Bliar “Promises” Extra Resources in Afghanistan

[highcirrus]

BBC.co.uk. 7 Oct 2006. Full story here.

UK forces fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan need more troop-carrying helicopters to carry out their mission, the British commander there has said.

Brigadier Ed Butler requested more Chinook helicopters in response to a promise by Prime Minister Tony Blair of whatever extra resources were needed.

In response to Mr Blair's offer of resources, Brig Butler, the outgoing commander of the troops in the southern Helmand province, said helicopters had always been his top priority.

"Clearly, helicopters can't be grown overnight, nor can some of the other machinery - so there's a prioritisation that will have to be taken."

The Ministry of Defence said it was not aware of a specific request for extra helicopters from Brig Butler.

"The commanders have what they need to do the mission, Obviously, if they had more they could do more with it. That is what Brig Butler has always said," an MoD spokesman said.

The BBC's correspondent in Kabul, Alistair Leithead, says the question of extra helicopters has been raised again and again - with other Nato units also wanting more.

Meanwhile Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, stressed troops were fighting a "fierce battle" and were in the country for "a long haul".

He said that while British commanders felt they had all of the equipment they needed, they would like more support from some other Nato countries which were not "punching their weight".

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said Mr Blair's offer of more help was meaningless.

"When the prime minister says 'whatever they want they will get', it's now several months, for example, since the government promised to fit fuel-retardant foam into all the Hercules aircraft, and yet it hasn't been happening.," he said.

"And when the prime minister says that we will send as many men as our commanders require, where are we going to get them from?"

So, we await with bated breath, the delivery of another of the Dear Leader's many promises!

[mutleyfour]

Hmm, now this will be interesting to watch, how many emails will need tobe leaked to get the right equipment I wonder?

[flipster]

Dear Mr Blair,

I have the honour to refer to requests going back as far as 1978 and 1982 and more recently, 2002 so I am sure my request is well underway but recent events may not corroborate this. Therefore, it is with some temerity that I request better protection for RAF aircraft flying in the Middle East theatre of operations, especially those carrying UK troops in hostile environments.

Specifically, all the aircraft require:

Fuel/Fire Explosion Suppressant Foam or inerting systems.

Improved Defensive Aids Systems to counter improved enemy weaponry.

Improved and widely available Night Vision Aids to ensure nearly all tasking can be done under the cover of darkness and at lower ambient temperatures.

Increased numbers of machines and crews to cover unserviceabilities, attrition and to allow full night-tasking. This of course will need more ac to conduct training at home so allowing all crews a sustainable quality of life. In turn, this will need higher levels of investment in our support staff - most notably engineers and air warfare/intelligence staff.

Improved force protection for our Air Transport and Support Helicopters, along with an armed and credible ground foot-print, so allowing our forces to truly implement a 'hearts and minds' approach from a position of strength rather than overstretch.

If these simple requests cannot be met, then Sir, we are heading for a fall and the likelihood of defeat. If so, we should withdraw with all speed.

Your mostly obedient servant,

Flipster

[AHQHI656SQN]

Peter will have to be robbed, if Paul is to be paid!

[flipster]

Peter = all the gin-swilling extraneous gov't spin-doctors and civil serpents who contibute nothing to the conflict and even less to the country as a whole?

Paul = Brave, underfunded, unresourced, unsupported, unappreciated servicemen and women doing Blairs dirty work in sh!tholes around the world?

Peter can go sing!

[Klingon]

Promises are easy to make, delivering them not so! Unless we have mothballed helicopters AND the crews to fly them the lead in times for procurement and training are many months,if not years even if we leased them.

I suspect its Boots on the ground, brass on target and bayonets up jacksies that are the real requirements. Toms are not in such ready supply either, especially the fighting kind; correct me if I'm wrong but aren't 80% of the armed forces made up of REMFS.

Return of National Service? (Might solve the YOB problem.) More NATO involvement? (Who can we trust to turn up and not want to either lead or sit back and just eat pasta?) Be more reluctant to get involved in tribal warfare in foreign countries?

I suspect that a fair number of interdiction/counterstrike arguments can be made but if we didn't poke our apologetic noses in in the first place we might not be the target. A meaningful zero tolerance politically, legislatively and socially against drugs in our own backyard would be better than foreign adventures against a 12th century socio-political system who's people are struggling to survive the best way they can. Can you imagine how much the money spent on these wars could have accomplished in policing our own streets?

However, the clock cannot be turned back and we have to accept the consequences, unfortunately, the last dying gasps of an outgoing PM are rarely translated into reality by his successor. Once the Hoo Ha has died down try and count how much more actually arrives in theatre.

I'm not a Journo trying to spark a reaction just 35 years service listening to politicians promise cake tomorrow has just left me pi**ed off. I am reminded of Rudyard Kiplings lament regarding Tommy, nothing has changed in 150 years.

[Squirrel 41]

Taking him at his word.....

