This is the narrative being thrown up by The Daily Fail and others this morning, telling us the Ministry of Defence "wasted a shocking £718million on plans for thousands of properly-protected battlefield trucks which were then scrapped or delayed".
Look behind the headlines and you will see FRES – about which we have written a word or two. But the MoD/Army narrative is that the MoD purchased a fleet of mine-resistant vehicles - including Mastiffs and Ridgebacks - to stop troops being maimed and killed. These were bought as "urgent operational requirements' using Treasury cash. But because they were built specifically for Afghanistan, they are unsuitable for wider use".
In other words, we are being told that FRES would have been a better option – which is pure, distilled BS. The mine protected fleet was bought instead of FRES – in the face of stiff resistance from the Army. Had the Army been given its way, there would have been carnage.
But there is something more fundamental here. Apart from Korea, the Falklands and the first phases of the Iraqi war, every significant conflict in which the Army has been deployed has involved elements of irregular warfare, for which these mine protected vehicles were designed. But the Army hates this type of warfare, refuses to accept that this is the rule, rather than the exception, and hankers after the free-style, war of manoeuvre for which FRES is designed. 
Classically, the Army is seeking to equip itself for the wars it would wish to fight, instead of the warfare it is most likely to meet - a triumph of hope over experience. 
But FRES, as they say, is the narrative, and the MSM buys it hook line and sinker. The real story is here ... in my book, but we don't want anything like the truth sullying the minds of the public, so let's forget all about that. These people are idiots.
I actually watched the Obama speech, the whole damn thing, in glorious Technicolor – how sad is that? This is the one where he said that the US fully supported the Middle East uprisings.
This I now know, because that's what The Guardian tells us in its headline. But it is not something I drew from watching the speech – which says something about him, or me. You can call me out as a liar if you like. I didn't so much watch the speech as looked at it: a moving figure extruding sounds that conveyed absolutely no meaning.
Cameron did something as well, exchanging a warm handshake with Bahrain's Crown Prince, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, outside No. 10. This "came on the day when President Obama delivered his first major speech on the Arab Spring", which he said would open a "new chapter in American diplomacy". "It will be the policy of the US to promote reform, and to support transitions to democracy," Obama tells us.
And this we know because The Independent tells us, which means that Cameron is out of step, or something. Or perhaps he's in step, and Obama is out ... the Boy doesn't seems to make sense either.
The funny thing is the man we must now call the Dead Obama Bin Laden or DOBL also gave a speech – from the grave, praising the "Arab Spring". But that was what Obama was supposed to be doing. These two ought to get together – is a séance in order? Cameron should have a word with him as well ... "hullooo, is anyone there?" That could make for an interesting threesome.
Perhaps we should just content ourselves with the undeniable fact that there is "an historic opportunity" out there to be seized. Maybe, that's what DSK really thought he was doing, and just seized the wrong bit by mistake.
The thing one really loves about all this though is that all these people are telling all these other people that they should have the right to govern themselves. Why is it that we can't have same thing? Perhaps we could get DOBL to make a video about it. 
 



 
 















 
 Posts
Posts
 
