Out of Iraq – but will army ever recover?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by bl_ue, Dec 18, 2008.

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. 'Out of Iraq – but will army ever recover?'

    Published Date: 18 December 2008
    By Tanya Thompson

    He said: "We knew why we were in Northern Ireland, we knew why we were in Korea and the Falklands. But after the regime change, when you kicked out Saddam and there were no weapons of mass destruction, you had six years of scratching your head thinking, 'what are we doing here?'

    http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Out-of-Iraq--but.4803555.jp

    'A moment for truth as Britain exits Iraq'
    By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
    Thursday, 18 December 2008
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-moment-for-truth-as-britain-exits-iraq-1202312.html
     
  2. Yes the British Army will recover.
    Provided it is not thrown into a new war in it's desperately small state.
    A complete Defence Review is required and the future tasks planned or expect need to be sorted out.
    The Army now is just to small for the tasks the Political Masters require.
    john
     
  3. Then the Politicians, who can't, or won't fund a larger army, have to live up to their obligations and reduce the commitments placed on the army to match its strength.
    To fail to provide an army commensurate with the strategic demands that are placed upon it, is as criminal a piece of negligence, as that which deployed the B.E.F. to France in 1939-40.

    I am confident that the Politicians will make the incorrect response to this particular "riddle of the sands"!
     
  4. Agreed. But the armed services all need to get some support from the politicians and "talking heads" who influence them, otherwise the review will come up with the usual efficiency cuts formula. Our service people go into foreign countries with good will and try to make a postive difference. It is to our shame that they are consistently let down in their efforts, starved of resources, and largely ignored by the press and media. The Army in particular also seem to be losing all the named regiments to conform to the American model of organisation. If America goes bust, opts for isolationism and withdraws from everywhere, we will have traded our traditions in for fcuk all. There was a good letter in The Times yesterday from Dr Christopher Martin, Lecturer in War and Strategic Studies at Hull University. He said
    "Sir, Since 1945 successive UK governments have struggled to match finance to commitment. Nevertheless, one principle has underpinned UK defence policy — that the UK is, and should be, a world leader with global responsibilities and interests.

    We have been here before with the CVA-01 aircraft carrier cancelled in 1966 after another financial crisis. Those who would take advantage of the current crisis and seek to terminate the carrier programme must pursue a logical and honest reappraisal of what the UK is, and wants to be, in the world.

    The abandonment of our global role has inevitable consequences: the reduction of our conventional Forces to a gendarmerie, for if we cannot support them beyond our shores we should have no business sending them; the termination of our nuclear deterrent, for in the absence of adequate conventional Forces it becomes a first line of defence that must be unacceptable in any circumstances; and finally, we should be obliged to surrender our permanent seat on the UN Security Council, for we should have no business keeping it from those who would have to assume our responsibilities.

    Such a situation is intolerable. We have no right to ask others to defend our global interests. Everything we rely on must come by sea, and much of that through volatile littoral regions. We are the world’s fourth-largest economy and benefit enormously from global trade. To abandon our role in properly defending it is equivalent to absolving the rich of taxes.

    Dr Christopher Martin

    Lecturer in War and Strategic Studies, University of Hull" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5354505.ece is the link for this/
     
  5. Of course it will, so long as Mr Obama doesn't decide to take on a "rough state" for a few years & so long as the troops who would have been going to Iraq aren't sent to Afghanistan.
     
  6. Which they will.
     
  7. Or won't.

    See link

    news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk...718464.stm

    JOCK STIRRUP

    Further entrenched by David Milliband

    The Chiefs are generally seen as a mouthpeice of the politicians so if Jock is not reprimanded for sticking his head above the parapet it can generally be assumed he is voicing the wishes of Whitehall.


    So maybe not
     
  8. Your editing obviously left out a few key elements:



    So I don't mean to sound 'Offish', but Sir Jock Stirrup does as he's fecking told: He's not a politician.
     
  9. That's correct. So if he is publicly making statements it is likely that White(house)hall already knew before hand and sanctioned it.

    Otherwise Jock will be joing the rest of the jobseekers shortly...
     
  10. 1/ Politicians have their opinions and try to send orders, but I don't do them.
    2/ I write my own missions and ignore these festering corupt penguins.
    3/ They couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery (Thats all parties).
    I wouldn't leave them in charge of their own willies.
    4/ Just repeat the March of Alexander From: Macedonia to Pakistan and you won't go far wrong.
    5/ If you have to fill in a reply, just say something sweet . Then carry on with your Battle March to eternity.
    6/ This method has got me through twenty years and never failed yet.
     
  11. bl-ue, AKA Errol

    What a brilliant military and social mind you have. Veterans really look forward to your enlightening military writings under the pen name of Tom Elliot SAS RSM and your social commentary on Bloody Sunday on Google Group Forums.

    Len
     
  12. I don't feel it will recover. What we had has gone along with the regiments that made it.

    It will adapt, but what we had has gone.

    Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Major, Blair and Brown, you robbed this country of more than you gave it. ******* the lot of them, may the rot in hell for their defence cuts...
     
  13. We never really played it up in the media, but the British Army was actually fairly successful in its aims in SE Iraq as explained to Jon Snow last night on Channel 4 news by a chap from RUSI and in today's Guardian by Sir Jock Stirrup:


    Exit Iraq, heads high
    British forces will not leave Basra in shame, but with reputations intact. We should salute them


    some selected quotes from the above:

    Oddly enough, elsewhere on their site ...

    Pride over making a difference

     
  14. I understand the strain on married soldiers and their families, which is more important than it seems to politicians. This will always result in the more experienced NCOs and officers thinking of PVR. However, there is nothing like constant warfare to make keep Army procedures up to date and keep us as the best army in the world. Ops in northern Ireland kept a very good edge on the soldiers' skills in those decades, which others could never match. Whether ops in AFG and Iraq are too high intensity, however, may be open to debate.
     
  15. Going on past records that the last thing we need, these shysters would use it to make even further cut backs.......... :evil: