Tony Bliar – What is going on with the Armed Forces?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Bliar – What is going on with the Armed Forces?
I’ve just read Allan Mallinson’s particularly cogent Spectator review of Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion of Iraq by authors Gordon and Trainor.
Of particular chilling import is the review’s final section:
Well Mr Bliar, what is going on? Can we perhaps have some brutally honest inquiries (instead of the usual pathetic whitewashes and your corollary litany of barefaced lies) into the whole paraphernalia of defence? Can we have a review of how disgracefully our forces, again, in particular the army, are treated by your government, when out in the field, carrying out your policies (which we all think are for your own personal aggrandisement)? Can we have a proper investigation as to why troops have not had proper body armour issued in Iraq and Afghanistan, why aircraft have not been fully safeguarded as far as current technology allows, against small arms fire and surface to air missiles? And can you also tell us why, once individuals are grievously wounded in the service of their country and in the furtherance of your policies, they are thrown on the scrap heap with little or nor compensation, following disgracefully expeditious medically discharged?
A Prime Minister is supposed to steer the country, as far as possible, on a reasonable course and in particular, nurture one of its most valuable and appreciating assets, its armed forces. You do neither and you disgrace your office.
Of particular chilling import is the review’s final section:
…… Before the invasion when there were suggestions that we might not be able to contribute, Rumsfeld famously described British troops as “work-arounds”. There is but a single reference to the Foreign Secretary:
While British officers were worried about the state of US planning, the civilians in Blair’s cabinet were more assured … Surely, argued Jack Straw, the United States would not take the momentous step of invading and occupying Iraq unless it was persuaded that it had a winning plan (for both the invasion and the occupation).
This faith-based assumption was repeated at every subordinate level, indeed.
The failure of post-war planning surely remains the unaddressed question for this country: the failure of intelligence and the botched assessments have been dealt with by official inquiries, fudged as they may have been. But the failure to anticipate the insurgency stands as the worst charge against Whitehall, not least the MoD, as well as of the Pentagon.
Even though victory was eventually ours in the Boer war, Kipling was trenchant in The Lesson. After the war there were brutally honest inquiries into the whole paraphernalia of defence. Without them and the consequent reforms, the British Expeditionary Force of 1914 would not have existed, let alone performed so crucially well. There are serious lessons to be drawn from the Iraq intervention, not least in the problems of asymmetric coalition warfare; and there are old ones to be relearned on the importance of mass. Yet the nation’s armed forces, the army in particular, just get smaller and smaller. What is going on?
While British officers were worried about the state of US planning, the civilians in Blair’s cabinet were more assured … Surely, argued Jack Straw, the United States would not take the momentous step of invading and occupying Iraq unless it was persuaded that it had a winning plan (for both the invasion and the occupation).
This faith-based assumption was repeated at every subordinate level, indeed.
The failure of post-war planning surely remains the unaddressed question for this country: the failure of intelligence and the botched assessments have been dealt with by official inquiries, fudged as they may have been. But the failure to anticipate the insurgency stands as the worst charge against Whitehall, not least the MoD, as well as of the Pentagon.
Even though victory was eventually ours in the Boer war, Kipling was trenchant in The Lesson. After the war there were brutally honest inquiries into the whole paraphernalia of defence. Without them and the consequent reforms, the British Expeditionary Force of 1914 would not have existed, let alone performed so crucially well. There are serious lessons to be drawn from the Iraq intervention, not least in the problems of asymmetric coalition warfare; and there are old ones to be relearned on the importance of mass. Yet the nation’s armed forces, the army in particular, just get smaller and smaller. What is going on?
A Prime Minister is supposed to steer the country, as far as possible, on a reasonable course and in particular, nurture one of its most valuable and appreciating assets, its armed forces. You do neither and you disgrace your office.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by highcirrus
A Prime Minister is supposed to steer the country, as far as possible, on a reasonable course and in particular, nurture one of its most valuable and appreciating assets, its armed forces. You do neither and you disgrace your office.
Hear hear!
My own personal opinion is that the disaster that is Iraq will mean no future Prime Minister will consider military force in any similar situation. Far from proving the need to expand and modernise our Armed Forces, I think the politicians will see them as a mine field (no pun intended). Enter Gordon Brown, more cuts, back burner, hello UK Defence Force, soon to be European Defence Force, an entity designed to nurture and support the Civil Service.
How very sad.
How very sad.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
erm, I have to say I think you are wrong. Why do you think he got rid of Jack Straw and replaced him with Margaret? Mr Straw was getting far too independent esp with his views about Iran.
Hang on to your hats......
Hang on to your hats......
Blair is increasingly isolated. He can posture all he wants. His days are numbered and there is no way Mr Brown will follow suit. Even if he was that way inclined there are sufficient backbenchers (and Cabinet members) who will kill any such move stone dead.
