Memo: don't rely on the Brits during a battle
AR1
re both your points, the main perpetrator in recent times is one Tonee Bliar, obviusly assisted by Incapability Broon. Am I alone in wondering why, in his new sinecure of Middle East Peace envoy, or some such, he is nowhere to be seen during the current Gaza conflagration? He seems to have passed on his skills to his successor (of not wanting to be accountable for his own actions).
Skua
re both your points, the main perpetrator in recent times is one Tonee Bliar, obviusly assisted by Incapability Broon. Am I alone in wondering why, in his new sinecure of Middle East Peace envoy, or some such, he is nowhere to be seen during the current Gaza conflagration? He seems to have passed on his skills to his successor (of not wanting to be accountable for his own actions).
Skua
...a Royal Navy officer had to join as a Midshipman and work his way up.
Only partly true. First, you had to find someone who'd be prepared to take you to sea as a Midshipman in the first place. Then, once you'd passed your exam for lieutenant you had to persuade the Admiralty or the local C-in-C to appoint you to a ship as a lieutenant. Finally, you had to have considerable 'interest' to gain the all-important step to command of a post ship.
At all these stages the intervention of influential relatives was all important. And it didn't help if your patron wasn't of the right political party, either.
Only partly true. First, you had to find someone who'd be prepared to take you to sea as a Midshipman in the first place. Then, once you'd passed your exam for lieutenant you had to persuade the Admiralty or the local C-in-C to appoint you to a ship as a lieutenant. Finally, you had to have considerable 'interest' to gain the all-important step to command of a post ship.
At all these stages the intervention of influential relatives was all important. And it didn't help if your patron wasn't of the right political party, either.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually, mighty gem, said midshipmen were found places aboard HM ships by political and/or family connections.
A quiet word from Squire X to Captain Y or Admiral Z regarding the unfortunate second son needing gainful employment and the like.
There was no insult intended. Just a historical reminder, along with others, that politics and the military are different pages in the same book.
A quiet word from Squire X to Captain Y or Admiral Z regarding the unfortunate second son needing gainful employment and the like.
There was no insult intended. Just a historical reminder, along with others, that politics and the military are different pages in the same book.
Actually, mighty gem, said midshipmen were found places aboard HM ships by political and/or family connections.
There was no insult intended
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this whole gossip fuss not just an attempt to undermine the UK's reputation, as punishment for 'cooling' our previously out-and-out devotion to every significant American military campaign of recent years?
We stop cooperating on their every whim or don't vocally support their policies on certain international issues - they slag us off and undermine our reputation.
I wonder if the next step in an alleged progressive under-mining campaign would be to slag off our equipment. Would make sense. They're still hurting over the Typhoon deal with the Saudis, so they'll no doubt question the effectiveness of the Tiffie in the strike role once it/if if enters theatre in Afghanistan. Just you wait. I can see the headlines now 'Euroflopper' or 'Whyphoon?'.
We stop cooperating on their every whim or don't vocally support their policies on certain international issues - they slag us off and undermine our reputation.
I wonder if the next step in an alleged progressive under-mining campaign would be to slag off our equipment. Would make sense. They're still hurting over the Typhoon deal with the Saudis, so they'll no doubt question the effectiveness of the Tiffie in the strike role once it/if if enters theatre in Afghanistan. Just you wait. I can see the headlines now 'Euroflopper' or 'Whyphoon?'.
Last edited by harrogate; 8th Jan 2009 at 15:53.
Guest
Posts: n/a
harrogate, who wrote, possibly leaked, the report?
The MoD.
Why would they do that?
Perhaps to identify some glaring shortfalls in the UK's military capabilites and seeking a way to get a bigger piece of the pie.
Again, please pay attention. The British Ministry of Defence wrote the report. It is their report.
from the article:
As for your 'equipment' and the slagging thereof, have you been reading the rest of this thread? Or the many, many, many others? Read any of the threads regarding the Typhoon and the comments made for and against by British ppruners? How about the corruption thread regarding a Saudi deal?
Or maybe you're right. It's a vast right wing conspiracy to control more fully the foreign policy and military assets, such as they are, of the United Kingdom.
Or perhaps not.
The MoD.
