CDS to be removed by Brown

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Office_Linebacker, Oct 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. Well there is a story on the front page of the telegraph and on page 6 about the Prime Minister wanting to remove Jock Stirrup yet I cant find any web links on the telegraph website.

    Apparenlty Brown is unhappy about the percieved lack of support from the CDS over the increase in troop numbers for Afg.

    Anyone else seen it?
  2. I tried searching for "pointless crab-air flyboy" but got too many links :D Eventually found it on a Japanese site.

  3. Not really sure what to make of this. What guarantees are there that the extra troops will have adequate vehicular protection and increased helicopter capability in support of the extra deployment? Surely the current deployment is short enough of capability as it is and we recently suffered the loss of two Chinners into the bargain. Are we just throwing more bods at the problem without thinking it through? What track record does CDS have of fighting for appropriate equipment in Afghanistan?

    I think we need more details before figuring out who has taken a principled stand. Is Gordon Brown trying to prevent further casualties as well as keeping down the cost of the war? Or would these troops be relatively safe training ANA and not involved in frontline fighting?

    None of this has been adequately explained. Appreciate a post from anyone who has a bit more understanding of the situation without breaching opsec, of course.
  4. "Typhoon, more Typhoon, A400M, more Typhoon, Typhoon. What? Can't hear you? Heavy lift helicopters? What use are they? You can't reenact 'Top Gun' in those! Typhoon, typhoon, typhoon, typhoon, etc, etc"

    That CDS?
  5. to summaries the articles.

    Brown doesn't like that an expert in defence disagrees with him. so he wants to sack someone who knows much more about the subject than he does, in order to replace him with a 'yes-man'.

    'bout sums labour up.

    either commit to the war and do whatever is required to win, or pull the UK out.
  6. I agree with the first paragraph - but is Jock Stirrup not a yes-man? He only really spoke up after General Dannatt made his pleas.
  7. Where did they magically appear from?
  8. I believe we are talking about the self same CDS which is why I have concerns about the sort of vehicles these extra troops will be driving around in. He has not convinced me in the past about how hard he has pushed for MRAP type vehicles and increased helo presence in Afg.

    My concern is that these extra troops will just be told to "crack on" and take the increased risk on their own shoulders, leading to even more ground convoys and more exposure to IED threat.
  9. Ah, is that schadenfreude I hear ? Having kept himself in a very well paid job by telling the politicians what they want to hear he's finally learning that there's a downside.
  10. I know what your saying, however, if we are seeing that he is going to be removed by brown for standing up to him, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he has been pushing as hard as he could. time will tell.
  11. What has Stirrup got to lose? He is well over the pension point. Like Jackson I think.
  12. Eric Joyce is an ex-AGC (ETS)Major, maybe Brown can appoint him as CDS?
  13. Brown has a track record of providing sweeteners to act as reward. Of course, anyone standing on a matter of principle would never accept a sweetener in such circumstances. Difficult to see how Brown can simply get rid of CDS, what exactly has he done wrong? So how does he get rid of him? Especially if his colleagues gather round in support.

    So, the way I see it, if CDS has to go, he has to go by choice.

    I guess we will soon find out what sort of a CDS we have in post.
  14. The Chinooks were both replaced within days (single figures) thus the number in theatre has remained the same. Whether this is enough is of course debatable, albeit a very short debate with a very strong possibility of a negative outcome.

    Labour can have it’s cake and eat it at the moment. No more troops until they are properly equipped means no more troops because we have peed the readies up the wall in a failed attempt at social engineering/buying votes from an underclass they have created out of thin air. “It should pay to work” GB 1997. Fail. Epic fail.

    So they save cash by not equipping soldiers correctly thus getting out of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan all the while saying it is in the troops own interests. Genius. Sounds good and saves cash.

    On to the ANA. OMLT go out on the ground with the ANA so are subjected to a similar level of risk as other British forces. Afghanistan is franticly trying to increase the size of its armed forces. I think it is currently at 135,000. Which is I think you’ll agree is pretty impressive, from a standing start. On paper at least. In actual fact this number will vary. Downwards mostly depending on how many turn up for work and don’t sod off home because they feel like it.

    OMLT tend to pack a lot of punch for their size being able to call in ISAF assets which, I believe, the ANA can’t.

    The term frontline is a bit of a misnomer in Afghanistan as it tends to be wherever that last shot just came from. You go out the gate and you take your chances.

    In CDS’ defence, I think that anyone who goes to Mr Brown and asks for cash for his department will get fcuked off at high port. It is the Armed Forces to boot so not a traditional vote winner.