State of the Nation - an open letter
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the offer Ed but the thread won't be closed.
It may have slipped a little off track with the Serbian interlude but it still remains an outstanding and particularly well written series of posts. It's an honour to be able to provide this forum and see so much thoughtful writing from people who really do care.
------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 11 June 2000).]
It may have slipped a little off track with the Serbian interlude but it still remains an outstanding and particularly well written series of posts. It's an honour to be able to provide this forum and see so much thoughtful writing from people who really do care.
------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 11 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Kosovo crisis: Anyone who's attended staff college since then will have views on 'international terrorism' and 'unlawful intervention'
The Mozambique crisis: Those Antonov's sat out on the pan for a fair while while the rotorheads were taken off the Pumas. We got the job done OK, but the lack of our (own) resources was highlighted more than once.
And now Sierra Leone: Apart from being largely due to our influence (Sandline, UN sanctions written by the UK etc.). Does it count as another minor operation towards the 2 that we're able to mount, post Options?
Coming back around to the heart of the matter. I think the problem with our armed forces is not only at the top. I am prepared to use second rate kit, spend 6 months each year away from home and work 17 hour days. But I am not prepared to do it when I get NO gratitude from the middle 'management'.
A word of thanks is free and goes a long way. A little appreciation from 1st and 2nd ROs would boost morale AT NO COST.
CHAIN OF COMMAND IS NOT A PRINCIPLE OF ORGANIZATION!
(Now, I might have given myself away on that one!)
[This message has been edited by Harvey Essem (edited 12 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Harvey Essem (edited 12 June 2000).]
The Mozambique crisis: Those Antonov's sat out on the pan for a fair while while the rotorheads were taken off the Pumas. We got the job done OK, but the lack of our (own) resources was highlighted more than once.
And now Sierra Leone: Apart from being largely due to our influence (Sandline, UN sanctions written by the UK etc.). Does it count as another minor operation towards the 2 that we're able to mount, post Options?
Coming back around to the heart of the matter. I think the problem with our armed forces is not only at the top. I am prepared to use second rate kit, spend 6 months each year away from home and work 17 hour days. But I am not prepared to do it when I get NO gratitude from the middle 'management'.
A word of thanks is free and goes a long way. A little appreciation from 1st and 2nd ROs would boost morale AT NO COST.
CHAIN OF COMMAND IS NOT A PRINCIPLE OF ORGANIZATION!
(Now, I might have given myself away on that one!)
[This message has been edited by Harvey Essem (edited 12 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Harvey Essem (edited 12 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very thoughtful comments from airmen who obviously care. The US Military have many of the exact same problems with staffing, replacement parts, aircraft, and the political desire to be the "world's policeman." Hopefully our (US) political leadership will change shortly for the better and then our new leadership will ensure ample funding for the US Military.
------------------
Kick the tires, light the fires, first off is lead, brief on guard.
------------------
Kick the tires, light the fires, first off is lead, brief on guard.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I feel that one of the biggest problems we have is that since ‘Options for Change’ we have been consistently lied to.
‘Defence Cost Studies’ was meant to find out what we did and at what cost. From there we could then be tasked up to the absolute maximum. Fine; a pretty good idea, but what we have seen is tasking way beyond that maximum.
“Sorry guys, it’s an Op”
Well of course it’s an Op. There are always Ops. There will always be some tiny country somewhere in the middle of nowhere that decides that unlike the current Western democracies, it wants its Civil War now, rather than 200 years ago. Our civil wars were good, theirs are bad, and therefore, “Something must be done”
From the RAFs point of view this involves inappropriately trained aircrew flying inadequate aircraft “around the clock” until all is well in the world.
Surprisingly ‘Tea & Medals’ is not the conclusion to the episode. The conclusion is always a little more sinister. It involves wringing of hands as we are told that we have overspent our budgets and as such, training, expeditions & rectification is now on the back burner.
“All non-core training is to stop and any budget surplus is to be returned to Command to pay for the Kosovo War effort”
However, we have just been awarded Investors in People accreditation, hurrah!
‘Front Line First’. You have to be joking. ‘Front Line Forever’ would be more appropriate. Imagine having ground and aircrews who could have ‘breather tours’ where they had some chance of family stability.
“Sorry old love, that costs money”
No it doesn’t. Happy people stay in the Service. They do not leave and as such there is no recruitment or retraining cost. A child could present this as a viable argument, yet we have civilianised every possible post. At the same time as transforming ourselves into a civilian, stay-at-home outfit, some bright spark decided we were now expeditionary! With what? With whom?
To top it all off we are told that everything has a cost. We must all become budget holders. Money, money, money.
Cool.
Snag is, if you keep telling people that we should follow civilian working practices under civilian contracts, some of us will want civilian wages. We will do the maths, look at our predicted pensions and run away from the crumbling top-heavy mess that is left behind.
‘Defence Cost Studies’ was meant to find out what we did and at what cost. From there we could then be tasked up to the absolute maximum. Fine; a pretty good idea, but what we have seen is tasking way beyond that maximum.
“Sorry guys, it’s an Op”
Well of course it’s an Op. There are always Ops. There will always be some tiny country somewhere in the middle of nowhere that decides that unlike the current Western democracies, it wants its Civil War now, rather than 200 years ago. Our civil wars were good, theirs are bad, and therefore, “Something must be done”
From the RAFs point of view this involves inappropriately trained aircrew flying inadequate aircraft “around the clock” until all is well in the world.
Surprisingly ‘Tea & Medals’ is not the conclusion to the episode. The conclusion is always a little more sinister. It involves wringing of hands as we are told that we have overspent our budgets and as such, training, expeditions & rectification is now on the back burner.
“All non-core training is to stop and any budget surplus is to be returned to Command to pay for the Kosovo War effort”
However, we have just been awarded Investors in People accreditation, hurrah!
‘Front Line First’. You have to be joking. ‘Front Line Forever’ would be more appropriate. Imagine having ground and aircrews who could have ‘breather tours’ where they had some chance of family stability.
“Sorry old love, that costs money”
No it doesn’t. Happy people stay in the Service. They do not leave and as such there is no recruitment or retraining cost. A child could present this as a viable argument, yet we have civilianised every possible post. At the same time as transforming ourselves into a civilian, stay-at-home outfit, some bright spark decided we were now expeditionary! With what? With whom?
To top it all off we are told that everything has a cost. We must all become budget holders. Money, money, money.
Cool.
Snag is, if you keep telling people that we should follow civilian working practices under civilian contracts, some of us will want civilian wages. We will do the maths, look at our predicted pensions and run away from the crumbling top-heavy mess that is left behind.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Strimmer Trimmer, what a sadly accurate opening post.
I believe it was Not the Nine O'clock News who wrote a sketch which proffered the chance to buy shares in the newly privatised Armed Forces that were going to be run to not only cost the taxpayer nothing, but would make them profitable. Highly entertaining at the time, but you could now hold it up as our masters' ideal.
Cost cutting is always the order when there is no threat to blighty this week, but the sweeping cutbacks and introduction of civilianisation into a military world has been devastating. Most sinister is reduction in ability to regain lost ground.
"Successive cutbacks have ensured that the training system, which was once the envy of the world, is a shadow of its former self. So much has been cut that the front line despairs of the product of our flying training."
The destruction of the training system for all trades and branches, not just for flying training, is going to be incredibly difficult to overcome. We all knew, and said before it happened, that contractors would become prohibitively expensive as soon as they needed to train new personnel instead of giving ex-servicemen different suits. We are now approaching the stage where we cannot afford to go on, but are unable to go back. We can't spare people for leave, never mind try to take the few remaining experienced personnel out of the system in order for them to train new blood. Creating a force which is officially trained for competence instead of excellence is a deed which should have brought about the resignation of top brass instead of the creation of 'top management'. Further 'MoD plc' degeneration brings more and more despair to those of us who want to be proud of our service.
The sad fact is that despite the generation currently reaching office being the first in modern history to have lived without war or conscription, we all know there will never be a worldwide outbreak of peace. Yet we now have a set of Armed Forces which are struggling to meet their commitments whilst we're at raging peace - for God's sake what are we doing?