Why would they do that?
Perhaps to identify some glaring shortfalls in the UK's military capabilites and seeking a way to get a bigger piece of the pie.
Again, please pay attention. The British Ministry of Defence wrote the report. It is their report.
from the article:
I am told that a report circulating at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence concludes that there are now serious doubts in Washington about the effectiveness of the British Armed Forces. Senior military figures are said to have been surprised, and shocked, by feedback that arrived in Whitehall last month.
Or maybe you're right. It's a vast right wing conspiracy to control more fully the foreign policy and military assets, such as they are, of the United Kingdom.
Or perhaps not.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I haven't read most of those other threads. I'd perhaps like to, but alas I haven't. Don't know what to say about that, but I bow to your superior knowledge of speculation and rumour threads on this rumour website.
But you missed my point anyway. I was merely suggesting it could be seen as nudging a commercial advantage as well as sticking one in the eye of Gordy for not felating the US like Tony did.
But it was a thought I floated, that's all. Another rumour on the rumour site, to sit alongside your own speculation.
Maybe your expertise is wasted on here.
But you missed my point anyway. I was merely suggesting it could be seen as nudging a commercial advantage as well as sticking one in the eye of Gordy for not felating the US like Tony did.
But it was a thought I floated, that's all. Another rumour on the rumour site, to sit alongside your own speculation.
Maybe your expertise is wasted on here.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having now properly read the article and thread, I'm not so sure it's worth any of our time.
I'm told I'm the one who needs to pay attention?
So what report is this she's on about, exactly? Is there even a report? Can we see it please.
How can you arrive at your superior conclusion when you don't even know for certain the full details, the correct context or even if there are details and a context at all?
Truth is, the speculation of a hack has got people's knickers in a twist. You could easily be the victim of manipulation. The tabloids are the masters of farce, but the broadsheets manipulate through the 'authoritative' approach.
And what if someone's spinning her a yarn to push their own agenda? That only happens, like, every day of the week in the media after all. I can tell you that for a nailed-on fact (I've had the free lunches, thank you very much).
So why's your speculation more valid than someone else's? You don't know sh*t - same as the rest of us. You can't pass off your speculation as being more valid than someone else's. Rumour discussion - fine - but your tone is purely authoritative.
This is probably all just gossip on a slow news day. The article is low quality, and littered with "a source told me" and "I'm told that a report". Conveniently, all these mystery sources and quotes fit nicely with the crux of this pre-conceived, commissioned article.
Facts please.
One nil to the meeja.
Again, please pay attention. The British Ministry of Defence wrote the report. It is their report.
I am told that a report circulating at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence
How can you arrive at your superior conclusion when you don't even know for certain the full details, the correct context or even if there are details and a context at all?
Truth is, the speculation of a hack has got people's knickers in a twist. You could easily be the victim of manipulation. The tabloids are the masters of farce, but the broadsheets manipulate through the 'authoritative' approach.
And what if someone's spinning her a yarn to push their own agenda? That only happens, like, every day of the week in the media after all. I can tell you that for a nailed-on fact (I've had the free lunches, thank you very much).
So why's your speculation more valid than someone else's? You don't know sh*t - same as the rest of us. You can't pass off your speculation as being more valid than someone else's. Rumour discussion - fine - but your tone is purely authoritative.
This is probably all just gossip on a slow news day. The article is low quality, and littered with "a source told me" and "I'm told that a report". Conveniently, all these mystery sources and quotes fit nicely with the crux of this pre-conceived, commissioned article.
Facts please.
One nil to the meeja.
Last edited by harrogate; 8th Jan 2009 at 16:24.
First - Basra; please do not buy into the "The UK forces failed" PR. What happened was that after the Iraqi elections a pro-Sadr (sp ?) local governor and administration was elected. The Uk forces tried to keep enforcing the patrols etc... (REMEMBER the "raid" on the police station by Challenger tanks which knocked down the walls ????). The confrontation was stopped by the Coalition (i.e. Americans) and Central Iraqi Government telling the British to stop taking on the corrupt Police, etc..... and withdraw from the city. This was "politics".
