Gordon Brown and the military

"He did not start this war."

Err, wasn't he Chancellor and second in command of the Labour government when they launched this war ?
He may not have started it but he damn well had the power to stop our involvement in it. It may be a simplified version of events but basically, Gordon signed the cheque that sent us to war.

"He cannot stop it."

He can end British involvement in it though, to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie.
To be honest, if the Americans and our "allies" in NATO want to carry on in Afghanistan then they're welcome to do so, just without British support.


This is an illogical and un-winnable war, the sooner we leave, the better.
Everything else in an irrelevance.

I have little sympathy for GB as you only have to look back a few years ago when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what did he do, cut the defence budget.
He cannot have it both ways. If you are passionate (Brown word)about something you don't fight against it.
Sorry for him no,but some sympathy for what he has to do with regards to every lost soldier. Death is so final, and not one of us should make political gain out of any persons death.

Incredible to hear Gordon Brown now talking about HIS strategy which he thinks Obama will go along with.

HE is confident of pursuading other countries to send another 5000 troups to Afghanistan.

The hot air balloons keep rising when he speaks. Is he now delusional enough to think he can pursuade us that he not only saved the world but he is now in control of the situation in Afghanistan and everyone else will follow including Obama.

Perhpas he should leave the strategy to those who are really in control. The US. Try preempting that and he could really end up on his deriere.

I would just like to add that the current labour spin that poor Jacqui Janes is so destraught by the loss of her son that she was easily exploited by the Sun is an insult.

The Sun probably gave her some protection from a worse fate from the hand of officialdom.

Its quite funny Gordon Brown talking about trying to increase the tropp numbers from non US/UN nato countries.

Bush/Obama and Blair/Brown have already tried it several times over the last few years - always without success

Brown cannot have it both ways, listening to his long winded and ultimately vague answers to questions this morning on today it became obvious that the man has no strategy and is a million miles away from being a decisive leader. The trouble with war is that you have to fight it, not with weasel words and political wriggling but with peoples lives. Something that Brown demonstrates time and again that he doesn't understand seing as he was the chancellor that cut the military budget to bits, yet allowed legions of civil servants to jump on the MOD's payroll.
Just as well the troops are loyal to the crown and not the government, the tanks would be straight on to the lawn of number 10, and rightly so.

Nick Robinson wrote: "He did not start this war. He cannot stop it."

Not true. He missed an opportunity when he took over from Blair as Prime Minister. He could have 'stopped it' then, distancing himself from Blair's policy.

What Ms Janes made brilliantly clear is that there is a difference between the war strategy, which can change and is a political decision, and ensuring that our troops feel wholeheartedly supported, something GB has never done.If they are going to fight, acknowledge that its a real war and give them the very best equipment to fight with. If they come home, make sure they have accomodation fit for them and their families. As Ms Janes put it "if they can find the money to save a bank, they can find the money to save a soldiers life."

Nick

There have always been political conditions during war time. With regards to costs I understand that the Treasury should be chasing other NATO countries for funding to support the burden placed on the UK as we have a large force in Afghanistan.

Mrs Janes is right the forces are under-equipped and in reality this has always been so. In recent times you may not be aware that back during the Falklands conflict a number of soldiers suffered from "Trench Foot" because of poor boots. During the 1st Gulf War the Desert Boots provided were poor as well. Soldiers are buying their own kit that is of far higher quality because they want to do a good job and also survive. It is a real shame that this Government and others before have not taken the decision to give the military the best personal equipment.

In 2004 with the Iraq war on-going and the Afghanistan conflict in the background, the current PM then Chancellor did make the MoD cut spending on the helicopter force, now we have a real problem with moving the personnel and equipment around Afghanistan.

In the end it comes down to money. The country is broke and cannot afford the equipment to supply Afghanistan. So actually Nick there is a strong link between the Afghanistan War and the economic issues. GB and the current administration must shoulder a large part of the blame for this.

In an earlier post a few weeks ago I did remind you that looking back over the years it is currenly Afghanistan 3 - UK 0 (three afghan wars)and Afghanistan 1 - USSR 0. The russians had over 80,000 troops and lost. Unless the west increases the personnel on the ground significantly then this war will not be resolved. That is a political decision that Obama is currently facing.

Brown is in a very difficult position, but it's the Iraq war that has stopped this war being won by now.
If Iraq hadn't drained so much in the way of resources, then the Afghan conflict would have been central.
Brown seems to have taken the military situation on board and ammended his ways accordingly, but his general unpopularity counts against him and against any attempts to get involved in a proper debate about it

Whilst the pasting we got from the tribesmen in the 1800s may not be relevant the fact that Russia with infinite numbers of troops and equipment got beaten in the not too distant past should be enough to tell anyone that it is an unwinable battle.

Surely our past invasions and the Russian invasion are not relevant because we're not trying to make it a colony.
We are not invading Afghanistan to take it over

#1. General_Jack_Ripper

Err, wasn't he Chancellor and second in command of the Labour government when they launched this war ?

If he followed his usual MO, then he was hiding in a cupboard when the decision was actually made.

If the enemy of defence is the treasury who exactly was in charge of treasury for most of this givt - Gordon Brown!

Of course the armed forces have been underfunded for years. Lab took a political decision, squaddies are not normal labour voters, nurses and teachers are. So Lab cut the defence budget and increased health and education. Nothing unusual in this all govts go through similar calculations it is just that they do not admit to it.

Of course the fact that the MOD has one bureaucrat for every 2 members of the armed forces and gives bureaucrats bonuses (but not the armed forces) makes sure that what little budget is given to the MOD is was wasted.

Afghanistan is merely a symptom of this govts total disregard for this nations defence

Realistically Brown cannot just walk away from this war. He can however follow the dictum of Northern Ireland that a military victory was impossible and insist on negotiations with the Taliban (or elements of them) are prioritised. The implications for Afghanistan civil liberties may not be attractive but the country will quickly be rid of endemic corruption. If Brown really thinks that the war against terrorism is won or lost on the battle fields of this troublesome country then he needs to prosecute the war with extreme prejudice as the Americans would say. Maybe their equivocation reflects that they do not believe in Brown's justification for the spilling so much of our boys' blood.

How would us Brits feel if armed strangers were patrolling our streets(whoops!)

I'm of the opinion that our involvement in Afghanistan is a major mistake and I hope we can extricate ourselves before too long - the "blame" for us being there, however ... and this goes for Iraq too, even more so ... I have little hesitation in laying at the feet of Tony Blair - his was a personal, ego driven crusade to take us into these conflicts (in an unhealthy Slave to America type role) and he rather bullied both the Labour Party and parliament as a whole into granting his wish - being realistic about the matter, Brown could have stopped him in the same way that he could have headed off the global credit crunch and consequent economic downturn ... i.e. he couldn't

Sir Richard Dannatt, until August 2009 Assistant Chief of the General Staff i.e. deputy professional head of the British Army, and a major critic of the government over the 'resources for Iraq/Afghanistan' affair could have become the next Chief of the Defence Staff had his proposed appointment not been vetoed by Gordon Brown. He would have replaced General Guthrie. There is a tradition in these matters which means that successive Chiefs of the Defence Staff should come from a different part of the services (to assure 'equality of treatment' one presumes). However this tradition was broken when Guthrie succeeded the previous Chief, General Inge.

Perhaps another reason for his non-appointment might have been that Dannatt is an evangelical Anglican and vice-president of the Armed Forces Christian Union in which roles he called for " ... a return to traditional Judeo-Christian values in order to counter "the Islamist threat" within British society" according to an interview with the Daily Mail in October 2006. He said ".... we live in a post Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The broader Judeo-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British Army." And he told the Sunday Express that he " ... wanted to see the British Army play a greater role in fighting "Islamic extremism" in Britain."

Nice one Gordon.

I'm still trying to find out Dannatt and Guthrie's relationship with and/or membership of the Equipment Approvals Committee of the Defence Procurement Agency because I suspect that being in the very senior positions they held in the armed forces, they would certainly have been aware of the details of decisions taken, planning horizons and implementation timescales necessary to deliver appropriate and adequately workable resources (helicopters, boots, etc.) to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why are the P.C religionists so fond of supporting illegal genocidal wars?
The "Brotherhood Of Man" concept they constantly go on about should preclude it surely?
It`s not like we`ve even got a few billion quid to spare is it?
Washington D.C,London,Tel Aviv=The real "axis of evil"

Who do we believe the Military Chiefs or Gordon Brown ?

Erm let me think about this.

Where do the votes lie ?

Number of Employees in the procurement dept of the MOD Twent Eight Thousand !! what do they find to do?

Number of Soldiers in Afghanistan Nine Thousand.

Doesn't take much working out does it

The whole attitude of the British government to this war is questionable. Are we there to stabalise the country, to restore womens' rights or to destroy the Taliban? While the Taliban and other insurgent groups are allowed to roam at will without interference from the army the war is unwinnable. When the army destroys everyone bearing weapons aggressively on sight or removes the weapons, then the war becomes winnable. Winning hearts and minds does not win wars, nor does the questionable application of human rights to the enemy. War is about killing the enemy and there is no other way of achieving victory. If NATO does not have the stomach for this then they must pull out, let the Taliban return, and , if they become a threat to the west in the future then a repeat of the original incursion will quieten them for a few more years. Talking to them is not an option, they hold all the cards and any negotiations will result in a dismal surrender by the west to their demands.

15. At 1:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
How would us Brits feel if armed strangers were patrolling our streets(whoops!)


=========
That would depend upon whether my own Government was threatening to chop my head off for the slightest reason. Hmm, it does appear to be heading that way. OK, I'd welcome liberation now. Some real news, it appears that children may not be allowed to attend Sunday School locally, as the ladies running it haven't been CRB checked, they run the Guides and Rainbows etc, but they now need another seperate CRB check for the Sunday School!!! You could not make it up, does anyone know the relationship between who owns this Operation to print money and Government?

"He did not start this war. He cannot stop it"

He provided the money for us to get into this war; he could have turned down the request when he knew blair was lying about wmd, but the promise of getting to be PM if he kept quiet was more important to him.

He's now PM and can get out of the war if he wants to.

Brown's negligence is obvious and self-evident; even his own words prove how negligent he is.

When asked about sending extra troops, he said he would send extra troops, but only if they were properly trained and equipped. Now, call me old fashioned, but to me "troops" which aren't trained or equipped are, by definition, not troops, they're civilians or trainees.

His statement is like saying "I'll put someone in charge of the bank of england, but my caveat is that that person should understand something about basic economics" - it's a caveat which nobody should ever have to make; if you have to announce such a caveat then it's obvious you've got no idea what you're talking about.

And his blatent lies about resourcing generally show a breathtaking contempt of the military and the electorate.

11 Martin

Do you not think that a campaign to take the country over would have much more commitment than whatever we are there for?

At least there was an understandable aim although the Russian "invasion" was initially at the request of the ruling group in Afghanistan at the time but then when that lot were usurped the Russians went in to prevent the US getting in first.

One perhaps silver lining is that it is believed by many commentators that the failed Russian Afghanistan campaign led to the downfall of the USSR. Can we hope?

# 15. At 1:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
"How would us Brits feel if armed strangers were patrolling our streets(whoops!)"

Well, there are....I've asked the PM to send troops in but he hasn't yet made up his mind....

Comparisons with the Soviet war in Afghanistan are not entirely valid, as the Mujahideen had support from Pakistan (for religious reasons) and the USA (for ideological reasons). The Taliban are more isolated.

Whether the war is "unwinnable" or not depends on your definition. There won't be a white flag and a victory parade, that's for sure. But it may still be worthwhile keeping the Taliban on the run, even if it proves to be a Sisyphean task.

The problem for the politicians is that the security benefits of the conflict are intangible and hypothetical - what might have happened if we had chosen not to intervene - but the costs are real and immediate, especially when they arrive home in body bags.

Given the gravity of the situation the PM should gather around him a cross party war cabinet to de-politicise the management of the conflict.

11. At 1:57pm on 13 Nov 2009, Martin wrote:
Surely our past invasions and the Russian invasion are not relevant because we're not trying to make it a colony.
We are not invading Afghanistan to take it over

************************

So what are we doing in Afghanistan then Martin?

Brown can't explain it to us, perhaps you can.

The Sun lost the battle, but it will win the war.

Jacqui Janes has opened the floodgates. Families of the war dead are on TV all the time now complaining about lack of equipment.

It is now "acceptable" to complain that the armed forces haven't been supported by the government.

Gordon will pay for ignoring the armed forces for all these years - and deservedly so.

26 pdavies65

What you say is correct the current foe is a different "tribe" but has anyone done any research on how many Mujahideen are now Taliban?

Not to put too fine a point on it, "we" have some of the best trained troops in the world with air support, armour and all the paraphenalia that comes with a modern fighting force. "They" have 4 x 4 pick ups and AK 47s and a few primitive mortars. How long have we been there now?

I will stick with unwinnable, whatever it is we are trying to win.

I don't think Brown could have stopped the war, it was Blair's crusade.

Having said that, I doubt if at the time Brown had an opinion on the war, he would have seen it as a 'numbers thing' and as long as he could make the numbers add up the way he wanted them too, he'd have gone along with it.

Now, though, he is in charge and as has been pointed out by others, no-one really has a clue what they are hoping to achieve. To impose a Western style democracy on a country that hasn't had one, hasn't been crying out for one and doesn't want one is absurd.

We (the West) are imposing our values on them because we think our values are best. No wonder it comes across as arrogant.

Even if there was some sort of democracy when we finally left. How long would it last? How long before the country went back to something approximating the way it has existed for centuries.

Brown was his usual font of miss-information on the radio this morning, saying 3/4 of all terrorist plots eminated from Afghanistan or Pakistan. Most military experts agree that 99% of those 3/4 eminate in Pakistan (a country we haven't invaded) rather than Afghanistan (a country we are occupying).

The whole thing is a gigantic mess with Politicians trying to set the agenda and the means and the methods.

I was speaking to a veteran of the Malaysian campaign a short while back. "Of course", he said "there was little Government or media interference then, they just let us get on with it" Sounded a bit ominous but maybe that's what's needed.

Did someone say firing squad!!!

Politicians start wars - the children of the poor die fighting wars and once a year we remember them.

We have had two wars to 'end all wars' where one Nation led by a German monarch set about wiping out another nation led by a German monarch. The children of Queen Victoria need their bottoms smacking and to be sent off to bed without their supper. Mechanised slaughter is not glorious, as is the way that the Nation remembers, it is just slaughter.

It really is not Gordon Brown's problem through he is just the temporary leader who is carrying on the 'fine' tradition of waging war. Most wars in recent times have, I think, been more properly laid at the door of the right wing parties in the World's nations. Most left wing parties are generally more persuaded by the internationalist position whereas most right wing parties seek to define themselves by the people they hate (see David Cameron's Tory anti-Europeans for example.)

Gordon needs an Afghan exit strategy. Perhaps we should consider removing Kazhai and putting him on trial for the masterminding of electoral corruption as has been so widely reported? He does appear to be one of the most morally repellent (see the way women are treated) and administratively bad (failed to properly 'fix' the ballot) puppets that we have ever had the misfortune to put in and maintain in power (and there is a long list I am deeply sorry and ashamed to say!)