I believe it was Not the Nine O'clock News who wrote a sketch which proffered the chance to buy shares in the newly privatised Armed Forces that were going to be run to not only cost the taxpayer nothing, but would make them profitable. Highly entertaining at the time, but you could now hold it up as our masters' ideal.
Cost cutting is always the order when there is no threat to blighty this week, but the sweeping cutbacks and introduction of civilianisation into a military world has been devastating. Most sinister is reduction in ability to regain lost ground.
"Successive cutbacks have ensured that the training system, which was once the envy of the world, is a shadow of its former self. So much has been cut that the front line despairs of the product of our flying training."
The destruction of the training system for all trades and branches, not just for flying training, is going to be incredibly difficult to overcome. We all knew, and said before it happened, that contractors would become prohibitively expensive as soon as they needed to train new personnel instead of giving ex-servicemen different suits. We are now approaching the stage where we cannot afford to go on, but are unable to go back. We can't spare people for leave, never mind try to take the few remaining experienced personnel out of the system in order for them to train new blood. Creating a force which is officially trained for competence instead of excellence is a deed which should have brought about the resignation of top brass instead of the creation of 'top management'. Further 'MoD plc' degeneration brings more and more despair to those of us who want to be proud of our service.
The sad fact is that despite the generation currently reaching office being the first in modern history to have lived without war or conscription, we all know there will never be a worldwide outbreak of peace. Yet we now have a set of Armed Forces which are struggling to meet their commitments whilst we're at raging peace - for God's sake what are we doing?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have just spent 3 days scrambling round for kit and vehicles to run an exercise this w/end. I was amazed at the levels of commitment from MTOs and fleet mgrs to bend over backwards to give me green vehicles. It was embarassing for me to explain that although I was RLC, and although I cmd a support unit that we don't have any serviceable vehicles left because another sqn in the Regt took them all on camp. None of us have the vehicles we need to run a full scale exercise, let alone deploy in support of the regular army in tmies of crisis. Vast amounts of cash is being spent on vehicle emission checks and as a result when the money runs out to do this i am left with vehicles on the yard that work, but are technically U/S and can't move.
If I turned up to fly and was told that the a/c I booked out was fit to fly, but u/s because engineering ran out of money to do an emission check I would go apoplectic! Why should I have to put up with it in the TA? You could re-write this scenario for every flying sqn in the AAC/RAF/RN, and every ship, and operational Army unit from the smallest Regt to the might of the RLC
------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!
If I turned up to fly and was told that the a/c I booked out was fit to fly, but u/s because engineering ran out of money to do an emission check I would go apoplectic! Why should I have to put up with it in the TA? You could re-write this scenario for every flying sqn in the AAC/RAF/RN, and every ship, and operational Army unit from the smallest Regt to the might of the RLC
------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK! Enough of the “wouldn’t it be nice if ‘they’ did something”!
What can we suggest?
I don’t pretend to have all the facts to hand, nor a monopoly on ideas (certainly not these) and I’m sure somebody will tell me if what I suggest is not possible or not acceptable. I emphasise that the following thoughts are only just “my thoughts” and would rely on Government acceptance that we have a problem and need to do something about it, even if it means some criticism from some areas of the World.
1. Reduce the Falkland Islands manning. Who believes that Argentina is going to try another 1982 in our lifetime? Argentinians are attending staff courses in the UK. Our relations with them are more than affable at the moment. How about a small infantry detachment (sorry Marines, this probably means you, but you are used to it and it is a good ‘grunt/bootie’ training area for all that macho stuff you are so very good at). Add a Rapier MPC capability. Meander the odd RN presence through the area. Who will know whether or not there is a submarine presence there, especially if we tell people there probably is! AND THAT’S ALL!
2. Remove the presence from the Middle East. We don’t need to be the policeman for that area. Who believes that Saddam will try another Kuwait invasion? Other policing roles in that area should be undertaken by the Saudis and other Gulf states. They are capable of doing so and might even welcome a withdrawal as an improvement in presentational terms to their people, some of whom do not welcome our presence in their countries.
3. I can’t give you exact figures for the numbers involved in the last 2 suggestions, as it would make this Pprune post classified. However, the numbers are not insignificant in their contribution to the “stretch” we are experiencing, especially as it tends to be the same groups of people time after time.
4. Remove our independent nuclear deterrent (“SACRILEGE” I hear you cry, or at least some of you will). Sorry Navy, but who believes that we will be likely to get into a full-scale shooting match with the US, China, Russia, India, Pakistan et al? Furthermore, who believes that we would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Lybia or some other rogue state decided to attack with chemical or biological agents? It’s a thought!
5. Perhaps the much vaunted Northern Ireland peace process will also allow a large reduction in presence there? It may even be essential to the eventual success of the peace process. Perhaps we should start the process of reduction now?
Not Earth-shattering stuff, and only scratching the surface of the problem, but think of how many people we have involved in all these areas and how frequently the same people return time and time again to the above operations! Such moves would go a reasonable way to relieving some of the pressure on the Services, and would go a LONG WAY towards persuading the troops that the Government has our best interests at heart.
Or don’t you think so? Other thoughts please???
What can we suggest?
I don’t pretend to have all the facts to hand, nor a monopoly on ideas (certainly not these) and I’m sure somebody will tell me if what I suggest is not possible or not acceptable. I emphasise that the following thoughts are only just “my thoughts” and would rely on Government acceptance that we have a problem and need to do something about it, even if it means some criticism from some areas of the World.
1. Reduce the Falkland Islands manning. Who believes that Argentina is going to try another 1982 in our lifetime? Argentinians are attending staff courses in the UK. Our relations with them are more than affable at the moment. How about a small infantry detachment (sorry Marines, this probably means you, but you are used to it and it is a good ‘grunt/bootie’ training area for all that macho stuff you are so very good at). Add a Rapier MPC capability. Meander the odd RN presence through the area. Who will know whether or not there is a submarine presence there, especially if we tell people there probably is! AND THAT’S ALL!
2. Remove the presence from the Middle East. We don’t need to be the policeman for that area. Who believes that Saddam will try another Kuwait invasion? Other policing roles in that area should be undertaken by the Saudis and other Gulf states. They are capable of doing so and might even welcome a withdrawal as an improvement in presentational terms to their people, some of whom do not welcome our presence in their countries.
3. I can’t give you exact figures for the numbers involved in the last 2 suggestions, as it would make this Pprune post classified. However, the numbers are not insignificant in their contribution to the “stretch” we are experiencing, especially as it tends to be the same groups of people time after time.
4. Remove our independent nuclear deterrent (“SACRILEGE” I hear you cry, or at least some of you will). Sorry Navy, but who believes that we will be likely to get into a full-scale shooting match with the US, China, Russia, India, Pakistan et al? Furthermore, who believes that we would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Lybia or some other rogue state decided to attack with chemical or biological agents? It’s a thought!
5. Perhaps the much vaunted Northern Ireland peace process will also allow a large reduction in presence there? It may even be essential to the eventual success of the peace process. Perhaps we should start the process of reduction now?
Not Earth-shattering stuff, and only scratching the surface of the problem, but think of how many people we have involved in all these areas and how frequently the same people return time and time again to the above operations! Such moves would go a reasonable way to relieving some of the pressure on the Services, and would go a LONG WAY towards persuading the troops that the Government has our best interests at heart.
Or don’t you think so? Other thoughts please???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wholigan 2,
I can't comment on your first couple of ideas as I have little knowledge of those areas, but the latter I feel is a no go.
Many reasons. Reducing manpower and assets in S Atlantic/Gulf seems fairly reasonable. As for the Nuke deterrent, not too sure on that one.
