Retired top brass speak out against Brown and part-time Browne

Lee Jakeman

I read recently that it costs a million pounds to take a child into care. None of this money goes to the children, or to their parents in the form of counselling. It all gets swallowed up by lawyers and public officials. When you think about it, it means we're spending a BILLION pounds, just to take 1,000 children into care. There's always plenty of money for things like this, but never enough to provide decent care for injured soldiers. It stinks.

C Powell

Of course giving D Browne 2 jobs is an insult to people who are putting their lives on the line. But is Secretary of State for Scotland a real job? How much time can it actually take? Mind you, the same could be said of quite a lot of the other ministerial jobs and, judging by recent events, a large proportion of the public sector as well.

Ruddigore Topsider

Has anyone else noticed that journalists are usually happy to talk of defence 'spending', but always call it 'investment' in health, education etc? There are appallingly glib right-on bumper stickers in the US that say something along the lines of "wouldn't it be great if the schools had all the money they needed and the Pentagon had to hold jumble sales?" In the UK, defence has been relying on the equivalents of jumble-sales for years: regimental associations and the British Legion make good from private donations where central government will not; we borrow our air force and logistics support from the US. Imagine the chaos if those 'little platoons' didn't turn up on parade.

William Norton

Browne's defence, which he didn't quite make on Today, is that Secretary of State for Scotland is a meaningless non-job which takes up practically no time at all. If the Scotland and Wales Offices were shut down we could divert the money saved into the armed forces - not much, but better than another regimental jumble sale.

Gerry Long

I fear it is probably to late for the Armed Forces in real terms regardless of what Government spin says, Defence spending is well below what is needed and has been for at least 10 years. However this Government should not get all the blame, the rot started with Options for Change, the Armed Forces have never recovered for this poorly planned review. The Cold War peace divided was an illusion. At the moment to do what the Army is doing and do it how it should be done the Army requires at least another 2 Brigades [not Battalions] we are talking about 10,000 men, and to do it well and have something in the tank for the unexpected you probably need another 10,00 on top of that just to cover another Foot and Mouth outbreak or Firemans strike let alone another operation/war. We are talking massive investment to do a re-gain after years of neglect.

Peter Atkinson

For men who wouldn't know a mortar from a motor, Blair, Brown and Browne have told us military morale is high. Just like our NHS isn't plagued by poor hygiene and MRSA, our personal details are safe in Gov't hands, and the gap between rich and poor has not widened under New Labour. Perhaps spin doctors could spend a month or two on the front line to give their masters an accurate picture of soldiers' morale and equipment problems. Then again pigs might fly.

John

Lee Jakeman, re: care costs. I used to be principal solicitor to an Inner-London Borough, and did plenty of care work. Lawyers for the children's parents and the children don't get all that dosh: the pay is really very modest, no more than £50k p/a for a partner in a local solicitor's firm. Most work is publicly funded, and that sort of money just ain't available. But private care homes for children in care often charge up to £3,000 per WEEK for the most disturbed / damaged kids. That's where the bulk of the money goes. As for the armed forces, the lack of investment, squalid living conditions and provision for the injured is a disgrace. The MOD just doesn't care.

David Lindsay

Of course the Government is putting our soldiers', sailors' and airmen's lives at unnecessary risk. It is doing so by deploying them in the wholly voluntary, and not remotely defensive, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars which are now lost, but from which it refuses to extricate them. So they should bring themselves back, to be cheered through the streets by the grateful populace, whose liberties they really would be defending by thus, without needing to fire a shot, bringing about the collapse of the ID card-wielding, prolonged detention without charge-mongering Political Class, in whose place proper politicians and parties could then re-emerge. If the next pointless war is to be against Iran, then we should stop bothering to have our own Armed Forces at all. Instead, we should simply conscript our least accomplished 16-year-old boys directly into the Israeli Defence Force. After all, it certainly needs the manpower in a country which now contains hardly anybody except non-Jewish Arabs (the single most common name for newborn boys inside the pre-1967 Israeli borders is now Muhammad), Sephardic Jewish Arabs despised (historically to the point of irradiation) by the Zionist Ashkenazi elite, ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists, Russian Nazis let in by the ridiculous retention of the Law of Return, and peaceniks. If the more-or-less secular Ashknenazi base of Zionism cannot even be bothered to defend in itself by the most basic means of reproducing itself both physically and intellectually, then why should it expect anyone else to defend it by rather more exacting means? And how is a state which is in no sense part of Christendom in any sense part of the West, anyway?

TGF UKIP

And all you Tories can be immensely proud that under Blue Labour Dave and Boy George, the Armed Forces will continue to be underfunded while still more billions are to be chucked down all the bottomless, bureaucratic pits that Brown has overfunded and overstaffed. That no increase in defence spending is indeed core Tory policy has just been confirmed in an interview on the PM programme by James Arbuthnot, Tory Chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee. And an amazing interview it was too, especially if you went back ten years and imagined how an opposition Labour committe chairman might have taken advantage of such an opportunity as was being presented to Arbuthnot. While the Labour guy would have excoriated the Government and pummelled the Tory secretary of state, from Arbuthnot came not only hurdian, olympian detachment with only the mildest of reproofs for Gordon for giving Des two jobs, but a truly ringing and explicit endorsement of Des Browne. Saying, and then repeating, "Des Browne is a good Secretary of State for Defence." How Gordon is going to enjoy regurgitating that at any defence questions at PMQs! Meanwhile, given the Tory intentions to continue to underfund the Armed Forces and Dave's Foreign and Security Policy as set out in his recent speech in Berlin (of all places!) it really is small wonder that Dave is so ostenatiously cold-shouldered by Margaret Thatcher.

