General Dannatt on the state of the army

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Aug 19, 2007.

?
  1. Yes, no doubt

    9.4%
  2. Rather yes

    16.8%
  3. It's too early to speak about it

    32.2%
  4. No from strategical point of view

    21.5%
  5. No

    20.1%

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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6953532.stm

    Sir Richard has used a word 'tactical'. But would his statement be true without this word?

     
  2. Doubt it. The word looks carefully chosen to me.
     
  3. Is Dannett talking about the BRITISH FORCES?? Has he actually talked to the Troops on the ground man to man ,and not to hand picked brown-noses?. Direct this guy to Arrse and get him to read the TRUTH about how the real squaddie having to go through it day in day out.

    Get him to talk to the Wives..not the officers wives..the Squaddies wives, who hav'nt see the husbands for God knows when.

    Mind you, when his career's over, he should get a "good number" provided he does'nt make waves :(
     
  4. Freeway - I don't know his username but I have heard that CGS is a member.
     
  5. elovabloke

    elovabloke LE Moderator

    He has just been on BBC1 asking why the Post Office are charging so much for parcels sent to operational areas. He has suggested that they do it for free. As the big boss he should demand it and if they are not willing the Government should pick up the tab. I wonder why he didn’t bring that into the equation.

    I'm sure like the rest of us he his big enough and ugly enough to take it , whatever is said about him. Within the realms of decancy that is.
     
  6. How hot is it Mon to Fri in a Whitehall grace and favour pad when you've been home to your wife and your country retreat for the weekend(probably)?
     
  7. What? - I was so optimistic about General Dannet. Statements like this make it look as if he is ready to do a Jackson and toe the MOD line.
    :x
     
  8. When I first read it on the BBC Website, my first thoughts were "what planet is he on?" Can't be the same as us!
     
  9. He didn't say that bit. Battles are tactical. Wars are strategic/operational. 'Tactical battle' is a bit of tautology anyway.

    You seem to think the British Army is in the same position the Soviets were. We're not in the same position, we're not using the same strategy or tactics, and even if it all goes wrong and we do lose Afghanistan it won't just have been a simple replay of the Soviet invasion.
     
  10. I guess sir Richard meant

    Critically important that our soldiers should feel valued and supported and thanked for what they are doing.
     
  11. Generally you are right. Stategy and tactics are different. Moreover, USA has own strategy and tactics in Afghanistan that differ from British ones.

    Strategic goal

    Soviet Union: to create pro-Soviet satellite regime and using it extend Soviet expansion over the region maybe even to Iran, Pakistan and the Gulf countries.

    USA: to create pro-American satellite regime and using it extend American expansion over the region maybe even to Central Asian countries, former parts of the Soviet union.

    The UK: hasn't strategic goal.

    Strategy

    Soviet union: military pressure of opposition to the puppet government, economical aid, ideological expansion, propaganda, creation of puppet army.

    USA: military pressure of opposition to the puppet government, economical aid, ideological expansion, propaganda, imitation of attempts to create national army.

    The UK: to obey orders from Washington.

    Tactics

    Soviet Union: wide spectrum of measures including bombings, killings, bribing of tribal leaders, using of special Soviet regiments formed from Soviet Uzbeks and Tajiks (to win 'hearts and minds), education of 'future' Afghan elite in the Soviet union and so on and so forth.

    USA: bombings, killings, bribing of tribal leaders, using of British and other allied forces to make dirty job. Attempts to win 'hearts and minds'.

    The UK: to obey orders from Washington.
     
  12. Tactically we may well be winning but that does'nt really matter if those gains are not being exploited by DfID etc. Again it just seems like too much being asked for with too little to do it.
     
  13. Dont tell me he's The Lord flash or M_D_N
     
  14. :x What planet is he on, or is he paying lip service to whom? The Taliban and their supporters are in charge they have the numbers, there are 150million people in Pakistan and a lot support the tribes from where the Taliban come from, they have funds from drugs and lots of ammo, ammo costs more than weapons just ask the M.O.D. they keep our troops short of ammo. even supply them with substandard .50 cal ammo remember? it was cheaper than the U.S. made .50 cal. ask the Paras. they had lots of jams when under fire :evil: AK. ammo is cheaper than Brit ammo. The R.P.Gs. they use and the rockets are much cheaper than that supplied to Brits. and in more available quantities . People knock the Soviet weapons but they are reliable, cheaper,produced for large armies. so have to work for conscripted troops, Not very nice for the troops fighting against Taliban even with air cover. The Soviets found out that Afgan is not easy pickings. I only hope that P.B.I. get out safely. :evil: People can discuss the pro and cons of this for ever or until it is resolved.
     
  15. Seconded. Disappointing. :(