I joined the Army in 1972 and served under 5 Prime Ministers, leaving just before Tony Blair came to power. The attitude of all Governments to the Armed Forces has been largely the same: "they are a volunteer Army who will do their best because it is their duty". Perhaps the best was Thatcher who did improve pay and conditions.

I went to the Falklands very poorly equipped with boots that leaked, no body armour, rubbish rations and no winter clothing. But we got through it. There was a massive improvement in personal kit after the Falklands but certainly not as much as we really needed. I went to the 1st Gulf War without much of the kit we really needed. We didn't have personal body armour, but we did have better helmets and clothing. I also did a few tours of Northern Ireland without being properly equipped. But at least I had a rifle that could kill the enemy at 600 yards if required. The SA80 is useless!

Governments like to think they've done enough, but the Generals will always want more because warfare is changing. In Afghanistan they are fighting a Guerilla war with the Taliban and there is no protection from IED's when they have to travel by road all the time due to a lack of helicopters. It's much like Northern Ireland when we were being attacked in much the same way.

The Army didn't win in NI and they won't win in Afghanistan either.

Yes the Sun is openly Tory, but until recently was openly Labour for 12 years. Labour's constant whingeing about The Sun is deeply hypocritical. However, whatever you say about The Sun and it's political favouritism, it has always supported the Armed Forces more than any political party has ever done in my lifetime. And believe me, as someone who has been there, and done that, it is very much appreciated by all members of the Armed Forces.

"Gordon Brown is now paying a heavy political price for allegedly failing to give the leadership this war demands. "

No "allegedly" about it. Gorodon Brown has essentially retreated into his bunker and let eqally inept Bob Ainsworth run the war. The outcome of this approach should surprise no one. Leadership ???? I've not seen any evidence of any.

Labour government have traditionally looked poorly on the military.

This government has systematically reduced the Navy and Air Force until it is a shadow of its former self. Reduced spending and downsized the army stating that the threats were no longer there.

Now we have no Navy and Air Force to speak of, it is only a matter of time before the Falklands come back into the fray.

I suspect Gordon will probably sell the Falklands as an asset to the Argentinians rather than face them again in conflict. Especially when it is a conflict we would have absolutely no chance in winning.

What has surprised me is that Brown is getting so much praise for sending 'hand written letters' to the families of the dead soldiers, as if it's some kind of wonderful gesture from this humble PM.
His Government sent them to war, and ultimately to their deaths, the very least he should do is send them a letter....

The focus on the political management of the war is wholly appropriate and raises questions about how you per5saude a population that is at peace to accept the death and injury of young men far from metropolitan areas.

The Falklandss and first gulf war were short campaigns and were mostly approved by the public.Iraq and Afghanistan are much longer, and in the case of the latter there is a growing tide of public opinion for withdrawal.

The strategic and geopolitical issues merit their own treatment,my interest is in how do you socialize a pacific public opinion into accepting the sacrifice involved?

WW2 blurred the distinction beween military and civilian.British cities were front line,the total military deaths in eight years of fighting in Afghanistan is less than an average night of the London Blitz.

But there is total dissonance between our lives here and theirs on the front in Helmand.We consume,they die, and when we see the bodies unload from the transports, our grief is mixed with an aura of disbelief that abstract foreign policy considerations let this happen.
How can it be?this is murder,where are the villains,the conspirators,the failings? We are not socialized for war,any long campaign will come up against this resistance.

You even find it in the Agammemnon of Aeschelys.

The political problems in the US and the UK are to a large extent the result of the Bush/Blair misconceived Iraq adventures.

After 9/11 there was a legitimate 'just war' case to make for the international community, through the UN, to prevent Afganistan being used as a base for international terrorism.

Instead the Republican US administration, egged on by Blair and his New Labour cohorts, decided to park Afganistan and attack Iraq instead (note - Peter Mandelson and Claire Short clashed on liberal imperialism at the Labour conference).

Because of the Iraq diversion the UK and the US are now at least 5 years behind the curve on the Afganistan/Pakistan border problem.

I think the Afghan war is still important, but to gain popular support it needs an unambiguous criticism of US/UK policy towards Iraq since 9/11.

P.S. all sorts of people are now declaring their opposition to the conflict in Afganistan. I trust they can all support their positions by their recorded views one day after 9/11.

I was totally against the idea of the war in Afghanistan, but I'd like to ask the people who want us to pull out now how we can do that?

Do we not have a moral obligation to help the new Afghan goverment to stabilise the country before we leave?

Wouldn't there be massive problems in the country, potentially even a civil war and military coup?

Wouldn't it be worse for us to let that happen when we were the ones that put the country in the state its in at the moment with regards to infrastructure?

As far as equipment goes, in the ideal world every soldier would have full body armour, far too much amunition and personal artilary, air and armour support. But we dont live in an ideal world do we? It's war, it's bloddy horrible and people die. It's terrible and shouldn't ever happen, but it has so deal with it. It's not like the soldiers were conscripted.

