PoD Power Struggle with Bliar

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Nov 23, 2004.

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. From the Scotsman:

    This article is interesting, although the editorial in the paper is b@llocks, effectively saying that PoD should get back in his box. It appears that PoD is operating as he sees fit within the parameters set by HMG and if there is any major political fallout then.....tough! :twisted:

  2. As much as I disagree with Jacksons plan on this matter due respect for standing up to BLiar and telling it like it is. That was probably a novel experience for the PM who no doubt winged all night to the wide mouthed frog.
  3. Can someone remind me just why we are having these battalions axed again?

    "It'll be worth it"???

    Dear Your Lord High Darkness,

    Do you honestly believe the savings associated with chopping and amalgamating Regiments , will actually find their way magically back into the Army's Budget?

    Or deep down , do you know that any savings will be blown in another ghastly attempt to keep KBR/GD/Thales shareholders in dividends?

    Can you please define - "Worth it"?

    I seem to remember another person of exalted rank saying almost exactly the same thing 5 years ago, it most definitely has NOT been worth the pain then, and I doubt it will be in future.

    I remain
    Yours respectfully

  4. I think this a very clever long term plan by Jacko. He has been set a task to save money by the back stabbing cnuts. so he has found a solution to their (Blair/Browns request) knowing full well that they will hide behind Jackson and say its His and the Army Board who makes their minds up on Army strengths and not them.
    Now its all falling apart and making Blair look for what he is. close to an election, and now he wants to change things, so who is deciding the future Army? Army Board or Blair? Good plan if true
    What better way to help get rid of these People but from inside :twisted:
  5. So those two are at war, then.

    That's helpful. :roll:
  6. The POD said:
    So is 'concentration of force' however that principle is getting secondary consideration as our committments are spread far annd wide placing units and their families under great pressure. The loss of more units dilutes that concentration further.
  7. Perhaps PoD is deliberately picking a fight with those regiments most capable of fighting back in the political arena ie. the tartan ones, particularly when 1BW are in the news on an almost-hourly basis.


    Or maybe I've had too much coffee!
  8. I think they should go at it with 1 minute of Milling.

    Stand by.....Mill!

  9. Of Bliar and Brown kennys-go-nad wrote

    If the Army board is the same as the Navy ( Admiralty) Board (only green), TCH sits at the top end of the table with three civilians ( all Labour ) sitting down before the professional head of service gets to rest his uniformed arrse. Kenny is correct, the spin from the propaganda minister will be that the Army decides.
  10. X-Inf

    X-Inf War Hero Book Reviewer

    The POD said:
    Another principle is 'Don't reinforce failure'. As previous cuts (sorry again reconstructions/reconfigurations/reorganisations - pick your own fav) cannot be claimned to be unqualified success, why continue on this line?

    Still fewer inf bns will help ops in Iraq and elsewhare of course.
  11. I take it that was sarcasm? Apologies if not, but PoD is going blue in the face saying this. If we get rid of the arms plot and take advantage of NI peace dividend then there will be more inf battalions available to be called on at any one time given that fewer will be involved in retraining cycles every couple of years. In the current operational tempo that will mean fewer back to back tours for the infantry and they should be able to get back to the 2 year gap between tours. If this is handled properly (and that's a big 'if') then this could work out quite well. Seperately, and I have to say this before I get a slagging, it is very sad (and I'm not a supporter of this) that some cap badges will be amalgamated as a result of these plans.

    There is one point to make. Will there be an increased logisitic tale to support the extra available inf battalions if they're all used in one go for invading Iran for example?!
  12. And if Northern Ireland kicks off again?

    If Iraq tips into bloody chaos after January 26th?

    If the UN needs a "Backbone" for Ops in Rwanda, Eritrea, Ethiopia etc?

    The silly season in Kosovo?

    If we need troops for Humanitarian work in Sudan or elsewhere?

    If we need to reinforce ARRC if the Ukranian situation gets out of hand? (unlikely and God Forbid)

    I can see your point Kermit, as long as we have a rider in there, that the Army has final say over whether we have the manpower and logistics for an operation?

    Unfortunately , I fear that is exactly what the Army does do, and it's over-ridden by the Politicians.

    "Invade Iraq? What? Are you having a laugh?"

    "Just get planning, I've already told the Yanks we're in"
  13. Not sure if there's any truth to 'em but there's a hell of a lot of rumours going about Russian Spetsnaz turning up in the Ukraine, trainloads of BTRs and tanks heading south in the nights - that sort of stuff. Chunks of Ukr. airspace closed under air-defence priority, busloads of blokes in civvies with Russian accents.

    May all be crisis fever, but there's certainly a lot of it.
  14. PTP,

    Yes I agree that if it all kicks off round the world then we're in trouble, but I did qualify that this plan works in the current op tempo. Even without NI peace dividend, if we lose the arms plot only then that will still give us a bit extra over what we 'effectively' have now...

    I fully agree with the point on ploiticians riding rough shod over what the mil commanders say is possible. I don't think they really wanted to do Iraq. Mil commanders are always saying that the last thing they want to do is send the lads to war, but I feel that the politicians present them a fait acompli and tell them to plan and execute it. The brass can then go back and say 'well we can give you 25,000 troops and not the 30,000 you asked for', but thats probably the only freedom they're allowed.
  15. At the end of the day, the Politicians are in charge of all things military. They decide and the Chiefs do the ground work.

    All this ba'llocks about the PoD deciding is pure and utter spin, nothing more. He will be seen as the fall guy to save TBLiar any blushes and back-lash from North of the Border.

    Usual lies and smoke from the Spin boys at New Labour :roll: