Lord West, right or wrong?
 

Ladies & Gentlemen,

The latest breaking news is that Lord West (he of 1st Sea Lord fame) has said in a press conference, to support Labour's new policy on Defence Procurement, that we're still a first rate military power! Not like Bloody Belgium or Denmark!!:eek:

What do we think?

FB:)

Liquid Lunch by any chance?

I wonder if he is aware that the only member of the SAS (and its affiliated Units) to win the Victoria Cross in WW2 was a Dane? One of 3 Danes who have been awarded that Decoration.

As Lord West right?

Belgium (2-3 countries without an effective government) YES

Denmark (happily cutting the mustard in Afghan - 42 dead) NO

Looks like he has embarrased his "friends", if that's possible.


Labour apologises after peer insults 'bloody Denmark' - Telegraph

Irrespective of any wartime decorations awarded to their citizens (the Nepalese won a fair few, too), casualties or their disproportionately significant contributions to UN and NATO operations, Denmark (Pop 5.6m) and Belgium (Pop 11m) are ranked by SIPRI as 38th and 37th respectively in military spending while the UK (Pop 62m) is ranked 4th (Wiki link).

The problem comes in the UK acting on the world's stage as though it is ranked 2nd. That said, it is fair to say that it still has significantly more 'clout' than Denmark or Belgium. Whether it was tactful to point this out is another question.

Worth noting that while Belgium might not have a very big or aggressive military, they help us out when we don't have enough SAR resources in the South of the UK.

Link to BBC news report and link to thread on Pprune

Hardly the most diplomatic statement by a former Chief.

It may be telling that we are now in the position that we are comparing our capabilities with Denmark and Belgium.

West does have a habit of saying daft things.

If there is one country in Europe the UK can count on, it is Denmark. They have consistently punched well above their weight (measured in GDP and population) in overseas military and civilian cooperation, invariably closely aligned with UK foreign policy objectives.

As Whenurhappy points out, they have had 42 casualties in Afghanistan (many from the Jaegerkorpset - their excellent SF). In terms of relative population, that is equivalent to us taking about 600 casualties.

I recall way back in the cold war days a smug Danish government minister praising her own country's spending on social services, child welfare and the like whilst making unfavourable comments on British spending in those areas.

She neglected to point out (if indeed she was aware) that at that time a British Armoured Division based in Germany had as its primary war role the defence of Danish territory in the event of a Soviet invasion.

Pleased to see that Denmark is pulling its weight in Afganistan now, although personally I'd like to see the whole lot pull out and leave the s**thole to the Afghans.

Wonder if his lordship has had a congratulatory phone call from Prince Philip btw ;)

And, might I add (and depending on how you measure this, the stats are a minefield), the Danes and Belgians have contributed quite significantly to the kinetic activity in the Libya operation - with the Danes ahead of both UK and France in terms of either bombs or weight of ordnance dropped (can't remember which) for a significant period.

How can anyone give any credence to anything said by Lord West on a complex matter - after all, he is just a "simple sailor..."! :ok:

Is this related to the Harrier/carrier issue?

Not SHAR - as that happened on his watch.

No...........

And no surprise to see WEBF has raised SHAR again! Can we have a 'most tenuous connection to SHAR thread' to see what he can possibly insist on raising SHAR in in future?

Yeah but...
 

....having sat through lots of NATO meetings, when a Royal Navy VSO opens his remarks "Speaking as a simple sailorman....." my defence shields used to select RED ALERT as someone in the vicinity was about to be shafted.
Fortunately, it was never me but I saw lots of chaps being skewered.

The Ancient Mariner

It was intended as irony...






Labour had 13 odd years to reform Defence Procurement, and left office with the MOD having a £38Bn black hole in the procurement budget.... A great testament to their ability to manage.

True enough, Biggus, and I hold no brief for Labour, new or old, but I have to say that defence procurement has been a bloody mess ever since I can remember, no matter what colour the party in power is.

True in turn, and I'm no great fan of the current government.

However, after 13 years at the tiller, the idea that within about 15 months in opposition Labour are now saying they have the solution I find incredulous, unlikely and somewhat insulting to my intelligence!

Aspersions on the Danish fighting forces tend to come from retired officers, based on a half-remembered anecdote about some misunderstood event which they vaguely heard about while on exercise in the Seventies.

Just another snivelling yes man when he was in, and didn't stop the £38 bn black hole created. Now he deems it suitable to make wholly inappropriate comments about the brave men and women in the Danish military. Shameful.

I seem to remember that we had to buy Merlins from Denmark, who'd had the foresight to buy them.

And the Danes had the nous to demand that WE procured their replacements, insisting on an contract with us so strict it made MoD's eyes water.

Our MoD and political masters could learn a thing or two from that one little episode.

WEBF

There is NO Harrier/Carrier issue - the Harriers have been scrapped and the new Carriers will be Mothballed.

It is quite sobering to read some other countries newspapers. We were in Copenhagen and there was talk of pulling out much of the Danish army from Afg and they cited the casualty numbers.

We get the figures for UK alone with occasional reports of US or other NATO casualties if there is a significant incident but not otherwise. It is selective media coverage at its best :(

Who would buy the newspaper to learn of yet another Ruritanian casualty?

Surprised there has been no real input on SHAR etc after the letter in the Torygraph. A carrier might have been useful and it might have been cheaper during the operations but that sidesteps the economics of maintaining the carrier and SHAR when there were no operations.

See the just-released RUSI report on Libya:

RUSI - RUSI NEWS

PN,

"but that sidesteps the economics of maintaining the carrier and SHAR when there were no operations."

Isn't that the price the Gov't has to pay for being a first world power and project it's foreign Policy objectives where needed - as well as other things.

Look at the US. How many carrier groups do they have versus how many are or have been actually involved in operations at any one time ?

500N, agree, but there were two options, 3 if you counted the Harrier Force. The Government decided it could do the job with one force or Tornado and could not afford the Harrier and Carrier as well.

Now West was criticising two countries that had already cut their cloth and worked to that.