Army boss admits that Britain's problems in Iraq came from a lack of troops on the ground

Vulture

Absolutely agree, James. As a first step, cannot Gen. Dannatt be persuaded to take his tanks on to the Whitehall lawns and effect a little regime change closer to home than the ones Nu Liebour are so keen on.

Michael

I joined the RAF in 1954 and retired in 1994. We have never tailored our ambitions to the force we can afford or properly resourced the undertakings we have committed ourselves to. We don't even discuss how this might be done. How about converting the Iraq enquiry into one into the Afghan adventure?

Chris lancashire

Surely we should recognise that this is not the days of the Raj and become "a peace-keeping nation". Let us stop pretending we are a world power, stop being a spear carrier in a crazy US led war and follow in the path of most sane European nations.
Defend the UK yes, strut and posture with inadequately equipped forces - no.

Dewi

"risks repeating" ? Surely it's already happening in Afghanistan.

vj

And we needed a multi billion pound new MOD HQ ...why?

Jean Baker

Who knows the true reason Britain was taken to war on the basis of an alleged lie ?

Sadam Hussein's alleged brutality failed to change the hearts and minds of his opponents. Likewise the brutality inflicted on Iraq since his 'ousting' by US & British troops was doomed to fail.

Wise statesmen always consider the last step in a war before taking the first .....

Would Bliar or Bush have been willing to despatch their own children to the front line ?

Moraymint

This is not rocket science of course.

The Labour Party has always been the UK political enemy of all things defence and security. The irony is that Tony Blair, a Labour politician (is/was he ever really a Labour politician?), took the UK to war all over the place ... primarily to satisfy his over-developed ego. Meantime, behind the scenes, that old unreconstructed socialist Gordon Brown was screwing the armed forces for all they were (and are) worth.

The disastrous condition of our our defence and security services today is primarily a direct outcome of 12 years of Gordon Brown's disdain for these services.

It'll take a long time and a lot of money to recover the capability of the UK's armed forces. Pity that, under Labour, we've once again run out of money, so it's difficult to see the UK maintaining any credibility on the world stage in terms of power projection.

Bring the troops home and let's focus on keeping the UK solvent. There's a high likelihood that we're going to need servicemen on our own streets in the next decade or so, for one reason or another.

Ivan D

Our operation in Iraq didn't fail. Assuming, that is, our operation in Iraq was to do what we claimed at the time it was for: getting rid of the dictator Saddam. If, however, our operation was in fact intended to make Iraq Anew, then the failure was that of common sense, and thus of sending the troops in in the first place. I can see why people as unrepentently dim on this score as Forsyth trot out all the usual tame, Quisling stuff viz the US: as ever Spectator readers will plump with their comments in the opposite direction. Good for them. And thank God we got out with such elan. Who, after all, would rather that we were still there with the cousins, pushing still more water ever further up hill? Well, James obviously, but 'nuff said.

PSJ

I am amazed that the scandal of NuLab's disdain for our armed forces, at the time when it has used them more than at any time since 1945, is not the biggest issue in our political debate.

Serving soldiers seem far more reluctant than, say, teachers, to say in public what many of them have said to me in private: that the Government do not understand the armed forces, are unfit to be in charge of them, and have done damage to them that it will take decades to repair, assuming of course that the next lot are any better.

The ethos of the military, including selfless service to the country for barely adequate salaries, bravery under fire and rigorous discipline, clear definition of missions and avoidance of mission creep could hardly be more alien, indeed incomprehensible, to NuLab's public services, with their six figure salaries for incompetent managers, their wasteful funding of diversity training and legions of press officers and their always-missed targets.

Impeach Gordon Brown now.

Jonathan Cook

Just take one look at the FT's "state of Britain".

Nobody can convince me that we can't reduce Social Protection expenditure sufficiently to fund our armed forces.

People have been killed in the governments name. The least they could do is pay for the tools for the job. Redacted expenses anyone?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8278a416-5f74-11de-93d1-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Lee Hannaford