Second, again Basra, this time last year. Again forget the PR and remember what actually happened. It was NOT a glorious Iraqi army victory whilst the British forces did nothing. What happened was that The Iraqi Army attacked, but were repulsed. There were then "negotiations" and strangely enough nearly all the mahty (sp ?) army disappeared. THEN the Iraqi Army "attacked" and won a "glorious victory". Again "politics"
Third, Iraq in general. Why are British forces still there ? After the withdrawal to the Airport there was no real reason for British forces to be in Iraq (remember all those "British forces will leave Iraq by ....." dates ? Certainly there were strong rumours for "early 2008", "Summer 2008", "Christmas 2008" (especially strong due to finishing of UN Mandate), "Easter 2009" and now (????) "mid 2009". There is no reason for the British forces to be there other than to keep up the illusion of a "coalition". All it does is waste resources better used elsewhere. Again "politics"
Fourth, Afghanistan, Originally the British only supplied specialised services (Special Forces, Air Refuelling, etc...) to support the invasion. The major commitment was sent in ONLY as part of the NATO commitment which was MEANT to be "Nation Rebuilding" and specifically NOT to be the major fight against the Taliban which was specifically reserved by the US (rumoured to be partly "pride" and mostly because they did not want to have NATO input to ROEs). It was only the failure of the US to be able to combat the Taliban that has led to a renegotiation of NATO's role. Again "politics".
Just going by political or incompetent media rhetoric gives rise to lots of misconceptions.
Second, again Basra, this time last year. Again forget the PR and remember what actually happened. It was NOT a glorious Iraqi army victory whilst the British forces did nothing. What happened was that The Iraqi Army attacked, but were repulsed. There were then "negotiations" and strangely enough nearly all the mahty (sp ?) army disappeared. THEN the Iraqi Army "attacked" and won a "glorious victory". Again "politics"
Third, Iraq in general. Why are British forces still there ? After the withdrawal to the Airport there was no real reason for British forces to be in Iraq (remember all those "British forces will leave Iraq by ....." dates ? Certainly there were strong rumours for "early 2008", "Summer 2008", "Christmas 2008" (especially strong due to finishing of UN Mandate), "Easter 2009" and now (????) "mid 2009". There is no reason for the British forces to be there other than to keep up the illusion of a "coalition". All it does is waste resources better used elsewhere. Again "politics"
Fourth, Afghanistan, Originally the British only supplied specialised services (Special Forces, Air Refuelling, etc...) to support the invasion. The major commitment was sent in ONLY as part of the NATO commitment which was MEANT to be "Nation Rebuilding" and specifically NOT to be the major fight against the Taliban which was specifically reserved by the US (rumoured to be partly "pride" and mostly because they did not want to have NATO input to ROEs). It was only the failure of the US to be able to combat the Taliban that has led to a renegotiation of NATO's role. Again "politics".
Just going by political or incompetent media rhetoric gives rise to lots of misconceptions.
I can only add that the quote posted on page 1 of this thread is extremely selective - and that it, and the headline and intro (probably written by a sub rather than by Ms Sylvester) also stresses the UK military contribution to the reducing 'special relationship' in a way that distorts the overall sense of what the journo wrote.
.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For too long now the UK Government(s) have been playing at being a top 3 world power on a top 30 budget.
10 years ago my basic training accommodation consisted of a portakabin, beds held together with bungees, no hot water and shared lockers. None of us minded, but maybe it's indicative of where they're going wrong. (as well as sending people out to fight illegal wars based on lies, something I didn't sign up for)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In one respect, are not the Armed Forces of the UK their own worst enemy?
We (oops, I'm now ex). They just get on and do it. And (OK, I know grammar) do it 'bloody well'. Because they do it 'bloody well', the 'powers that be' depend on that 'bloody well' attitude and allow things to carry on as they are.
Put a few black, one legged, lesbian, single mother, immigrant, dole wallah's in the front line and I bet the kit will be brought up to date ASAP.
May be a bit OTT there. My abject apologies to any black, one legged, lesbian, single mother, immigrant, dole wallah who are at the front line.
Edited to add this
BBC NEWS | UK | Prince's apology for racist term
Oh, shock horror!!
We (oops, I'm now ex). They just get on and do it. And (OK, I know grammar) do it 'bloody well'. Because they do it 'bloody well', the 'powers that be' depend on that 'bloody well' attitude and allow things to carry on as they are.
Put a few black, one legged, lesbian, single mother, immigrant, dole wallah's in the front line and I bet the kit will be brought up to date ASAP.
May be a bit OTT there. My abject apologies to any black, one legged, lesbian, single mother, immigrant, dole wallah who are at the front line.
Edited to add this
BBC NEWS | UK | Prince's apology for racist term
Oh, shock horror!!
Last edited by taxydual; 10th Jan 2009 at 21:46.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Some-r-set
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks-
Michael Yon has written about this on his fantastic online magazine/journal/blog.
Taken from the email he was sent by a "well placed British officer".
Michael Yon has written about this on his fantastic online magazine/journal/blog.
“Please have a look at the attached from the UK Times. Regarding the Rachel Sylvester piece, we have not been able to find any such document/memo although it is possible that an e-mail exists somewhere that refers to such a matter – more likely to be a warning not to dick about regarding what extra troops the UK might be able to find for AFG and raise unrealistic US expectations.”
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, assuming the rumour that this was leaked by the MoD is true, then what's the big deal? Everyone there has suddenly realised the awful mess up they've been making since the late '70s? This is nothing new, there's been a decline in force procurement for about 30 years. Is it now that they only realise what the consequences of this are? No. They've known how we've been declining for years - and they don't really care.
I'd love (seriously) to see our Armed Forces once again a magnificent fighting force, and they are with what they've been given. I have no doubt that our training is the best in the World. However, the MoD think that they can get away with this factor alone and to hell with the equipment. Sadly, I believe that it would take a conflict slightly closer to home for them to realise that and to get them to pump more money into the Armed Forces.
With respect to the general public's opinions. We may not be so war prone as we once were (in the days of the Empire), but I still believe that they take pride in our Armed Forces and still expect them to defend us and our interests, wherever and whatever they may be. Nevertheless, as the Armed Forces do not directly affect the general public in daily life (or atleast, not that they can see), they leave the descision making on military expenditure up to the Government - believing they will be making the right choices on what to do. Should the public be given more in-depth information about what the military needs to do achieve certain things, I think their would be more of a public outcry - and increase in the budget. Regardless of whether the public believe in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - they still want protection at home, something I think is now seriously questionable - certainly against a major force.
I'd love (seriously) to see our Armed Forces once again a magnificent fighting force, and they are with what they've been given. I have no doubt that our training is the best in the World. However, the MoD think that they can get away with this factor alone and to hell with the equipment. Sadly, I believe that it would take a conflict slightly closer to home for them to realise that and to get them to pump more money into the Armed Forces.
With respect to the general public's opinions. We may not be so war prone as we once were (in the days of the Empire), but I still believe that they take pride in our Armed Forces and still expect them to defend us and our interests, wherever and whatever they may be. Nevertheless, as the Armed Forces do not directly affect the general public in daily life (or atleast, not that they can see), they leave the descision making on military expenditure up to the Government - believing they will be making the right choices on what to do. Should the public be given more in-depth information about what the military needs to do achieve certain things, I think their would be more of a public outcry - and increase in the budget. Regardless of whether the public believe in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - they still want protection at home, something I think is now seriously questionable - certainly against a major force.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Times: British were complacent in Afghanistan, says Sir Jock Stirrup
Britain’s top military commander has admitted for the first time that America was right to criticise the way in which British troops carried out counter-insurgency operations against the Taleban in southern Afghanistan when they first deployed to Helmand province in 2006. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff and a former head of the RAF, blamed commanders for being “smug and complacent” about the challenges they faced in Helmand.
His words echoed accusations made by Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, and several senior American military officers who claimed that their British counterparts spent too much time boasting about their experiences in Northern Ireland. John Reid, who was Defence Secretary when the 3,500-strong 16 Air Assault Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Ed Butler, was deployed to Helmand in 2006, said at the time: "We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years time without firing one shot because our mission is the reconstruction."
For six months, the paratroopers faced daily attacks by the Taleban and suffered substantial casualties. The Ministry of Defence was forced to double the number of troops and today there are more than 8,000 servicemen and women in southern Afghanistan, still facing attacks and still suffering a high rate of casualties.
