[Closed] Ministry of Defence Cuts (Prince Harry)

That would be why they didn't sanction the war in Iraq then?

The security council haven't actually had to vote on it's legality yet. (and it's unlikely they ever will)

The ICJ might, but they ruled against the USA before. Who promptly told them to jog on.

So what power do they (the UN) really have in these matters?

Nor will they ever vote as it will just be vetoed

Exactly.

Non of the 5 members would veto the invasion before hand. And now they can't vote to make it illegal with retrospect as US or UK will veto that motion.

So basically the 5 members can get away with what ever they want.

johnners - Member

Possibly the most idiotic comment on STW today.

Thank you very much!

I'm guessing it's beyond you to explain why you think that

The idea that the Army would put someone into a two-person team in charge of £10.5 millions-worth of helicopter with the job of using sophisticated high-tech weapons systems to protect the troops on the ground from attack, who had no "talent" or "merit" for the job is....

stupid.

+1 Mr Woppit
I also think that to a large extent the royals have a very 'directed' life style in terms of what they can or cannot do not unlike the freedom most of us enjoy to follow whatever future we want. Press intrusion, security and the government over sight of my life are a few things I wouldnt welcome.

Yossarian, that's an interesting article. We have the moral high ground because, as it says, we investigate such incidents and we punish the guilty. We have just sent a load of squaddies down for murder. The insurgency don't do this, in fact murder, kidnap, intimidation etc are policy instruments for them. When you use military force there will always be innocent victims, but I'm pretty confident the insurgency have killed rather more innocent bystanders than we have, and you can surely draw a distinction between accidents and deliberate policy? Would the bulk of afghans want the Taliban back? It's a messy and unpleasant situation but I stand by my comments.

I'm sure being royal does open doors, but so does being an old boy, knowing the bloke that runs the company, whatever. Human nature I think, we all have to make the best of the opportunities we get.

This book is a few years old but gives an interesting overview of UK defense spending. Not sure that I agree with all the authors conclusions but it is thought provoking stuff.

I dont know Lewis Page (ex RN) but having spoken to people who did know him whlist he was serving, he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder so "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs" should be treated accordingly... at best its a closing time "and anohter thing...." style rant at worst, its pure Daily Mail hyperbole....

Harry is no more Royal than I am, 'bout time they stopped lying (like that'll ever happen :roll:)

BristolPablo +1, Lewis page is very poorly regarded by defence journalists and the like. The book is supposedly an expanded cliche fest of the sorts of opinions I was trying to counter on the first page. He rose to the heady rank of lieutenant in the RN so I don't think he will have had any first hand experience of procurement, he's just listened to all the hoary old opinions in the mess and written them down in a book.

Aye. There is that....

[img] [/img]

As per usual on these threads, the real deal is that his A levels would not get him into either Sandhurst or flight crew training. Being HRH did that. It is also a fact that they will not risk him falling into the hands of the Taliban, in fact to allow that would be reckless and foolish and would clearly undermine our actions in that country. So the reality is that its all about privilige and position and not at all about ability per se.
On top of that the reality is that any interview given by service personnel has to be authorised at the highest level. So despite the fact that he does come over as a personable fella, the reality is that his image is being manipulated and created whatever way you spin the plates.
In my view the big problem is that to sustain the Royal myth, these folk have to be seen to be special. The more they try to be like Joe Average, the more myth collapses. so in my cynical mind the fact they are pushing the ginger kid out towards harms way is probably a lot ot do with the fact that he looks like his Dad, as opposed to his "Dad", and therefore an unfortunate accident at work would not necessarily be too big a problem.

sorry airtragic but I reckon you are looking at a small part of a bigger picture.

lets break it down a little:

We have the moral high ground because, as it says, we investigate such incidents and we punish the guilty. We have just sent a load of squaddies down for murder. The insurgency don't do this, in fact murder, kidnap, intimidation etc are policy instruments for them.

erm, rendition, detention without trial, waterboarding - shall I go on?

When you use military force there will always be innocent victims, but I'm pretty confident the insurgency have killed rather more innocent bystanders than we have, and you can surely draw a distinction between accidents and deliberate policy?

Have they? If you have a gander at that article I linked to you'll notice that civilian deaths from UK forces aren't recorded. Thats how to get locals onside eh?

