Let's be done with it
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Let's be done with it
Maybe someone could reply on his comment page and cheer him up - or depress him even further....
Let's be done with it
As numerous defence issues have stacked up while we have turned our attention to the European Council "mandate" agreement – which much of the media insists on calling a treaty agreement - I was minded to write one long "catch-up" post this weekend, to cover as many of the outstanding subjects as I could.
There is part of me, however, that says, "why bother?" It is increasingly hard to focus on some of the technical aspects of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan – in the hope of enhancing the performance of our troops (and their safety) and thus winning the wars – if the game is being given away at a higher level.
In a nutshell, one must ask whether there is any point in our devoting blood and treasure in the pursuit of establishing democracy and independent governance in either of the troubled regions in which we are engaged if, on the other hand, our own leaders are intent on giving away ours - to the European Union, while also permitting the steady march of unrestricted immigration, which is changing the fundamental nature of our society. What is the point of fighting for democracy in foreign fields, and the integrity of their societies, when we are at risk of losing both ourselves?
Perhaps this affliction of doubt comes from reading the crop of today's newspapers when, try as I might, I could not see any relationship in the storm of political comment and the real world – or the world as I perceive it. Never before has the world of politics seemed so unreal or so detached that, reading about it seems almost like intruding into the secret rites of the inhabitants of a distant planet.
Another troubling thought comes from a long conversation I had with a serving RAF officer yesterday who affirmed what I had heard so many times before, on the structure and equipment of the armed forces. I got from him what I have heard so often elsewhere, that the Services cannot afford to focus on the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as that would leave them unprepared to fight future wars. The effort in our current theatres must, therefore, be tempered by the need to maintain balanced forces, capable of dealing with future (unknown) commitments.
I have likened this to a military planning committee deciding in 1943 to withhold forces from the invasion of Normandy and the defeat of Hitler for fear of being unprepared to fight a war in the 1950s.
The point that emerges here is that the military – no less than the nation in general (each for their own different reasons) – is not committed to the current wars. As we listened to the RAF commentator coo and gasp at the performance of the Eurofighter, delivering a torrent of propaganda in favour of the new "toy" as it went though its paces (admittedly impressive), one's impression was somewhat reinforced that fighting wars in distant fields were regarded as an irrelevance at best, a distraction from the real business of constructing that mythical beast, the "balanced force".
Frankly, if neither the military nor the population – to say nothing of the media and the political establishment – are committed to winning our current wars then (no matter how vital it is that we do win them) we have no business sending our troops there, some of them to die and many more to suffer horrific injuries. We might just as well bring them home to play with their "balanced" force and forget all about the untidiness and inconveniences of real fighting.
The military can then parade and posture with their gleaming new "toys" at airshows and the like, fighting mock battles – as they do now (see top pic) – from the safety of British RAF airfields. Then they need not be troubled by the thought that there is a real enemy out there who not only shoots back, but doesn't obey the rules.
In other words, there is little point any longer, it seems to me, in our fighting a battle to ensure that our troops are properly equipped to fight real wars. Our hearts are not in it. Let's be done with it. Bring them home, to where the fight for our own sovereignty is the task we must now face.
Let's be done with it
As numerous defence issues have stacked up while we have turned our attention to the European Council "mandate" agreement – which much of the media insists on calling a treaty agreement - I was minded to write one long "catch-up" post this weekend, to cover as many of the outstanding subjects as I could.
There is part of me, however, that says, "why bother?" It is increasingly hard to focus on some of the technical aspects of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan – in the hope of enhancing the performance of our troops (and their safety) and thus winning the wars – if the game is being given away at a higher level.
In a nutshell, one must ask whether there is any point in our devoting blood and treasure in the pursuit of establishing democracy and independent governance in either of the troubled regions in which we are engaged if, on the other hand, our own leaders are intent on giving away ours - to the European Union, while also permitting the steady march of unrestricted immigration, which is changing the fundamental nature of our society. What is the point of fighting for democracy in foreign fields, and the integrity of their societies, when we are at risk of losing both ourselves?
Perhaps this affliction of doubt comes from reading the crop of today's newspapers when, try as I might, I could not see any relationship in the storm of political comment and the real world – or the world as I perceive it. Never before has the world of politics seemed so unreal or so detached that, reading about it seems almost like intruding into the secret rites of the inhabitants of a distant planet.
