The Navy should not be sacrificed to prop up the Army’s horses and brass bands

#1
From the letters in today's Telegraph: The Navy should not be sacrificed to prop up the Army’s horses and brass bands

W.r.t. the first letter, I don't want to see the loss of traditions that help maintain the ethos and morale of the Army but times are hard and ships matter more. The RN lost its Display Team and Field Gun Competition years ago.

If the writer of the second letter is only referring to Afghanistan, he has it slightly wrong in saying: "...The Government’s priority seems to be the maintenance of an Army of more than 100,000 soldiers that cannot deploy more than a tenth of its strength...".

Our 9,500 personnel in Afghanistan include around 1,000 Naval Service (RN/RM) and 1,000 RAF plus TAs (around 10% of the Army strength in theatre) so Regular Army personnel in Afghanistan must constitute fewer than 7,000 (i.e. less than 7% of their total strength). To be fair, I am prepared to believe that the other 3% are deployed elsewhere in the world.
 
#3
We are slashing away the Navy to further the needs of the great European dream

As we wield the axe, Europe asks for more - Telegraph

We don't want to upset our neighbours now do we
Good point. Incidentally, has anyone heard anything from this lady yet? She's been in post since 1 Dec 2009.
Wikipedia said:
The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) is the main co-ordinator and representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) within the European Union (EU). The position is currently held by Catherine Ashton. The post has been likened to a foreign minister for the EU...
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top