British Army not Good Enough - Neither is the Daily Telegraph

#1
The Daily Telegraph trumpets that Lord Richards, formerly General Sir David Richards, said in his maiden speech to the House of Lords that the British Army is not good enough to halt the current load of jihadists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ith-Jihadi-threat-warns-ex-defence-chief.html

If that is so, why have they published a picture of the current CDS Sir Nick Houghton?
Maybe the Telegraph is not fit for purpose either.
 
#4
'Good enough' is a bit subjective. If he meant 'Insufficiently focussed on Counter Insurgency against irregular forces' then yes, I dare say we aren't . But if it came to a heavy metal high intensity tank on tank conflict, then, well, yes we aren't for that either.

The fact is that we have decided to do a bit of everything but we aren't resourced, trained or have the doctrine for doing any ONE thing well.
That's the result of decades of cheese paring and the decision to retain shadows of all capability in order (in theory) to have something to expand upon in time of war. The fact that we don't have the manufacturing base, facilities or budget to expand ANYTHING and that threats arrive so quickly nowadays that you won't have the time to award the contract to BAe, tool up, and start training by the time you actually go to war also seems to have passed people by.

Ultimately, the threat of the Islamic Fundamentalists isn't one that you can defeat by force, and one that you can only disrupt and slow with Intelligence and drones. It's a philosophical battle, and we need to be focussed on PsyOPs.
You can't break a religion by hitting it harder. You need to pick apart its internal contradictions, and make your reading of it more attractive to its followers than the frenzied idiocy being spouted by medieval throwbacks.
In the long term, we need military force for containment, but that is going to take at least a century, and most Governments can only think in Five year terms at most.

By then, the Ummah will have either 1) got the thing out of its system, and be sitting looking at the wreckage and wondering what the Hell happened, 2) Burned itself in genocidal frenzy leaving husks of nation states across the Middle East, or 3) The entire Middle East collapses into famine and drought because they failed to see the damage that their fascination with Holy War was doing to their living environment, and the tidal waves of starving refugees will pile up against the perimeters of Europe, desperate for better living conditions.

If we are really lucky, they will contrive a worst case scenario of all three at once.
Either way the strategic threat isn't invasion. It's not even immigration on the scale that the dribblers of UKIP get so upset about. It's mass migration of entire peoples on a scale not seen since the Fall of Rome.
 
#5
'

You can't break a religion by hitting it harder. You need to pick apart its internal contradictions, and make your reading of it more attractive to its followers than the frenzied idiocy being spouted by medieval throwbacks.
In the long term, we need military force for containment, but that is going to take at least a century, and most Governments can only think in Five year terms at most.
Stalin knew how to deal with backward Muslims...
 
#6
The Daily Telegraph trumpets that Lord Richards, formerly General Sir David Richards, said in his maiden speech to the House of Lords that the British Army is not good enough to halt the current load of jihadists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ith-Jihadi-threat-warns-ex-defence-chief.html

If that is so, why have they published a picture of the current CDS Sir Nick Houghton?
Maybe the Telegraph is not fit for purpose either.
This is journalistic hype and spin.

Richards was saying that the considerable reductions in the Army's strength was "not good enough" as they will affect its ability to deal with the jihadi threat.

He was not saying that the Army is, per se, not good enough.
 
#7
When will find our way back to traditional British values, i.e. sitting in the wings arming all sides in the current islamic civil war and making a good profit from their misery!
 
#8
Stalin knew how to deal with backward Muslims...
Errr.... Count the number of Stalinists alive today. Including Domovoy, you might be able to find a few dozen.
Then count the number of backwards Muslims.
Then tell me who won that one.
 
#10
True, but they were very, very quiet while he was alive...
So were many millions of Russian Orthodox. (Difficult to make much noise when you are face down in a trench with a bullet in the skull).
Not wishing to labour the pun, but oppressed religions go underground as well as into the ground. As soon as you take the pressure off, they explode again.
 
#11
Stalin knew how to deal with backward Muslims...
With vodka mainly. In the Muslim FSR countries I have worked in most of them drink like fish and although they will tell you they are Muslims most of them have never seen the inside of a mosque.
 
#12
Radical Islam is on the rampage mainly as a result of the billions of dollars that have been invested by Saudi Arabia and Iran.

If the flow of funds were cut-off, then the religeon might eventually subside into a non-threatening form like other cults.
 
