Afghanistan: Troops are more important than political points

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Jul 18, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.

    Published: 6:35PM BST 18 Jul 2009
    Comments 5 | Comment on this article
    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.
    More on the link

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5859238/Afghanistan-Troops-are-more-important-than-political-points.html