Would the bulk of afghans want the Taliban back?

I reckon the bulk of the afghans just want to be left alone by everyone. Sadly when the west plays politics with your country that won't happen.

Well, if we just left them alone they'd have the Taliban back. That's why we're here, at the request of the afghan govt, mainly focused on training afghan security forces so they can look after things without us.

The insurgency have killed more than us, because that is what they do. Leaving aside the fact that everything we do is a reaction to their actions. I can't produce dodgy figures in correct stw style, but it's just self-evident if you've done any time out here. That will not persuade many people, but seriously, once you've seen a bit of the ground truth, arguing any ambivalence over who the bad guys are is like arguing 2+2 = 5.

The other actions you describe (rendition etc) I'd probably agree on. Like I said, I have plenty of doubts about the political decisions and policies taken at the start of the conflict. I am defending the record of the coalition military forces, in particular the uk component.

Also, I don't think James Hewitt is prince Harry's dad. I also think that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, no aliens crashed in New Mexico, and lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. Sorry.

arguing any ambivalence over who the bad guys are is like arguing 2+2 = 5.

no, no it isn't. it depends entirely on who you are, what you think and what side you are on. One mans insurgent is another mans freedom fighter etc.

I am defending the record of the coalition military forces, in particular the uk component.

yeah, I get that. Again I'd refer you to article I linked to. That's the trouble with 2 sides who think they are right isn't it? The other guy is always worse and any collateral damage is always unfortunate but not really our fault. Works both ways. If you fought for the taliban against a superior sized force with better equipment what would you do? I doubt it would differ greatly.

Berm bandit, 2 a levels will get you in to Sandhurst. There is no additional requirement for pilot training, except passing the aptitude tests and medical standards.
Would not be allowed to fall into the hands of the Taliban? How does that square with flying a big green target round Afghanistan, or his previous tour out on the ground as a forward air controller?
Interviews given by service personnel don't have to be authorised at any sort of level, although I suspect the palace rather than the mod look after Harry's PR.

I wouldn't fight for the Taliban, because I don't think enslaving an entire country under a repressive theocracy based on an extreme interpretation of Islam is a good idea. I accept that guerrilla forces have to use guerrilla tactics, but the choice to wage the conflict is theirs. We are only here because they are. And my point is that our collateral damage is accidental, theirs is policy (shooting schoolgirls etc) and of a much greater magnitude.
I think you'd struggle to describe the Taliban as anybody's freedom fighter.

why we're here, at the request of the [s]afghan[/s] the puppet govt we installed, mainly focused on training afghan security forces so [s]they can look after things without us[/s] we can get out of the mess we've been dropped in by the politicos

STFY

2 a levels will get you in to Sandhurst

Not when ones an E which you very obviously and publically cheated to get.

additional requirement for pilot training, except passing the aptitude tests

I think thats what I said. We've already established he didn't pass the entry criteria for Sandhurst, and would not be in the army but for cheating.

Interviews given by service personnel don't have to be authorised at any sort of level

Apologies, didn't realise there was free access to Bastion. Whens the next shuttle flight wouldn't mind having a butchers myself?

Berm bandit, 2 a levels will get you in to Sandhurst

my point is that our collateral damage is accidental

wouldn't fight for the Taliban, because I don't think enslaving an entire country under a repressive theocracy based on an extreme interpretation of Islam is a good idea.

Plenty seem to though don't they? You are approaching the question from a western, democratic perspective which, although understandable, fails to account for why people choose to. Why do they choose to pursue a radical form of islam? might it have something to do with the repression and interferrence practised in their countries by the western powers for decades?

I accept that guerrilla forces have to use guerrilla tactics, but the choice to wage the conflict is theirs.

We illegally invaded their lands and those of people who follow a similar religious belief as a response to a terrorist atttack on the US. Would you allow an occupying force into your country if you disagreed ientirely with them? I suspect you wouldn't.

We are only here because they are

To be honest this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but hey.

Airtragic: You do appreciate that for Taliban you can also read Mujahedin, i.e. them very same fellows who we funded to do to the Russians precisely what the Taliban are now doing to us, once more with a total disregard for the actual impact on the folk on the ground. Not only that, the Taliban is nothing to do with why we went there. We went there in cahoots with Gee Dubya in search of Al Quaeda, and in particular one O.B. Laden esq late of Saudia Arabia, who in fact was having a very nice time living as a guest of our allies next door. Incidentally, thats also the same Saudia Arabia which appears to be funding both the Taliban and Al Quaeda.