#14
So were many millions of Russian Orthodox. (Difficult to make much noise when you are face down in a trench with a bullet in the skull).
Not wishing to labour the pun, but oppressed religions go underground as well as into the ground. As soon as you take the pressure off, they explode again.
To quote Stalin - "Religion is like a nail; the harder you hit it, the deeper it goes".
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Combating an internal threat to UK must be a well-funded, intelligence-led policing operation, backed up by whatever changes to our laws are necessary, even if this means withdrawing from the ECHR and reentering it on terms that allow us to manage our internal security. The Coalition has had four years to get itself in gear, and sort out also (1) the gratuitous and uncontrolled import of aliens deliberately engineered by Blair in order to break down our society and (2) the deliberate politicisation of the civil authority by denying promotion to unbelievers in the Blair/Mandelson credo.

The army ought not to come into it. Our failure in Iraq and Afghanistan shows it is the wrong tool for the constabulary job. Special pleading by generals must meet with the scepticism it deserves.
 
#16
From what Lord Richards actually said:
The biggest threat confronting the free world today is that posed by militant jihadism...
Are our Armed Forces in a fit state to play their role in dealing with these and other risks to our way of life? The answer must be that their state is not good enough, but it is some consolation that it is better than that of any other allied nation’s forces except the United States. Future Force 2020, if fully funded, will ensure that our Armed Forces are effective and something of which we can be proud. However, to realise this potential, as the economy grows, routine defence spending post 2015 must increase as a minimum to 2% of GDP. If not, given the mathematics that seem stubbornly to govern defence expenditure, the size and effectiveness of the Armed Forces will inevitably deteriorate further, and this is without the need to fund new capability...
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2014-06-23a.1082.0
 
#17
IF any investment is coming it needs to go into the Royal Navy - increasing the number of platforms and the bodies that operate those platforms.

The only way that investment is going to come is by cutting the Army again. Now, so far, I have not read about the public complaining... 2015 is coming and so are more cuts to the Army.

I take the point on the industrial base - we could not re-arm quickly neither in terms of manpower nor weaponry. However, we can still build warships and I would suggest that this should be used as a re-entrant into international sales to reduce the cost of development, as tool for keeping our SLOCs open, for international trade and influence. They are also a great way of projecting power.

At home, the Army needs to change - warfare now will be from behind a keyboard - a war of influence, a war of denying communications to the enemy, a war where the country with the greatest IT resources will win. Big metal is probably not needed anymore except as warships ;)
 
#18
Combating an internal threat to UK must be a well-funded, intelligence-led policing operation, backed up by whatever changes to our laws are necessary, even if this means withdrawing from the ECHR and reentering it on terms that allow us to manage our internal security. The Coalition has had four years to get itself in gear, and sort out also (1) the gratuitous and uncontrolled import of aliens deliberately engineered by Blair in order to break down our society and (2) the deliberate politicisation of the civil authority by denying promotion to unbelievers in the Blair/Mandelson credo.

The army ought not to come into it. Our failure in Iraq and Afghanistan shows it is the wrong tool for the constabulary job. Special pleading by generals must meet with the scepticism it deserves.
We also need to re-evaluate the scale of the 'threat'.

3rd Shock Army was a threat.

The Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces were a threat.

PIRA at their peak (attacking the City and Seat of Government) were a serious problem bordering on a threat.

Unless they directly threaten major oil reserves, or acquire nukes, Jihadis are a nuisance.
 
#20
We also need to re-evaluate the scale of the 'threat'.

3rd Shock Army was a threat.

The Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces were a threat.

PIRA at their peak (attacking the City and Seat of Government) were a serious problem bordering on a threat.

Unless they directly threaten major oil reserves, or acquire nukes, Jihadis are a nuisance.
I beg to differ-they are a real threat, but an asymmetric threat. The level of damage they can do is not proportional to their manpower, training, or weaponry.-Nor is it in an entirely material sense.-Jihadis are the boil on top of the infection- The infection is the poisonous contradiction that Islam claims to offer a complete solution to life the Universe and everything, but that however hard you pray, the bulk of its followers are scratching a living while the world moves past them.
The problem is that to the jihadi, the solution is that Allah wants more and more Islam-Then He might eventually show mercy, and improve their squalid lives, and death in His service isn't to be feared-It's got to be better than living like that.

That is because what the Jihadis, both Sunni and Shia claim to offer to the poor and dead end members of society is an existential choice.
"Stay as you are, and be the underdog. Join us and be the top dog."
If the maintenance of a safe and secure status quo is the definition of defence then the fact that there are untold thousands of Muslims who see nothing for them in the Status quo, and everything to gain from bringing it down, is a threat.

You will NOT stop them being Muslim.
You MIGHT be able to bring some identification with the State into an 'Anglo-Muslim' identity to compete with the Saudi Muslim jihadi version.
Then you can say-If 'Our' Muslims' have something to lose from the collapse of society, then they won't be so keen to pull it down around our ears.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads