Danatt's lobbing grenades at Gordon again.

Gen Dannatt, who is preparing to step down as head of the British army next month, told the BBC it was "critical" to tackle the problem of improvised bombs.

Doing this required more coalition or Afghan personnel to build intelligence, better "overhead surveillance" of Taliban activity and more technical ability to see where they were planting explosives, he said.

"We need more, and that will be a shopping list that I'll bring back," he said.

"If we were to carry on the number of casualties we had last week the people of our own country might say 'hang on, I think this is a price not worth paying'.

"That would be a disaster in strategic terms."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8155101.stm

And the conservatives will pretty readily mop up the political winnings despite Mandy's bbleatings:

Lord Mandelson told the BBC the last thing troops needed was for opposition parties to seek "political advantage" on issues relating to Afghanistan, rather than giving united backing.

I think the Daily Mash has probably go it about right though 🙂

FOR CHRIST'S SAKE JUST BUY SOME HELICOPTERS, SAYS EVERYONE
MINISTERS were last night told to stop dicking about and just buy a load of helicopters, for Christ's sake.

People across Britain said that if helicopters will stop soldiers from being blown up in Afghanistan then ministers should really get some of them and stop being such a bunch of arseholes, all the time.

The government has so far refused demands from senior generals to buy more helicopters, insisting they are even more dangerous than the Taleban because if you don't crouch down they can chop the top of your head off.

But Bill McKay, from Doncaster, said: "When it comes to wars and stuff I'm inclined to go with generals and admirals, rather than some bloke called 'Bob Ainsworth' who spent 20 years as a shop steward in Coventry before deciding to sit around on his fat arse all day spending my money."

The government should not ask the military to do a job and then not provide the equipment / rescources to do it.

We should also be clear as to what job they expect them to do. Can the military say "well if you want us to do that we will need x and y. If you dont give us x and y we cant do it" Its what they ought to do, but probably dont do. They are also probably stubborn and too proud to not attempt it even when ill equiped.

Helicopters or not, we will not turn Afgan into a nice democratic fair society in a million years. Its a medieval fanatically religious corrupt third world anarchy. Women will not get an education let alone fair treatment. Meanwhile the bad guys are camped out in Pakistan.

Its a mess and its going to get worse.

Regardless of whether the fight in the stan is correct, legal or right, if we are going to ask our troops to fight and die as they are in very very tough conditions then they deserve every piece of equipment they ask for to give them a fighting chance (no pun intended).

The issue of helicopters i think is highlighted by the fact that Dannatt on a tour of afgan had to use an American Blackhawk for transport as there wasn't even a British heli availiable for a general…

maybe the government secretly know its not worth spending any more money because we will never acheive our stated goals, if we infact have any actual goals
what a bit of a mess

Meanwhile, Labour ministers are thinking that Dicky Dannatt is "fair game" for some smearing once he retires. Such lovely people…..

it's never been the case, though, that the military have had all of what they needed for their current engagements.

A good deal of the military activity is "making do".

There isn't a shortage of helicopters necessarily. it's a NATO mission, and NATO helicopters are pooled, i.e. if there's an American or Canadian or German one available, it can and should do the job. Same as air support, US aircraft routinely support British troops.

The original mission was to go into areas that weren't overrun with Taliban, encourage re-construction and the rule of law, and spread the good news, instead the military have set up a bunch of bases deep within enemy territory and more or less invited them to take pot shots, which they can do pretty much forever, it's a strategy that can only work with huge numbers of troops…but that doesn't make it the right one. Afghan needs to work because the Afghans want it, not because it's being enforced in a shooting war…

It's harsh but soldiers complaining about being shot at by the enemy and not having the "right" kit is an old old complaint.

Meanwhile, Labour ministers are thinking that Dicky Dannatt is "fair game" for some smearing once he retires. Such lovely people…..

links?

How many years did Russia spend in Afganistan? Why do we think we can do a better job with a smaller amount of troops? Isn't this just a little bit like vietnam? Attempting to remove a vicous minority in a huge country with public and political resolve eroding by the second?

pullback a bit there – this isnt a "what are we doing in stan?" thread. That's already been done to death by people who know far more about it than me (and far less too 🙂 )

How seriously does our government take our military roles and does it reflect the will of the nation?

maybe the government secretly know its not worth spending any more money because we will never acheive our stated goals, if we infact have any actual goals

Don't be so cynical 😉

what a bit of a mess

Have not heard that since my PTI grilled me for failing to do a full remount on the bottom field 😆

Stoner;

Relations between the Chief of the General Staff and the Government hit a new low after senior Labour sources warned the general will be “fair game” for political attacks when he leaves his post at the end of August.