In short to think in simplistic Good guys/Bad guys terms is naieve to say the least. Rather like thinking the Ginger kid is fighting his way to the top despite it all, as opposed to because of it.

As always the solution appears to be nuking the middle east and securing the oil for civilised western countries.

Savages, can't reason with them.

I think some people genuinely believe our lot fly round the countryside mowing down farmers like in Apocalypse Now.

Not me TBH.

wouldn't fight for the Taliban, because I don't think enslaving an entire country under a repressive theocracy based on an extreme interpretation of Islam is a good idea.
Plenty seem to though don't they? You are approaching the question from a western, democratic perspective which, although understandable, fails to account for why people choose to. Why do they choose to pursue a radical form of islam? might it have something to do with the repression and interferrence practised in their countries by the western powers for decades?
I accept that guerrilla forces have to use guerrilla tactics, but the choice to wage the conflict is theirs.
We illegally invaded their lands and those of people who follow a similar religious belief as a response to a terrorist atttack on the US. Would you allow an occupying force into your country if you disagreed ientirely with them? I suspect you wouldn't.

^^This

Technically, you can get into Sandhurst with no qualifications at all, join up as a 16 year old Private, work your up a rank or two, get noticed, demonstrate Officer potential, get invited to Sandhurst....

I like the bloke, as others said the middle east is a barbaric hole and the prospects if shot down and captured aren't great.

I also like his hard partying attitude and couldn't give two hoots that it's done on my taxes!"

Well I do, pensioners freezing to death and more children currently suffering from malnutrition than at any time in the last 50 years and we are according to you paying someone to party... That's bloody insane. I wonder if I decided to spend taxpayers money on booze and your paratrooper mate had even crapper equipment would you or be as happy?

2 a levels will get you in to Sandhurst

Not when ones an E

Sorry Graham, going to have to disagree (despite the fact he may have cheated, "computer says" he's got that pass... etc), from the Army website:

Minimum qualifications 35 ALIS points (34 for SCEs) from 7 GCSE/SCE subjects, with a minimum grade C/2 in English language, maths and either a science or a foreign language; plus 180 UCAS Tariff points from at least two A level passes grades A-E or SCE Higher grades A-D.

I scraped it with 2 A Levels, one a D, but was selected on merit and talent after attending the Regular Commissions Board 4 day test. (Was a young, idealist wanting to do good in the Balkans, etc, so well before Iraq and Afghanistan - I've been to those 2 places because I've been told to, it's my job, whether I agree with the political decisions that sent us in the first place or not.)

But then again, BristolPablo's right - commissioning from the ranks is a perfectly feasible way of making it to Sandhurst and dodging the Direct Entry standards...

Think its the same with the RAF and Cranwell. Although you have to pass the champagne drinking test first.

Well I do, pensioners freezing to death and more children currently suffering from malnutrition than at any time in the last 50 years and we are according to you paying someone to party

Well, his army salary he's entitled to do with as he pleases of course.
He got about 6-7M quid from his mum's estate which I guess he can do with as he pleases.
The civil list is the bone of contention I assume. Given now the queen gets 15% of the PROFIT from the Crown Estates and then uses that to "run" the monarchy, that means 85% of the profits go into the public purse.

So yes, perhaps that 15% might do some good elsewhere, but it's hardly like we're reducing the budget for hospitals to fund Vegas villas for the carrot top.

Was a young, idealist wanting to do good in the Balkans, etc, so well before Iraq and Afghanistan - I've been to those 2 places because I've been told to, it's my job, whether I agree with the political decisions that sent us in the first place or not.

I imagine this is the case for a lot of people. I couldn't do the job - make no bones about it, I would be useless and plainly probably wouldn't have the balls.

Atlaz - the chap I was quoting was on about an acquaintance of his - not Prince Harry.

Double post

We invaded because the Taliban government refused to give up bin laden. They did offer to try him in an Islamic court, which might have saved us all a lot of trouble, but I don't think US public opinion would have worn that at the time. We then got bogged down in a prolonged counter insurgency operation. I'm not saying it's black and white, there are clearly a thousand shades of grey, but this mindset that the Taliban are representative of the afghan people and the big bad west is oppressing their will is very wrong in my experience. GIRoA is far from perfect but most of the Afghans I've met will take it over the Taliban.

