Carters replacement as CDS

Indeed. The reality is that pre-TELIC and HERRICK most of us were desperate to go to war - and no doubt our Generals and Admirals were too, and exercised their influence accordingly.

Those who choose to blame it all on the nasty politicians are a bit lame really.
I'd be concerned, very concerned, if the military - at all levels - were not keen, enthusiastic, about performing that for which they were trained, paid and established !! :( .

However, our involvement in the ME was purely a political decision.

Edit: In fact there was no military reason for our involvement. We now know that the threat, existence, of WMD only existed in dark corners of No10, and deeper recesses of Alistair Campbell's mind. The whole - continuing - debacle, was driven by Blair's ambition to bring regime change, and "improve the lives" of the populations of the respective countries . . . whether they wanted it or not :) .

Sometimes, the most difficult - and important - political decisions are those that require a negative response. A resounding NO!

The cnut Blair for his own nefarious motives of personal ambition and self aggrandisement, made the wrong decision :( .
 
Last edited:

Wee Hawken

War Hero
I'd be concerned, very concerned, if the military - at all levels - were not keen, enthusiastic, about performing that for which they were trained, paid and established !! :( .

However, our involvement in the ME was purely a political decision.
Of course - but massively "egged on" by those who wanted to deploy the trainset. I doubt that CGS et al sounded too many words of caution...

The words of Sgt Wilson spring to mind: "Do you really think that's wise, sir?"
 
And now the Game of Thrones for VCDS, the empty 3* positions (probably CJO and DCDS MilCap), and the attendant 2* positions (smart money on needing a new ACDS Ops/Cts for a start, and potentially elsewhere). Plus some disappointed matelots that need either resettlement and/or sideways movement…
 

Yokel

LE
The Gulf Wars were not obligatory. We did not HAVE to go! On reflection, it has been suggested, the Middle East was more stable, before we/the West, upturned the apple-cart :( .

Our participate in WWII was not exactly "optional", or unavoidable :( .

The Middle East would have been more stable with Saddam Hussein holding Kuwait and threatening the other Gulf States? Really?

Indeed. The reality is that pre-TELIC and HERRICK most of us were desperate to go to war - and no doubt our Generals and Admirals were too, and exercised their influence accordingly.

Those who choose to blame it all on the nasty politicians are a bit lame really.

Why would the Admirals favour policies that led to cuts to naval capabilities, - withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, watering down ASW capabilities, loss of frigate/destroyer numbers to fund operations, SDSR 10 with a slash and burn approach that nearly ended the RN as a major player, and is still causing trouble?

I'd be concerned, very concerned, if the military - at all levels - were not keen, enthusiastic, about performing that for which they were trained, paid and established !! :( .

However, our involvement in the ME was purely a political decision.

Edit: In fact there was no military reason for our involvement. We now know that the threat, existence, of WMD only existed in dark corners of No10, and deeper recesses of Alistair Campbell's mind. The whole - continuing - debacle, was driven by Blair's ambition to bring regime change, and "improve the lives" of the populations of the respective countries . . . whether they wanted it or not :) .

Sometimes, the most difficult - and important - political decisions are those that require a negative response. A resounding NO!

The cnut Blair for his own nefarious motives of personal ambition and self aggrandisement, made the wrong decision :( .

Everyone thought that Saddam had them. He had them in the past and had used them. The status quo with American troops on Saudi soil could not be maintained forever. The big failure was the complete lack of planning for the immediate post Saddam era, with the destruction and disbandment of the Iraqi Army and Police.,

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Then there was the problems of the thousand or so naval mines that Saddam had.

And now the Game of Thrones for VCDS, the empty 3* positions (probably CJO and DCDS MilCap), and the attendant 2* positions (smart money on needing a new ACDS Ops/Cts for a start, and potentially elsewhere). Plus some disappointed matelots that need either resettlement and/or sideways movement…

Will the NATO Response Force have an overall commander?
 
I’m Army through and through, but from the outside looking in, the current 1SL looks to be an impressive individual and an excellent selection for CDS.
However, can our Navy colleagues reassure us that he is not the type to be be hugging Medal recipients?!
 
I’m Army through and through, but from the outside looking in, the current 1SL looks to be an impressive individual and an excellent selection for CDS.
However, can our Navy colleagues reassure us that he is not the type to be be hugging Medal recipients?!


