British Army - Delusional About Air Power
I think the general is right for a (small) sub set of conflicts.
It probably seems more of a truism (to him) because of the conflicts we have been fighting since 9/11.
But I think he would be wanting all the standoff he could get if say Russia took a excursion into the Baltic for example.
I can see the Army moving more and more towards UAV's for CAS - just a another support arm like artillery - who will control them? It will continue to muddy the waters on Tactical Airpower. If it flies it should be airforce obviously makes the most sense but politics gets in the way.
what chance the RAF would go along this road? http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...uirements.html
And if not why not?
It probably seems more of a truism (to him) because of the conflicts we have been fighting since 9/11.
But I think he would be wanting all the standoff he could get if say Russia took a excursion into the Baltic for example.
I can see the Army moving more and more towards UAV's for CAS - just a another support arm like artillery - who will control them? It will continue to muddy the waters on Tactical Airpower. If it flies it should be airforce obviously makes the most sense but politics gets in the way.
what chance the RAF would go along this road? http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...uirements.html
And if not why not?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In 2001 I kept asking a simple question................... What was purpose of invading Afghanistan................... 16 years on and thousands of death later there is still no response.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
IIRC the people who did the inviting were rebel war lords trying to overthrow the recognised (but awful) Govt at the time
TIME.com Primer: The Taliban and Afghanistan - TIME
Q: Is the Taliban the recognized government of Afghanistan? Do they have domestic opposition?
A; Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government, and international recognition as a legitimate government remains the movement's most important foreign policy objective. The country's seat at the United Nations is still held by representatives of the government overthrown by the Taliban in 1996, to which the opposition Northern Alliance remains loyal.
HH: you have to be correct to be a pedant, otherwise you're just a spoiler:
UN History of Afghanistan
[Edit: ORAC beat me to it!]
Leaping now to the defence of senior military officers on strategic decision making, it has to be said that they have surprisingly little influence on policy. There is almost an allergic reaction to the idea of the military having a say in Government decision-making with the result that the Foreign Office and its alumni in advisory posts, usually adopting a contradictory position of promoting Western ideals while resolutely supporting the Sunni Arab states, get to call the shots. As CDS during Libya, General Richards tried to point out the likely pitfalls of ousting Gadaffi, only to be told he was a 'purist' and promptly ignored. Since Trump's election I had wondered if military realism would finally get to, er, trump fashionable civilian idealism, but judging by the recent push against Assad I'm not so sure...
The exception I will make to the above (and perhaps the reason for those allergic reactions) is Iraq 2003, where a careful reading of Chilcot makes clear that there was a concerted effort by senior elements in the Army to get an armoured division involved as part of the usual "use it or risk losing it" schtick, and that proceedings were skewed by offers of forces that had been made without political authorisation. Look at the executive summary of the section below, plus paras 230 to 251 (especially 240) and 965 to 980. Barely-disguised self-interest at play. Bad, very bad; fortunately a new generation of young officers has grown up with the consequences and is determined not to make the same mistakes, which is why pronouncements like CGS's are not especially helpful.
Chilcot Section 6.1
... [UN Security] Council ... resolution 1267 (1999) ... demanded that the Taliban faction - never recognized as Afghanistan's legitimate government - turn [bin Laden] over to the appropriate authorities...
[Edit: ORAC beat me to it!]
Leaping now to the defence of senior military officers on strategic decision making, it has to be said that they have surprisingly little influence on policy. There is almost an allergic reaction to the idea of the military having a say in Government decision-making with the result that the Foreign Office and its alumni in advisory posts, usually adopting a contradictory position of promoting Western ideals while resolutely supporting the Sunni Arab states, get to call the shots. As CDS during Libya, General Richards tried to point out the likely pitfalls of ousting Gadaffi, only to be told he was a 'purist' and promptly ignored. Since Trump's election I had wondered if military realism would finally get to, er, trump fashionable civilian idealism, but judging by the recent push against Assad I'm not so sure...
The exception I will make to the above (and perhaps the reason for those allergic reactions) is Iraq 2003, where a careful reading of Chilcot makes clear that there was a concerted effort by senior elements in the Army to get an armoured division involved as part of the usual "use it or risk losing it" schtick, and that proceedings were skewed by offers of forces that had been made without political authorisation. Look at the executive summary of the section below, plus paras 230 to 251 (especially 240) and 965 to 980. Barely-disguised self-interest at play. Bad, very bad; fortunately a new generation of young officers has grown up with the consequences and is determined not to make the same mistakes, which is why pronouncements like CGS's are not especially helpful.
Chilcot Section 6.1
Last edited by Easy Street; 9th Jul 2017 at 12:04.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Taliban ran Afghansistan and the " representatives of the government overthrown" didn't dare show their faces
To suggest they were the Legitimate Govt is like the farcial proposition that the KMT on Taiwan ran China from 1948 - 1972 or that Mr Lincoln's writ ran in the Confederacy..................
To suggest they were the Legitimate Govt is like the farcial proposition that the KMT on Taiwan ran China from 1948 - 1972 or that Mr Lincoln's writ ran in the Confederacy..................
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
HH, you claimed they were the recognised government, which they were not.
Stop trying to use weasel words to shift your position - it just makes you look eve worse. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
Stop trying to use weasel words to shift your position - it just makes you look eve worse. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
It was inevitable that the Americans would respond with the utmost vigour to such a provocation. If Bin Laden ever thought otherwise he was seriously deluded. That was the day that at least some countries also decided that one of the most repugnant regimes ever to stain the soil of Afghanistan had to be got rid of, if not for the long term benefit of the people who live there, but for their own too. To have not done anything, to let them get away with it, to leave the source of such attacks undamaged would have been an invitation to carry out more of the same.
Interestingly Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait have decided to take action on Qatar for the same reason. However Qatar is vulnerable to economic sanctions, Afghanistan was not. If Qatar hangs on for a few months, we'll be looking at a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf just in time to cut off our gas supply by Christmas. Sure, the USN or possibly even the RN could swipe the little corvettes used by SA, UAE aside, but somehow I don't think they will.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly, CGS is taking aim at the symptom not the disease here. Air power has unequivocally reduced the toll on ground forces and this has become ever-more prevalent since Vietnam. Armies are vital - they take and hold territory; close with the enemy, and have almost exclusively delivered the terms of victory by hand. However, as GWI clearly showed, after a significant air campaign waged against strategic and tactical targets alike, the ground war was over in less than 100hours. This is an over-simplification but let's not forget that Saddam possessed the 5th largest armed force in the world at the time.
CGS seems to erroneously infer of an "air power is THE solution" mindset, whereas the reality iis, air power is often the safest and most expedient political instrument to use in the first instance. Just because it deploys early doesn't mean it's the only solution - indeed, it's own weaknesses are made up by having other force domains from Land and Maritime to meet the campaign aims and objectives.
In this instance I disagree with the General, mainly because he's pointing the finger to preserve cap badges. The politicos need to be convinced by positive messaging for a standing Army of XX,000, not through asserting half a story to denigrate the very forces that are proven to reduce his very soldiers' battlefield casualties and greatly amplify its efficacy.
CGS seems to erroneously infer of an "air power is THE solution" mindset, whereas the reality iis, air power is often the safest and most expedient political instrument to use in the first instance. Just because it deploys early doesn't mean it's the only solution - indeed, it's own weaknesses are made up by having other force domains from Land and Maritime to meet the campaign aims and objectives.
In this instance I disagree with the General, mainly because he's pointing the finger to preserve cap badges. The politicos need to be convinced by positive messaging for a standing Army of XX,000, not through asserting half a story to denigrate the very forces that are proven to reduce his very soldiers' battlefield casualties and greatly amplify its efficacy.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, but even with blatantly obvious examples from the very near past, here we are having the same arguments.....like putting a brigade minus into an area the size of wales perhaps? Then screaming for help from air/aviation.....plenty of examples of boots on the ground, sadly the owners were back in the UK wondering where their limbs are......how quickly we forget.
Nigerian In Law
Rotate too late,
Exactly. My son was a grunt in Helmand during the "surge", lost his best mate to a .50 while next to him, came back a changed man. Air had no assets to support during an 18 hour (yes, 18 hour) engagement. I feel as though I've lost someone who was my pride and joy as well as being proud of himself.
In my day Northern Ireland and the Falklands just didn't feel as shabby.
NEO
Exactly. My son was a grunt in Helmand during the "surge", lost his best mate to a .50 while next to him, came back a changed man. Air had no assets to support during an 18 hour (yes, 18 hour) engagement. I feel as though I've lost someone who was my pride and joy as well as being proud of himself.
In my day Northern Ireland and the Falklands just didn't feel as shabby.
NEO
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NEO,
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. As an ex AH driver, I saw first hand the shocking futility of that campaign. I'd would very much recommend charities like combat stress to your boy. It's a sign of the times that he needs to rely on charity but they do bloody good work. He's not alone, trust me.
RTL
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. As an ex AH driver, I saw first hand the shocking futility of that campaign. I'd would very much recommend charities like combat stress to your boy. It's a sign of the times that he needs to rely on charity but they do bloody good work. He's not alone, trust me.
RTL
Incorrect, the truth being the other way round.
TIME.com Primer: The Taliban and Afghanistan - TIME
Q: Is the Taliban the recognized government of Afghanistan? Do they have domestic opposition?
A; Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government, and international recognition as a legitimate government remains the movement's most important foreign policy objective. The country's seat at the United Nations is still held by representatives of the government overthrown by the Taliban in 1996, to which the opposition Northern Alliance remains loyal.
TIME.com Primer: The Taliban and Afghanistan - TIME
Q: Is the Taliban the recognized government of Afghanistan? Do they have domestic opposition?
A; Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government, and international recognition as a legitimate government remains the movement's most important foreign policy objective. The country's seat at the United Nations is still held by representatives of the government overthrown by the Taliban in 1996, to which the opposition Northern Alliance remains loyal.
The History Place - Points of View: Cambodia's Twisted Path to Justice by Ben Kiernan
Guess who insisted they keep it.
Harumph. Anyone remember airliners flying into the twin towers in New York?
It was inevitable that the Americans would respond with the utmost vigour to such a provocation. If Bin Laden ever thought otherwise he was seriously deluded. That was the day that at least some countries also decided that one of the most repugnant regimes ever to stain the soil of Afghanistan had to be got rid of, if not for the long term benefit of the people who live there, but for their own too. To have not done anything, to let them get away with it, to leave the source of such attacks undamaged would have been an invitation to carry out more of the same.
It was inevitable that the Americans would respond with the utmost vigour to such a provocation. If Bin Laden ever thought otherwise he was seriously deluded. That was the day that at least some countries also decided that one of the most repugnant regimes ever to stain the soil of Afghanistan had to be got rid of, if not for the long term benefit of the people who live there, but for their own too. To have not done anything, to let them get away with it, to leave the source of such attacks undamaged would have been an invitation to carry out more of the same.
I also remember the nationality of the country where they were from............ oh wait it is those peace loving Saudi's who fully recognised and supported the Taliban Govt.
Interestingly Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait have decided to take action on Qatar for the same reason. However Qatar is vulnerable to economic sanctions, Afghanistan was not. If Qatar hangs on for a few months, we'll be looking at a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf just in time to cut off our gas supply by Christmas. Sure, the USN or possibly even the RN could swipe the little corvettes used by SA, UAE aside, but somehow I don't think they will.
Why are US/UK supplying major Terrorism sponsors.
Isn't it great those peace loving Saudi's....................... what again are they doing in Yemen ? What are their troops doing in Syria ? Libya ? and other countrys are telling everybody about Terrorism.
How much again have they spent in funding their Wahabbi extremism around the world in the last decade ?
Keep drinking the Koolaid if you think Qatar is alone in doing it.
Nigerian In Law
NEO,
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. As an ex AH driver, I saw first hand the shocking futility of that campaign. I'd would very much recommend charities like combat stress to your boy. It's a sign of the times that he needs to rely on charity but they do bloody good work. He's not alone, trust me.
RTL
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. As an ex AH driver, I saw first hand the shocking futility of that campaign. I'd would very much recommend charities like combat stress to your boy. It's a sign of the times that he needs to rely on charity but they do bloody good work. He's not alone, trust me.
RTL
He won't speak to me about what went on out there, despite being born in a military hospital while I was away in NI for the umpteenth time. No empathy; he says I wouldn't understand.
Breaks my heart.
NEO
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
also remember the nationality of the country where they were from............ oh wait it is those peace loving Saudi's who fully recognised and supported the Taliban Govt.
If British ISIL jihadists were to commit a major atrocity in the USA would you wish them to bomb the UK in response, or ISIL?
Chilcot's Inquiry is full of absolute gems. Having been involved in the planning stage for the capabilities requested/required (Air, Maritime & SF) and how taut they were, I was astonished that the Land component could offer an argument that they had to have a major role - not because of a requirement but just to keep the British Army happy. Worryingly this dangerous folly gained traction and support at the highest levels:
[Page 294]
Army morale. “If the Army does not participate in the biggest combat operation for over a decade, and particularly if it is subsequently committed to a potentially enduring aftermath task, this may foster a perception that the Army is no longer regarded as a war‐fighting force (particularly if they are deployed on Op FRESCO duties) and may have knock‐on effects on recruitment and retention. It will clearly present a leadership challenge. This should not be a critical factor in reaching decisions ... but it is an issue which the Secretary of State will wish to have in mind.”
Last edited by Just This Once...; 11th Jul 2017 at 06:36.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
I'm sure that Army morale was suitably bolstered. WTF?