Max Kaye

By Golly David Lindsay, something certainly sent you off on a rant. "And how is a state which is in no sense part of Christendom in any sense part of the West, anyway?" Hmmm... tough one. I take it 'David' is a nice 'Christian' name then.

Ancient Briton

It's quite obvious that Gordon Brown is very short of people he can trust to stay under his control. Thus he has to combine departments and double up jobs with faithful lackeys. It's all part of the control freakery which confirms him as being very much Old Labour!

Daniel

If ever there were a time a military coup were needed it is now!!! Great posting from Peter Atkinson.

Nicholas Millman

"What will the wise prince do when he must undertake wars and fight battles? First of all, he will consider how much strength he has or can obtain, how many men are available and how much money. For unless he is well supplied with these two basic elements, it is folly to wage war, for they are necessary to have above all else, especially money." Christine de Pizan (1364–c.1430) in 'The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry'. It was not a wise prince who took us to two wars, nor a wise prince who now presides over their outcomes. Alas, the deadly price for the combined follies of these two unwise princes and their military advisors is being paid by Mr Thomas Atkins and his family.

Jan

Surely, Ruddigore Topsider, it was Blair who changed the word "spending" to "investing"? He so entranced the media that they accepted this and used the word as advised. How many of his "investments" have shown a profit? In any way at all?

R ROSS

I detect a level of frustration in the media that the various commentators and the “Defence Community” itself cannot clarify the issues. Therefore, they could conclude that this is a complaint without foundation. It is frustrating that the retired Generals and Colonels currently commentating cannot make it clear what we are talking about. The Army is suffering from the long-term effects of underfunding and over commitment. These cannot be corrected by short-term investment in equipment – supplied only in the operational theatres. It is true that, as one recently returning officer said, “In theatre we are showered with pearls”. True too that the contingency fund (not the core MoD budget) is paying for the Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs), new weapons vehicles, armour etc – but only In Theatre. Little is supplied for training, preparation or long-term sustainability. The speed of acquisition, the plethora of hastily (haphazardly) supplied equipments, come with no idea how they may be incorporated, maintained and sustained in the long term and brings with it huge organisational and management penalties. On return from theatre the reality of the slack sinews of defence becomes clear. Troops return from the land of feast to the land of famine; to the state of the Army that reflects the long-term and planned (under) investment over a long time. The ability of the Army to maintain, sustain, re-generate its capabilities, recuperate, man and train itself in readiness for the next deployment, is in decline. It is becoming an increasingly difficult act as sticking plaster solutions are placed over sticking plaster solutions. The planned and regulated force generation cycle is degenerating into ad hoc solutions (viz 6 Div and 11 Bde). The faster cycle of operations has limited the time and equipment available for regular core training. Individuals need to attend career courses, weapons skills courses, promotion earning courses etc, just to allow the normal development of skills and abilities and the flow of trained people through the veins of the Army. This is not happening at the required level because they are too busy to be released to attend courses. All of this also presumes that the establishment (planned size and shape) of units is up to the demands of the job. This is not the case. This was fudged – “traded out” in budget rounds. The peace dividend meant that the Army lost manpower. Mike Jackson delivered the “modernisation” of the Infantry. The Army reduced from 150,000 to 100,000 (but are actually now at 98,000) yet at no point did we get the “add-back” of properly organised and established units (fit for purpose) that should have been the quid pro quo (past Generals should acknowledge their failure here). Core equipments like Warrior (not an in-theatre UOR but a core equipment) are breaking down under the increased load and annual track-mileage (usage) far beyond planned levels. The damage to hulls and drive trains means that they will shortly become unserviceable in large numbers – with huge repair bills – (core budget – but unplanned and unfunded). What is clear is that the Army is being used up. If this goes on it will eventually break. The long term health, welfare, equipment, sustainability, training and nurturing are being sacrificed to sustain short-term operational requirements. It is working at the moment, and of course the morale of the fighting men and women is high – they are fighting for their regiments and battalions – that is how the mechanism works. But that is psychology. The physical and material well being of the Army is suffering and its stamina is being sapped – it needs a concerted effort to sustain it if we are to maintain the level of commitment for the period envisaged. To use an analogy; the Army is sprinting for the line. The MoD’s gamble is that we can make it. If the line moves away from us we will collapse exhausted before we get there. Someone needs to make clear that this is the issue and that this is why the Generals are speaking.

Oscar Miller

Margaret Thatcher was actually the one who started to talk about 'investment' rather than 'subsidy'.

John Bull

The blatant lies and "double-speak" of this labour government need no further proving. How any one of them can do other than hang his / her head in shame defies belief. It is a sad indictment of our political system that we are treated to a better form of truth AFTER retiring on full pensions, than we received from our Defence chiefs during their terms of office. Better late than never though. Now, all our Servicemen and women need is for the Ladies and Gentlemen of the Media to take up the fight and batter these apologies for government ministers into reviewing their own positions - unless that is, they immediately undertake to fully support our military NOW - the time for Brown's jolly jam-tomorrow promises is long past - they no longer have any credibility whatsoever.

Nicholas Millman

R Ross - your post is worthy of publication in The Spectator as an article in its own right. I hope we see such an objective exposure by an informed military specialist soon.

Reptonensis

R Ross has written an excellent piece. For the simpletons of the government it could be summed up by the often heard phrase in the forces: train hard, fight easy. I read today that performance of miltary vehicles may be limited in order to conform to EU emissions legislation. What next? A limit on the quatity of lead in bullets? Mr Brown G (for Gollum?) may tell us that Defence spending has been increased, but it is well known that is due to big projects such as Eurofighter and the RNs carriers. Spending on existing assets seems to have been frozen or reduced. As for whether Mr Brown D should have one or two jobs, it would only make a difference if anyone thought that he could do one properly.