for everyone) and just because he murmured of 'peace' instead of 'victory' doesn't make him a bad bloke. And if he gets on with Brown, thats ok - what was the LBJ saying about being in the tent and pissing out?
althenick said: Sorry - I cant handle Military people that start talking (a) Management or (b) Political Utter bollox
I have no problem with people at the right level /\ in the RAF doing that (Air Marshall Lord Garden seemed to do pretty well). The David Brent dellusions of grandeur way down \/ the food chain are more tiresome though - I would rather junior officers lead from the front instead of waffling out of the back.
So to summarize that article:
Britain's troops are knackered and underfinanced and we don't have the clout to deal with anything other than a relatively small area of Afghanistan.
The Afghan government is corrupt.
The American military effort is gung-ho and heavy handed.
The Pakistani government needs to get its own house in order before they can attempt to sort out another country.
The Afghan problem has no short-term solution.
Nothing really new there is there?