This is from MOD Oracle:

Former Navy Chief Attacks MoD

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Source: Ananova



Britain's Armed Forces are in danger of being reduced to a "gendarmerie" incapable of defending the country's interests, the former head of the Royal Navy warned.

Admiral Sir Alan West, who retired as First Sea Lord earlier this year, accused the Ministry of Defence of acting like "these tinpot countries" which failed to invest in major military equipment programmes.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph he warned that the reshaping of the Armed Forces to wage anti-terror operations in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan could be jeopardising Britain's long term security.

"That way is a recipe for disaster for a defence force that has to do all the things that Britain may have to do in the next 50 years," he said.

In ten years time, he said, the country could find itself confronted by a threat "far more dangerous than terrorism in central Asia".

"All we could be left with are an Armed Forces that are effectively a gendarmerie. And I suppose we would retire to our island and hope no one gets to us," he said.

Sir Alan expressed concern that the MoD could be preparing to axe the Royal Navy's two planned new aircraft carriers.

"The carrier programme is the jewel in the crown of the strategic defence review. Yet there are officials within the MoD who are casting lascivious looks at it," he said.

"There is no doubt that the rats are out there having a nibble. If Britain wants to remain a world power and to operate with a deal of freedom around the world, these two carriers are vital."

Sir Alan is the latest senior military figure to speak out about the state of the Armed Forces after both the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, and his immediate predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson, voiced their concerns.


One would hope that someone in Whitehall would start to take notice but I won't be holding my breath. OC.

Faugh-a-ballagh

There is this to back up the previous post. I expect where the weasel Blair is concerned it will all fall on deaf ears.



Back troops, says UK Iraq General
The head of British forces in southern Iraq has called for national support for soldiers serving in the country.

Issues such as underfunding had to be addressed to maintain their quality of work, Maj Gen Richard Shirreff said.

His comments came after an interviewer said many soldiers had complained of "running on empty" in Iraq. The MoD said spending had risen steadily.

Meanwhile, seven British soldiers on patrol in northern Basra suffered minor injuries when a roadside bomb exploded.

'Relative neglect'

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said there had been "a number" of armoured vehicles in the patrol when an improvised explosive device exploded.

She said the injured were checked over by medics, but nobody was admitted to hospital.

In his comments to the BBC, Maj Gen Shirreff said: "The nation needs to understand that the quality work done by these courageous men and women out here only happens and can only continue if... our soldiers are properly supported back home in terms of the support for training, infrastructure, barracks, accommodation."


This is Iraq, this is Arabia and this is reality, so a 60% solution is good enough for me
Major General Richard Shirreff

"Some of these issues need solving," he said, adding that many were "the result of a generation of underfunding and relative neglect".

However, Maj Gen Shirreff made it clear that he felt the problems related to a general malaise, rather than ones relating to governance.

"I don't blame any particular party or government, I think this is a general issue," he said.

"There's a whole range of areas - it's not just the sharp end here."

Maj Gen Shirreff referred to a "military covenant between the nation and its soldiers", which he said was now "seriously out of kilter".

'Completely unrepentant'

And, suggesting that British ambitions in Iraq had been scaled back, he went on: "Clearly I would love a 100% solution.

"When I came up here and initiated the operations we have been conducting, I was looking for a 100% solution.

"But this is Iraq, this is Arabia and this is reality, so a 60% solution is good enough for me."

Maj Gen Shirreff also referred to the demolition of an Iraqi police station as a turning point in the battle with Basra's death squads.

He made it clear that he remained "completely unrepentant" about the Christmas Day operation, despite some criticism from provincial council leaders.


The PM repeatedly assures... the public that the troops have what they need, but we are continuingly told by our military commanders that shortages remain
Liam Fox
Shadow defence secretary

The Ministry of Defence said it had "long recognised" the importance of investing properly in the armed forces at home and abroad.

The defence budget had "steadily risen" by an extra £3.7bn over the last three years, a spokesman said.

He added: "We are constantly investing in new equipment, medical care and accommodation.

"Last year alone, we spent more than £700m on improvements to service housing, announced the introduction of a new £2,240 operational bonus and invested millions more in new equipment, including body armour and armoured vehicles."

'Disingenuous'

But shadow defence secretary Dr Liam Fox said it was time for the government to say "something resembling the truth" about the military's resources.

"The PM repeatedly assures our troops that they can have what they want, assures the public that the troops have what they need, but we are continuingly told by our military commanders that shortages remain," he said.

And Colonel Tim Collins, who was one of the most senior officers in Iraq when the war began in 2003, accused the MoD of being "disingenuous" in arguing defence spending had increased.

Col Collins, who is retired, told the BBC: "Since 2000, before the war on terror officially began, the number of commitments that are facing the army have increased many times over.

"The spending is not keeping pace with what the government requires of the armed forces. It's actually shrinking in real terms."

He added that what Maj Gen Shirreff was highlighting was that "successive governments, in conjunction with senior officers who have collaborated in the reduction in the size of the armed forces, have left the armed forces extremely vulnerable".

Faugh-a-ballagh

Absolutely not!

The Armed Forces leaders have a duty to speak out but, although brave on the battlefield, their pensions appear to be more important.

The monarch has a duty to the troops but has become too stifled by convention. Media claims that the Prince of Wales should not get involved in politics support this. The monarch and heir are supposed to be political - just not PARTY political.

The media - Sod them! Who decided that they were an "Estate" anyway? They are (with some exclusions [Jack, I include you in this exclusion]) harlots who sell their pen to the highest bidder. One may with some fair basis accept that they (and some harlots) have little control since they need the money.