NI as is read in the majority of the press appears to be back on line for peace what with the assembly coming back together and the general lack of 'incidents' being reported on. As anyone will be well aware, it's, yet again a false horizon. Reading into the media, Drumcree will be 'a spectacular' then there is the case of 'the other side of the line'. Heavy activity politically, that to be quite honest makes my blood boil. The issue of refusing to fly the Union flag over official buildings that are run by republicans! Now this isn't the usual provocation of flag waving as can be seen in almost every community, left or right, but total descent over the ruling government that 'elected' these people into ruling bodies. Another issue I read concerns the re-hash of the RUC. The argument regards the Republicans not wanting to advance on the 'new improved RUC' unless former CONVICTED IRA terrorists will be considered eligible for entry into the new order. HELLO, what the f ck is going on! We are, i.e. Bliar is actually going to allow negotiations into this! If it means they will disarm. All I can say is, never in a month of Sundays will the 'opposition' disarm. The PIRA might offer token .303's, but they are only using the name to show they are making the effort. Remember '69, the OIRA did a similar stunt only to re-org under the banner of PIRA. Lest us not forget CIRA, RIRA.
To summarise, NI should not be left to carry on as is. The South doesn’t want it; they on the whole don't give a toss what goes on up there. If we 'pull out', it will be left to be ruled by a bunch of crim's.
We need an election that votes in someone who gives a toss about what is going on around the Bazaars, not some lily livered 'Yes' man who has a cute smile and considers himself a 'new man'. Is it right that half his cabinet prefer the intimate company of blokes. NO...........I will shortly become a minority (cut to thread 'Happy F3 guys').
Here endeth the lesson. (Bring back Maggie, I could live with the poll tax compared to the pile of ****e we are in now!!!!!)
I can't comment on your first couple of ideas as I have little knowledge of those areas, but the latter I feel is a no go.
Many reasons. Reducing manpower and assets in S Atlantic/Gulf seems fairly reasonable. As for the Nuke deterrent, not too sure on that one.
NI as is read in the majority of the press appears to be back on line for peace what with the assembly coming back together and the general lack of 'incidents' being reported on. As anyone will be well aware, it's, yet again a false horizon. Reading into the media, Drumcree will be 'a spectacular' then there is the case of 'the other side of the line'. Heavy activity politically, that to be quite honest makes my blood boil. The issue of refusing to fly the Union flag over official buildings that are run by republicans! Now this isn't the usual provocation of flag waving as can be seen in almost every community, left or right, but total descent over the ruling government that 'elected' these people into ruling bodies. Another issue I read concerns the re-hash of the RUC. The argument regards the Republicans not wanting to advance on the 'new improved RUC' unless former CONVICTED IRA terrorists will be considered eligible for entry into the new order. HELLO, what the f ck is going on! We are, i.e. Bliar is actually going to allow negotiations into this! If it means they will disarm. All I can say is, never in a month of Sundays will the 'opposition' disarm. The PIRA might offer token .303's, but they are only using the name to show they are making the effort. Remember '69, the OIRA did a similar stunt only to re-org under the banner of PIRA. Lest us not forget CIRA, RIRA.
To summarise, NI should not be left to carry on as is. The South doesn’t want it; they on the whole don't give a toss what goes on up there. If we 'pull out', it will be left to be ruled by a bunch of crim's.
We need an election that votes in someone who gives a toss about what is going on around the Bazaars, not some lily livered 'Yes' man who has a cute smile and considers himself a 'new man'. Is it right that half his cabinet prefer the intimate company of blokes. NO...........I will shortly become a minority (cut to thread 'Happy F3 guys').
Here endeth the lesson. (Bring back Maggie, I could live with the poll tax compared to the pile of ****e we are in now!!!!!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wholigan
First off I have to agree with the FI point. The level of manning and commitment down there is bordering on the paranoid. I think HMG may be gambling on the future possible mineral resources down there that are, at present, not commercially viable. At the same time the locals get a warm fuzzy feeling from some military presence. All this does not, as you say, justify our maintaining Defcon 2 down there. A definite source of savings then. However, show me one politician that will have the cojones to be the first to take an axe to the commitment down there (although it is a prime candidate for cuts-by-stealth - no one would probably ever know) and then weather the media storm that follows.
The Gulf region is, however, a slightly different kettle of fish. We in the West are fairly, oh go on then, totally dependent on that which flows from the Gulf: Oil. Far be it from me to suggest that we fought a war over oil - although so what if we did? It pretty much forms the basis of the western economies, not to put too fine a point on it: OPEC has a wendy, puts $1 on the price of a barrel of crude, and all hell breaks loose. I'd suggest that the maintenance of a UK military presence in the Gulf region a) helps defend our allies (from threats tangible or otherwise) and b) helps us keep a foothold in the region and maintain a little leverage in matters politico-economic.
The Balkans? Europe's back yard sadly and if we, the UK, want to be a player within Europe and prevent a recurrence of history then we have to turn up to this sort of thing. We've done the Mr-Chamberlain-Herr-Hitler-piece of paper-head-up-derriere thing once. I'd suggest we don't repeat it.
Sierra Leone? As the former colonial power and, if you go back far enough, the possible progenitor of some of the trouble there I personally feel we again have a duty to offer assistance to this beleaguered state. If we hadn't done something we would have found ourselves, in a couple of years time, going through all the hand wringing that has gone on recently over the UN's and the West's flaccidity over the genocide in Rwanda.
Northern Ireland? Well, what can you do? A hot potato that I don't want to pick up suffice it to say we're stuck with it and can only hope, for everyone's sake, that something good comes of the peace process.
So where does that leave us then? It kind of leaves us with a series of ultimately justifiable deployments of the UK military around the world. I know in previous posts I've suggested we're not a superpower and aren't the world's policeman but I do also feel that the Defence of the United Kingdom and her interests goes beyond the Royal Observer Corps counting bombers over Kent.
HMG has to face the fact that decent defence costs money. We're not a business and we don't make profits, at least not in the traditional sense. But, invest in Defence and it pays dividends in many other ways.
I don't believe it is up to us "Indians" to suggest ways of saving money and deciding the thrust of UK foreign and Defence policy. We are the tools through which our "Chiefs" effect UK Foreign and Defence Policy. What we can do, however, is to flag up to our Chiefs and HMG (and the taxpayer) just quite how run down the military has become and how it won't be long before we won't be able to carry out that which is being asked of us.
PS. Nukes. I'm afraid I'm of the "talk softly and carry a big stick brigade" here. They do a consume a lot of money but I don't believe the world is a stable enough place for members of the UN Security Council to go ditching their deterrents. No one believes that there will be a shooting war involving us or the USA nuking some rogue state but then of course WWI was The Great War, The War To End All Wars wasn't it? Hmmm.
First off I have to agree with the FI point. The level of manning and commitment down there is bordering on the paranoid. I think HMG may be gambling on the future possible mineral resources down there that are, at present, not commercially viable. At the same time the locals get a warm fuzzy feeling from some military presence. All this does not, as you say, justify our maintaining Defcon 2 down there. A definite source of savings then. However, show me one politician that will have the cojones to be the first to take an axe to the commitment down there (although it is a prime candidate for cuts-by-stealth - no one would probably ever know) and then weather the media storm that follows.
The Gulf region is, however, a slightly different kettle of fish. We in the West are fairly, oh go on then, totally dependent on that which flows from the Gulf: Oil. Far be it from me to suggest that we fought a war over oil - although so what if we did? It pretty much forms the basis of the western economies, not to put too fine a point on it: OPEC has a wendy, puts $1 on the price of a barrel of crude, and all hell breaks loose. I'd suggest that the maintenance of a UK military presence in the Gulf region a) helps defend our allies (from threats tangible or otherwise) and b) helps us keep a foothold in the region and maintain a little leverage in matters politico-economic.
The Balkans? Europe's back yard sadly and if we, the UK, want to be a player within Europe and prevent a recurrence of history then we have to turn up to this sort of thing. We've done the Mr-Chamberlain-Herr-Hitler-piece of paper-head-up-derriere thing once. I'd suggest we don't repeat it.
Sierra Leone? As the former colonial power and, if you go back far enough, the possible progenitor of some of the trouble there I personally feel we again have a duty to offer assistance to this beleaguered state. If we hadn't done something we would have found ourselves, in a couple of years time, going through all the hand wringing that has gone on recently over the UN's and the West's flaccidity over the genocide in Rwanda.
Northern Ireland? Well, what can you do? A hot potato that I don't want to pick up suffice it to say we're stuck with it and can only hope, for everyone's sake, that something good comes of the peace process.
So where does that leave us then? It kind of leaves us with a series of ultimately justifiable deployments of the UK military around the world. I know in previous posts I've suggested we're not a superpower and aren't the world's policeman but I do also feel that the Defence of the United Kingdom and her interests goes beyond the Royal Observer Corps counting bombers over Kent.
HMG has to face the fact that decent defence costs money. We're not a business and we don't make profits, at least not in the traditional sense. But, invest in Defence and it pays dividends in many other ways.
I don't believe it is up to us "Indians" to suggest ways of saving money and deciding the thrust of UK foreign and Defence policy. We are the tools through which our "Chiefs" effect UK Foreign and Defence Policy. What we can do, however, is to flag up to our Chiefs and HMG (and the taxpayer) just quite how run down the military has become and how it won't be long before we won't be able to carry out that which is being asked of us.
PS. Nukes. I'm afraid I'm of the "talk softly and carry a big stick brigade" here. They do a consume a lot of money but I don't believe the world is a stable enough place for members of the UN Security Council to go ditching their deterrents. No one believes that there will be a shooting war involving us or the USA nuking some rogue state but then of course WWI was The Great War, The War To End All Wars wasn't it? Hmmm.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is exercising these commitments (perhaps especially the FI) that has led to the warm cosy contented consensus on defence. Worth remembering that no-one now disputes the need for you guys - the arguments are on how to save and spend money.
Apart from his willingness to pull out of the South Atlantic, StopStart illustrates Joe Public's attitude very well. I'd be the last person to do away with the nuclear big-stick - I just question whether Trident isn't too big and too expensive a stick to wave. A few nuke-armed Storm Shadows would be cheaper and just as effective (perhaps even more effective) at deterring the Libya/Iraqi level of threat than a system which is neither independent nor autonomous.
And also worth remembering that if money was spent more wisely, there needn't be this level of overstretch. Dear Geoff under-spent by £300 m this year (tw@t!), while the money wasted by uncompetitive and dumb procurement practises could fund forces big enough to more than meet the existing commitments - and then some.
But I say again, spending well over £2.5 Bn on GR4 (and that's what it will be with smart weapons, their integration, Raptor and the MLFP) is scandalously bad practise, and represents a huge waste of money. Over £1 Bn has already been committed, including the new Main Computer - which gives no synergy with Harrier or Jag, and no upward compatability with Eurofighter either. Smart move, chaps! Tornado is a Good aeroplane being made better, but more could be achieved for so much less. And similar examples could be found in every community in the Forces.
And that's what needs to be put right.
Apart from his willingness to pull out of the South Atlantic, StopStart illustrates Joe Public's attitude very well. I'd be the last person to do away with the nuclear big-stick - I just question whether Trident isn't too big and too expensive a stick to wave. A few nuke-armed Storm Shadows would be cheaper and just as effective (perhaps even more effective) at deterring the Libya/Iraqi level of threat than a system which is neither independent nor autonomous.
And also worth remembering that if money was spent more wisely, there needn't be this level of overstretch. Dear Geoff under-spent by £300 m this year (tw@t!), while the money wasted by uncompetitive and dumb procurement practises could fund forces big enough to more than meet the existing commitments - and then some.
But I say again, spending well over £2.5 Bn on GR4 (and that's what it will be with smart weapons, their integration, Raptor and the MLFP) is scandalously bad practise, and represents a huge waste of money. Over £1 Bn has already been committed, including the new Main Computer - which gives no synergy with Harrier or Jag, and no upward compatability with Eurofighter either. Smart move, chaps! Tornado is a Good aeroplane being made better, but more could be achieved for so much less. And similar examples could be found in every community in the Forces.
And that's what needs to be put right.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I seem to spend my life disagreeing with people lately.
LET’S START WITH THE BALKANS. If they are “in our back yard” then they must be in the LIVING ROOM (or should I say “LEBENSRAUM” – oops – bring back memories?) of Germany, Poland and the Czech republic. They must also be in the BEDROOM AND SHARING THE BED with Italy, Greece, Turkey and Hungary. Also, Denmark, Holland and Belgium have “back yards”. I limit the list to these countries as they are all NATO members, but even more closely involved in the geographic area are other aspiring NATO members, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. I know it would be difficult for these latter countries to get involved without the risk of further expansion of the problem. The peoples of the area, especially in the FRY, have been fighting each other since 1389 (less the time that Tito had control), and we aren’t likely to fix the underlying problem overnight. France wants to take a leading role in Europe and should also be counted as having the Balkans in their back yard/living room. My question is, what is the comparison of percentage contribution to peace in the FRY by all of these countries and the UK?
THE MIDDLE EAST. You say that the oil from this area is vital to the interests of “the West”. My question is: does not “the West” comprise not just the UK and the US, but also Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, (and now effectively) Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and those other aspiring NATO nations? Not to mention all of North America and South America. Again, what is the comparative contribution by these countries in the Middle East? Also, if you argue that it is vital to our interests to protect the oil industry in the area, it must be even more vital to the interests of the countries in the region to protect THEIR OWN OIL INDUSTRIES. They should be able to do it, and – more importantly – they know that we will come to their aid (because we’ve shown that we will) should anything else occur in the future that is outside their combined capabilities --- AND SO DOES SADDAM!!!
This all adds up to my previous question; should the UK learn to come to terms with the fact that we are no longer a Victorian era super power, and don’t have the money or other resources to be the only World policeman that gets involved with everything that happens? I do actually agree that we were morally obliged to help in Sierra Leone, as we probably helped to caused the problem in the first place.
The same argument used in the Middle east above also strengthens the case for reduction of the FI manning – we’ve done it before and will do it again! There are those that say that we no longer have the capability to mount another Falklands campaign but, the British being how they are, ‘where there’s a will there will always be a way’. Furthermore, money saved (together with that saved from the independent nuclear deterrent) could go a long way to producing the new carrier fleet, really giving us an “expeditionary” capability. After all, what would the Falklands be if not an expeditionary campaign.
The “big stick” argument is all very well, but just how big does the stick have to be? How much would a big stick deter a rogue nation that knows that, not only would we not be able to use the big stick on them, but we also don’t have any “little sticks” to use - should they be naughty - because we’ve run out of money, ideas, kit and people??? Maybe you’re right though; maybe we need a small number of air delivered, stand-off “son of W***7s”? Oh God, not back to “Q” again?!?!?!? Does give the FO/FLs a good place and time to do ISS though!!!!
LET’S START WITH THE BALKANS. If they are “in our back yard” then they must be in the LIVING ROOM (or should I say “LEBENSRAUM” – oops – bring back memories?) of Germany, Poland and the Czech republic. They must also be in the BEDROOM AND SHARING THE BED with Italy, Greece, Turkey and Hungary. Also, Denmark, Holland and Belgium have “back yards”. I limit the list to these countries as they are all NATO members, but even more closely involved in the geographic area are other aspiring NATO members, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. I know it would be difficult for these latter countries to get involved without the risk of further expansion of the problem. The peoples of the area, especially in the FRY, have been fighting each other since 1389 (less the time that Tito had control), and we aren’t likely to fix the underlying problem overnight. France wants to take a leading role in Europe and should also be counted as having the Balkans in their back yard/living room. My question is, what is the comparison of percentage contribution to peace in the FRY by all of these countries and the UK?
THE MIDDLE EAST. You say that the oil from this area is vital to the interests of “the West”. My question is: does not “the West” comprise not just the UK and the US, but also Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, (and now effectively) Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and those other aspiring NATO nations? Not to mention all of North America and South America. Again, what is the comparative contribution by these countries in the Middle East? Also, if you argue that it is vital to our interests to protect the oil industry in the area, it must be even more vital to the interests of the countries in the region to protect THEIR OWN OIL INDUSTRIES. They should be able to do it, and – more importantly – they know that we will come to their aid (because we’ve shown that we will) should anything else occur in the future that is outside their combined capabilities --- AND SO DOES SADDAM!!!
