Epsilon minus
2nd Nov 2009, 12:31
Back in the days of Harold Wilson's government military chiefs considered a coup d'etat. Time to reconsider I think.
The highly critical report, by Charles Haddon-Cave QC, said the Afghanistan crash occurred because of a “systemic breach” of the military covenant.
A safety review of the Nimrod MR2 carried out by the MoD, BAE Systems and QinetiQ was branded a “lamentable job”.
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth apologised to victims’ families.
Mr Haddon-Cave condemned the change of organisational culture within the MoD between 1998 and 2006, when financial targets came to distract from safety.
He quoted a former senior RAF officer who told his inquiry: “There was no doubt that the culture of the time had switched.
“In the days of the RAF chief engineer in the 1990s, you had to be on top of airworthiness.
“By 2004 you had to be on top of your budget if you wanted to get ahead.”
Mr Haddon-Cave’s report also criticised two RAF officers.
Ainsworth is the man who told us the Nimrod was airworthy. He lied then and should go.
BBC NEWS | UK | Nimrod review reveals ‘failures’.
Categories: Afghanistan, Bob Ainsworth, MOD, Nimrod, RAFTags: Afghanistan, Ainsworth, Haddon-Cave, lies, Nimrod, Qinetiq, report, XV230
Bob Ainsworth: Stating the bleeding Obvious
September 28th, 2009fitaloonNo comments
According to the Telegraph Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has admitted the Government has pushed the armed forces “too hard” and that Britain only has scope for a “relatively small” troop increase in Afghanistan.
Well done Bob! You’ve finally managed to work that out.
The only time we should be running with this level of forces is when we have fully committed to the war and are not dithering about waiting for other countries to make up their minds what strategy we are going to take, until then we are just wasting our time and our armed forces lives.
If we fully commit then we can run “hot” for a while as long as we are making our set objectives. If we are expecting any other country to provide extra forces, apart from the US, then we will be waiting along time.
Bob Ainsworth: Government pushed military ‘too hard’ – Telegraph.
Categories: AfghanistanTags: Afghanistan, Ainsworth, troop levels
Ainsworth: towards the next Strategic Defence Review.
September 16th, 2009fitaloon2 comments
Bob Ainsworth gave a speech to the Centre for Defence Studies and the War Studies Department at King’s College London on Tuesday 15 September 09. In it he spoke about the defence review that he is launching to take place early in the next Parliament and he will publish a Defence Green Paper early next year. This will set out the Government’s thinking on the key issues facing defence, suggest the key questions to be resolved in the full review, and invite reactions from the public.
When I read the speech it seems all very good with it’s emphasis on Operations in Afghanistan and the preparation of our forces for the future, but when you look at it any detail you realise that it is a real sham and totally small-minded, it speaks of our Island nation and climate change and mentions Clausewitz, it hopes the Conservatives and Lib Dems will participate in the spirit in which the offer was made, it says it cannot exclude major shifts in the way we use our defence spending to refocus on our priorities. It as if Ainsworth thinks all the problems can be solved by the Strategic Review.
All the review will do will be to point us in a direction, right or wrong for the more distant future. The problem is that our future depends on what is happening now, and with the way things are going we are staring defeat in the face in Afghanistan if we can’t react quickly and change the nature of the war.
If we are defeated, either by the Taliban or public opinion, then the Strategic review will not be worth paper it is written on, as the defeat will be game-changer for many years.
We need the review but priority must be the war in Afghanistan and some kind of Victory that leaves us able to think about what comes next.
To win this war we need leadership and a steady hand at the helm, currently we don’t have this and we require this as soon as possible. This tired government is hobbled by it’s stumbling and deficient leader aided by his lacklustre ministers. A change is required to provide the leadership and support our Armed Forces deserve.
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | People | Speeches | Secretary of State Speeches | 2009/09/15 – Fitting Defence for the Future: towards the next Strategic Defence Review..
Categories: Afghanistan, Bob AinsworthTags: Afghanistan, Ainsworth, Strategic Review
“Busta Gut” Ainsworth’s lack of support for Soldiers
August 30th, 2009fitaloonNo comments
Lickspittle Bob “Busta Gut” Ainsworth has yet again shown the disdain he holds for soldiers in two stories over the weekend. Both of them involve the deaths of solders but in completely different circumstances.