The people. There is the rub! Do they have cars, TV, mobile 'phones. computers, health care, warm houses, food and a few beers? Yes. So who cares about Tommy? One day we will suffer a massive defeat and these same people, with the democratic right to vote, will shout long and hard, demanding to know who is to blame. In the end, it is they.

'In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph he warned that the reshaping of the Armed Forces to wage anti-terror operations in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan could be jeopardising Britain's long term security.

"That way is a recipe for disaster for a defence force that has to do all the things that Britain may have to do in the next 50 years," he said.'

Who am I to argue with a 1st Sea Lord? Well I'll give it a shot. Firstly his concerns have arisen because of the latest round or projected/anticipated cuts to Defence spending. In a break from previous Defence cuts where each service took an equal cut, this time there seems to be a focus on cutting back areas less in demand at the moment regardless of which uniform it wears.

Is this short sighted? Well yes, BUT if we are going to have to tighten belts than I'd rather those belts belong around the flared trousers of jolly Jack Tars who are not being used at anywhere near the rate as Tommy Atkins.

The problem with building up forces to fight the wars we MAY fight over the next 50 years is that you overlook the wars that we actually ARE fighting this very moment. It may be that the received wisdom decrees that an investment to counter future threats to our nation takes priority over equipping/training/supporting soldiers and marines who are currently fighting (and dying!)in wars that are, if we're honest, not of national survival. Having been on the grunt end in one of those wars (and likely to end up in the other by the tail end of 2007) I feel somewhat put out by being superceded by the needs of future Carrier commanders, BUT I can see the logic (even if I don't agree with it).

Yes it would be nice to have all the money that was required to do all the things we want, but when was that ever the case? I'm reading at the moment a book by Dominic Sandbrooke called "White Heat" about the Wilson government (first time round) 1964-70. It intricately describes how a Cabinet of very smart people inherited a bad economy and just continued to screw things up despite all their intelligence and industry. The thing that stands out for me was that the best of the whole lot was Dennis Healey, the then Sec. of State for Defence, who was habitually having to suffer cuts Defence spending to alleviate the economic mismanagement of his colleagues. I wonder how much of that goes on today still?
Regards

Jack

What we require is a sensible defence budget based on our requirements and not on the requirements of the shiny arses in the Treasury. Our army and navy are sorely depleted whilst our air force does cannot supply the required transport aircraft.

I believe that the two aircraft carriers should be built and that they should include catapults. Corvettes, frigates, destroyers and submarines should be built to defend our sea lanes and to provide defence to the carriers. We must be ready for anything and not depend on having allies who will fight by our side.

It is interesting to note that piracy at sea has been on a steady increase for the last twenty years or so. Sending those criminals to meet Davy Jones would give the RN something to do.

The reduction of our infantry forces was criminal. It is about time that we paid soldiers their worth and made it worth while to have a long-service career with the Colours. They should be properly equipped and supplied with the support required.

All this is costs money but it is about time our politicians got their priorities right. We embarked on a criminal mission which will have repercussions for decades to come. Preparations and a budget for dealing with those repercussions should be seen as being over and above that projected before we set out on those adventures (which should be amended to a realistic one). Perhaps we could start by reducing our education budget to the level it deserves by it's standards achieved?

This from Mike Rose.



Defence cuts 'put troops at risk'
General Sir Michael Rose, pictured in 1994
Sir Michael said it was "heartening" Army bosses were speaking out
A former British Army commander has accused Tony Blair of putting soldiers at "considerable and quite unnecessary risk" with cuts in defence spending.

General Sir Michael Rose told the Independent on Sunday that despite statements to the contrary troops were not getting the support they should.

The "military ethos" was being undermined by new laws, he said.

But the Ministry of Defence said it recognised the importance of investing in the armed forces.

The ex-Bosnia UN chief's comments come in the wake of calls from the head of British forces in southern Iraq for national support for soldiers serving in the country.


The infantry is the vital combat arm in insurgency warfare, yet manpower has continued to fall
Gen Sir Michael Rose

Issues such as underfunding had to be addressed to maintain their quality of work, Major General Richard Shirreff said, but the Ministry of Defence said spending had risen steadily.

Writing in the paper, Sir Michael said although Defence Secretary Des Browne maintained there had been an increase in spending in the last three years, most had gone on technical programmes such as Trident replacement.

He said: "In the past six years, the prime minister has presided over a near-catastrophic decline in defence spending which has put our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan at considerable and quite unnecessary risk."

"For fighting insurgencies such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq we need rather large numbers of soldiers on the ground, proper protection and tactical mobility, including helicopters," he added.

"The infantry is the vital combat arm in insurgency warfare, yet manpower has continued to fall."

'Blood brother'

He said that it had been "tremendously heartening" for servicemen and women to see senior military "standing up for them" by speaking out about resources.

Health and safety and equal opportunity laws and "risk management" were damaging the military ethos, he said, adding that good command and effective military tactics were better than "imposed civil law".

On President George W Bush and Tony Blair's handling of Iraq, Sir Michael wrote: "They tell us it is the Iraqi government that runs the country.

"This is disgraceful hand-washing. They know, under the Geneva Conventions, they were responsible for the disastrous breakdown of law and order in the country they invaded."

But he said Mr Bush had at least "put his money where his mouth was" by giving resources and support to his troops.

Sir Michael has previously called for Mr Blair to be impeached over Iraq, for going to war on "false grounds".

An MoD spokesman said: "Defence spending has been steadily increasing.

"Last year alone we spent more than £700m on improvements to service housing, announced the introduction of a new £2,240 operational bonus and invested millions more in new equipment, including body armour and armoured vehicles."

Faugh-a-ballagh