split from the Mrs Mendonca thread

#1
RTFQ has suggested we consider the fol question instead of discussing any details of current or intended prosecutions. I think this is a good idea.

"can a nation combat a terrorist conglomorate seeking a war of annihilation with an army bound by uninformed political restrictions and hamstrung by a culture of fear?"
I'll start the ball rolling:

No.
 
#4
if it can, let us know how, our hands are tied by pc facists and arse end politicians
 
#5
Clearly not.
 
#6
A lot of navel gazing, plenty of focus groups, large doses of self analysis, an immaculate PhD thesis (completed in 2 years), an inspired staff course, two goes on 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' and some expensive appointments with my shrink have all led me to the inescapable conclusion that this has to be a 'NO'.

FFS.
 
#7
Storeman Norman said:
A lot of navel gazing, plenty of focus groups, large doses of self analysis, an immaculate PhD thesis (completed in 2 years), an inspired staff course, two goes on 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' and some expensive appointments with my shrink have all led me to the inescapable conclusion that this has to be a 'NO'.

FFS.
Has your cough got any better?
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#8
Ummmmmm let me think...... Well we can fight such a war, whether we can win it is another matter.
 
#9
No.

We have to fight using the same rules as the enemy and accept that there will be mistakes, that some freedoms will be lost (on a temp basis, one would hope), the security forces/services can kick the tree huggers sh*te human rights convention into touch and among other things media reporting on "the war on terror" be censored by the security services.
 
#10
No.

Not a chance while we remain a nation of lions ruled by a government of sub-human pond life scum.
 
#11
I'm with Private Pike.

Reinstate Crown exemption from prosecution for the 'war on terror' ... on the basis of recent cases could save the tax payer a bob or two.
 
#13
Whoa - hang on a minute guys, I agree that something somewhere is going wrong. But the Army has always operated within strict constraints. I can't claim any great length of military service but throughout my training it has been made abundantly clear that if I get the RoE wrong and shoot someone I shouldn't I'll end up in the dock. We all look down our noses at the casual armies of other nations. Meanwhile we account for every round and expect to be called to explain how we acted as we did in any engagement (in a peace keeping environment that is). This fire discipline can only be maintained by strict control from above. It is because of this that British Forces are able to deploy into areas where all parties will be confident that they won't make the situation worse.

After many years of being kept on a tight leash in NI, FRY and elsewhere, leading to successful and highly commendable campaigns this constraint is being labelled on this thread as

army bound by uninformed political restrictions and hamstrung by a culture of fear
If we rip up the rule book for the totaly undefined "war on terror" then even our best regiments will rapidly be no better than your average third world militia.
 
#15
Lasalle said:
If we rip up the rule book for the totaly undefined "war on terror" then even our best regiments will rapidly be no better than your average third world militia.
I disagree, 3rd world Militia are ill trained, undisiplined, corrupt and badly led. If many of the rules are removed or redefined the Brit Army IS disciplined, well trained and led, they would not become a 3rd world shower of sh*t.
 
#16
I'm going to raise my head above the parapet and say a definite and unequivocal "maybe".

Follow my logic, here. Al-Q and the whole Islamicist thing are a tactical issue in the short term and military/police means may be needed to control/disrupt/hinder their activities. They won't stop them. The sandpit thing is... confusing and we should probably cut our losses and GTF out of there with a modicum of face. While we're there, it's important that we be seen to be operating under defined and reasonable ROE. I suspect that's where the rub is - the ROE are either unclear or poorly framed, or inappropriate to the circumstances prevailing. If that's the case, they should be reviewed ASP.

Unless we're in a state of general war - and we're not - our operations have to be very tightly controlled and the reality, whether one likes it or not, is that, if we're going to be the good guys, we have to look like the good guys to the media and our own population, not to speak of the poor b*stard locals who're caught in the crossfire.

I hate seeing our guys in the dock and my own personal gorge rises at the fairly clear way some have been hung out to dry by people who are charged with keeping them out of unnecessary harm's way. I am disgusted by the witch-huntery going on and have a strong suspicion that selfish political interest and spinelessness both play a role in that witch huntery. Nonetheless, it's right that soldiers be accountable for their actions under the ROE as currently written.

The primary damage these Al-Q/insurgent/islamicist herberts inflict is on our systems and politics and the sort of overreaction we're seeing at the moment in terms of internal security in the UK can only damage both the systems and politics and the essential nature of our civic society. If we "take the gloves off" or "bend the rules" or say "no more Mister Nice Guy" - pick your cliche - and move any further from the accepted norms of a civilised Western society which puts a premium on individual freedom, even when preservation of that individual freedom materially increases risk, we're winning their war for them.

I have no interest in having the government knowing any more about me or my business than the very minimum - not because I have much to hide, but because it's not their business and because I have very limited confidence in the government's ability to do anything much constructive with what they know, beyond imposing intrusive "security" measures, abridging my own freedom and reaching into my pocket for even more of my cash to subsidise its spending habit. Pretty much everything which has been proposed in terms of internal security measures - ID cards, ANPRs every 400 metres on m-ways, integrated databases - will do nothing whatsoever to catch criminals and terrorists, but will make chasing people who're likely to pay their fines that much easier.

So, "maybe".
 
#17
Very good point Lasalle, but I don't think any but the most rabid knuckle draggers would recommend abandoning RoE, and the professional standards of the British Army. Changing RoE to adapt to the situation on the ground is a different matter, obviously.

Referring to the original question, as an organisation we are now being held to ever higher standards of responsibility (due in part to a more prevalent media presence so the most minor infractions can make the news before a CO hears about it through the chain of command), and unrealistic PC slanted restrictions.

The alleged witch hunt looking for a commissioned scalp so that MOD/APA/Tony's cabinet can say we're whiter than white is a logical progression, from their point of view. "If we Nail some CO for an (As yet unproven) infraction of men under his command, we can say that our system is working". Doesn't matter to these people the damage that is done to the Army, the Operation, or the individual to be charged, just so long as they can show that they're in the clear.

So in answer to the original question:

No, not for much longer.

Edited to sound cleverer.
 
#18
Wake up people, there is a war going on out there and the vast majority of the public have no idea what's really going on. The media won't/can't access or report from the areas concerned because it's simply too dangerous for them to operate independently. Whilst this may be great for our politicians, no news is good news et al, it has virtually turned those involved into a 'Forgotten Army'.

There should be a new name for war, because there is no glory in war any more. The word that should take its place is certainly a hard one to find, and must be a word devoid of decency and sense, carrying no sonorous echoes of tragic beauty and trailing no clouds of glory. I do not know what the word would be, but you must help to find it for war is a filthy and unclean thing. It is only the men who, faced with the necessity of seeing it through, put up with the misery and filth and agony of it – it’s only those men who are glorious. The war they have to fight is not – and they’ll be the first to tell you so.

Stanley Maxted.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#19
Not unless politicains and senior staff are seen to be attempting to address said climate and reassure us that the law will be applied to protect as well.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top