"You don't think I understand defence, do you?"

Of course he doesn’t, why should he? He's a bean counter with a shy, introverted, introspective personality who appears awkward in the lime light.

He belongs in back room counting beans.




Put him and us out of our misery… call an election.

#30 xTunbridge

I agree with most of what you say.

Brown and Obama are completely different from Blair and Bush.

And your absolutely right to say that there is no winning position to gain.

8 years is a long time to train a reluctant army? how much longer would you give to train an Afghanistan army? and if you succeeded how long would it take for an Afghanistan army to be infiltrated by corruption?.

33. At 2:57pm on 13 Nov 2009, rockBigPhil wrote:


Yes the Sun is openly Tory, but until recently was openly Labour for 12 years. Labour's constant whingeing about The Sun is deeply hypocritical. However, whatever you say about The Sun and it's political favouritism, it has always supported the Armed Forces more than any political party has ever done in my lifetime. And believe me, as someone who has been there, and done that, it is very much appreciated by all members of the Armed Forces.


----------------------
The difference is that when the sun supported labour, the quid pro quo was that labour were supposed to help Newscorp out in the face of EU anti-compettition legislation, which they failed to do, but would not have drastically affected the average british citizen.

This time round if the tories win they are expected to slap down the BBC because Murdoch feels the value for money offered accross their wide range of services for pennies a day is anti-competitive.

He feels it would be fairer if we all had to pay a monthly subscription, preferably to him, for the full range of services.according to recent announcements & articles, tory policy (what they've revealed of their plans for the beeb) seems to fall into line with this view.

If the tories win the next election we may be paying for the privelege of posting on these boards, or they may not be here at all

There is a lot of public confusion about the war in Afghanistan, mainly because of the water being so muddied by the unwise Iraq campaign.

The military action to oust the Taliban in 2001/02 was justified by the attacks of September 11th in the US, and the fact that most, if not all, of the internal threats to the UK by Islamist extremists have their roots in Afghanistan. That action was a success, and if we had invested our time and resources in developing the country, instead of running off on the fool's errand to Iraq, we would most probably have been out of there by now. Instead we allowed a vacuum to develop, the Taliban to return, and a corrupt Afghan government forfeit the trust of its people. The decision to invade Iraq, on as we now know, trumped up charges, is the cause of the present impasse in Afghanistan, and the individuals who made that flawed decision, both here and in the USA, should be held to account.

As for Brown, he never showed any interest in defence spending, or trying to understand the armed forces needs, he was to engrossed in trying to solve poverty in Africa and socially engineer the UK into a model of his liking - interesting challenges both but not his job as Chancellor. As Prime Minister he is simply reaping what he then sowed.

31. At 2:38pm on 13 Nov 2009, AndyC555 wrote:

....We (the West) are imposing our values on them because we think our values are best. No wonder it comes across as arrogant.

Even if there was some sort of democracy when we finally left. How long would it last? How long before the country went back to something approximating the way it has existed for centuries.........

***********************

Good point there Andy.

No matter how long we - and others - are in Afghanistan; no matter what result we may or may not acheive; the moment we leave the old ways will start to return.
You cannot inflict Western standards on people just because we think its good.
Not everybody shares our idea of how things should be. Just because we don't like it or don't approve of it does not give us the right to invade their Country, killing innocent citizens while so doing.

The excuse that terrorist plots originate in Afghanistan is irrelevant. 9/11 originated in Saudi Arabia, but I don't see us rushing in there with guns ablazing.
With modern travel and technology, such plots can be generated from anywhere in the World so it is pointless targetting just one Country.
If we are so worried about terrorism bring the troops home and use them to strengthen our defences.
Personally I think council prodnoses snooping in my wheelie-bin and other elements of officialdom prying into our lives is a much greater danger to our liberties.

This will only be winnable if it involves the whole world just politically maybe. Not just a ideological fight between what could be viewed as Western colonialism vs Islamic fundamentalist loonies.

Which is best at doing wars and stuff? Labour or Conservative? No difference except in the eyes of military fantasists who tend to be little Right wing so therefore think its the Conservatives there's no evidence for that, only Conservative rhetoric.

37. At 3:06pm on 13 Nov 2009, anthony piepe wrote:
The focus on the political management of the war is wholly appropriate and raises questions about how you per5saude a population that is at peace to accept the death and injury of young men far from metropolitan areas.


The strategic and geopolitical issues merit their own treatment,my interest is in how do you socialize a pacific public opinion into accepting the sacrifice involved?
*********************************

How do you force us to approve the war in other words.

Are you for real?

The majority of the British public don't want this war. They don't want our troops out there. They certainly don't need brain-washing into acceptance of it.
What they do want is our boys brought home.
What they do want is certain individuals put on trial for getting us into wars in the Middle East based on dodgy dossiers.

Being 'persuaded' or 'socialized' into accepting it is definitely not on the agenda.
I know we're on the road to a 'Big Brother' state but God forbid it goes that far.

16. sagamix

Brown could have stopped him in the same way that he could have headed off the global credit crunch and consequent economic downturn ... i.e. he couldn't


The key point is that he didn’t foresee either problem nor did he feel any inclination to either stop or slow policy that led to either.

