There are those around who are so twisted that, right or wrong, they put the judgement and honour of politicians above that of serving officers. They bury themselves in technicalities and steamroller anyone who questions their viewpoint. They are not above accusing the army - at what level ? - of being so callous that casualties don’t matter to them. The morale of the army exists in the comradeship that exists between ‘mates' of whatever rank.
A succession of Heads of the Army and of the Armed forces together have politely but firmly protested at the way Brown has treated the armed forces since Labour came to power and especially since Brown became prime minister.
It is no wonder that senior officers have ‘given up’ on the politicians who control the purse strings. These same politicians think so little of our armed forces that they have had 5 - FIVE! - Ministers of Defence in 4 years. And none of those were first rank politically or in ability. Mere dross and office boys. When you are trying to a good job and are responsible for doing it and look after the well-being of the troops at the same time, you may make mistakes but you know damned well that your Minister will be off in a week or two to schools or sewage or something where their blunders will not catch up with them.
Lord Guthrie, then Chief of the Defence Staff, told Brown to his face what he thought of him (It is in an article on a wider remit than Defence which I will distribute later but repeat the extract here in this context)
“So when Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, says "of course they need more helicopters. If there had been more, it is very likely that fewer soldiers would have been killed by roadside bombs", I am inclined to agree. As CDS, Guthrie was permanently and rightly outraged by Chancellor Brown's scepticism about defence spending. "You don't think I understand defence, do you?' Brown asked Guthrie. "No, I bloody well don't," replied the general. When General Dannatt tells the Today programme that we need "a short term uplift" of troop numbers – decorously avoiding the Iraq-contaminated word "surge" – I applaud him. I lament Mr Brown's lack of foresight and hope that David Cameron will increase the defence budget substantially.”
The fact is that an inadequate number of men were sent to the most critical part of Afghanistan to do a job for which they were not properly equipped - things like medical supplies, water, generators to keep their radios going, let alone the big items like vehicles and helicopters.
The MoD is totally dysfunctional. They live in extravagantly refurbished offices with lavish amenities. The government is responsible for this waste which, in the present context, seems near criminal.
Christina
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH -Leader
19.7.09
Afghanistan: Troops are more important than political points
Telegraph View: General Sir Richard Dannatt is right to insist that protecting British soldiers is a higher priority than avoiding causing embarrassment to Labour ministers.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, believes that one of his fundamental duties is to ensure that British soldiers are not required to sacrifice their lives unnecessarily. He thinks that when British soldiers are asked to risk their lives in a war, they should be adequately equipped for battle – and it is his responsibility to make sure that they are.
Although almost every decent human being would agree with him, there appear to be a number of figures in the present Labour Government who are unable to understand why the head of the British Army should think that protecting British soldiers is a higher priority than avoiding causing embarrassment to Labour ministers. When Sir Richard voiced his complaints in public over the dangers posed to our troops in Afghanistan by the shortage of both personnel and equipment, particularly the shortage of helicopters, one Labour minister, who has so far not been named, threatened that there would be an "offensive" to destroy the general's reputation. "General Dannatt is playing a high risk game", the minister said.
It is a testament to what can only be described as the moral corruption of that minister that he thinks Sir Richard is "playing a game". Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, at the moment at the rate of one a day. Sir Richard's attempts to diminish that horrendous toll are not part of any kind of game, and it evinces a profound misunderstanding of the issues at stake to think otherwise. They are a reflection of his deeply serious concern for the lives of British troops. There is no conceivable personal advantage to Sir Richard in trying to ensure that British soldiers in Afghanistan have the equipment they need to diminish their chances of death. It is extraordinary that there are people in the Government who have managed to blind themselves to every value except party political advantage so completely that they believe they must attack Sir Richard's integrity.
We are relieved that Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has now instructed junior ministers to cease briefing against Sir Richard. John Hutton, Mr Ainsworth's predecessor, demonstrates in the article we publish today that he clearly understands the need to give our soldiers "the equipment to do their job safely and effectively." He recognises that it will take "more resources" to win the war in Afghanistan, and that the urgency of the situation means it cannot wait on narrow political considerations.
Increasing the chances of victory over the Taliban, and increasing the chances that British soldiers fighting them will return home alive, are far more important than ensuring that the present Government can maintain the lie that "British troops have everything they need." Sir Richard's brave decision to take on the Government directly on this issue has forced its spokesmen to admit that our soldiers in Afghanistan do not have all the equipment they need. Downing Street has said that the Prime Minister is working "urgently" to provide more for soldiers fighting on the frontline. We hope that the result is that more equipment actually arrives.
We also believe the Government is quite wrong to put off the Defence Review until after the General Election. And we hope that this episode has reminded Labour ministers that there are some things more important than scoring political points.
Posts