I guess we shall see in the not too distant future.
I guess we shall see in the not too distant future.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wyler, all you say is true, but we march to the beat of US foreign policy. Gordon Brown is an Atlanticist, he will surely be keen to call the "business as usual" tune to placate Blairites. I am not as optimistic as you.
Do not forget that Cameron, Hague, Fox and the rest of the Tory inner shadow cabinet are even more pro Iraq War. They could shore up a Parliamentary vote. Remember how the Tories voted last time.
Do not forget that Cameron, Hague, Fox and the rest of the Tory inner shadow cabinet are even more pro Iraq War. They could shore up a Parliamentary vote. Remember how the Tories voted last time.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iraq has tested Mr Blair's interventionism to destruction
Daily Telegraph, Rachel Sylvester, 23/05/2006
So when Dubya and Bliar embark on their next big adventure, will the disbandment of British Army infantry regiments continue at a pace, will “war crimes” show trials of British soldiers be a regular feature of that campaign, will the same “couldn’t give a damn” “New Labour” attitude to military personal and equipment armour prevail and will whatever firepower is deployed by British forces be fully available or will it stay under the wraps of ROE designed by the First Flatmate (Lord Chancellor, close friend and former flatmate, Lord Falconer of Thoroton)? God help us!
Daily Telegraph, Rachel Sylvester, 23/05/2006
There is a "new beginning" for Iraq, said Tony Blair as he flew into Baghdad in a military helicopter, unannounced and under cover of darkness. Well, maybe there is in the Green Zone.
Despite the formation of a government of national unity, the Prime Minister seemed rather reluctant to leave the safety of the heavily fortified haven and wander the streets without a flak jacket, as Iraqis do.
Even as he arrived in Baghdad, two bombs exploded, killing at least five people. More than 50 died in sectarian fighting this weekend.
Since February, when the Shia shrine at Samarra was largely destroyed in an attack blamed on Sunni insurgents, the Baghdad morgue has reported the arrival of 1,100 corpses a month.
In Basra, the British troops are back in helmets. Iraqis talk of civil war. The US ambassador admitted recently that the invasion had opened a "Pandora's box". There is growing speculation that a country which had been held together artificially for years by a dictator may have to be broken into three.
The national unity government is riven by division. Although Nouri al-Maliki has been sworn in as Iraqi prime minister, two of the most important ministerial jobs - defence and interior - remain unfilled. If this is a "symbol of hope", as Mr Blair said, then I would not like to see his icon of despair.
Of course the Prime Minister wants to get British troops out of there as soon as is practically possible. He does not want to have to face any more grieving parents than he has to.
Yesterday, he announced a phased withdrawal to take place over the next four years. But there will be no mea culpa. According to those who know him well, Mr Blair cannot admit, even to himself, that the war in Iraq may have been a mistake. "How can he?" one minister told me. "So many people have died."
What is perhaps more surprising is that the traumas - both diplomatic and military - in Iraq have not shaken the Prime Minister's belief in the more general philosophy of what he calls humanitarian interventionism..........
..........It appeals to the Prime Minister's instinctive sense of optimism and willingness to take risks; it fits with his view that the kaleidoscope was shaken by September 11. There is also a resonance in the missionary fervour with what one Cabinet minister describes as "the God thing".
When he flies to Washington for talks with George Bush this week, Mr Blair will restate his commitment to humanitarian interventionism and make the case that international institutions - such as the United Nations - should be reformed so that they would be more likely to endorse it.
And yet in Iraq it looks, at the moment at least, as if liberal imperialism may have been tested to destruction, and not just in the moral depravity of the Abu Ghraib jail.
The truth is - as increasing numbers of people who once supported the war now accept - reality is more complicated than idealism……….
…………It seems unlikely that Gordon Brown, if he becomes prime minister, will follow his predecessor's approach to foreign policy. He is more cautious, more controlling, more pessimistic. "Nothing will be the same - this is an accident of Tony and his time," one of the Chancellor's allies said.
Mr Blair, however, remains a true believer. The Prime Minister is a fan of the Richard Curtis film Love Actually, in which a youthful leader (Hugh Grant) falls in love with his tea lady - in fact, his staff recently got Martine McCutcheon (the actress who plays the tea lady) to deliver him a mug of tea as a joke.
In the film, the British leader wins public approval by telling the American president that there are limits to the special relationship. Mr Blair knows he could raise some applause by doing the same. But you can be sure that he will not have what he calls a Love Actually moment in Washington this week.
Despite the formation of a government of national unity, the Prime Minister seemed rather reluctant to leave the safety of the heavily fortified haven and wander the streets without a flak jacket, as Iraqis do.
Even as he arrived in Baghdad, two bombs exploded, killing at least five people. More than 50 died in sectarian fighting this weekend.