.... what, realisitically, do we want that can be provided quickly?

CH-47Fs/MH-47Gs off the US production line? Danish Merlins? More C-17s of self-same production line? KC-330s in slower time?

Need to give Mr. Browne a realistic shopping list to take over the road to No 10 and No 11.... so it needs to be avaliable and required...

S41

[TheInquisitor]

Re-wing the Herc K fleet.

Fit ESF during this process.

Fit LAIRCM & CMDS (whole fleet).

Fit ANVIS lighting to the whole fleet - will allow much greater use of night ops.

Provide serviceable and supported Ground Support Euipment in-theatre (Power sets, Paloustes and Cooling trolleys).

Provide money to buy spares we can keep on the shelf, not this "Just-In-Time" bollocks (which is anything but).

Stop sacking, LEAN-ing, chopping, making redundant (whatever you want to call it) engineers & techies, so we actually have somebody to fix the aircraft.

Lay a PSP strip at Bastion (if concrete is out of the question) - will GREATLY reduce the damage suffered by aircraft from constant gravel ops.

The above, which could be realisticlly completed within 6 months if certain digits are extracted from certain arses, would provide a massive increase in in-theatre FW airlift capability.

Abve all, ADMIT that we are AT WAR, accept the risks associated, and chin off some of the pointless "peacetime" limits that are seriously limiting what we can do in theatre (landing WAT, for one!)

[Grum Peace Odd]

We've all been here before and seen announcements like this before, so there's no point getting your hopes up. Blair's comment is political double-talk. Therefore increased resources doesn't mean filling out a shopping list, it actually means an increase in commitment with no additional funding or resources! The 'justification' being that he has increased the resources available in Afghanistan - he never said anything about increasing our overall resources. When you want to increase the commitment, tell the public that it's support for the forces and they won't know any better. Mark my words and await an announcment being heralded as overwhelming political support for the armed forces, but boiling down to a decision to deploy along the lines of a further 1000-2000 troops deployed, a couple of helicopters and half a dozen MBT from what scant numbers are left here.

So do away with your wish lists and start thinking about who else is about to get stiffed. (And no, I'm not cynical - at my stage of life, it's called experience!)

[jstars2]

Blair condemned by Army for 'you will have what you need' pledge

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Daily Telegraph: 08/10/2006

Senior army officers have condemned pledges by Tony Blair that British commanders in Afghanistan will get "whatever they need" to defeat the Taliban.

In an interview on British Armed Forces Radio yesterday, the Prime Minister said: "If commanders on the ground want more equipment — armoured vehicles for example, more helicopters — that will be provided. Whatever package they want, we will do." And in an article for The Sun, Mr Blair went further, stating: "[British forces] will get, I promise, whatever front-line commanders tell us they need to complete their job."

But defence sources said that what commanders needed most desperately was more troops on the ground — something Mr Blair notably failed to mention.

Another source said it was scandalous for the Prime Minister to suggest that commanders could have as many helicopters as they liked when it was a "well-known fact" within the military that virtually all helicopters were committed to training or operations.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory homeland security spokesman and a former infantry commander, said the Government was clearly "paying the price for fighting wars on two fronts".

He said: "The Afghan campaign will not be won with the use of hi-tech gadgetry, it will be won by boots and bayonets and this is what the Prime Minister has singularly failed to guarantee."

Although only 18 per cent of the Army is actually on operations, six of the military's eight operationally deployable combat brigades are already committed to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Senior commanders are reluctant to commit extra troops to Afghanistan because, according to one officer, "there would be nothing left to deal with any unforeseen emergency".

Only last month, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, admitted that the Army could only just cope with the operational demands troops were facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Prime Minister's comments came in the same week that the Government finally conceded that it was unacceptable to treat wounded soldiers on mixed NHS wards, a scandal first highlighted by The Sunday Telegraph as part of its "Fair Deal For Our Troops" campaign.

In the interview, Mr Blair also hinted that the Government would give tax breaks to service personnel taking part in operations overseas, an issue also highlighted by our campaign.

The review of soldiers' pay and conditions was ordered by the Prime Minister after this newspaper revealed that soldiers fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan were being paid less than £2 per hour. The disclosure prompted a national outcry and forced the Government to act. Defence sources have told The Sunday Telegraph that it is highly likely that servicemen will not have to pay income tax or council tax when they are on operations overseas.

Meanwhile, as part of an attempt to boost the welfare package available to injured soldiers, the Ministry of Defence announced that troops wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq are to get more financial support while they are in hospital. To help pay for costs of using telephone, the internet and television, hospitalised troops will get £5 a day in the United Kingdom and £10 overseas.

[Anotherpost75]

Blair promises extra cash for frontline troops

By Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor
Independent: 08 October 2006

Tony Blair has signalled that British soldiers fighting abroad will receive extra cash payments. He made the announcement as two journalists were killed in Afghanistan in a renewed escalation of violence. Mr Blair said in an interview that he was looking at a "package" of additional support for front-line troops.

