Future Force 2020 is a chocolate teapot, says HCDC

[ashford_old_school]

The one thing that can be said in Kiszely's defence is that of the eight senior officers approached in the Sunday Times "Generals For Hire" sting only two (unnamed) turned the approach down while six (including Lord Dannatt and Sir Mike Jackson) went for it.

That seems to indicate a distinct lack of either integrity or intelligence, neither of which is a good thing in a CGS who is responsible for the defence of the country.

CGS is not responsible for the defence of the country; only for implementing the policies and instructions of the government, who is responsible for the defence of the country.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

 

[FEASG]

Bill Rollo In British Generals in Blair's Wars puts it very well and admits that "We " often pay lip service to what we say.
Verbatiom Quote:
If you accept that providing security to a population is essential to gaining and securing their support then you are accepting both a requirement for numbers and the time to train them, on the assumption that no Western Army or coalition can or should alone employ the numbers required to provide security to a population in a high threat area in anything other than a very small country for a short period of time. You are also accepting the requirement to mentor and monitor, with the force requirements and force protection issues which go with this. If you accept that security is about law as much as order then you need to consider police, judges, gaols and legal process as much as soldiers. i am not sure we have taken this aspect of stabilisation seriously enough (my emphasis). Soldiers provide the framework within which policemen enforce the law. What then is the right mix of soldiers and policemen? who trains them with what objectives? And within the police what arethe responsibilities of the officers and the rank and file? What can they be in a society where literacy levels are very low? Are policemen best local? Or best from elsewhere in the country to lessen the risk of being at the point of corruption? Whatever the answer it will be different in each country and it will not be a straight Western model based on the office of constable

That seems pretty emphatic from a man at the top - it isn't simple, it can commit us to more than we are prepared in manpower and intellectual horse power to do; i'm not sure we got it right

I’m actually amazed he wrote that on his own, rather than a POLAD.

From attending his bird tables during his tenure at MND (SE), I had come to the concussion that he suffered some form of mental illness, He struck me as someone that was terminally aloof and vague to the extreme. The only time he ever looked as if he was on the same planet as the rest of us, was when he went out for a run with his CP team.

His lowest point (that I saw/ heard) was when I was at the Corps bird table in the JOCs in Camp Victory. The USMC Div were about to go in to Fallujah (op Phantom Fury), and there Div commander gave a very ballsy Find, Fix Kill brief.

This was followed by Rollo coming up, to say nothing of the Burning Oil infrastructure, and the fact that route Tampa (MSR) had been severed by burning oil pipes, that had been blown up by insurgents. No our brave leader instead decided to consecrate on the Drum beat for the day, which was some inane crap about how many dust carts were now working in Basrah. We just looked at our feet.

I later heard some of the Div LO’s saying how General Graham (Senior Brit in Baghdad) was going to have a chat to him. If ever there was an Elphy Bey (1st Afghan War), or Lord Raglan (Crimea) for our generation I would put Rollo forward any day.

 

[John G]

CGS is not responsible for the defence of the country; only for implementing the policies and instructions of the government, who is responsible for the defence of the country.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

aaah ...... that explains why a string of CGSs and CDSs took no responsibility for the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan ..... it was all "the government"''s fault and they just blindly did what they were told .....

 

[ashford_old_school]

aaah ...... that explains why a string of CGSs and CDSs took no responsibility for the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan ..... it was all "the government"''s fault and they just blindly did what they were told .....

No, they argued behind closed doors and then came out as a united front. You know, kind of like things are done in a regt. But you wouldn't have done that I suppose. You probably went in front of the lads and said 'look, I don't like it either, but I have been told to do it'. Or maybe you resigned everytime you disagreed with your boss? Sorry, you didn't have one, you were immediately promoted to CO on the word of the doctor that could see you had a lot to offer despite having a P8 condition on joining.

 

[John G]

No, they argued behind closed doors and then came out as a united front. You know, kind of like things are done in a regt. But you wouldn't have done that I suppose. You probably went in front of the lads and said 'look, I don't like it either, but I have been told to do it'. Or maybe you resigned everytime you disagreed with your boss? Sorry, you didn't have one, you were immediately promoted to CO on the word of the doctor that could see you had a lot to offer despite having a P8 condition on joining.

Since neither of us were behind those "closed doors" clearly neither of us is in a position to make such a statement with such assurance.

What is clear, though, although you seem to have missed them, is that in the various enquiries and, even more clearly, the TV programmes with those ex-VSOs who were prepared to be interviewed, there is NO such reference to any such arguing or disagreement - just a lot of sloping shoulders and a grudging admission that "maybe we could have done things differently."

You also seem to have missed their statements over the past decade that we had "enough" troops, helicopters, equipment, etc, in theatre when it was equally clear that we didn't.

Neither of us were VSOs, so speculating on what either of us would have done is rather pointless.

Those who are VSOs, particularly CGS and CDS, not only have a direct responsibility to those under their command but a duty to take responsibility for their decisions - their reluctance to do so is very clear.

 

[Daxx]

Love this bit!:

"Chairman of the Defence Committee, Rory Stewart MP says “The SDSR and Future Force 2020 were based on the fundamental assumption that British Forces should be structured to deploy a single Brigade formation to a single key theatre such as Afghanistan and sustain it there. But now we can see that we might be needed in a dozen different theatres, concurrently, confronting terrorism or lightly armed, paramilitaries in one setting andheavily armed, formed units of an advanced military nation in another. More advanced military threats, and multiple concurrent threats both require a fundamental rethinking of our strategyand our force structure."

So in summary - UK Forces could be required anywhere against any type of threat!
B'jesus! How much do they pay these great thinkers to work out FF2020 was a shite idea and the UK has no idea where or what the future threat will be!
So unless we buy enough equipment and employ enough service personnel to cover all scenarios ( need equipment of the U.S. and forces the size of China), then we carry on as normal!
So as you were then! (Sighs....)

Cos FF2020 was about saving money not shaping capability. Then ISIS happened.

 

[ashford_old_school]

Since neither of us were behind those "closed doors" clearly neither of us is in a position to make such a statement with such assurance.

What is clear, though, although you seem to have missed them, is that in the various enquiries and, even more clearly, the TV programmes with those ex-VSOs who were prepared to be interviewed, there is NO such reference to any such arguing or disagreement - just a lot of sloping shoulders and a grudging admission that "maybe we could have done things differently."

You also seem to have missed their statements over the past decade that we had "enough" troops, helicopters, equipment, etc, in theatre when it was equally clear that we didn't.

Neither of us were VSOs, so speculating on what either of us would have done is rather pointless.

Those who are VSOs, particularly CGS and CDS, not only have a direct responsibility to those under their command but a duty to take responsibility for their decisions - their reluctance to do so is very clear.

You might not be able to say that, but do not presume to speak for me. I have a wife to do that, I don't need a google throbber doing it as well!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

 

[John G]

You might not be able to say that, but do not presume to speak for me. I have a wife to do that, I don't need a google throbber doing it as well!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

Like me you are not a member of the Defence Committee and neither were you a VSO, whatever else you (or I) may or may not be; those are simple statements of fact.

 

[John G]

Cos FF2020 was about saving money not shaping capability. Then ISIS happened.

I doubt that ISIS is the elephant in the room. While they may be a more identifiable military force than the Taliban or, say, the Mahdi Army, they still pose comparatively little direct military threat to the UK or British interests so its highly unlikely given recent experience that we'll get involved militarily in "regime change" there beyond some SF, some RAF strikes, and some limited training in kit we've supplied with some force protection for the trainers.

Their main indirect effect on the military may be that money needs to be spent elsewhere to counter domestic terrorism, so in times of budgetary restraint that could mean less available for those who can't justify it (possibly the Army?).

 

[Kitmarlowe]

I’m actually amazed he wrote that on his own, rather than a POLAD.

From attending his bird tables during his tenure at MND (SE), I had come to the concussion that he suffered some form of mental illness, He struck me as someone that was terminally aloof and vague to the extreme. The only time he ever looked as if he was on the same planet as the rest of us, was when he went out for a run with his CP team.

His lowest point (that I saw/ heard) was when I was at the Corps bird table in the JOCs in Camp Victory. The USMC Div were about to go in to Fallujah (op Phantom Fury), and there Div commander a very ballsy Find, Fix Kill brief.

This was followed by Rollo coming up, to say nothing of the Burning Oil infrastructure, and the fact that route Tampa (MSR) had been severed by burning oil pipes, that had been blown up by insurgents. No our brave leader instead decided to consecrate on the Drum beat for the day, which was some inane crap about how many dust carts were now working in Basrah. We just looked at our feet.

I later heard some of the Div LO’s saying how General Graham (Senior Brit in Baghdad) was going to have a chat to him. If ever there was an Elphy Bey (1st Afghan War), or Lord Raglan (Crimea) for our generation I would put Rollo forward any day.

So what amazing Career Management system picked someone like him to take such a top job ?

 

[ashford_old_school]

Like me you are not a member of the Defence Committee and neither were you a VSO, whatever else you (or I) may or may not be; those are simple statements of fact.

Neither of which prevents me from finding information out. After all, I am not balls deep in young boys.

 

[Kitmarlowe]

With regard to my previous post on Career management system and VSO selection.

Has anyone at VSO level twigged yet that VSO don't need to be selected on the grounds that they look damned fearless when stood behind a Battalion Line under artillery fire as the damn French come stomping up playing Old Trousers ?

 

[John G]

Neither of which prevents me from finding information out.

In this case your "information" appears flawed, unless all concerned lied under oath to the Iraq Inquiry, lied in their autobiographies (where they have written them), lied on TV when they spoke about the decisions, and were lied about when they were reported to say that we had "enough" troops, helicopters, equipment, etc in theatre.

Given that they have all been very quick to deny any responsibility and all too ready to blame the politicos this seems rather unlikely.

If this is the quality of "information" we are reliant on (E5 being sold as A1) that also explains a great deal.

 

[ashford_old_school]

In this case your "information" appears flawed, unless all concerned lied under oath to the Iraq Inquiry, lied in their autobiographies (where they have written them), lied on TV when they spoke about the decisions, and were lied about when they were reported to say that we had "enough" troops, helicopters, equipment, etc in theatre.

Given that they have all been very quick to deny any responsibility and all too ready to blame the politicos this seems rather unlikely.

If this is the quality of "information" we are reliant on (E5 being sold as A1) that also explains a great deal.

And you see that as an impossibility? You need to get your head out of...the sand. E5? You mean F6.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

 

[John G]

And you see that as an impossibility? You need to get your head out of...the sand. E5? You mean F6.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

No, I meant E5.

I don't see their lying as an "impossibility" at all, given their reluctance to take any personal responsibility. What I see as extremely unlikely and can see no possible reason for, though, is why they (or anyone in their position) would lie about those events in order to make themselves look bad and save the politicos some embarrasment when they are presented with the perfect scapegoat on a plate.

All anyone had to say to absolve themselves from blame and pass the blame to those who might have deserved it, rather than try to play the blame game amongst themselves, was to say "I told you so but you didn't listen to me". None have.

The only reason for not doing so that I can think of (and there is no moral or legal obligation on them to refrain from doing so) is that the (classified) minutes of those meetings would prove they didn't - can you suggest any other credible reason why no VSOs have said that?