Since February, when the Shia shrine at Samarra was largely destroyed in an attack blamed on Sunni insurgents, the Baghdad morgue has reported the arrival of 1,100 corpses a month.
In Basra, the British troops are back in helmets. Iraqis talk of civil war. The US ambassador admitted recently that the invasion had opened a "Pandora's box". There is growing speculation that a country which had been held together artificially for years by a dictator may have to be broken into three.
The national unity government is riven by division. Although Nouri al-Maliki has been sworn in as Iraqi prime minister, two of the most important ministerial jobs - defence and interior - remain unfilled. If this is a "symbol of hope", as Mr Blair said, then I would not like to see his icon of despair.
Of course the Prime Minister wants to get British troops out of there as soon as is practically possible. He does not want to have to face any more grieving parents than he has to.
Yesterday, he announced a phased withdrawal to take place over the next four years. But there will be no mea culpa. According to those who know him well, Mr Blair cannot admit, even to himself, that the war in Iraq may have been a mistake. "How can he?" one minister told me. "So many people have died."
What is perhaps more surprising is that the traumas - both diplomatic and military - in Iraq have not shaken the Prime Minister's belief in the more general philosophy of what he calls humanitarian interventionism..........
..........It appeals to the Prime Minister's instinctive sense of optimism and willingness to take risks; it fits with his view that the kaleidoscope was shaken by September 11. There is also a resonance in the missionary fervour with what one Cabinet minister describes as "the God thing".
When he flies to Washington for talks with George Bush this week, Mr Blair will restate his commitment to humanitarian interventionism and make the case that international institutions - such as the United Nations - should be reformed so that they would be more likely to endorse it.
And yet in Iraq it looks, at the moment at least, as if liberal imperialism may have been tested to destruction, and not just in the moral depravity of the Abu Ghraib jail.
The truth is - as increasing numbers of people who once supported the war now accept - reality is more complicated than idealism……….
…………It seems unlikely that Gordon Brown, if he becomes prime minister, will follow his predecessor's approach to foreign policy. He is more cautious, more controlling, more pessimistic. "Nothing will be the same - this is an accident of Tony and his time," one of the Chancellor's allies said.
Mr Blair, however, remains a true believer. The Prime Minister is a fan of the Richard Curtis film Love Actually, in which a youthful leader (Hugh Grant) falls in love with his tea lady - in fact, his staff recently got Martine McCutcheon (the actress who plays the tea lady) to deliver him a mug of tea as a joke.
In the film, the British leader wins public approval by telling the American president that there are limits to the special relationship. Mr Blair knows he could raise some applause by doing the same. But you can be sure that he will not have what he calls a Love Actually moment in Washington this week.
Last edited by Anotherpost75; 23rd May 2006 at 11:08.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot see Brown saying no to US requests for help in a future conflict. Quickest way to sort out Iraq is to partition the country into 3, then watch Iranian influence reveal itself in Southern Iraq. This could be a good time to lobby a future Tory administration. If they are so fond of deploying our Armed Forces around the World then how about some hard pledges on increased funds for UK Military. The Tories can sniff power. In their desire to cosy up to US policy makers after Howard's personal disaster, they will be even keener to please the US administration.
Stand by to stand by.
Stand by to stand by.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the Prime Minister wants to get British troops out of there as soon as is practically possible. He does not want to have to face any more grieving parents than he has to.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just how many grieving parents has he faced?
If I saw him in the street I would break his jaw. Scum.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He brings in law that allows hijackers to go free, rapists and murderers to stay in the UK. He orders the Military to go fight a war in Iraq which, according to a lawyer chum of mine in the Hague is widely considered illegal, then drafts further legislation to bang away military personnel for life if they disagree with him.
His refusal to speak to the bereaved relatives and wounded soldiers smacks of a person who has no honour and little understanding of ultimate sacrifice.
His refusal to speak to the bereaved relatives and wounded soldiers smacks of a person who has no honour and little understanding of ultimate sacrifice.
can you also tell us why, once individuals are grievously wounded in the service of their country and in the furtherance of your policies, they are thrown on the scrap heap with little or nor compensation, following disgracefully expeditious medically discharged?
Our veteran's organizations, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans all work with the VA to assist recently discharged Veterans in registering for, and gaining compensation and medical treatment.
Perhaps, you might borrow a page from our book on this...it was a long hard fight over here which unfortunately still goes on. It will require a lot of dedication and hard work by Veterans to bring the issue to the public and your MP's to the degree something changes for the good. It takes organization and active groups of Veterans to acheive success however.
Look back at the fights we had over PTSD, Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, and Rehab funding. War has some nasty after effects upon the survivors and they deserve longterm support and assistance from the government that sent them in harm's way.