Another troubling thought comes from a long conversation I had with a serving RAF officer yesterday who affirmed what I had heard so many times before, on the structure and equipment of the armed forces. I got from him what I have heard so often elsewhere, that the Services cannot afford to focus on the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as that would leave them unprepared to fight future wars. The effort in our current theatres must, therefore, be tempered by the need to maintain balanced forces, capable of dealing with future (unknown) commitments.
I have likened this to a military planning committee deciding in 1943 to withhold forces from the invasion of Normandy and the defeat of Hitler for fear of being unprepared to fight a war in the 1950s.
The point that emerges here is that the military – no less than the nation in general (each for their own different reasons) – is not committed to the current wars. As we listened to the RAF commentator coo and gasp at the performance of the Eurofighter, delivering a torrent of propaganda in favour of the new "toy" as it went though its paces (admittedly impressive), one's impression was somewhat reinforced that fighting wars in distant fields were regarded as an irrelevance at best, a distraction from the real business of constructing that mythical beast, the "balanced force".
Frankly, if neither the military nor the population – to say nothing of the media and the political establishment – are committed to winning our current wars then (no matter how vital it is that we do win them) we have no business sending our troops there, some of them to die and many more to suffer horrific injuries. We might just as well bring them home to play with their "balanced" force and forget all about the untidiness and inconveniences of real fighting.
The military can then parade and posture with their gleaming new "toys" at airshows and the like, fighting mock battles – as they do now (see top pic) – from the safety of British RAF airfields. Then they need not be troubled by the thought that there is a real enemy out there who not only shoots back, but doesn't obey the rules.
In other words, there is little point any longer, it seems to me, in our fighting a battle to ensure that our troops are properly equipped to fight real wars. Our hearts are not in it. Let's be done with it. Bring them home, to where the fight for our own sovereignty is the task we must now face.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
pprune doesn't seem to like blog-spot (no hyphen). Remove the hyphen from it in the link and paste it into your browser).
http://eureferendum.blog-spot.com/20...e-with-it.html
http://eureferendum.blog-spot.com/20...e-with-it.html
Last edited by ORAC; 3rd Jul 2007 at 13:40.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A-A-r-s-e and alligators springs to mind.
Interesting comment about whether one prepares for this war or the next.
A tribute to British industry that they did what they did in the 1940s. Remember though that we were producing obsolete aircraft like the Spitfire and Lincoln and probably the Wimpy and it took a further 10 years to develop the triumvirate fo V-bombers.
I agree with the tenor of the article. Politics is a career and, as such, is as divorced from the outside world as any other endeavour. Is the stock market with mega million bonuses part of the real world either?
Yes I am confused and drifting too, if I lift my head out of the swamp.
Interesting comment about whether one prepares for this war or the next.
A tribute to British industry that they did what they did in the 1940s. Remember though that we were producing obsolete aircraft like the Spitfire and Lincoln and probably the Wimpy and it took a further 10 years to develop the triumvirate fo V-bombers.
I agree with the tenor of the article. Politics is a career and, as such, is as divorced from the outside world as any other endeavour. Is the stock market with mega million bonuses part of the real world either?
Yes I am confused and drifting too, if I lift my head out of the swamp.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, the "D-Day - 1950s War" comparison is not particularly accurate. A more pertinent comparison would have been relatively minor actions in the Mediterranean theatre versus D-Day. Though the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are, to all intents and purposes, war, they are low-tech wars fought against low-tech adversaries. Although this may be the future of war-fighting for the forseeable future, the threat of a major, high-tech, war, though remote, still exists. Surely the Armed Forces should be trained and equipped to fight both forms of war. If we continue to man to the current task, we will end up with an armed gendarmarie.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daf Hucker, and maybe an armed gendarmarie is both what Grumpy Gordon wants and we need.
Remember Adml West is doing a homeland security review I believe and not a Defence one per se.
Remember Adml West is doing a homeland security review I believe and not a Defence one per se.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC. In Srl 1, I was with you all the way to para 5. I still can't access your link, incidentally, even using the copy and paste.
The Air Force friend you mention in para 6 is right. If we expend all our resources and effort on fighting the 2 current tribal campaigns, we won't be prepared if yer man Putin spits the dummy or the Chinese Hordes decide they want their perceived slice of the World cake. If we lose the tribal ones we will look somewhat silly, have spent a lot of resources and lost life for sod all and the natives of Iraq will wash their feet in each others blood. At ENDEX in either case, our Nation is still intact and probably retains its place in the world pecking order. If Ivan or Foo Man Choo kick off, though, we could find ourselves severely stuffed if we we're not prepared.