In what way is the Karzai govt a puppet? It would be more acquiescent to US foreign policy and less corrupt if this were the case.

Past western policy in the Middle East has certainly caused plenty of problems, but hindsight is a wonderful thing and I'm talking about what we're doing now.

Glad to hear it's like shooting fish in a barrel, much like your comment about Harry not being in harm's way. I can but aspire to your level of repartee. I work here, your experience? Is it mostly from the Internet?

going to have to disagree (despite the fact he may have cheated, "computer says" he's got that pass... etc),

Hi Dave,

Bit of selective quoting there. what I actually said was,

Not when ones an E [b]which you very obviously and publically cheated to get.[/b]

Now then, when I went for selection for Sandhurst (didn't know that now did yer? ....and yes I failed dismally 🙁 ) you wouldn't get anywhere near the place if there was a sniff of any such scandal, and thats the point. I suspect the same would be true now, unless of course you have HRH in front of your name.

That apart, another thing that went through my mind, on the subject was what precisely are we doing about the scourge of heroin while we're there? Fantastic opportunity to truly disprupt that evil trade you'd think wouldn't you?

Absolutely no disrespect to those amongst us who wear stripes and pips on our DPM jim jams, but in the murky world of what the flick is going on in Afghan you can see my point can't you?

That apart, another thing that went through my mind, on the subject was what precisely are we doing about the scourge of heroin while we're there? Fantastic opportunity to truly disprupt that evil trade you'd think wouldn't you?

Plenty.

The BBC said he got a D in Geography and a B in the "suspect" Art A-Level.

TBH I've absolutely nothing against him. What is he supposed to do? Throughout his whole life so far he'll have been told what he is supposed to do. What I did raise an eyebrow at was him saying hes killed a Taleban. Thats poor-form for someone in his position and will potentially make him a target-focus in the future for militants where ever he goes.

I'd say he should keep a low-profile - PR report briefly 'hes over there' but nothing more than that. Abit of a PR own-goal of late me thinks.

like your comment about Harry not being in harm's way

Again read what I wrote .... that is precisely what I didn't say.

It is also a fact that they will not risk him falling into the hands of the Taliban, in fact to allow that would be reckless and foolish and would clearly undermine our actions in that country ................. In my view the big problem is that to sustain the Royal myth, these folk have to be seen to be special. The more they try to be like Joe Average, the more myth collapses. so in my cynical mind the fact they are pushing the ginger kid out towards harms way is probably a lot ot do with the fact that he looks like his Dad, as opposed to his "Dad", and therefore an unfortunate accident at work would not necessarily be too big a problem.

The BBC said he got a D in Geography and a B in the "suspect" Art A-Level.

Fair one Atlaz. As explained its not the grade that is at issue though, and could I add that actually have no problem with the guy at all, its the institution of the Royal Family that boils my proverbial wee.

Well I never Graham...!

Selective quoting yes, qualified by saying regardless of suspicion (or otherwise) "the computer" says he is qualified to apply. In terms of those pre-nominals opening doors, hell yes, "who you know, not what you know" - but that goes on in all walks of life.

As for the heroin issue, first time I was out in 2008 anti-heroin ops by us and the Afghan SF were going on but that was diluting effort over a number of aims, which we were therefore not achieveing. Now, more focus on defeating the insurgency first and then moving on to the next aim...

That said, my view was always spend less on large numbers being there and the money saved then offered to the farmers as an incentive to not grow the poppies, thus freeing up a smaller, more agile force to deal with the insurgency.

Ok, you're saying they wouldn't let prince William go in to harms way? True, it's declared policy i think. But they are letting Harry because he's allegedly illegitimate? It's beginning to sound a bit like one of those conspiracy websites isn't it? Prince Andrew, the spare at the time, did a naval career and flew in the falklands. Was he illegitimate too? They are a military family. Harry doesn't even look like James Hewitt, more like a mix of prince Charles and earl spencer, unsurprisingly. Look at the bone structure.

