CDS to be removed by Brown

#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.

Page 1 said:
THE future of the country’s top military chief was in doubt last night after a row with the Prime Minister over how many extra troops Britain should send to Afghanistan.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Gordon Brown feels he has been “let down” by Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Insiders say Sir Jock could even be forced to step down early as a result of the row, understood to be over the Prime Minister’s refusal to back a major new deployment to Afghanistan.

Senior military figures are also disappointed at Sir Jock’s failure to win ministerial support for a bigger deployment.

Armed Forces chiefs want to send as many as 2,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but ministers want a smaller, cheaper deployment.
Page 6 said:
GORDON BROWN believes he has been “let down” by Britain’s senior defence chief amid a row between ministers and commanders over the mission in Afghanistan.

Mr Brown and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, are understood to have argued over the Prime Minister’s refusal to back a major new deployment to Afghanistan. The dispute has raised questions about Sir Jock’s future.

Military chiefs want a big increase in troop numbers to secure ground taken from the Taliban and to train Afghan forces. Ministers want a much smaller deployment. The Cabinet is expected to make a decision next week.

The Prime Minister is understood to be unimpressed by Sir Jock’s performance. Insiders say Mr Brown might even seek to replace the defence chief before the end of his term in 2011.

“It’s fair to say that Gordon is not impressed with the service he’s getting from [Sir Jock],” said a government source.

According to another source, Mr Brown has said privately he believes he has been “let down by the advice he has received from the senior military advisers”.

Two Army commanders are now in contention to replace Sir Jock. They are Lt Gen Sir Nick Houghton, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, and Lt Gen Sir David Richards, the Chief of the General Staff.

Mr Brown has held private meetings with both generals in recent weeks. Advising the Prime Minister on military matters is normally the sole responsibility of the Chief of the Defence Staff. The Government source said: “The feeling is that either Houghton or Richards could be CDS and make a better job of it than Stirrup, so he’s starting to feel the heat now.”

Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan. Since 2001, a total of 219 have been killed, and ministers have faced repeated allegations that they have failed to provide enough equipment and transport, such as helicopters and armoured vehicles, for the mission.

Now, the Prime Minister is resisting requests from US General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato commander in Afghanistan, for a significant increase in British numbers. British commanders are backing the request for up to 2,000 extra soldiers but ministers say a big rise is unaffordable.

It us understood that the Cabinet will next week discuss a plan to send as few as 500 extra soldiers to Afghanistan.

Sir Jock, a former fighter pilot, was originally due to retire this year, but last year his term as defence chief was extended because ministers did not believe any of the candidates to replace him at the time were up to the job.

Now, however, insiders say his position is in doubt because there are strong contenders to take the post.

Significantly, both Sir Nick and Sir David have direct experience of commanding troops on active deployment. Sir Nick led British forces in southern Iraq, while Sir David was the top Nato commander in Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, Sir Jock advised the Prime Minister to send almost 2,000 more British soldiers to Afghanistan. Mr Brown vetoed the plan, although he later agreed to send 900 personnel.

In a statement, Sir Jock insisted his relationship with the Prime Minister was good, but failed to comment on their disagreements over policy. “Any suggestion that the Prime Minister and I have fallen out is wrong,” he said.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “The Prime Minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff speak regularly and their relationship is excellent.”
 
#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
nigegilb said:
What track record does CDS have of fighting for appropriate equipment in Afghanistan?
"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
SkiCarver said:
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.
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
Now, however, insiders say his position is in doubt because there are strong contenders to take the post.
Where did they magically appear from?
 
#8
Idrach said:
nigegilb said:
What track record does CDS have of fighting for appropriate equipment in Afghanistan?
"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?
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
dropshortjock said:
SkiCarver said:
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.
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.
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
nigegilb said:
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.
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.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top