No. An American software company.

I was in the cadets at school though, and have a vested intrest in this sort of thing now.

What's the big suprise here. The armed forces have always been pro-Conservative anti-Labour haven't they ?

Don't know why though, it's not like the chiefs of staff are traditionally well heeled, ex public school, toffs or anything is it ?

have a vested intrest in this sort of thing now.

Like shares in 5.56mm ammunition? 😐

Alas not, although i did once (when I was a scummy contractor) get asked if I minded working in the death industry. The agent then explained that he placed people with GKN Westland and BAe Systems.

He never did get me any sort of job though. The sod.

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.

I think you'll find that the AK47 was designed during WW2 as the "ideal infantry weapon". It was cheap to manufacture, robust and VERY deadly, it has a number of formats. One of these is designed for infantry combat where the basic concept is to stick it round a corner of over a wall and let loose a hail of bullets. When they researched it they found that was what most infantry weapons are used for in battle. Few if any take aim carefully and draw down on the enemy and despacth them with one careful clinical shot. Most times they can't even see the opposition. The intital impetus was from the German machine pistol which was a devasatating infrantry weapon much coveted by their enemies.

The agent then explained that he placed people with GKN Westland and BAe Systems.

If he had, would you have taken the job? Knowing full well what the end resuslt of your work was?

kimbers – Member

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

Exactly.

Why on earth should Gordon Brown pump money into a war which he knows to be pointless, unnecessary, and unwinnable ?

Obviously going to war 8 years ago seemed like a good idea, because "something just had to be done" after the terrorist attack on the twin towers. But does anyone really expect Gordon Brown or any British prime minister to say that it was all a big mistake and inform the Yanks "sorry lads, you're on own from now on" ?

I don't feel hugely reassured by the thought that in 12 months time we will have a Conservative government which will presumably be writing blank cheques for the generals to spend as they wish.

If 'saving lives' is the issue then I suggest that rather than sending helicopters, British troops remain in their barracks.

After all, since the Taliban's only really effective weapon appears to be improvised explosive devices, I can't see why an 18 year from the Home Counties with a few months training, has any appreciable advantages over an 18 year old in the Afghan army. I'm sure that an 18 year Afghan is quite capable of fighting – if they were that useless, then we wouldn't have a problem in the first place.

Of course that solution doesn't appear very appealing because we don't actually trust the Afghans, and we feel we should be running their country for for them……….. Tony Blair would have made a very good prime minister 150 years ago.

.

Trimix – Member

we will not turn Afgan into a nice democratic fair society in a million years. Its a medieval fanatically religious corrupt third world anarchy.

And yet, the religious fanatics have only had power and influence in Afghanistan for the last 20 years – not a million years. The last secular government in Afghanistan was overthrown by 'medieval fanatically religious corrupt' warlords which were backed to the hilt by the US and Britain.

Why on earth should Gordon Brown pump money into a war which he knows to be pointless, unnecessary, and unwinnable ?

Because if you dont define specific strategic objectives and fund the means to achieve them, then all you're doing is paying lip service to a wasted cause and paying for it with men's lives. If he really thinks its a waste of time he should define scaled back objectives that come within his budget limits and moral objectives.

I don't feel hugely reassured by the thought that in 12 months time we will have a Conservative government which will presumably be writing blank cheques for the generals to spend as they wish.

Writing blank cheques without defining the role is just as bad. If they set clear objectives and sign blank cheques I'm less bothered.

Having just read a book called "An Ordinary Soldier" it would seem that a lot of the Taliban are actually insurgents from Saudi and Pakistan.

Its idiots like Cameron who have over simplified the "helicopter shortage" debate for political capital, which in turn creates threads like this, which judging by the comments shows that Cameron and the media may have succeeded.

Shame Dannatt could have mentioned this a few years before he was due to retire. 🙄

If he really thinks its a waste of time he should define scaled back objectives that come within his budget limits and moral objectives.

Oh come on Stoner – no British prime minister from one of the big two could do that. And well you know it. It would represent the biggest schism between the UK and the US since that most famous of American prime minister Winston Churchill, first established the "special relationship" – ie : they tell us what to do, and we do as we are told.

Can you imagine the political mileage the Tories would make from New Labour abandoning our greatest friend and ally.

No, we're in Afghanistan until the Yanks decide that they have had enough.

And the only reason Barack Obama supports the continuation of the Afghan war is that, whilst the US electorate was perhaps prepared to vote for someone committed to ending the highly unpopular war in Iraq, there was no way they would have supported an unpatriotic guy who was opposed to all the wars which their brave young men were fighting. He definitely would have lost the presidency.

I'm afraid that the Afghan war, and Britain's involvement in it, will have to continue. However unfortunate it might be for the Afghans, and those young British soldiers/heros who will return in body bags.

.

If they set clear objectives and sign blank cheques I'm less bothered.

The Conservatives can set the 'clear objectives' right now, never mind about waiting until they have won a general election……. they only need to speak up. But they won't, preferring instead to bang on about helicopters.

Because like everyone else, the Tories haven't got a clue what the objectives should be – no one even seems to know whether we are in Afghanistan primarily to help the Afghan people or, for our own interests.

It's hard to imagine a war with less clear objectives, the vague explanation goes something along the lines : "we are there to support the good guys and fight the bad guys". And also as I suggested earlier, a war was needed to placate public opinion after the destruction of the World Trade Center.

You're wasting your time, if you are waiting for the Tories to think of a good excuse for being in Afghanistan.

I dont need an excuse for being in Afghanistan, but it would be nice to be given a proper, less woolly, reason for staying there.

And we will continue to argue about the lack of conservative policy. Im not holding out much hope of anything great from them either BUT it's not the opposition's job to make policy that they cant enact. And until there is policy differential its a bit premature to damn them for what you think they might do. They CAN put what they want in a manifesto (although it would be nice for any party to stick to a manifesto pledge eh? 🙂 ), but there's little point putting one of them out just yet.

BTW there's a very informative article in the G2 today – Martin Amis on Iran – and I particularly like it because it seems to be written with that secular sneer that appeals to me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/17/martin-amis-iran

and it also includes this odd bit that is both scary and funny at the same time:
[…G]iven the Shia commitment to martyrdom, mutual assured destruction, as one Israeli official put it, "is not a deterrent. It's an incentive."

The fact remains that we are in Afganistan and, given that is the case, then the government should be supporting the troops to the hilt. They should be given the kit and equipment they need to do their job. If that is not the case, then the covenant is broken.

Stoner, Yes, I would have taken that job. I was young and needed the money.

Now, who knows. But then, I have just accepted a commission in the TA, so who knows.

It would represent the biggest schism between the UK and the US since that most famous of American prime minister Winston Churchill, first established the "special relationship" – ie : they tell us what to do, and we do as we are told.

Hmm, I wonder if given that history, it might be a little hypocritical of us to say that we shouldn't have got involved in one of "Americas wars" that we have no personal vested interest in?

Just saying like…

willard – I think sofatester was the one asking about your employment activities, not me. 🙂
My dad was an arms dealer by the way.

over simplified the "helicopter shortage" debate for political capital

Will more, er, lift improve casualty evacuation and general transit*? Yes – and that fact alone should be making the Gov swallow hard.

But will it help "win" this war? Unlikely.

So thinks Noteeth Snr (ex 7RHA).

(*see what I did there…).

it's not the opposition's job to make policy that they cant enact.

😀 Of course it is !

And even in opposition a party can set the agenda – specially if they put forward powerful arguments which enjoy widespread support.

.

I wonder if given that history, it might be a little hypocritical of us to say that we shouldn't have got involved in one of "Americas wars" that we have no personal vested interest in?

Precisely Ratty.

I have always thought that we should have gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq 2 years after the wars had started, as the Yanks did in World Wars 1 and 2.

But only, after we ourselves had been attacked ………… of course.

Noteeth, I don't think anyones said that increased rotary wing support would "win" the war

However if there's one lesson that can be learnt from the Soviet experience in the Stan, its the importance of helos both for transport and to take dominate/secure the terrain, otherwise why did we (the west) put so much effort into donating Manpad to the Mujahadeen 😕

I don't think anyones said that increased rotary wing support would "win" the war

Wasn't really implying that they did – but the broader question remains… how big a "shopping list" would we need in order to achieve military objectives, such as they are? I'm inclined to support effort in Afghanistan on a whole range of fronts (not least economic reconstruction, infrastructure, getting a handle on the narcos, etc), but I'm not optimistic. 🙁

The Conservatives can set the 'clear objectives' right now, never mind about waiting until they have won a general election……. they only need to speak up. But they won't, preferring instead to bang on about helicopters.

Cameron has stated:

He refused to say whether his party would spend more on defence if it was in government, claiming it was about "commitment" rather than funding.

And when you get the shadow defence secretary coming out with this statement:

Dr Liam Fox had said it was "extremely likely" that a Tory government would agree to a request for more British troops in the short term.

I agree with Stoner: Not expecting much from them either.

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.

Good phrase you have used: right now. What about tomorrow? or ten years time? The French also have SSBN's as they are not so stupid to believe that aircraft launched nuclear weapons would succeed.

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

Not nice to have, essential to have. Would like to know why you think that by canceling these, the money would be spent on Afghanistan.

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.

Not bullshit. They were designed for a secondary a2g role. I like to know how the RAF will replace its fast aging fleet of jets if you cancel these.

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.

You are right, we could save a fortune if we buy "off the shelf" and in the process loose the highly skilled jobs that make up our defence industry and then have to rely on Foreign arms and the political and economic consequences of that decision. You seem to be wanting to make some quite radical cuts all because of this conflict in Afghanistan.

I'm alarmed at those here who seem to think that we should sacrifice our other military capabilities to fight in Afghanistan. In fact this particular conflict should be a lesson to all those who wish to adapt the Military to counter-insurgency.

In other words, we weren't prepared to fight this conflict because we didn't have the right equipment, lets not make the mistake of removing equipment that may not be useful in this current conflict and then end up ten years down the line wishing we hadn't.

danceswithcats: yes, I fully agree.

All I know is that it tore mother earth a new arsehole

I think she already has a sufficient number.