I can assure you he absolutely knows how to drop the F Bomb from a great height, and no reported hugs within NCHQ…
 
I'd be concerned, very concerned, if the military - at all levels - were not keen, enthusiastic, about performing that for which they were trained, paid and established !! :( .
I think you need to be very, very concerned then.
 
I'd be concerned, very concerned, if the military - at all levels - were not keen, enthusiastic, about performing that for which they were trained, paid and established !! :( .

However, our involvement in the ME was purely a political decision.

Edit: In fact there was no military reason for our involvement. We now know that the threat, existence, of WMD only existed in dark corners of No10, and deeper recesses of Alistair Campbell's mind. The whole - continuing - debacle, was driven by Blair's ambition to bring regime change, and "improve the lives" of the populations of the respective countries . . . whether they wanted it or not :) .

Sometimes, the most difficult - and important - political decisions are those that require a negative response. A resounding NO!

The cnut Blair for his own nefarious motives of personal ambition and self aggrandisement, made the wrong decision :( .

The US was invading Iraq come what may - even if we hadn’t been there for Phases 1-3, there is no earthly way we could have escaped being involved in Phase 4.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
The US was invading Iraq come what may - even if we hadn’t been there for Phases 1-3, there is no earthly way we could have escaped being involved in Phase 4.
My God! You are Tim Cross and I claim my £5!
 

Yokel

LE
Back to the present, yesterday the media was reporting Army sources that stated that due to a lack of manpower, the Army will struggle to generate a brigade at thirty days readiness.



If only we could find leaders who prioritise readiness and availability, whilst not shafting every one...
 
However, our involvement in the ME was purely a political decision.

Edit: In fact there was no military reason for our involvement. We now know that the threat, existence, of WMD only existed in dark corners of No10, and deeper recesses of Alistair Campbell's mind. The whole - continuing - debacle, was driven by Blair's ambition to bring regime change, and "improve the lives" of the populations of the respective countries . . . whether they wanted it or not :) .

Sometimes, the most difficult - and important - political decisions are those that require a negative response. A resounding NO!
I don't think it was quite as simple as that. If we think back, there were two dynamics in play - dynamic the first was that those nice folk from AQ had committed a game changing attack on US soil. That it was US territory meant that they took the lead, it could equally have been an attack on the UK. As it was Art V was invoked for the first and only time.

The second dynamic was that Saddam had been continually obstructing the work on the UN inspection teams over a period of over ten years. Those inspectors were in place as a direct result of the end of Op Granby and arguably when so obstructed were cause for recommencing combat operations. That the UNSC could not bring itself to unequivocally authorise such action was less to do with the facts of the matter, than the perceived pain and grief. In essence - irrespective of the presence or not of WMD - Saddam had spent the decade taking the p1ss and at some stage that had to end.

Those dynamics mean that we had no choice but to support the US on what became Herrick, so we were going to be involved in the ME whether we liked it or not.

Iraq was a much more finely balanced decision. Whether the justification used for Telic (dodgy dossier on WMD, or supporting the US etc) were correct or not (they probably weren't) is to a degree irrelevant. There was justification aplenty in the defiance of UNSC resolutions. What was not correct were the assumptions on consequence from a raft of areas - dissolution of the Baath party, failure to understand the likely Sunni/Shia dynamic - and their associated supporters/militia. Coupled with the reluctance of certain porridge wogs to fund the operations adequately, this led to a "what's the minimum we can get away with" approach, with dire consequence for hundreds of thousands of individuals. I have no time whatsoever for TCB - but suggesting it was all a vanity project is also wide of the mark.

Anyway, back on topic, congrats to Admiral Tony.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
We now know that the threat, existence, of WMD only existed in dark corners of No10, and deeper recesses of Alistair Campbell's mind.
Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.

Still doesn't explain the SIGINT that showed Iraqi arty commanders at Corps level being given the codes for chemical release as the US closed in on Baghdad.
 
Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.

Still doesn't explain the SIGINT that showed Iraqi arty commanders at Corps level being given the codes for chemical release as the US closed in on Baghdad.

Electronic bluff that's the explanation - did they use and have chemical shells been discovered since ?

Archie
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Electronic bluff that's the explanation - did they use and have chemical shells been discovered since ?

Archie
I know that's the simple answer - in hindsight.

It would have been a brave and foolhardy commander that ignored the risk though. Also, I'm not sure they were that sophisticated despite Comical Ali.
 
So next big question is who will be his Senior Enlisted Advisor? A least we have been spared Wigston.

Interviews have been done/are underway.
 

Latest Threads

Top