Vince Cable asked Gordon Brown back in November 2003: “The growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level. What action will the Chancellor take on the problem of consumer debt?”

Browns reply “We have been right about the prospects for growth in the British economy, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cable) has been wrong.”

42. At 3:20pm on 13 Nov 2009, goldCaesar wrote:


..........This time round if the tories win they are expected to slap down the BBC because Murdoch feels the value for money offered accross their wide range of services for pennies a day is anti-competitive.

*****************************

I didn't know that. I'd like to read more about it.
Can you point me to the scource of your biased guesswork please.

It is not so much a war as a conflict. There will never be an armistice or cease-fire and friends one day are enemies the next. The serving military realise that this is not so much a military campaign as a challenge of societies. The rhetoric of the old soldiers in the upper house and leaks from serving commanders simply adds encouragement to those who do not like our society. Solidarity should be our watch-word and "shut up" our command. Heaven knows what today's bunch of back seat soldiers would have made of the second world war. Brown is right to ignore The Sun and its like. Show me anyone at their news desk who has ever fought for Queen and Country. What on earth is all this sniping doing to the morale of our armed forces ?? I know it is getting me down.

#42. At 3:20pm on 13 Nov 2009, goldCaesar wrote:

...we may be paying for the privelege of posting on these boards, or they may not be here at all...

I can see that some of you (eg sagamix, Fubar_Saunders, AndyC555, Mark_WE, greatHayemaker) would be terrified by that prospect - what on earth would you do all day?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

43. At 3:21pm on 13 Nov 2009, PickledPete wrote:

"The military action to oust the Taliban in 2001/02 was justified by the attacks of September 11th in the US"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So,the link between Israel and 9/11 does`nt exist at all?
ROFL

48. At 3:43pm on 13 Nov 2009, Zydeco wrote:
42. At 3:20pm on 13 Nov 2009, goldCaesar wrote:


..........This time round if the tories win they are expected to slap down the BBC because Murdoch feels the value for money offered accross their wide range of services for pennies a day is anti-competitive.

*****************************

I didn't know that. I'd like to read more about it.
Can you point me to the scource of your biased guesswork please.


---------------

Yesterdays 2 page headline story in the independant.Completely unrefuted ior challenged by either murdoch or the tories. and thats before you google 'tory/murdoch pact.

Yes i am biased, i must be if if i disagree with you.isn't that the rule on these boards?

I probably work for labour too. they employed me & pay me a fortune. because they are worried sick that the tory bloggers on the beeb have so much power & influence thay might prevent a possible labour victory in a general election.

You are that important.

The Letter and the Bow at remembrance, are not huge stories on thier own but they are the last in a list of stories when put together are damning for Brown and his governement.

The Government have never taken any conflict they have dragged us into seriously.

We have been on a two fronted war with a relatively small force, and since 2005 we have had five defense secretaries, FIVE!

None of whom have had any experience on such a huge task,

John Reid clearly wasn't aware of the gravity of the situation, as UK Forces were entering as he hoped they wouldn't have to fire a shot.

Des Brown was given two jobs one as Minister for Scotland on top of his duties on Defense! Still can't believe that on.

John Hutton bless him got out quick as he knew what a balls up the Government had made of it all, which is a shame as he was clearly the best suited for the job.

And now Bob Ainsworth, numerous quotes from Bob, best though
The MOD will have to learn to live within it's means.

Then to cap it off that Fool Lord Foulkes who clearly isn't warned off to check his brain before his mouth moves.

As someone has already written - No War cabinet (and we are at War!).

Brown has had no interest in the Armed forces only as a means of convinent cutting when in No 11.

In time of war generally the Government looks to emergency funding and procurement. Factories etc are looked up and given orders to supply the army. What is happening is the UK forces are forced to Ponce off NATO allies. Most embarrising borrowing Rations and 50mm Rounds from the Canadians.

The Armed forces are still scaled and having procurement based on the 1998 Strategic Defense Review, with no real change.

Someone on this blog wrote Brown is now taking the war seriously....No he isn't the TA debarcle is a clear indication that he does not know what he is doing.

Browns answer to that is that the Army is full, and he is right, reason we are in a resession (the country most prepared to handle it). The recruits will take months to train and if speciallised longer. The TA training (although stated to be back to it's orginal state), has been severly cut. Normal training is at MATTS level 3 where regular counterparts are at MATTS level 1. What this means is that the TA soldier once mobilised will be at a muched reduced level of training when comencing Pre op training with his regular counterparts during the 6 month OP TAG training.

There remains no clear mandate, and both the UK and USA have waited too long to promote sucess from what McCrytsal is trying to achieve.

The next few months will mark a significant reduction in deaths, due to the winter. Wait and watch the Government jump all over this like a Tramp on hot sausages, claiming it to be part of Browns stratergy.

Too Little Too Late.

Time to Go

42. At 3:20pm on 13 Nov 2009, goldCaesar wrote:

This time round if the tories win they are expected to slap down the BBC because Murdoch feels the value for money offered accross their wide range of services for pennies a day is anti-competitive.

