Darling pledges equipment to troops in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Jul 11, 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. 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

    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

  2. It's a sound bite. He says it will come from the treasury but we all know that is now up for debate.
  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.


    (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. 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.
  6. But compare Darling's thinking with the views of the boy Milliband when attacked by Humphries on this morning's Today.
  7. 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.
  9. Less than a thousand? What about the gunners and tankies pressed into patrols work?
  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. 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.

  13. 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? :?

  15. I swear I heard this whole, "What commanders need we shall provide" stuff before......