TheSmiter:
Notwithstanding all the righteous outrage expressed here, I feel that TS sums up the important issue here. Cameron is the same person that the Conservatives elected to lead them and the country chose, just, to lead it. His revealing "Bon Mot" just about sums up the Realpolitik of 21st C UK. The patronising contempt from this Metro Sexual PR man will not be lost on those who serve, who have already shown with their feet their verdict on the Compact that this Government has to offer. He has no concept of the ethos of the Armed Forces. Nor in truth do many of his fellow citizens. In that regard they have little to complain of. Very soon they will have little to defend them either.

glojo,

I don't think either the 1SL or the CinC have said "No, that cannot be done". Probably for the very simple reason that we ARE doing it! Both have effectively said that should ELLAMY continue, then reprioritisation will be necessary.

From the politicians' perspective, we are carrying out their direction successfully on our current level of funding. The senior officers may be telling them we are carrying lots of risk, particularly against the possibility of future requirements, but their view may well be that such risk is acceptable as further defence expenditure is not in the nation's best interests.

Until the military actually fail on ops, such a view is unlikely to radically alter. The trouble is, we've being saying for years that we are about to fail - and we never do.

I wouldnt exactly call leaving Basrah the way we did as a "success".

Didnt the Conservatives promise pre-election to realistically match our operational tasking with the size of our armed forces?

Slip of the tongue..?
 

In PMQs earlier today, did did he really say we were 'at war' with Libya/Gaddafi? I thought we were protecting.

Vin,

Absolutely agree with you. The trouble is, until it's a failure that the politicos can't spin their way out of, it won't worry them!

It appears that he is proving that he can say and do absolutely anything - not enough people care or will do anything about it. The press don't care, the public don't care and the politicians don't care about anything other than re-election or their own future.

The Conservatives DID promise pre-election to reprioritise the forces. Their excuse is that its not a Conservative government, however you can bet your bottom dollar that had they won, they still would have ripped the heart out of the forces, just as EVERY OTHER PARTY WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME! Say and do anything to get into power, and then spin and lie and blame their way out of it once in power.

They don't represent the people, but the people no longer care. They'll believe anything.

There have been other, more recent, instances where the commander, contrary to political pressure, has held back until he had the supplies in place rather than throwing his troops in piecemeal.

Montgomery before Alamein was one and I think Schwarzkopf also delayed until all his pieces were in place.

Now, however, the Forces are literally thrown in willy nilly. I grant you we did not have the luxury of delay in Libya but that is why we need sufficient suitably equipped and ready forces in peacetime.

The comments are out of order. However, the service chiefs are 'neck deep' in the sh&t as they also presided over this build up of debt. This stinks of hypocrisy. I'm no fan of Cameron but the chiefs will all retire shortly on very generous pension terms having ruined a once proud military.

Al R:
What ho, old bean! He did did! But you need to remember that Great War Leaders like him and Blair lead wars! Who ever sounded rufty tufty leading "protecting" for heaven's sake?

Hi Chuggers,

I hope all is well?

Indeed. I don't think for one minute he meant what he said to come across as it did and that he was kicking himself afterwards. Its more symptomatic of a bloke under pressure, and he does have this trait of being a bit arrogant and sniffy when his decisions are being questioned (as they increasingly are).

PN,

Schwarzkopf's methodology was interesting and protracted in that didn't he wear two hats in GW1.. overall CINC and also land boss, and didn't he also have to report to at least two bosses? Sometimes a bit difficult to know which hat to wear..

Post-2014 spending?
 

Haven't posted for ages but the recent comments of the PM made me think.

Am I right in thinking that the PM's personal opinion is that post-2015 defence spending should increase?

Am I also right in thinking that on p.22 of the recent NAO report on armoured vehicles (HC 1029) it shows that under the SDSR plans defence equipment spending will be cut by an average of £2.4bn per year?

In these circs surely the military are right to talk about the need to properly fund the forces?

I suspect this was a deliberate leak to enable Cameron to spout the now infamous soundbite. He's probably had it on the tip of his tongue for ages and was just looking for an opportunity to use it.

Maybe this is very carefully planned but I wonder. Only anoracks like me and other PPruners read NAO reports - as far as I can see none of the defence correspondents have picked it up.

The official line still seems to be that no decisions have been made on funding post-2015 and yet this is contradicted by the data in the NAO. Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Al R, rather more than 2 bosses IIRC. Remember he had to hold the whole coalition together never quite knowing who would play and who would not and who might even have divided loyalties.

I know for a fact that at least one of the allies, that had a photocopier (:)) was not aware that the war was starting.

Having just listened to the Vice Chief of the Defence staff General Sir Nicholas Houghton addressing the Parliamentary Defence Committee stating that all is well with our three services and they are all coping quite well with their commitments.

It was put to him that senior officers were claiming they were overstretched but he would not agree with that claim!!!

Instead of answering the question regarding any military short falls, he rambled on about definitions of resources, strategy, policy and aspirations. After about five minutes of classic 'Yes Prime Minister' civil servant mumbo jumbo, the chairman asked him about numbers and was he happy... 'Yes we are on course to lowering the size of our military to that required for 2024!!!'

This committee is the first port of call to get on side if we need more resources, to tell it we are coping and still making cut-backs doe not do the Air Chief Marshal any favours.

Yes a thousand times yes it can be argued I do not understand the game that big boys play, and this General may well be treating these senior MP's as fools but they were on the side of the military. They were trying to ask this person to confirm both the First Sea Lord and the Air Chief Marshal were correct in what they said... To disagree with his colleagues was perhaps not the answer that was expected!

Glojo

Like you maybe I don't understand the larger game but I agree with you re the Defence Committee. It can be one of the most effective supporters of the armed forces in Westminster. So perhaps it could ask how MoD is going to achieve its desired outcome when the budget is going to be cut by such large amounts post 2015?

Lets see what his opinion is once he's retired and his career is no longer on the line.

Presumably there are various officers who are hoping to be considered for one of the top jobs in about 5 to 10 years. Do they really want to get the job just as the next wave of cuts come in??

It's the way of the mob for senior officers to tell their superiors that everything is hunky-dory. How many times have you had a visiting dignitary / flag rank come out to where you are deployed and comment on how pleased they are that you are in good morale.
It's all well and good saying "I'd bloody tell them how it is" but - it's the NCOs who end up stamping on anybody whoever does become vocally "off message".

Remove the sycophancy (and the incentive for it) from the armed forces and maybe real opinions will get through to those who count.

Very interesting. The current VCDS was appointed in 2009.