He feels it would be fairer if we all had to pay a monthly subscription, preferably to him, for the full range of services.according to recent announcements & articles, tory policy (what they've revealed of their plans for the beeb) seems to fall into line with this view...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to see some real evidence that Cameron has made promises to Murdoch in exchange for NewsCorp support. Cameron will be in real trouble if this is the case....

It doesn't change the facts though, that The Sun has done more to support our Armed Forces than any political party or other newspaper in the UK.

This is why "we" are in Afghanistan:

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-israelis-spilled-blood-seen-bond-that-draws-2-nations-closer.html

"A DAY OF TERROR: THE ISRAELIS; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer
By JAMES BENNET
Published: Wednesday, September 12, 2001

"Israeli officials and most Palestinian leaders condemned the attack on the United States today. But Israelis also took cold comfort in concluding that Americans would now share more of their fears, while some Palestinians rejoiced at the same thought."

https://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

"Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel"

https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html


As hinted at by an upcoming channel 4 documentary on Monday 16th nov 8pm.

The P.C religionists have been living in a dream world.

"sagamix wrote:
I'm of the opinion that our involvement in Afghanistan is a major mistake and I hope we can extricate ourselves before too long - the "blame" for us being there, however ... and this goes for Iraq too, even more so ... I have little hesitation in laying at the feet of Tony Blair - his was a personal, ego driven crusade to take us into these conflicts (in an unhealthy Slave to America type role) and he rather bullied both the Labour Party and parliament as a whole into granting his wish - being realistic about the matter, Brown could have stopped him in the same way that he could have headed off the global credit crunch and consequent economic downturn ... i.e. he couldn't"

Come on Saga even you can see that this is nonsense. Tony Blair was the head of a political party - there is no way he could have forced something through parliament if the majority of the Labour party were against it. If you are to be believed and everyone else in the Labour party wanted to stay out of the war they could have voted on mass AGAINST the policy. We don't have the kind of Government where the Prime Minister can over-ride the will of the House, the best he could do was to use the Whips, and if you honestly believe that is the case then you are supporting a party who were willing to put their principles aside for party political reasons - some party!

If Gordon Brown and the majority of the Labour party REALLY wanted to avoid the war all they would need to do would be to take Blair to one side and say "Tony you can't win this vote so don't even try". If Tony had to whip his entire party to get them to vote for the war his leadership would have folded easily (the entire PLP could have taken a vote and got rid of him).

Brown either didn't care one way or the other about going to war or he actually supported it. There is no way Blair could have got it through if Brown opposed it.

One thing was missing from Mr Brown's statement on the Today programme this morning (Friday 13th). It was any mention of how ordinary Afghans feel about the efforts that the US and UK say they are making on their behalf. There is an arrogant assumption that we are entitled to turn their country into a war zone in response to a perceived, or more likely manufactured, threat to our own security, just as they did in Iraq. This destroyed any sympathy I had for Mr Brown after his outrageous treatment by the Sun.

The Taliban seem to be able to setup IEDs in Helmand, without any risk of their activities being reported to our troops by the local population. So it is clear that the Afghans in Helmand would rather take their chances with the Taliban than put up with the presence of foreign troops. Mr Karzai's refusal to allow a fair election suggests that his government is also not too popular elsewhere in Afghanistan.

yet even though he was not directly responsable for our involvement he has not the back bone to overturn his predisessors poor judgement and recall all troops from what is in reality american posturing and power broking.
thus as the current PM all deaths and injuries as a result of opperations overseas fall at his door.
why moan he wanted the job and he has the job but it seems he can not do the job and be replaced by someone that can do the job.

and let us not forget the impact of Tom King's 'peace in our time' (aka divident) defence review-the Tories are far from innocent in this debate and in Liam Fox they have the perfect duffer to defend the next SA80 fiasco.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Twelve years and what is Labour's legacy, two wars, massive unemployment, massive debt. Brown is just as responsible for this as Blair.
As for Afghanistan, all Brown has done is sack the army chiefs until he has one that will do his bidding. Brown tells us he has increased helicopter capacity by a certain percentage. What does this mean when we do not know how many helicopters we had in the first place.
How can Brown be trusted when he so readily lies, e.g. no cuts, not replacing Darling with Balls.
The latest labour tactic is going for the sympathy vote, witness Shaun Woodward on Question Time last night, when he said Cameron should have distanced himself from The Sun over the Mrs Janes issue. If Cameron had done so labour would have accused him of manipulating the press. What hypocrisy from Woodward.
Next we see Alistair Campbell wheeled out to dish out more hypocritical spin on This Week.
Twelve long years and yet another Labour mess, it really defies beleif.

carrots @ 47

mmm doesn't sound so clever that now, does it?

I'm toying with the idea of voting Lib Dem actually; they've called the big issues more right than the others and so they deserve a bit of support in a sense ... not that keen on Clegg though, unfortunately

He did his best as chancellor to stop or hinder funding for such things
as helicopter and mastiff trucks etc.

He was also part of the cabinet that approved the war too , like many other have stated and he remained quit silent on the issue like many others

ps what about the 460 other labour MP's that could have stopped it too were were they ?