The Daily Mail in particular seems to be getting into a position where it regards any death in theatre as evidence of "betrayal" of our brave boys by a craven government which insists on wasting taxpayers money on hospitals instead of helicopters.

Clearly, there is a very real problem with how you do patrolling on the ground in the face of an insurgency which is much better at blowing up vehicles than it is at winning infantry engagements, so is tending to do that. If "winning hearts and minds" is to be a realistic idea, people in the territory where troops are trying to operate presumably do have to see that there are troops there. They can't just stay in the air, and the theory behind using relatively soft vehicles rather than something that looks suspiciously like a tank presumably has something to do with not intimidating the populace too much.

If that's right, then it seems only sane to conclude that there are always going to be some casualties. Presumably, no matter how much you armour up patrol vehicles etc there will be some way of blowing them up and hurting the troops inside that will look very cost-effective from the enemy's point of view. The United States out-spends most of the rest of the world put together on defence equipment. They do not seem to have found a reliable method of protecting their soldiers from explosions while out on patrol.

It seems to me that a lot of the discussion of this is hampered by not separating out the strands of problems about Afghanistan. It is absolutely de rigeur to remark that our military commitment is futile at best, part of a dishonest conspiracy at worst. We therefore seem to be approaching all casualties as though the lives in question have been wasted to start with, and then finding something to blame in the lack of equipment for good measure. That seems to be the wrong way around of approaching it.

If it is worth being there (and I'm personally happy to accept for these purposes that there are potentially useful things to be done in Afghanistan) then we have to accept that some of our volunteer soldiers are going to die fighting out there. The number can be reduced to some extent, but it cannot be got around that, regardless of expenditure and quality and quantity of equipment and training, there are going to be deaths. That is part and parcel of having one of the very few serious expeditionary armies in the world and being able to exert real military pressure on people thousands of miles away. It costs a lot of money, and it costs lives. How the army goes about its job, and how government supports it to do that can always be changed and improved. It seems to need a tweak at the moment.

hmmm… Balls briefing his mate Will Lewis again?

Certainly seems rather chummy, doesn't it?

The number can be reduced to some extent, but it cannot be got around that, regardless of expenditure and quality and quantity of equipment and training, there are going to be deaths.

I think its the readiness of the media/military PR to hypothecate a given death with a simplified action/use of equipment that makes it easy to point the finger of blame at lack of alternative equipment.

I suspect I don't know enough about army PR, how defence procurement works, how the defence budget gets set and how much of a "revolving door" there is between the top ranks of the army and the boards of companies that sell gear to the army. It would not take appalling cynicism to imagine that a senior general who sparked off a media campaign that resulted in government being forced to buy 20 new helicopters might be quite popular with the makers of helicopters, as well as with the army.

That isn't to say that the procurement of those helicopters would in any sense be a bad thing. But presumably nothing good ever comes the way of a general who states that casualties are inevitable, we are fighting a tough war against a skilled and ruthless enemy, we have plenty of excellent equipment and the main factor in our success or failure will always be the skills and morale of the young men with the rifles.

Stoner – are you implying that the media and political parties overly simplify complex arguments in order to create neat headlines and/or score political points?

Surely not.

US soldiers in the Vietnam War were supplied with cheap watches which were considered "disposable".
I hope that's not the way this Government is going.

Chinooks: Total 40 in fleet
10 in Helmand
29 in Hampshire
8 to be sent to Helmand
1 being used in an exercise

Pumas: 43 in fleet
None in Afghanistan

Merlins:Total 70 in the fleet
None yet in Afghanistan
8 to be sent to Afghanistan

Sea Kings:Total 90 in the fleet
5 in Afghanistan

Apaches:Total 67 in the fleet
8 in Afghanistan

Lynx: Total 176 in the fleet
None in Afghanistan

Gazelles: Total 133 in the fleet
None in Afghanistan

Other:Total 47 in the fleet
None in Afghanistan

Despite my earlier comments about shared mission, I was surprised by these numbers I saw in today's Independent.

Unless the threats now being faced by the Infantry in Afghanistan are totally new, Dannatt should have been making this kind of statement a good while ago. As with most senior servicepeople he appears to have been happy to keep his head down and further his career up until he's on the point of leaving.

At which point he has an apparent Damascean revelation and seems to start taking more of an interest in the welfare of the troops on the ground.

nickc – as I understand it the majority of those fleet craft havent been adapted for afghanistan.

Cut the income of the Taleban by legalising heroin (dispense it through pharmacies to those who need it) and this will compromise their ability to continue fighting. It may also lower our crime rate.

Increase our spending on the war by having cuts in all sorts of government non-essential spending.

If we are fighting a war we should be prepared to provide our troops with the best of everything and if we are not prepared to provide our troops with the best of everything we should not go to war.

Like many people in this country I can look back through our family history and come up with a long list of names of casualties sacrificed in most cases to government reckless callousness to our troops. About time we stopped it.

AndyRT – Member

How many years did Russia spend in Afganistan? Why do we think we can do a better job with a smaller amount of troops? Isn't this just a little bit like vietnam?

This was covered last week, but ultimately comparing whats going on now and what happen with Russia in the 80's, is like comparing apples to stone samples. Unless someone is suppling the Taliban with £1.8 billion dollars a year and access to state of the art weaponry and surveillance. Its nothing like the same.

As for Vietnam comparison at the current rate of troop losses we will need to be in there around another 380 years for us to hit the same number of killed allied troops. So, again no not really the same at all.

Its not so much the absolute size of the defence budget as what we spend it on. Whitehall defence chiefs fight like wildcats to keep their pet projects on track. The 3 most obvious being

1. Trident – regardless of the need for the UK to have a in independent nuclear deterrent, do we really need 4 of these things so that we can always have one floating about in the North Atlantic? Think about that, right now they are out there but the threat is from where exactly? Either scrap the bomb altogether or do as the French do and sling them under aircraft.

2. Aircraft carriers – nice to have but in terms of priorities surely these have to be pushed into the long grass for now.

3. Eurofighter – designed to take on waves of incoming Russian fighters in air-to-air combat. The RAF will tell you how they have been refitted to perform the close air support role but everyone knows it is bullshit. Like driving the Paris-Dakar in a Ferrari, yes you will get there eventually but a Toyota Landcruiser would be a better bet and 25% of the cost.

We need to fight the war that we are in. Bin the above, give the RAF heavy lift choppers and Spectre gunships or A-10s. And sorry but soldiers lives have to be a higher priority than defence sector jobs back in Blighty. We could save a fortune by buying some kit off the shelf. Anyone else in the Infantry in the late 80s/90s? We all wanted Armalites, got stuffed with SA80 because there were jobs to protect at Enfield.

5 Defence Secreteries in 4yrs, nothing is going to change.

5 Defence Secreteries in 4yrs, nothing is going to change.

One of which was a job share and then the incumbent was third or fourth choice. Ainsworth is some jumped up shop steward, nothing more. Certainly not a person with the ability or respect that the armed forces deserve.

Ainsworth is in no way qualified to lead the armed forces of this great little nation of ours. I'm starting to think the Yanks have the right idea, elect a President he picks the best people for the job whether they have been elected for anything or not. Congress is there to hold the executive to account and to analyse legislation and propose its own.

The problem we have is that our MPs are all thinking about their careers, hoping for a nice job in the government so they dont hold No10 to account, you end up with a Cabinet of soul-lees Machiavelian types (Balls) or overpromoted time-servers (Ainsworth).

Can someone actually quantify what is the right/enough kit to do the job?

Surely the whole essence of warfare is that its a tactical arms race, with the winner being the one that out thinks and out manouveres its opponent the most. Thats is why conventional forces cannot deal with guerilla warfare, as the guerllias have little resource and little structure, therefore by their nature are fluid and ever changing. This as opposed to conventional forces with huge structures and massive amounts of capital equipment which are very difficult and expensive to change.

Can't really understand anyone being prat enough to get invovled in it, not like Afganhistans got previous we could learn from or anything!!

Can't really understand anyone being prat enough to get invovled in it, not like Afganhistans got previous we could learn from or anything!!

G for PM! 😀

Those helicopter figures quoted from the Independent are a bit misleading. Fleet numbers doesn't tell what's available for missions, some will not be suitable and substantial numbers will be in various levels of repair or will be attrition reserves.

Pumas – very limited lift in hot conditions.

Merlins – I believe most of those are Navy, not the RAF Support Helicopter variant. A Navy Merlin stuffed full of sonar is no use in Afghanistan.

Sea Kings – Some are RAF SAR, which are not available. The rest are Navy, most of which are either SAR, anti sub or AEW. The RN Commando helicopters are the types out there, and ones remaining need to be retained for RM use elsewhere.

Apache – fire support, which is useful of course but no lift capability. Lifting infantry is what's really needed out there.

Lynx – Many are RN and can't move troops. Of the Army ones, those configured for lift can't lift much, and they're even poorer in hot conditions.