The first is of the sad death of James Philippson who was serving in the 7th Parachute Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery, and was part of a quick reaction force dispatched to assist another group of soldiers who were under fire and had a serious casualty. They had been sent to retrieve an unmanned spy plane near their base in Sangin on June 11, 2006.
Philippson was hit in the temple by a bullet. Surviving colleagues said there were only three or four night-vision kits between as many as 40 men. They also lacked Minimi machineguns and under-slung grenade launchers, leaving them “totally outgunned” as they faced Taliban forces armed with multiple rocket-propelled grenade launchers.
At the inquest into Philippson’s death, Andrew Walker, then the assistant coroner for Oxfordshire, said:
“They [the soldiers] were defeated not by the terrorists but by the lack of basic equipment. To send soldiers into a combat zone without basic equipment is unforgivable, inexcusable and a breach of trust between the soldiers and those who govern them.”
The MoD admitted that an “administrative error” had led to a 25-day delay in getting equipment to the front line.
However, in an interview just hours after the inquest, Ainsworth, then the armed forces minister, attempted to shift the blame onto Bristow. He said while there had been a shortage of equipment, a military board of inquiry had also found there were a
“lack of standard procedures and tactical errors too”.
Ainsworth neglected to mention that the inquiry, which pre-dated the inquest, also criticised ministers and their failure to commit sufficient troops and equipment to Afghanistan.
The story is highlighted in the Times here. It concludes with the following which I can only wholeheartedly endorse
Tony Philippson said:
“Bob Ainsworth is not fit to be secretary of state and lead the armed forces. Blaming a commanding officer for the MoD’s failings is outrageous. He should resign his post with immediate effect.”
The second story over the weekend is highlighted in the Mail by this story which starts
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has been criticised by the father of a dead soldier for the second time in a week after being accused of sending ‘rude, dismissive and insensitive’ letters.
According to the Mail
Mr James, who is unhappy with the official report into the death, received one letter which said: ‘I can see no point in meeting to discuss this matter.’
In another, Mr James is told that ‘no further purpose will be served by continuing this correspondence’.
But after being approached by The Mail on Sunday, Mr Ainsworth agreed to meet Mr James.
As usual Ainsworth has made a bad situation worse by his inability to deal with what are very normal concerns in a proper way.
Bob Ainsworth in ‘cover-up’ over soldier’s death – Times Online.
The highly critical report, by Charles Haddon-Cave QC, said the Afghanistan crash occurred because of a “systemic breach” of the military covenant.
A safety review of the Nimrod MR2 carried out by the MoD, BAE Systems and QinetiQ was branded a “lamentable job”.
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth apologised to victims’ families.
Mr Haddon-Cave condemned the change of organisational culture within the MoD between 1998 and 2006, when financial targets came to distract from safety.
He quoted a former senior RAF officer who told his inquiry: “There was no doubt that the culture of the time had switched.
“In the days of the RAF chief engineer in the 1990s, you had to be on top of airworthiness.
“By 2004 you had to be on top of your budget if you wanted to get ahead.”
Mr Haddon-Cave’s report also criticised two RAF officers.
Ainsworth is the man who told us the Nimrod was airworthy. He lied then and should go.
BBC NEWS | UK | Nimrod review reveals ‘failures’.
Categories: Afghanistan, Bob Ainsworth, MOD, Nimrod, RAFTags: Afghanistan, Ainsworth, Haddon-Cave, lies, Nimrod, Qinetiq, report, XV230
Bob Ainsworth: Stating the bleeding Obvious
September 28th, 2009fitaloonNo comments
According to the Telegraph Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has admitted the Government has pushed the armed forces “too hard” and that Britain only has scope for a “relatively small” troop increase in Afghanistan.
Well done Bob! You’ve finally managed to work that out.
The only time we should be running with this level of forces is when we have fully committed to the war and are not dithering about waiting for other countries to make up their minds what strategy we are going to take, until then we are just wasting our time and our armed forces lives.
If we fully commit then we can run “hot” for a while as long as we are making our set objectives. If we are expecting any other country to provide extra forces, apart from the US, then we will be waiting along time.
Bob Ainsworth: Government pushed military ‘too hard’ – Telegraph.
Categories: AfghanistanTags: Afghanistan, Ainsworth, troop levels
Ainsworth: towards the next Strategic Defence Review.
September 16th, 2009fitaloon2 comments
Bob Ainsworth gave a speech to the Centre for Defence Studies and the War Studies Department at King’s College London on Tuesday 15 September 09. In it he spoke about the defence review that he is launching to take place early in the next Parliament and he will publish a Defence Green Paper early next year. This will set out the Government’s thinking on the key issues facing defence, suggest the key questions to be resolved in the full review, and invite reactions from the public.
When I read the speech it seems all very good with it’s emphasis on Operations in Afghanistan and the preparation of our forces for the future, but when you look at it any detail you realise that it is a real sham and totally small-minded, it speaks of our Island nation and climate change and mentions Clausewitz, it hopes the Conservatives and Lib Dems will participate in the spirit in which the offer was made, it says it cannot exclude major shifts in the way we use our defence spending to refocus on our priorities. It as if Ainsworth thinks all the problems can be solved by the Strategic Review.
All the review will do will be to point us in a direction, right or wrong for the more distant future. The problem is that our future depends on what is happening now, and with the way things are going we are staring defeat in the face in Afghanistan if we can’t react quickly and change the nature of the war.
If we are defeated, either by the Taliban or public opinion, then the Strategic review will not be worth paper it is written on, as the defeat will be game-changer for many years.
We need the review but priority must be the war in Afghanistan and some kind of Victory that leaves us able to think about what comes next.
To win this war we need leadership and a steady hand at the helm, currently we don’t have this and we require this as soon as possible. This tired government is hobbled by it’s stumbling and deficient leader aided by his lacklustre ministers. A change is required to provide the leadership and support our Armed Forces deserve.
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | People | Speeches | Secretary of State Speeches | 2009/09/15 – Fitting Defence for the Future: towards the next Strategic Defence Review..
Categories: Afghanistan, Bob AinsworthTags: Afghanistan, Ainsworth, Strategic Review
“Busta Gut” Ainsworth’s lack of support for Soldiers
August 30th, 2009fitaloonNo comments
Lickspittle Bob “Busta Gut” Ainsworth has yet again shown the disdain he holds for soldiers in two stories over the weekend. Both of them involve the deaths of solders but in completely different circumstances.
The first is of the sad death of James Philippson who was serving in the 7th Parachute Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery, and was part of a quick reaction force dispatched to assist another group of soldiers who were under fire and had a serious casualty. They had been sent to retrieve an unmanned spy plane near their base in Sangin on June 11, 2006.
Philippson was hit in the temple by a bullet. Surviving colleagues said there were only three or four night-vision kits between as many as 40 men. They also lacked Minimi machineguns and under-slung grenade launchers, leaving them “totally outgunned” as they faced Taliban forces armed with multiple rocket-propelled grenade launchers.
At the inquest into Philippson’s death, Andrew Walker, then the assistant coroner for Oxfordshire, said:
“They [the soldiers] were defeated not by the terrorists but by the lack of basic equipment. To send soldiers into a combat zone without basic equipment is unforgivable, inexcusable and a breach of trust between the soldiers and those who govern them.”
The MoD admitted that an “administrative error” had led to a 25-day delay in getting equipment to the front line.
However, in an interview just hours after the inquest, Ainsworth, then the armed forces minister, attempted to shift the blame onto Bristow. He said while there had been a shortage of equipment, a military board of inquiry had also found there were a
“lack of standard procedures and tactical errors too”.
Ainsworth neglected to mention that the inquiry, which pre-dated the inquest, also criticised ministers and their failure to commit sufficient troops and equipment to Afghanistan.
The story is highlighted in the Times here. It concludes with the following which I can only wholeheartedly endorse
Tony Philippson said:
“Bob Ainsworth is not fit to be secretary of state and lead the armed forces. Blaming a commanding officer for the MoD’s failings is outrageous. He should resign his post with immediate effect.”
The second story over the weekend is highlighted in the Mail by this story which starts
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has been criticised by the father of a dead soldier for the second time in a week after being accused of sending ‘rude, dismissive and insensitive’ letters.
According to the Mail
Mr James, who is unhappy with the official report into the death, received one letter which said: ‘I can see no point in meeting to discuss this matter.’
In another, Mr James is told that ‘no further purpose will be served by continuing this correspondence’.
But after being approached by The Mail on Sunday, Mr Ainsworth agreed to meet Mr James.
As usual Ainsworth has made a bad situation worse by his inability to deal with what are very normal concerns in a proper way.
Bob Ainsworth in ‘cover-up’ over soldier’s death – Times Online.