Sad but true Dave... all I wanted to do when I left school was join the Army, actually originally tried for REME, but everytime I went to the recruiting office they suggested I try one step up until it became apply to Sandhurst young man, at which point I was the proverbial fish out of water and all ambitions in that direction were successfully nailed as a result. Often wondered what might have been. No doubt things have moved along since, but in those days background and upbringing were definitely key factors over all other considerations.

PS: and before you start Yes it was post Boer War!

We invaded because the Taliban government refused to give up bin laden. They did offer to try him in an Islamic court, which might have saved us all a lot of trouble, but I don't think US public opinion would have worn that at the time. We then got bogged down in a prolonged counter insurgency operation. I'm not saying it's black and white, there are clearly a thousand shades of grey, but this mindset that the Taliban are representative of the afghan people and the big bad west is oppressing their will is very wrong in my experience.

ok, my last observation on this because we are going round in circles. Have a read of this:

[i]The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from Saudi Arabia – did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.

— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild[/i]

The Taliban are a RESULT of the west. Why does extremism grow? What causes it? No. 1 reason - poverty. Who causes poverty in the middle east by installing corrupt rulers, funding and supplying weapons to groups that suit their interests? How do you think an illegal invasion and occupation that results in massive civilian casaulties is viewed by people in that country and others already poor from decades of colonial exploitation?

Stay safe out there airtragic, hope you get home soon mate.

Amen to that

Harry doesn't even look like James Hewitt

[img] [/img]

peas of a pod !

Stay safe out there airtragic, hope you get home soon mate.

Absolutely. Whether I agree we should be there or not - I hope you and your colleagues do get home in one piece! Take care of yourself.

J

in a few years time, people will reflect, what was the point of all that ? good training, equipment suppliers will be happy, but as for all the thousands killed and injured --will it have any meaningful positive effects for anyone ?

ok, my last observation on this because we are going round in circles. Have a read of this:

So, your point is that the original invasion was of questionable legality, based upon whether you accept that it was an act in self defence.

What you can't argue against is the legality of the continued presence of ISAF troops in Afghanistan, which is clearly authorised under UN Security Council mandate 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), and recently unanimously extended under 2069.

Which are the only ones relevant to Henry's presence there!

will it have any meaningful positive effects for anyone ?

Possibly...
…I expect the manufacturers of the next generation of weaponry that we use to fight the next generation of "terrorists" that we're creating to feel a very positive effect.

In the meantime, the present generation of manufacturers need to attend to the "new frontier" that is North Africa. They must be rubbing their hands with glee as westerners are gunned down in Algeria.

yeah DD-- 1/3rd US economy is 'defence' reliant--and folk wonder why they love a shoot fest

Zulu-Eleven - Member

What you can't argue against is the legality of the continued presence of ISAF troops in Afghanistan, which is clearly authorised under UN Security Council mandate 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), and recently unanimously extended under 2069.

Which are the only ones relevant to Henry's presence there!

Yep, good old 'Enry from the Gnome Office will sort it all out.

[img] [/img]

Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war, as Churchill once said.

Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war, as Churchill once said.

Awww, crap. I agree with Ernie. 😉

Alright, old chap?

Thanks for the good wishes. Happily I'm a REMF and not in any real danger! I question the illegality of the original invasion actually, law is a matter of interpretation and you could definitely argue that Al Q were proxy actors for the Taliban state (or ****stan or Saudi, but that's a different argument) They trained and fought the northern alliance together. Incidentally, during that time thousands were massacred at places like mazar-e-sharif, with casualties way in excess of what we have seen since 2001. Millions of refugees have come back since the end of the Taliban period. If you're going to talk about how many civilians we have killed, you need to compare it with what was going on before. I would query that the Taliban are defending their country too, about half of them aren't even afghans. Overall I think the current situation is far from perfect, but the lesser of all the evils Afghanistan has known for the last 40 years.

We're not as bad at procurement as the press would have you believe.

There are large areas that are far worse than the press could imagine. The excellent efforts of the minority are utterly swamped by the ineptitude and dogma of the many. Procurement is mostly pish and badly done.

Interesting documentary on BBC 7 tonight on this subject. Containing many contradictions, including the one about Harry not being treated differently, but unusually having a special flying arrangement to overcome the shortcomings he apparently doesn't have, and special security, which if course is precisely like everyone else.

Not to mention the very documentary that is simply being made to emphasise this non existent sameness.

Very sad IMHO