Gazelle – vulnerable, can take 2 passengers at a pinch but aren't suitable for transporting infantry.

Other – Training or comms aircraft, plus a few Special Ops.

More helicopters can be procured, but military crews to operate them will be 3 years downstream, assuming suitable candidates and training facilities can be just switched on. Current aircrew spend quite enough time in operational theatre, sending more UK based helicopters out will just put more strain on that part of the machine.

A lot of the whirley bird fleet needs to be made "High 'n' Hot" ready.

If memory serves, the Merlin is rubbish in hot climates like 'Stan, which is why they are spending money to modify them, although why it is taking so long is a mystery.

Like the six Chinooks with dodgy avionics that we have paid for twice so far… Once to buy, twice to downgrade so that it can fly.

As for the aircraft carriers… Don't get me started. Same with the new frigates that the Navy is buying. What the hell are "we" trying to do here? Carriers are there to project power into a given area. The US can do it because their carriers are huge things that carry enough aircraft to level most small countries. Ours are years away and will carry bugger-all in comparison. For a war like Afganistan they'll be useless, but handy if we want to invade France again.

I agree with the A10/Spectre thought though. There are a few of them at a boneyard in Arizona I reckon I could get for cheap. Get a few likely pilots trained up and buy a load of spares and you'd be sorted. The A10 was (and still is in my mind) the world's best close air support aircraft.

The A10 was (and still is in my mind) the world's best close air support aircraft.

Agree – lovely sight/sound of one opening up the gattling gun overhead on salsibury once 🙂

Incidentally, on the subject of military kit, can anyone tell me why we bought the SA80? Every other bugger seems to be whapping the shite out of us with an AK47 and an RPG, which appear to me to be simple, highly effective and above all else cheap as chips. Am I missing something?? (Please no obvious responses, like "Marbles")

In the bowls at Warminster or on the Larkhill impact zones, Stoner?

god knows CFH. It was 15 years ago. All I know is that it tore mother earth a new arsehole and sounded like a tank driving over a cattlegrid 🙂

Isn't the AK47 cheap to produce and simple but not exactly accurate (same with the RPGs)

If our troops were using them, we might be suffering a few more casualties. Mind you I expect the Taliban would like our troops to be a little less effective and accurate.

When you are a nice, clean-cut developed nation, you can't do something as common as buy off the shelf hardware for your troops. Good lord no, you have to have it made to measure.

Hence, instead of buying the M16, we developed the SA80 (creating jobs in the UK as stated previously)

There's the small matter of where the AK comes from as well. It's eastern bloc and us (a western nation) paying the russkies for weapons would be a political no-no.

There's also a small matter of design philosiphy and predicted/intended use.

We have an army composed of professionals, all of whcih have volunteered. They have, for the most part, a high standard of training and marksmanship, so to get the best out of them, you give them a precision weapon that will enhance their abilities.

Then you look at the parties that use the AK and its derivatives. They are typical either conscripts, or badly educated rebels/geurillas/terrorists. The AK is a rugged weapon. It takes a lot of abuse and still works. It shoots a lot of ammunition fast and each round hurts a lot. It's _not_ a precision weapon and is not supposed to be used in the same way. A well trained soldier can bring out the best in it, but that doesn't mean we should use it.

Willard, do you work for a UK defence comapany? 🙄

I wasn't going to post on here as I've been keeping myself quiet whenever people ask me to sponsor them for the 'Help for Heroes' stuff (it's happened a few times the last few months-a difficult compromise for a pacifist) and a couple of my colleagues are either ex-military or married to military, but, what covenant? Am I asked if I want to contribute to military expenditure? Do I get a choice as to whether the RAF cluster bombs cities? Do I get any meaningful say in the absurd interventions in (and stirring up of) foreign troubles and the recruitment of naive young men into the brutalising institutions?

That general is securing his non-executive directorships and media value in the run-up to his retirement. The whole structure of military procurement is a cesspit of corruption and political hypocrisy and the use of casualties as excuses for more spending an example of PR satanism at its worst.

Sorry to vent, but it seems to me that the Ross Kemp-stylee, don't question the war type PR around the military is racking up at the moment and it's getting ugly. Parading grief for political ends, as happened last week and over the weekend, is getting close to the shutting down of thought around the whole matter. More guns (or helicopters, or bombs, or troops) means more deaths. Maybe more Afghan deaths as well as more British deaths, but the point is, more deaths. That general is trying, with his carefully placed allies in parliament, to keep the war going and ramp it up, so as to secure more power for the military wing. That's not a covenant: it's gangsterism.

Very angry. Sorry.