Even though I am no NuLab fan I believe the money is there. It is just not being spent properly. For example £135 Million pounds spent on FRES for Piranha V and nothing to show.
£400 million spent on the FRES predecessor Boxer and nothing to show.
Type 45 £1.5 Billion overspend, 6 ships instead of 12 and a platform that will not have it primary weapon system until 2011, 2 years after acceptance. We will be in possession of the world’s most expensive gun boat.
Vector, an armoured vehicle that the user did not want but was forced upon because the factory that made it needed to be kept open. Now admitted by the MoD to be not the best choice they have ever made. Ah, that's nice. I am sure the boys on the ground thought that too.
£150 Million spent on project Beldevier to reduce the number of bases for the helicopter forces to find out that the best solution is the one in place.
Are we all adding up the numbers so far?
£1.5 Billion overspend on Astute submarine that were costed at £300 million a piece. The first one to cost over £1 Billion.
£100 million on MARS to find it cancelled due to budget restraints.
£2.1 Billion on 21-18-13-9 Nimrod MRA4's making it £233 million per aircraft.
£1 Billion on future Lynx for 70-62 helicopters, that is £16 million per helicopter. You can get a NH90 for less.
Countless other projects that the Public Accounts and Defence committees have raised issues about. And how does the MoD deflect the argument, simple. Well that was before SMART procurement etc, procedures have been improved and lessons have been learned.
Who has been punished for these issues? No one. Those project managers are now today’s senior managers presiding over the system that they hold dear, the system that protects them from actually having to achieve anything, activity is everything. If you don't believe me go to Abbey Wood and see the cranes that are building more office accommodation to generate more activity and spend more money. The money is there to be spent. It is just how it is spent.
And it is just not DE&S that are at fault. Just look at the service chiefs pontificating, trying to protect their services when their job should be the adequate provision of fighting men and equipment to the front line. There is no Tomahawk cruise missile system on the Type 45 because deep strike is an RAF role yet Type 45 is supposed to have a multi role capability and has been designed but not fitted with those missiles. But because it was potentially treading on someone else’s "turf" it was not done. Whilst these tribal battles go on the troops on the ground, the "user", gets equipment rapidly brought into service. Equipment at a higher cost because poor planning, procurement and inter service rivalry is more important than actually delivering what is needed. Privatise the procurement part of the monolith that is DE&S and get people in that actually know what they are doing and by that people that actually practice procurement and project management - not take a 1 week course and pass an exam.

bill

The Tories are not entirely blameless. With the end of the Cold War they happily bought into the end of history peace dividend when any Tory worth his salt should have been emphasising that nature abhors a vacuum and instead of large cuts there should have been reconfiguration. But as has been already noted Labour went one better: off to war and without proper funding.

Voice of Reason

Lee Hannaford hits the nail firmly on the head.

I would add to that £5 billion for two aircraft carrier that are designed to carry an as yet unworkable aircraft (F-35B) that is the least effective of the 3 variants being produced and will cost £10 Billion + to buy in sufficent numbers and will have no effective AEW capability.

It would be laughable if it wasn't putting servicemen and women in danger.

Lee Hannaford

Voice of Reason. The carrier issue is all about politics. Does the Royal Navy want the carriers? Yes. Do they want F-35B? Probably not, they would rather have the CTOL version that would give the range, load carry and swing role that has been missing since the demise of the strike carrier in 1979. Now comes the politics. In the 1970's the RAF were adamant in getting rid of the RN Fleet Air Arm fixed wing force stating that they could cover the Fleet from land bases and that there was no need anymore. Come forward 30 years and nothing has changed as you can see from ACM Torpy's comments in the Telegraph. So you have the same compromise again as you did in the 80's. VSTOL - providing the RAF with a CAS (Close Air Support) platform and the Royal Navy with some fixed wing cover for the fleet. The RAF have already made it clear that they are now willing to sacrifice the Harrier Force in toto so completing the mission they started in the 70's. The B version also has a lift fan designed and built by Rolls Royce. Derby based, marginal seats, secure technology etc. In conclusion to make the aircraft carrier a credible force you need at least 36 fixed wing combat aircraft at roughly £65 million per unit, which comes to £2.34 Billion per air group in capital costs. 2 aircraft carriers so double that and training and losses so add another 36-40. You are looking at capital costs of at least £6.5 Billion and remember the F-35B is the most expensive too. Very complicated that lift fan you see. So we get our aircraft (VSTOL) now we have to find an AEW or ASACS platform to provide that all important bigger picture. If we had the CTOL version and a nice catapult on the carrier then the E-2 Hawkeye would fit the bill quite nicely. However as we don't then a hybrid has to be found, designed and built. At present we use the Sea King Mk7 ASACS to provide the coverage. So what to replace it? At present that debate has been put off until we can afford it.

I think the golf bag analogy goes best with the carriers. If you don't have all the clubs in the bag you can still play golf. But not very well. And by playing not very well in this game lives are in danger.

TGF UKIP

I note that Mr Forsyth cannot bring himself to point out that in today's Tory Party (perhaps the Hilton/Cameron Green Party is a more accurate description) "International Development" has been elevated above the armed forces as a spending priority.

nonentity

Gosh. I never realized our army chiefs looked so Russian.

egh

vj@10:31 a.m. "And we needed a multi billion pound new MOD HQ ...why?"
Oh I think your question's rhetorical! Surely the reason's the same as the foreign looking uniform: the euSSR has its hooks in. Full deployment pending...