Darling pledges equipment to troops in Afghanistan

#1
Darling pledges equipment to troops in Afghanistan
42 mins ago
Adrian Croft

Troops fighting in Afghanistan will get whatever equipment they need, said Chancellor Alistair Darling on Saturday, as pressure built on the government over its strategy after the death of eight soldiers. Skip related content

RELATED PHOTOS / VIDEOS
British troops patrol a Taliban-held area of Afghanistan's Helmand province during …More
Enlarge photo
The Ministry of Defence said six soldiers were killed by explosions in the southern Helmand province on Friday, a day after two others were killed. Britain has now lost more soldiers in Afghanistan -- 184 -- than it did in the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The latest deaths have shocked Britons and brought newspaper headlines such as "Our darkest day in war on Taliban" and "This bloody war." It has also led to questioning of the government's strategy and of its financial commitment to the troops.
More on the link

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090711/tpl-uk-britain-afghanistan-43a8d4f.html
 
#3
A normal soundbite, no timescale mentioned though, and as many are aware doubtful if the imcumbent bunch will have to finance any of it
 
#4
Darling pledges equipment to troops in Afghanistan ............................ :? :?

(5th July 2006 'Telegraph')

The Prime Minister said he had not yet received a request for more manpower for Afghanistan, but assured the liaison committee that any such request would receive a positive response.

"Anything they need and ask for in order to protect our troops, I will make sure they get. Our obligation to them is to give them what they need to do the job," he said.

(http://thestar.com.my/news/story.as...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-271204-1&sec=Worldupdates)

(October 7th 2007.....)

UK's Blair pledges support for troops in Afghanistan

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair has pledged to give British troops in Afghanistan whatever equipment they need in their "very, very tough" fight against the Taliban.

Blair breaks promise to troops in Afghanistan
'Evening Standard' Last updated at 23:22pm on 23.11.06

Despite assurances from the Prime Minister that UK forces would be given "whatever they want" to tackle Taliban insurgents, those doing the fighting complained they were waiting weeks for kit they had requested, and were short of vehicles able to cope with Afghanistan's punishing terrain.

Will Pa McRuin follow suite....?

Is the Pope a Roman Catholic...... do Pigs Fly??

Will he deliver, or will Cyclops interfere again and it will just be 'Hot Air'......

But we have to have 'Faith'.... and 'Beleive in the Eyeballs in the Sky...!' Lord Meddlesome-Pete says so.... all allegedy of course
 
#5
LAIT said:
We most certainly do need more soldiers - preferably infantry rather than even more KAF dwellers please.
One reason (of the many) why it take so long to get kit up to the FOBs is because twice a year a boat offloads up to 200 iso containers in Pakistan which are then driven up to KAF, the stores troop there then have the joy of sorting it out and it takes literally months. So perhaps a few more KAF dwellers wouldn't be such a bad idea.
 
#7
uncle_vanya said:
"Anything they need and ask for in order to protect our troops, I will make sure they get. Our obligation to them is to give them what they need to do the job," he said.
Well come to think of it I could do with a new set of Airborne webbing! :)
 
#8
The numbers themselves mean very little.

During my last tour of Iraq, there were 7000 British Forces in theatre. Of those, less than 1000 were Infantry soldiers based in Basra city. And of those, perhaps a third were out on the ground at any given time with another third in reserve.

So - of the initially not too shabby 7000 troops - there were only actually 300 soldiers and 300 in reserve to patrol a volatile city of two million people.
 
#10
Possibly the closest I will come to accuse a Government minister of lying.

The Chancellor is technically correct, we can have whatever we want in Afghanistan. It just has to be approved by HM Treasury as being a unique, operationally specific requirement that we could not have forseen, nor taken on risk as part of Defence planning assumptions.

It also has to fit within a £635m ceiling of expenditure, that if breached during this finacial year will lead to the MOD having to find the spare cash to repay HM Treasury in 2 years time.

So yes Chancellor, we can have what we want - its just that your foul master the PM is going to make us cut our budget in the medium term to pay for it to save our troops lives now.
 
#11
omegahunter said:
Less than a thousand? What about the gunners and tankies pressed into patrols work?
When I was in theatre, the gunners were all based out of town - and couldn't enter the city without Warrior escort anyway - and the tankies were busy clearing the MSRs, only coming into the city to support us on deliberate ops.
 
#12
Give the public what they want to hear.

Will they ever see it happen?

Of course not, because the public do not know how the military works.

The Political Elite say "they will have", the real meaning is "a new TV, table and chairs for me", they will be dead and can not argue the toss!

Meanwhile, our troops struggle, and what these MP's claim on expenses could give our guys a few well deserved treats, or perhaps, this is radical, the protective kit they need!

I'm getting old, but I always believed, the men first, safety of the men paramount, equipment and prep highest available, intel as of movement (where pos), transport and dismount as required.

I am really angry guys, and spouting off, shoot me down if i am wrong, but i have been writing to all the papers who let the radicals say how great it is our young guys are being killed, and these people are in the UK.

Our tax money is spent protecting the rights of "terrorists", but because we abide by the EHRC, they can claim compensation, asylum, legal aid, but still preach religious hatred against us, because for us, the UK, to deny them this privilege would be racist, secularist, biggoted, facist or any other kind of "ist" they could dream up.

One of my ambitions was to stand for Parliament, but i was told by a quiet word in my ear, "don't bother son, you only have the military at heart and you cannot, or will not, break that mould".

That is true, i will never betray my military "family", and if it came to a vote of Government V the safety of the forces, I suppose i will never fit in.

Many may consider me as a militant, as my local MP could not, or chose to ignore my questions to him about the equipment deficiencies our troops are suffering.

OC
 
#13
jim30 said:
Possibly the closest I will come to accuse a Government minister of lying.

The Chancellor is technically correct, we can have whatever we want in Afghanistan. It just has to be approved by HM Treasury as being a unique, operationally specific requirement that we could not have forseen, nor taken on risk as part of Defence planning assumptions.

It also has to fit within a £635m ceiling of expenditure, that if breached during this finacial year will lead to the MOD having to find the spare cash to repay HM Treasury in 2 years time.

So yes Chancellor, we can have what we want - its just that your foul master the PM is going to make us cut our budget in the medium term to pay for it to save our troops lives now.
Well said Jim30 - and in those 3 paragraphs, you hit the nail on the head. For all of the political statements, it is the MOD that will bear the cost of Blair's commitments, which have been rubber-stamped by Brown.

The irony of Brown being in Number 10 now, should not be lost on anyone.

As awful as it sounds, the latest losses may galvanise the media and then the general public into something approaching an understanding of just how much this government has messed up.
 
#14
looking at recent military events in gaza and sri lanka, where (though shrouded in some secrecy) it is apparent that uav's with thermal, infra-red, and topographical sensors (and who knows what else), cunningly interlinked in real-time with artillery and attack aircraft have "mineswept" (meaning ied-swept) with some success, safer routes for the eventually victorious military forces in both theatres, am i missing some irony?

some political irony even? :?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/armstrade-gaza
 
#15
I swear I heard this whole, "What commanders need we shall provide" stuff before......
 
#16
LAIT said:
ABrighter2006 said:
As awful as it sounds, the latest losses may galvanise the media and then the general public into something approaching an understanding of just how much this government has messed up.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Neu Arbeit. Etc.

How on earth are the Government responsible for the events of the last 2 weeks? Most soldiers out here are killed by IEDs. The kit we have to deal with them is bloody good - we find and defeat nearly all of them. The insurgency only has to get lucky once. And with literally thousands and thousands of these devices being armed/re-armed/moved on a daily basis, we've got our work cut out. Yet no-one complains about it out here. The law of averages states that every now and then, they'll get lucky and we lose. If we didn't like those odds, we'd leave. Yet remarkable numbers are still volunteering for repeat tours out here (me among them) - so maybe we don't need your armchair analysis of how the deaths of many brave soldiers will suit your own political agenda. In your own way, you're no better than the politicans you villify.

If you wish to argue, I'll be back out again tomorrow; I'll be the one in the OSPREY and 100lbs of kit. Where will you be?
Thanks for your post LAIT, and the service you and everyone else out there gives.
 
#17
Another meaningless government 'pledge'.

msr
 
#18
LAIT said:
ABrighter2006 said:
As awful as it sounds, the latest losses may galvanise the media and then the general public into something approaching an understanding of just how much this government has messed up.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Neu Arbeit. Etc.

How on earth are the Government responsible for the events of the last 2 weeks?
If HMG wants to commit forces to Afghanistan, then it needs to be crystal clear in the mission - it is not - the mission / objectives change with every PR.

If we are going to commit men on the ground, we need sufficient numbers to do it (and they need to be resourced, in a timely manner).

--from your earlier post--

"We most certainly do need more soldiers - preferably infantry rather than even more KAF dwellers please. From a total overhard of 8300 (umm...it's actually slightly more) precious few are committed to roles that actually add any value to the fight. I am sure the hundreds involved in makework in RC(S) and other places would deny that - but it's the simple truth. So, more soldiers please - but without the staff overheads.

Our kit is fine actually - but more please. The decision not to give H10 frontline troops the new lighter Mk7 helmets and new lighter OSPREY beggars belief. Mr Brown, it's fairly hot out here, and every saving in terms of weight is a big help."


Completely agree - 100%.

Most soldiers out here are killed by IEDs. The kit we have to deal with them is bloody good - we find and defeat nearly all of them. The insurgency only has to get lucky once. And with literally thousands and thousands of these devices being armed/re-armed/moved on a daily basis, we've got our work cut out. Yet no-one complains about it out here. The law of averages states that every now and then, they'll get lucky and we lose.
If "literally thousands and thousands of these devices are being armed/re-armed/moved on a daily basis" - that would rather support the cry for more troops on the ground wouldn't it?

If we didn't like those odds, we'd leave.
Says who?

Yet remarkable numbers are still volunteering for repeat tours out here (me among them) - so maybe we don't need your armchair analysis of how the deaths of many brave soldiers will suit your own political agenda. In your own way, you're no better than the politicans you villify.

If you wish to argue, I'll be back out again tomorrow; I'll be the one in the OSPREY and 100lbs of kit. Where will you be?
Political agenda - not really - just a great sense of unease that the British Government does not support its military forces on ops. My views would be the same whichever party was in power.

Glad to hear that you have the Osprey and 100lbs of kit. Somewhat different from the opening days of TELIC, when we were 000's of sets of body armour short, so well aware of the "armchair" perspective. Also aware that commanders on the ground, keep quiet at times when they shouldn't.

If we agree that more troops on the ground (in forward roles), then we need the resources to go with them right?

Either way - didn't post to cause a pizzing contest, good on you for volunteering, and keep yourself and those around you safe.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top