The comparison you offer in para 7 really isn't a good one. In 1943, the important thing was to win because the alternative would have been Nazi rule for Blighty. We are not fighting for national survival in either of the sandpits.
If we lose the "balanced force" you refer to in para 8, we take a big risk. see my para 2. We either hope to hell that Uncle Sam covers our bum for us and/or scurry into some cobbled together EU defence force. As for showing our shiny and pointy "toys", arguably it's an investment. It just may inspire people to join the Forces and keep the system running. It also show's the potential opposition that we still have the teeth to cover the bigger picture. Your para 10 somewhat trivialises what is trying to be achieved.
I would agree with you completely if the point you are trying to make is that politicians should put sufficient resources to where their mouths and egos are. If your initial point is that it is all futile if the same politicians are selling us down the river in Europe, I would also agree. Isn't it good to agree.
The Air Force friend you mention in para 6 is right. If we expend all our resources and effort on fighting the 2 current tribal campaigns, we won't be prepared if yer man Putin spits the dummy or the Chinese Hordes decide they want their perceived slice of the World cake. If we lose the tribal ones we will look somewhat silly, have spent a lot of resources and lost life for sod all and the natives of Iraq will wash their feet in each others blood. At ENDEX in either case, our Nation is still intact and probably retains its place in the world pecking order. If Ivan or Foo Man Choo kick off, though, we could find ourselves severely stuffed if we we're not prepared.
The comparison you offer in para 7 really isn't a good one. In 1943, the important thing was to win because the alternative would have been Nazi rule for Blighty. We are not fighting for national survival in either of the sandpits.
If we lose the "balanced force" you refer to in para 8, we take a big risk. see my para 2. We either hope to hell that Uncle Sam covers our bum for us and/or scurry into some cobbled together EU defence force. As for showing our shiny and pointy "toys", arguably it's an investment. It just may inspire people to join the Forces and keep the system running. It also show's the potential opposition that we still have the teeth to cover the bigger picture. Your para 10 somewhat trivialises what is trying to be achieved.
I would agree with you completely if the point you are trying to make is that politicians should put sufficient resources to where their mouths and egos are. If your initial point is that it is all futile if the same politicians are selling us down the river in Europe, I would also agree. Isn't it good to agree.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
They're not my points - they're the authors. I was pointing out the article/blog as a discussion point, hence my comment about cheer him up or depress depending on your point of view.
Personally, I don't see fighting one and preparing for the other as mutually incompatible. In his comparison we were in 43 throwing everything we had into the war. In 07 we are throwing only a small fraction of our GDP into defence. The solution is more funding, not robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Try again, same instructions as before, remove the hyphen and paste.
http://eureferendum.blog-spot.com/20...e-with-it.html
Personally, I don't see fighting one and preparing for the other as mutually incompatible. In his comparison we were in 43 throwing everything we had into the war. In 07 we are throwing only a small fraction of our GDP into defence. The solution is more funding, not robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Try again, same instructions as before, remove the hyphen and paste.
http://eureferendum.blog-spot.com/20...e-with-it.html
I sense a little bit of the old white-scarf-and-Brylcreem-wot-do-they-ever-do-for-Tommy-Atkins coming through here.
But what can go from a standing start to anywhere in a 600 mile circle inside an hour, whether or not the natives are cooperating, ID the good guys and the bad guys, and place ordnance within 5-10 metres of the latter, all on its own and without breaking a sweat? (Hint: it's not a helicopter or a tank.)
What can cover the same kind of distance and then launch a missile that will defeat the toughest air defenses and nail the President's dunny? (Hint: it's not a frigate.)
And do self-escorted ISR, given the appropriate pod? (Hint: it's not a drone.)
And what are the longest-serving weapon systems in most countries? (Hint: they're not warships.)
Yes. Fighters are toys.
But what can go from a standing start to anywhere in a 600 mile circle inside an hour, whether or not the natives are cooperating, ID the good guys and the bad guys, and place ordnance within 5-10 metres of the latter, all on its own and without breaking a sweat? (Hint: it's not a helicopter or a tank.)
What can cover the same kind of distance and then launch a missile that will defeat the toughest air defenses and nail the President's dunny? (Hint: it's not a frigate.)
And do self-escorted ISR, given the appropriate pod? (Hint: it's not a drone.)
And what are the longest-serving weapon systems in most countries? (Hint: they're not warships.)
Yes. Fighters are toys.