This all adds up to my previous question; should the UK learn to come to terms with the fact that we are no longer a Victorian era super power, and don’t have the money or other resources to be the only World policeman that gets involved with everything that happens? I do actually agree that we were morally obliged to help in Sierra Leone, as we probably helped to caused the problem in the first place.
The same argument used in the Middle east above also strengthens the case for reduction of the FI manning – we’ve done it before and will do it again! There are those that say that we no longer have the capability to mount another Falklands campaign but, the British being how they are, ‘where there’s a will there will always be a way’. Furthermore, money saved (together with that saved from the independent nuclear deterrent) could go a long way to producing the new carrier fleet, really giving us an “expeditionary” capability. After all, what would the Falklands be if not an expeditionary campaign.
The “big stick” argument is all very well, but just how big does the stick have to be? How much would a big stick deter a rogue nation that knows that, not only would we not be able to use the big stick on them, but we also don’t have any “little sticks” to use - should they be naughty - because we’ve run out of money, ideas, kit and people??? Maybe you’re right though; maybe we need a small number of air delivered, stand-off “son of W***7s”? Oh God, not back to “Q” again?!?!?!? Does give the FO/FLs a good place and time to do ISS though!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Strimmer,
Having just read this thread from start to finish, I have only two things to say.
First, you have expressed the thoughts of many of us still serving, more eloquently than I could of. For this I give you thanks.
Second, to any of our 'Airships' out there who may be reading this, if you send 'The Word' down that we should not be using this site to express our opinions you will merely serve to prove to many of your operators that you do not listen. Use this opportunity to take forward the ideas and feelings expressed here, by your troops. Pass these up the chain, get in Hoons' face and show him this page, go to the press if you have to. You must save Her Majesty's Armed Forces. I do not say this lightly. If you lead, I will follow. I have done my bit over Kosovo, now you do yours! You have, in all the Services, some of the finest men and women in the country. Do not let us down by ignoring the stark reality that faces us all. To quote one of our cousins from across the pond who has served with us on exchange, we are "the only 3rd World air force not flying F-16s". I am not saying we should buy F-16s, but that in the eyes of the world, we are slipping into obscurity. If you take a stand, we will be with you (or behind you if you prefer(can I say that)). The loyalty is still here, prove it is justified.
Having just read this thread from start to finish, I have only two things to say.
First, you have expressed the thoughts of many of us still serving, more eloquently than I could of. For this I give you thanks.
Second, to any of our 'Airships' out there who may be reading this, if you send 'The Word' down that we should not be using this site to express our opinions you will merely serve to prove to many of your operators that you do not listen. Use this opportunity to take forward the ideas and feelings expressed here, by your troops. Pass these up the chain, get in Hoons' face and show him this page, go to the press if you have to. You must save Her Majesty's Armed Forces. I do not say this lightly. If you lead, I will follow. I have done my bit over Kosovo, now you do yours! You have, in all the Services, some of the finest men and women in the country. Do not let us down by ignoring the stark reality that faces us all. To quote one of our cousins from across the pond who has served with us on exchange, we are "the only 3rd World air force not flying F-16s". I am not saying we should buy F-16s, but that in the eyes of the world, we are slipping into obscurity. If you take a stand, we will be with you (or behind you if you prefer(can I say that)). The loyalty is still here, prove it is justified.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whugelian2
Your arguments seem to centre round the "they're not doing it so why should I?" approach. I'd agree these aren't our problems per se but the argument that no one else is doing anything shouldn't be an argument for us to do nothing.
As regards the Balkans, you answer your own questions as regards the involvement of the "local" states but Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium all made limited contributions, the French do their own thing anyway, the Italians are more than doing their bit allowing the basing of allied forces in their country (against a fair degree of public protest) as well as accommodating the oodles of refugees that paddle across the Adriatic every day. Those states hoping to join NATO are still quite closely bordered by Russia, an unpredictable state at the best of times) and would have their own security (internal and external) to consider before getting involved heavily against Serbia. Heavy involvement of German Armed forces would (and did a bit) cause a stir given their past history. I think we'll see more of the German armed forces out and about in the future though. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of a Federal Europe but as things go that way we need to ensure our position within Europe. We won't do that by peering at regional turmoil (plus the odd bit of genocide) from behind our net curtains. At the same time we're (Europe) not going to be able to rely on the USA to always come to our assistance in the future and, as George Robertson said, the countries of Europe need to start investing properly in their defence and stop hiding behind the efforts of others.
You apply the same argument to the Gulf. I'd reiterate my response as well as adding that we are, to be blunt, currying favour in the region with our presence there. Islamic fundamentalism is bubbling away quite nicely in Saudi Arabia and parts there about. I'd suggest again that the maintenance of a Western presence in region does more than stop Saddam invading Kuwait again (which, of course, he'd not do anyway). As aside, one could also argue that as the Kuwaiti state was pretty much another product of British Colonialism that we may have a slight responsibility there too. As for the rest of the West doing nothing - I suppose we could join them on the sidelines and then when it all goes pear-shaped we could join them in asking why nobody did anything to prevent it happening? Hmmm.
Yes, we're not a colonial superpower/world policeman, I agree, but then I don't believe that we should just call it quits and stick our heads in the sand. We have a "duty" (wrong word) as a member of the UN security Council to provide some sort of lead in matters of regional security. We can't afford financially to have the huge standing armies, fleets and air forces of the past but at the same time I don't believe we can afford politically or perhaps morally to kick it all into touch and join those other countries who choose to do nothing but sit by and mutter about how "terrible it all is" and how "someone should do something" from the sidelines.
This isn't meant in a tub-thumping, flag waving, isn't-Britain-great kind of way but more as the expression of my opinion that the defence of the UK doesn't end of at Lands End and that the Defence issue cannot be dealt with in isolation from politics and economics. They all affect one another which is something our politicians could probably take note of before they run us down any further
PS. I do agree with your points on the FI as well as those on the size of our nuclear weaponry.
Your arguments seem to centre round the "they're not doing it so why should I?" approach. I'd agree these aren't our problems per se but the argument that no one else is doing anything shouldn't be an argument for us to do nothing.
As regards the Balkans, you answer your own questions as regards the involvement of the "local" states but Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium all made limited contributions, the French do their own thing anyway, the Italians are more than doing their bit allowing the basing of allied forces in their country (against a fair degree of public protest) as well as accommodating the oodles of refugees that paddle across the Adriatic every day. Those states hoping to join NATO are still quite closely bordered by Russia, an unpredictable state at the best of times) and would have their own security (internal and external) to consider before getting involved heavily against Serbia. Heavy involvement of German Armed forces would (and did a bit) cause a stir given their past history. I think we'll see more of the German armed forces out and about in the future though. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of a Federal Europe but as things go that way we need to ensure our position within Europe. We won't do that by peering at regional turmoil (plus the odd bit of genocide) from behind our net curtains. At the same time we're (Europe) not going to be able to rely on the USA to always come to our assistance in the future and, as George Robertson said, the countries of Europe need to start investing properly in their defence and stop hiding behind the efforts of others.
You apply the same argument to the Gulf. I'd reiterate my response as well as adding that we are, to be blunt, currying favour in the region with our presence there. Islamic fundamentalism is bubbling away quite nicely in Saudi Arabia and parts there about. I'd suggest again that the maintenance of a Western presence in region does more than stop Saddam invading Kuwait again (which, of course, he'd not do anyway). As aside, one could also argue that as the Kuwaiti state was pretty much another product of British Colonialism that we may have a slight responsibility there too. As for the rest of the West doing nothing - I suppose we could join them on the sidelines and then when it all goes pear-shaped we could join them in asking why nobody did anything to prevent it happening? Hmmm.
Yes, we're not a colonial superpower/world policeman, I agree, but then I don't believe that we should just call it quits and stick our heads in the sand. We have a "duty" (wrong word) as a member of the UN security Council to provide some sort of lead in matters of regional security. We can't afford financially to have the huge standing armies, fleets and air forces of the past but at the same time I don't believe we can afford politically or perhaps morally to kick it all into touch and join those other countries who choose to do nothing but sit by and mutter about how "terrible it all is" and how "someone should do something" from the sidelines.
