Armed Forces need deep change to beat terrorism

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by ferox_provincia, Aug 3, 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. Yup
    The money is better spent ensuring Labour voters do not have to work and making sure our EU contributions are high enough to buy Teflon Tony the Presidency.
  2. “We have to be prepared to consider deep and wide-ranging changes to our Armed Forces,” Mr Rammell said.

    “We will need to rebalance our investment in technology, equipment and people to meet the challenge of irregular warfare over the next decade while still retaining our ability to respond to emerging state-led threats and other military challenges.”

    For changes read cuts... and funnily enough the rest of the quote still makes sense.

    Cynical, moi?
  3. Having seen many Armed Forces Reviews in my time I can predict with depressing accuracy the outcome of Labour's next review. It will:-

    1. Reduce the amount of money in the Defence Budget.

    2. Protect workers' jobs in key Labour constituencies by continuing Defence contracts not necessarily required.

    3. Announce that the Armed Forces will be meaner, leaner and much more effective than before.

    4. Protect the jobs of or even increase the numbers of the 100,000 Civil Servants in the MOD - many of whom are a waste of rations.

    5. Severely cut the Reserve Forces.

    6. Increase overstretch across the board.
  4. ZANU-NL won't be happy until 1 Para is the number of Airborne soldiers, not a Battalion. :evil:
  5. 1980 = The Cold war
    1990 = Peace keeping
    2000 = Islamic terrorism
    2010 = ?

    Is it just me or every time the forces are re-roled to cope with the threat a new one pop's up.
  6. I thought that we had beaten terrorism in Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus and Borneo and not done too badly in Aden and NI. So what's this idiot talking about? I think he meant to say "Present Government needs 'deep change' to beat terrorism"
  7. "Protect the jobs of or even increase the numbers of the 100,000 Civil Servants in the MOD - many of whom are a waste of rations."

    French chap - CS has decreased from 130,00 to 85,000 all up (desk jobs, RFA, MPGS etc) in the last 10 years. Its going to drop further in the near future.
  8. Dont worry, this government will indeed be "Deeply changed" come the election, it will be changed to "Unemployed ex government" :x :x :D :D
  9. Unemployed????? you ar e having a laugh. They will have feathered there nests, far better than the B[w]ankers ever did.
  10. Aren't MPGS part of the Military side of the MoD?
  11. The biggest danger to our country is not terrorism but our Government.

  12. And ever since 1967, Liebour has been paranoid the Armed Forces might get sufficently pissed off with it to give them their P45 at the barrel of a gun.

    And so… Constant cuts in the numbers and an overwheening desire to keep as much of the Army as possible tied up overseas fighting assorted bods.
  13. I agree with everything else but why attack the MOD CS? The jobs still need doing in order to keep the Services trained and deployed. Are you proposing that those jobs are done by military personnel - even more expensive - or by civilian contractors - even more expensive than the military option?

    Whichever way you look at it, the MOD CS is a quality workforce at a very cheap price.

  14. Labour won't conduct a SDR, they're too busy fighting the current battle and it will take too long...

    the next SDR will come from the incoming Conservative government...expect 10000-20000 pax off the ORBAT