The Government has been the target of fierce criticism over pay levels and equipment shortages faced by troops engaged in intense fighting in Afghanistan.

The journalists became the latest casualties of the conflict, killed by gunmen in Baghlan province. They worked for the German news agency Deutsche Welle. A Nato soldier was killed in a related incident.

Mr Blair sought to reassure the armed forces that commanders would be given whatever additional resources were needed. He was speaking just days after David Cameron suggested, in a speech to the Conservative Party conference, that soldiers serving abroad be exempt from income tax.

A senior minister told The Independent on Sunday that such a measure would be worthless to most troops, who already get tax credits. Instead, those serving on the front line could receive extra pay during their tours of duty. In the past, defence chiefs have resisted "danger money" for fear of creating a "two-tier" army.

Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, is said to support an increase in cash for all lower ranks, whether they are serving on the front line or in barracks in Britain. But Mr Blair made clear he wanted to reward troops who, he warned, will face dangerous enemies more frequently than in the past.

So. "standby your beds!!"

[High_lander]

Originally Posted by Anotherpost75

will face dangerous enemies more frequently than in the past.

Is this in light of the news from the States?

That the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has turned it into the hotbed of insurgency training camps?

[jstars2]

It'll all come out of Cherie's hairdressing
budget!!

[nigegilb]

Don't forget all the Afghan hijackers connected to 9/11

[SASless]

Patrick Mercer, the Tory homeland security spokesman and a former infantry commander, said the Government was clearly "paying the price for fighting wars on two fronts".

He said: "The Afghan campaign will not be won with the use of hi-tech gadgetry, it will be won by boots and bayonets and this is what the Prime Minister has singularly failed to guarantee."

Although only 18 per cent of the Army is actually on operations, six of the military's eight operationally deployable combat brigades are already committed to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Senior commanders are reluctant to commit extra troops to Afghanistan because, according to one officer, "there would be nothing left to deal with any unforeseen emergency".

Only last month, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, admitted that the Army could only just cope with the operational demands troops were facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Prime Minister's comments came in the same week that the Government finally conceded that it was unacceptable to treat wounded soldiers on mixed NHS wards, a scandal first highlighted by The Sunday Telegraph as part of its "Fair Deal For Our Troops" campaign.

6 of 8 brigades are deployed equalling 18% of the British Army Manning....and must have the ability left to meet any unexpected emergencies?

Two front war the man says....harken back to WWII....how many fronts was it then?

Perhaps...."Lean" has yielded to "Emaciated"!

Perhaps someone could play "pin the tail on the donkey" and identify the Neddies that made the decision to place Wounded Soldiers on NHS wards....after all....it was an affirmative decsion that took someone to "sign off on it". Identify them and give'em the Sack!

[WorkingHard]

This is such a simple question but no one seems to ask - is it not the politicians that set the overall spending limit and the armed forces themselves that decide where the money is to be spent, at least in equipment terms? So if you need 50 helicopters that can be had "off the shelf" for £10 each but you decide you need a variation that will cost another £10 per aircraft you can only buy 25. Will the 25 still do the job the 50 would nearly do for the same money and how much quicker into service?

[pulse1]

Two front war the man says

It sounds to me as if you guys are fighting on four fronts. Iraq, the Taleban, the MoD and the Government.

Blair says, "You can have anything you want".

MoD say, "You have everything you need".

Result - no change, Blair looks good without doing anything. The story of his reign.

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Originally Posted by TheInquisitor

Re-wing the Herc K fleet.

There are no wings, there is worldwide shortage of C130 wings and it's a sellers market unfortunately.

[The Helpful Stacker]

correct me if I'm wrong but aren't 80% of the armed forces made up of REMFS.

What you mean like all those REMF's that keep a/c in the air, all those REMF's that keep the various MT vehicles rolling and all those REMF's that struggle to keep the considerable logistics chain modern teeth arms produce moving?

Maybe its the REMF's who a month earlier were stacking blankets in some lovely safe UK base who now find themselves doing top-cover on fuel convoys travelling on one of the most attacked MSR's in Iraq or maybe its the REMF AGC chaps out in Afghanistan who find themselves fighting off the Taliban in some God-forsaken fire base alongside teeth arm folk?

The concept of REMF's is now very blurred in the military of the present. Yes there will always be the teeth arms (infantry, tankies, AAC pilots, SH pilots and a few FJ ones) but although the support side may be large is doesn't also mean it is without its danger.

The cold war RAF (and military as a whole) is long gone, as are the 'send the pilots off to get shot at' days. Even the previously almost un-heard of in somewhere shooty trade of RAF stewards have found themselves being pinged for convoy escorts and experiencing the 'joy' of a mortar attack in recent years.

[MrBernoulli]

Kim Il Blair talking a load of cock ...... again! Tw4t.