This isn't meant in a tub-thumping, flag waving, isn't-Britain-great kind of way but more as the expression of my opinion that the defence of the UK doesn't end of at Lands End and that the Defence issue cannot be dealt with in isolation from politics and economics. They all affect one another which is something our politicians could probably take note of before they run us down any further
PS. I do agree with your points on the FI as well as those on the size of our nuclear weaponry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't believe that I said anywhere that we should do nothing. The thread of my argument is that we should do less, for many reasons. The best way for that to happen is for the British Government to use its influence to pressure other NATO/European states to do more. The load should be shared more equitably amongst those who benefit from the work done. If we follow your logic and simply carry on the way we are doing, the rate of people leaving will increase, the rate of use of our transport fleet will mean they break before their time, and all our money will be spent doing something that may or may not be of any use in the future. As I said, we aren't going to change attitudes embedded in the psyche since 1389 simply by putting some troops in the area to keep them apart for a few years. The whole thought process of the region's people needs to be changed to make them realise that economic recovery and living together - if not in harmony then in tolerance - is the only way forward for the betterment of them all. We will not do that militarily. So, even if others do not help, we still need to re-assess the size of our contributions (as The Misstress and Wifeof will tell you "size isn't everything"). The probability is that, by trying to do everything all the time, we risk not being able to do anything downstream.
As for stopping religious "fundamentalism" (which is, in fact, a common mis-use of a phrase as any Muslem will tell you - "fundamental" is good, "terrorism" is bad), ask the USA and the Shah how much good military might was at the time of his overthrow.
As for stopping religious "fundamentalism" (which is, in fact, a common mis-use of a phrase as any Muslem will tell you - "fundamental" is good, "terrorism" is bad), ask the USA and the Shah how much good military might was at the time of his overthrow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My good friend from Canada has been at it again! This time he has gone straight to the top. Once again, I have put in a few dots to "protect the innocent". I'm sure he wouldn't mind people knowing who he is, but it's not my place to tell them. I've - in fact - just told him about this site, so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't "come clean" on here and start contributing himself. Wnatever happens, I bet we get more people on from Canada in the very near future.
Here goes - direct quote ---The Right Honourable Jean Chretien June 13, 2000
Houses of Parliament, Ottawa
Dear Mr. Chretien:
I am moved to write this letter out of deep concern for an institution, which I served loyally and with enthusiasm for over thirty years, the Canadian Air Force. I think that my remarks are probably equally applicable to the Army and the Navy. I don’t expect that you will understand or appreciate many of the things I will address, but I thought I might as well go right to the top. I will be sending copies of this letter to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chief of the Air Staff and a number of like-minded retired officers who share and have expressed the same concerns.
The specific impetus for this letter was provided by what I, and many others, consider the appalling treatment of an outstanding officer, Colonel .......... of .................. He has been charged by the National Investigative Service (NIS) over a childish prank gone awry. He did not perpetrate the incident, but the NIS has decided that his attempts to use common sense in the aftermath constituted serious criminal activity, as is their mandate to investigate. The charges are absurd and I have no doubt that .............. will beat them at his day in court. Regrettably, he has already been convicted in the media, with help from such military rejects and malcontents as Scott Taylor. I hope that it does not come to pass, but ............... may have already been removed from his position. This would seem a trifle odd, when convicted felons still hold seats in the House of Commons and the Senate, while the wheels of justice grind on.
................. has an exemplary record as a fighter pilot and a leader. He is skilled in the air and commands respect and admiration on the ground. He has devoted his life to the Air Force and has given Canada some great moments. He was part of Canada’s best known and most effective ambassadors, the Snowbirds. You proudly shook his hand in the House of Commons after he led Team Canada to a first-ever victory at William Tell in 1996. He is the kind of leader that the military should be grooming; but they are being driven out, instead. Many fine officers and enlisted personnel have left early and many, many more will leave. To be sure, there are still many fine people at all levels in the Canadian Forces, but they are questioning the future. While the NIS is not to blame for this, they are playing a part and I strongly believe that they are out of control. They exceed their mandate of investigating serious criminal activity by engaging in witch hunts, until they can manufacture a crime. They appear to be accountable to no one and can circumvent the chain of command at will. I have worked with many fine individuals in that trade and have had them under my command. It is a fact, however, that there is a certain number who find Nirvana when they can pin something on an officer, especially a senior officer, and most especially an aviator. I think that their conduct on many issues is inappropriate and I feel that their role and mandate should be re-evaluated.
While ...............'s case troubles me deeply, it is only symptomatic of a disease that threatens the long-term health of the Air Force and, probably, the entire Canadian Forces.
-2-
It is the plague of political correctness and it has completely stifled the essential spirit that gave Billy Bishop the ‘courage of the early morning’; inspired the ‘few’ of the Battle of Britain; made Sabre pilots the rulers of the air in Europe; won tactical air competitions in the Starfighter era; made our CF-18 squadrons the most capable fighter operation in NATO; won William Tell; put our Air Force at the forefront of success in the Gulf and Kosovo; and motivated the countless transport, maritime and helicopter operations that have earned us worldwide respect. I spend a lot of time talking to military personnel of all ranks and I sense that they are losing respect for themselves and are becoming exceedingly disillusioned with the institution. What is happening to .............., and has happened to others, effectively kills aspirations of leadership among many fine candidates. People see little reward and unlimited liability.
There is no tolerance of spirit in the military and the low state of morale is testament to that fact. No one can condone causing injury or willful damage, but leaders used to be trusted to deal with those who caused it. That trust is gone. During my service from 1964 until 1994, I was blessed with leaders of vision, courage and humour. I tried to pattern myself after them and I believe that I was reasonably successful. They were men who worked hard and played hard. They weren’t afraid to drive a jeep into the mess on Friday night. They weren’t afraid to sing songs that had inspired their predecessors in previous wars. They weren’t afraid to play what, to the outside world, would seem like silly bar games. The outside world would never tolerate being asked to do the distasteful things that militaries must do and what they think of such activities should be irrelevant. They weren’t afraid to stick their necks out for their people. They weren’t afraid to fly that extra trip in the middle of the night to get a ground crew home to a dying parent. They weren’t afraid to put an arm around the shoulder of a subordinate, male or female, in a moment of consolation or congratulation. They weren’t afraid to offer praise or rebuke, as the situation dictated. They weren’t afraid to shed a tear and even break a brandy glass in the fireplace in salute to a fallen comrade. They weren’t afraid to offer their bosses the wisdom of an ale or three on a Friday night. They weren’t afraid to enforce the standards that made us a world-class organization. They weren’t afraid to be alone in a room with someone, lest they be accused (and be, therefore, guilty) of some crime. I did all these things, and more, and was not unique.
The atmosphere within the military is now one of fear of all of the above, and much more. What is now encouraged and rewarded is being well-educated, multi-lingual, gender-sensitive, politically correct and utterly devoid of spirit and colour. The personnel evaluation system places inordinate emphasis on these attributes, called potential, and not enough on actual job performance. This trend needs to be reversed. I am told that the Canadian public expects more of the military, and that is undoubtedly true. While the potential attributes I just mentioned are very fine and should be encouraged, they have absolutely nothing to do with what the public should ultimately be able to expect. That is that the military will be made up of warriors. Although many people are dedicated to keeping it alive, the warrior spirit is rapidly dying. What happened?
- 3 -
Political correctness happened, inspired by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that no truly civilized nation should need. It has replaced common sense with self-righteous indignation at anything and everything. Anyone can find something to be upset about, if they try. The impact on the military has been disastrous, and this does not apply just to Canada. To try to force the military to be a reflection of society is a concept doomed to rendering it ineffective in fulfilling its most basic mandate. Standards have been lowered in many trades to cater to people who can’t meet the physical or mental challenges of the past. Were past standards too high? Hitler and Hirohito might think so, but I do not. Leaders are not allowed to lead, without fear that anything they do or say may be twisted by someone within their organization or from the outside into a violation of some mythical law.
Mr. Prime Minister, this is not a condemnation of our senior military leadership. They are dedicated, sincere individuals coping with enormous challenges. Their hands are effectively tied by a defence budget, inadequate by any measure; by too many priorities set by too many other government departments; and by political correctness. The recent injection of funds into defence is welcomed and appreciated, but it is much too little and much too late. We are losing capabilities, such as Combat Service Support, that will be replaced by civilian contract and, in many cases, this will prove to be a huge mistake. We are in danger of losing the Snowbirds, and I don’t believe that it is the military playing a game with you, as you have suggested. The Snowbirds are part of our national heritage and, as our best ambassadors (along with the RCMP Musical Ride), should be supported by the nation, from outside the DND budget, if necessary.
Sir, I hope that you read this personally and that you give it some consideration. I would be hard-pressed to find a retired (or serving) officer who wouldn’t agree with much of what I’ve said. The last time I spoke out, I was rewarded with an audit by HRDC. If this letter, which is intended to be a respectful, but very earnest, plea for a re-orientation of defence priorities and a restoration of its spirit, earns me the same reward, so be it. As a retired Lieutenant-Colonel, as the Honourary President of .......... Group of the Air Force Association of Canada, as the current Honourary Colonel of ... Combat Support Squadron at ................ and as a Canadian citizen, I feel it is my duty to the Air Force and to you to bring these matters to your attention. I may stand to be corrected by others and that is a price that I’m prepared to pay.
Good luck to us all and “Per Ardua Ad Astra”.
Respectfully and sincerely,
[This message has been edited for cr**ppy spelling by Wholigan2 (edited 14 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Wholigan2 (edited 14 June 2000).]
Here goes - direct quote ---The Right Honourable Jean Chretien June 13, 2000
Houses of Parliament, Ottawa
Dear Mr. Chretien:
I am moved to write this letter out of deep concern for an institution, which I served loyally and with enthusiasm for over thirty years, the Canadian Air Force. I think that my remarks are probably equally applicable to the Army and the Navy. I don’t expect that you will understand or appreciate many of the things I will address, but I thought I might as well go right to the top. I will be sending copies of this letter to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chief of the Air Staff and a number of like-minded retired officers who share and have expressed the same concerns.
The specific impetus for this letter was provided by what I, and many others, consider the appalling treatment of an outstanding officer, Colonel .......... of .................. He has been charged by the National Investigative Service (NIS) over a childish prank gone awry. He did not perpetrate the incident, but the NIS has decided that his attempts to use common sense in the aftermath constituted serious criminal activity, as is their mandate to investigate. The charges are absurd and I have no doubt that .............. will beat them at his day in court. Regrettably, he has already been convicted in the media, with help from such military rejects and malcontents as Scott Taylor. I hope that it does not come to pass, but ............... may have already been removed from his position. This would seem a trifle odd, when convicted felons still hold seats in the House of Commons and the Senate, while the wheels of justice grind on.
................. has an exemplary record as a fighter pilot and a leader. He is skilled in the air and commands respect and admiration on the ground. He has devoted his life to the Air Force and has given Canada some great moments. He was part of Canada’s best known and most effective ambassadors, the Snowbirds. You proudly shook his hand in the House of Commons after he led Team Canada to a first-ever victory at William Tell in 1996. He is the kind of leader that the military should be grooming; but they are being driven out, instead. Many fine officers and enlisted personnel have left early and many, many more will leave. To be sure, there are still many fine people at all levels in the Canadian Forces, but they are questioning the future. While the NIS is not to blame for this, they are playing a part and I strongly believe that they are out of control. They exceed their mandate of investigating serious criminal activity by engaging in witch hunts, until they can manufacture a crime. They appear to be accountable to no one and can circumvent the chain of command at will. I have worked with many fine individuals in that trade and have had them under my command. It is a fact, however, that there is a certain number who find Nirvana when they can pin something on an officer, especially a senior officer, and most especially an aviator. I think that their conduct on many issues is inappropriate and I feel that their role and mandate should be re-evaluated.
While ...............'s case troubles me deeply, it is only symptomatic of a disease that threatens the long-term health of the Air Force and, probably, the entire Canadian Forces.
-2-
It is the plague of political correctness and it has completely stifled the essential spirit that gave Billy Bishop the ‘courage of the early morning’; inspired the ‘few’ of the Battle of Britain; made Sabre pilots the rulers of the air in Europe; won tactical air competitions in the Starfighter era; made our CF-18 squadrons the most capable fighter operation in NATO; won William Tell; put our Air Force at the forefront of success in the Gulf and Kosovo; and motivated the countless transport, maritime and helicopter operations that have earned us worldwide respect. I spend a lot of time talking to military personnel of all ranks and I sense that they are losing respect for themselves and are becoming exceedingly disillusioned with the institution. What is happening to .............., and has happened to others, effectively kills aspirations of leadership among many fine candidates. People see little reward and unlimited liability.
There is no tolerance of spirit in the military and the low state of morale is testament to that fact. No one can condone causing injury or willful damage, but leaders used to be trusted to deal with those who caused it. That trust is gone. During my service from 1964 until 1994, I was blessed with leaders of vision, courage and humour. I tried to pattern myself after them and I believe that I was reasonably successful. They were men who worked hard and played hard. They weren’t afraid to drive a jeep into the mess on Friday night. They weren’t afraid to sing songs that had inspired their predecessors in previous wars. They weren’t afraid to play what, to the outside world, would seem like silly bar games. The outside world would never tolerate being asked to do the distasteful things that militaries must do and what they think of such activities should be irrelevant. They weren’t afraid to stick their necks out for their people. They weren’t afraid to fly that extra trip in the middle of the night to get a ground crew home to a dying parent. They weren’t afraid to put an arm around the shoulder of a subordinate, male or female, in a moment of consolation or congratulation. They weren’t afraid to offer praise or rebuke, as the situation dictated. They weren’t afraid to shed a tear and even break a brandy glass in the fireplace in salute to a fallen comrade. They weren’t afraid to offer their bosses the wisdom of an ale or three on a Friday night. They weren’t afraid to enforce the standards that made us a world-class organization. They weren’t afraid to be alone in a room with someone, lest they be accused (and be, therefore, guilty) of some crime. I did all these things, and more, and was not unique.
The atmosphere within the military is now one of fear of all of the above, and much more. What is now encouraged and rewarded is being well-educated, multi-lingual, gender-sensitive, politically correct and utterly devoid of spirit and colour. The personnel evaluation system places inordinate emphasis on these attributes, called potential, and not enough on actual job performance. This trend needs to be reversed. I am told that the Canadian public expects more of the military, and that is undoubtedly true. While the potential attributes I just mentioned are very fine and should be encouraged, they have absolutely nothing to do with what the public should ultimately be able to expect. That is that the military will be made up of warriors. Although many people are dedicated to keeping it alive, the warrior spirit is rapidly dying. What happened?
- 3 -
Political correctness happened, inspired by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that no truly civilized nation should need. It has replaced common sense with self-righteous indignation at anything and everything. Anyone can find something to be upset about, if they try. The impact on the military has been disastrous, and this does not apply just to Canada. To try to force the military to be a reflection of society is a concept doomed to rendering it ineffective in fulfilling its most basic mandate. Standards have been lowered in many trades to cater to people who can’t meet the physical or mental challenges of the past. Were past standards too high? Hitler and Hirohito might think so, but I do not. Leaders are not allowed to lead, without fear that anything they do or say may be twisted by someone within their organization or from the outside into a violation of some mythical law.
Mr. Prime Minister, this is not a condemnation of our senior military leadership. They are dedicated, sincere individuals coping with enormous challenges. Their hands are effectively tied by a defence budget, inadequate by any measure; by too many priorities set by too many other government departments; and by political correctness. The recent injection of funds into defence is welcomed and appreciated, but it is much too little and much too late. We are losing capabilities, such as Combat Service Support, that will be replaced by civilian contract and, in many cases, this will prove to be a huge mistake. We are in danger of losing the Snowbirds, and I don’t believe that it is the military playing a game with you, as you have suggested. The Snowbirds are part of our national heritage and, as our best ambassadors (along with the RCMP Musical Ride), should be supported by the nation, from outside the DND budget, if necessary.
Sir, I hope that you read this personally and that you give it some consideration. I would be hard-pressed to find a retired (or serving) officer who wouldn’t agree with much of what I’ve said. The last time I spoke out, I was rewarded with an audit by HRDC. If this letter, which is intended to be a respectful, but very earnest, plea for a re-orientation of defence priorities and a restoration of its spirit, earns me the same reward, so be it. As a retired Lieutenant-Colonel, as the Honourary President of .......... Group of the Air Force Association of Canada, as the current Honourary Colonel of ... Combat Support Squadron at ................ and as a Canadian citizen, I feel it is my duty to the Air Force and to you to bring these matters to your attention. I may stand to be corrected by others and that is a price that I’m prepared to pay.
Good luck to us all and “Per Ardua Ad Astra”.
Respectfully and sincerely,
[This message has been edited for cr**ppy spelling by Wholigan2 (edited 14 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Wholigan2 (edited 14 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wholigan - I'm not suggesting we carry on as we are. We are all well aware of the strains on the Services at present and the unsustainability of the current levels of tasking. All I was doing was responding to your thoughts on the possible savings that could be made. My point, such as it is, is that we run the risk of ending up in a situation where national policies is being driven by the size of the Armed Forces: not a particularly sensible way of doing business. I believe that the Op examples you quoted are, by and large, justifiable and that rather than bin Ops and tasks, the Government recognize the importance of what we're doing and fund us accordingly. Of course I'm not suggesting we carry on with this level of tasking and this level of funding. Such a suggestion would be crass in the extreme.
As for Fundamentalism, it is the strict adherence to religious beliefs and doctrines (COED). The resultant adjective, fundamentalist, is obviously, one who does the adhering. The "Fundamentalists" were also a group of US Protestants in the early C20 who, among other things, rejected all things scientific and took all things in the Bible literally in a particularly fervent way. Whilst the term has been hijacked of late to use as a blanket description of mid-east terrorists it has also come to refer to that particular brand of corrupted Islam we see in Iran and to a worse extent, Taliban Afghanistan. As for military might "protecting" the Shah of Iran - not entirely relevant. The Shah (installed by the UK during WWII) was overthrown because he ruled in an oppressive and authoritarian way. The people of Iran were thus easily whipped up by the Ayatollahs into religious fervour and revolution. I'm not suggesting that our presence in the Mid-East will prevent revolution. I am however suggesting that it gives increased confidence to the people living there as well as their rulers (whatever you may think of their system of government). This leads to a degree of stability in the region which has got to be a good thing.
And after all that what will the Government actually do? I personally think we're going to see a reduction in the size of commitments rather than a reduction in the actual number of commitments. I would that suggest force sizes in the Gulf could be reduced slightly without affecting our standing in the region, we're already seeing a clean (so far) pull out from Sierra Leone, there may be some scope for draw-down in force size in the FRY especially Kosovo as civilian infrastructure is put in place and finally DefCon 2 in the FI will be raised to DefCon 1 following the sighting of an Argentinian fishing boat 300 miles off the coast.
PS. Wholigan, your Canadian mate rocks! You want to copy that to the Rev Blair.
As for Fundamentalism, it is the strict adherence to religious beliefs and doctrines (COED). The resultant adjective, fundamentalist, is obviously, one who does the adhering. The "Fundamentalists" were also a group of US Protestants in the early C20 who, among other things, rejected all things scientific and took all things in the Bible literally in a particularly fervent way. Whilst the term has been hijacked of late to use as a blanket description of mid-east terrorists it has also come to refer to that particular brand of corrupted Islam we see in Iran and to a worse extent, Taliban Afghanistan. As for military might "protecting" the Shah of Iran - not entirely relevant. The Shah (installed by the UK during WWII) was overthrown because he ruled in an oppressive and authoritarian way. The people of Iran were thus easily whipped up by the Ayatollahs into religious fervour and revolution. I'm not suggesting that our presence in the Mid-East will prevent revolution. I am however suggesting that it gives increased confidence to the people living there as well as their rulers (whatever you may think of their system of government). This leads to a degree of stability in the region which has got to be a good thing.
And after all that what will the Government actually do? I personally think we're going to see a reduction in the size of commitments rather than a reduction in the actual number of commitments. I would that suggest force sizes in the Gulf could be reduced slightly without affecting our standing in the region, we're already seeing a clean (so far) pull out from Sierra Leone, there may be some scope for draw-down in force size in the FRY especially Kosovo as civilian infrastructure is put in place and finally DefCon 2 in the FI will be raised to DefCon 1 following the sighting of an Argentinian fishing boat 300 miles off the coast.
PS. Wholigan, your Canadian mate rocks! You want to copy that to the Rev Blair.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is my first post, so please excuse any execution errors!!
The identification of the "State of the Nation" is correct, however, why? This has been a trend for many years. Actually my wife proposed an interesting hypothosis, and it goes like this:
If you were a polititian, and your aim was to reduce the armed forces to a very small defence force. Possibly a force which would fit neatly into a European collaborative force structure, How would you do it? and remain electable. Well you couldn't just slash the forces to the required level, because public opinion would not tollerate that. But, you could progressively down size, to a point of non-sustainabilty, and watch everyone leave "Of their own free will" That way, it wouldn't be your fault, you could blame market forces, airlines, pull factors or pretty much anything. The good news would be that you wouldn't need to buy so many expensive Typhoons, and therefore you could sell them ( Because they are already essentially paid for) at very competative prices or even lease them. Result, the armed forces reduce to a level where they have to go purple, and eventually join with other smaller nations. You save a fortune, to be spent on your next election bribes. But the best bit, is you achieve your aim, you don't get slagged in The SUN, keep your job and everyone thinks you are the Boy for intergrating with Europe ( Without actually signing up for the Euro).
I admit, my wife can be a little cynical, but ask yourself the question " Why is this happening?", not from your perspective, but from the perspective of the people who actually make policy. Far be it for me to suggest that politicos might have hidden agendas!!!
Fly Safe.
[This message has been edited by BinAroundaBit (edited 15 June 2000).]
The identification of the "State of the Nation" is correct, however, why? This has been a trend for many years. Actually my wife proposed an interesting hypothosis, and it goes like this:
If you were a polititian, and your aim was to reduce the armed forces to a very small defence force. Possibly a force which would fit neatly into a European collaborative force structure, How would you do it? and remain electable. Well you couldn't just slash the forces to the required level, because public opinion would not tollerate that. But, you could progressively down size, to a point of non-sustainabilty, and watch everyone leave "Of their own free will" That way, it wouldn't be your fault, you could blame market forces, airlines, pull factors or pretty much anything. The good news would be that you wouldn't need to buy so many expensive Typhoons, and therefore you could sell them ( Because they are already essentially paid for) at very competative prices or even lease them. Result, the armed forces reduce to a level where they have to go purple, and eventually join with other smaller nations. You save a fortune, to be spent on your next election bribes. But the best bit, is you achieve your aim, you don't get slagged in The SUN, keep your job and everyone thinks you are the Boy for intergrating with Europe ( Without actually signing up for the Euro).
I admit, my wife can be a little cynical, but ask yourself the question " Why is this happening?", not from your perspective, but from the perspective of the people who actually make policy. Far be it for me to suggest that politicos might have hidden agendas!!!
Fly Safe.
[This message has been edited by BinAroundaBit (edited 15 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good God, Algy, BinAroundaBit might be right!!
Mr Arbuthnot Hoon-Bliar is a dashed sight cleverer than we thought!
He's been spinning us along all this time and we've fallen into his dastardly trap!
Right chaps, time to rally round the flag. He can't get away with that. We'll show him and get all our mates who have left to join right back again. I know several with their own aircraft, so we can use them against the baddies.
(Your wife might be cynical, but YOU NEVER KNOW!!!)
Mr Arbuthnot Hoon-Bliar is a dashed sight cleverer than we thought!
He's been spinning us along all this time and we've fallen into his dastardly trap!
Right chaps, time to rally round the flag. He can't get away with that. We'll show him and get all our mates who have left to join right back again. I know several with their own aircraft, so we can use them against the baddies.
(Your wife might be cynical, but YOU NEVER KNOW!!!)