In an interview with The Economist Sir Jock acknowledged that there had been criticisms from some Americans over the performance of the British. He warned that such differences must not be allowed to “fracture and disintegrate” the cohesion of the alliance fighting the Taleban.
“I think that we were a bit too complacent about our experiences in Northern Ireland and, certainly, on occasion, we were a bit too smug about those experiences,” he said. “You are only as good as your next success, not your last one. You can never rest on your laurels and I think we may have done that. If you go around and ask enough Americans you will find some who are critical to a degree. . . of the way that the British do things and the approach that the British take.” He added, however: “We have to understand that our military structures are different, our social structures within our countries are different, and therefore there are inevitable differences in the way we approach some of our tasks.”
He revealed that as a result of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, a “fundamental reappraisal” of Britain’s counter-insurgency training and structures would be completed shortly.
One of the earliest critics of the British approach in Basra was General Jack Keane, a retired American military chief with close links to the administration of President Bush and one of the architects of the US surge of 30,000 troops to Iraq. He made public his concerns about the high level of violence in Basra and predicted an increase in extremist activity if the British went ahead with withdrawing from the city. General Keane subsequently revised his view of British achievements in Iraq.
President Obama is expected to ask Britain to contribute more troops for Afghanistan but Sir Jock said: “Even without the contribution in Iraq, what we are doing in Afghanistan is already quite close to the maximum sustainable effort over the long term.”
Britain’s top military commander has admitted for the first time that America was right to criticise the way in which British troops carried out counter-insurgency operations against the Taleban in southern Afghanistan when they first deployed to Helmand province in 2006. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff and a former head of the RAF, blamed commanders for being “smug and complacent” about the challenges they faced in Helmand.
His words echoed accusations made by Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, and several senior American military officers who claimed that their British counterparts spent too much time boasting about their experiences in Northern Ireland. John Reid, who was Defence Secretary when the 3,500-strong 16 Air Assault Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Ed Butler, was deployed to Helmand in 2006, said at the time: "We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years time without firing one shot because our mission is the reconstruction."
For six months, the paratroopers faced daily attacks by the Taleban and suffered substantial casualties. The Ministry of Defence was forced to double the number of troops and today there are more than 8,000 servicemen and women in southern Afghanistan, still facing attacks and still suffering a high rate of casualties.
In an interview with The Economist Sir Jock acknowledged that there had been criticisms from some Americans over the performance of the British. He warned that such differences must not be allowed to “fracture and disintegrate” the cohesion of the alliance fighting the Taleban.
“I think that we were a bit too complacent about our experiences in Northern Ireland and, certainly, on occasion, we were a bit too smug about those experiences,” he said. “You are only as good as your next success, not your last one. You can never rest on your laurels and I think we may have done that. If you go around and ask enough Americans you will find some who are critical to a degree. . . of the way that the British do things and the approach that the British take.” He added, however: “We have to understand that our military structures are different, our social structures within our countries are different, and therefore there are inevitable differences in the way we approach some of our tasks.”
He revealed that as a result of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, a “fundamental reappraisal” of Britain’s counter-insurgency training and structures would be completed shortly.
One of the earliest critics of the British approach in Basra was General Jack Keane, a retired American military chief with close links to the administration of President Bush and one of the architects of the US surge of 30,000 troops to Iraq. He made public his concerns about the high level of violence in Basra and predicted an increase in extremist activity if the British went ahead with withdrawing from the city. General Keane subsequently revised his view of British achievements in Iraq.
President Obama is expected to ask Britain to contribute more troops for Afghanistan but Sir Jock said: “Even without the contribution in Iraq, what we are doing in Afghanistan is already quite close to the maximum sustainable effort over the long term.”
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yon's article
I just read Mr Yon's article. Just thought I'd correct something, the medevac that "swooped in" to save the Danish soldier at Moosa Qala was not an Army Medevac bird, it was a USAF Pavehawk crew performing an ILO tasking. The crew also included an Aussie medic. I'm not trying to claim glory, just pointing that those of us on the front line didn't give a crap about what nationality anybody was, we did what we had to do with our brothers in arms.