Zydeco 46

Quoting Bryher

" The focus on the political management of the war is wholly appropriate and raises questions about how you persaude a population that is at peace to accept the death and injury of young men far from metropolitan areas.
The strategic and geopolitical issues merit their own treatment,my interest is in how do you socialize a pacific public opinion into accepting the sacrifice involved?
*********************************
How do you force us to approve the war in other words.
Are you for real?"

There is a vast difference between raising questions and advocacy,but it is clearly one that you find it hard to recognize.
However,if I am forced to quote myself I will.You will find irony,but mostly I am trying to make sense of the wisdom of the war, while recognizing that it is occurring "In a far off country of which we know nothing." to quote the immortal words of Prime Minister Chamberlain,he of the famous piece of paper.

"But there is total dissonance between our lives here and theirs on the front in Helmand.We consume,they die, and when we see the bodies unload from the transports, our grief is mixed with an aura of disbelief that abstract foreign policy considerations let this happen.
How can it be?this is murder,where are the villains,the conspirators,the failings? We are not socialized for war,any long campaign will come up against this resistance."

How is this advocacy,it is more of a cry of pain!

Nick @ "0"

"They concede that Brown once paid little attention to defence - a book of his speeches published during his bid to be PM contains not a single speech on the subject in its more than 400 pages of nine years' worth of speeches."

===

Ye gods,

A book of his speeches?!!!

400 pages long?!!!

Bet that's a best seller..........for insomniacs.

#47

Not to mention the IMF who warned:

Dec 2003 - UK economic problems 'looming'. Spending likely to be above projections and Gordon Brown's assessment of future growth 'too optimistic'

Sep 2005 IMF report Warning over UK £1 trillion mountain of debt

Dec 2005 IMF report new warning over Britain’s finances

Sep 2006 IMF report warns over possible UK property crash

April 2007 IMF report Private equity collapse on cards

October 2007 IMF report UK house market is ‘heading for crash'

April 2008 IMF report IMF: UK vulnerable to US-style housing slump.

Of course, I realise there are those out there who still cling to the "cor blimey, no-one saw it coming" approach to the mess Gordon Brown has got us in but I do wonder what they make of all those IMF warnings.

Or was it a case of the IMF being wrong and Gordon being right and it's just an awful co-incidence that everything the IMF predicted as far back as 2003 has come true.

Gordon Brown = Mood Hoover

yellow @ 68

can't say I'm too tempted by that either

If you want to fight in foreign wars then you have to pay for it ..
.. if you want to win you have to make sure the armed forces have the weapons to do the job
If you don't put in the money and the weapons then don't do it
What it seems to me is that we don't want to pay or provide the weapons - and our forces are dying because of that
In the 1914-18 war , 60,000 were injured or killed on the first day of the Somme but society has changed and won't accept continued deaths when yhey don't understand way
What was the phrase ? "a far off land about the lives of whose people we know nothing"

Well if you want my support then explain it - and if you can't then get the troops out becausze they are dying for nothing

55. At 4:12pm on 13 Nov 2009, rockBigPhil wrote:

It doesn't change the facts though, that The Sun has done more to support our Armed Forces than any political party or other newspaper in the UK.
==============
I'm not sure how people see the Sun as being great supporters of the troops. Surely just calling them, "our boys", is not enough, and just highlighting their sad homecoming when they die, is not support. Showing the good work they are doing might be classed as support, along with the work being done by NGOs would be more supportive.

The news industry, including Nick Robinson and the BEEB, see more interest in bad news, death and destruction, is better than death and construction, and infinately better than no death and construction.

Those arguing that our troops should not be there and should be back home strengthening our borders, I guess would have said that the BEF should not have been sent to France as Britain was not under attack at that time? That no matter whether the intelligence says that there is a threat from abroad, until it is on the beaches of south-east England, we stay here.

I admire these people's confidence in their armchair millitary strategy as I have no such confidence, in the belief that the reasons for us sending our troops oversees, was on a whim of Tony Blair. A PM who most, who may not even like him, seem to accept that he was a politician of the first order, so why would he through his growing reputation, at the time, away on a whim, for what? What has Tony Blair got out of this sorry episode.

The war in Iraq created a focal point, it seems to me for all the groups supporting al-Qieda, Sadam Hussein would not be supported by the Arab world, they were glad to see the back of him, and since then the numbers of random bombings around the world have decreased.

I don't say war is right, it should be avoided for as long as possible but 9/11 put us in a position where we had to act, regardless of whether past events had angered the muslim world so much, that it felt forced to perpetrate 9/11 or not. What would have been the reaction from the general public if we hadn't reacted? How many more attacks would we have taken on the chin while saying, "We can't retaliate as it will become a recruitment drive for our enemy".

We've got to give our governments a break when it comes to war, as they can't make decisions from the inside of a goldfish bowl, when all those gazing in watching them make these decisions have now idea how difficult it most be to breath under water while still swimming.

The time for the questions will be later. Michael Foot put it into words, when Margret Thatcher anounced how the Falklands was over. He knew how much pressure she must have been under during those months of conflict, but he said in the House, there are questions to be asked by they will be for another time.

The longer that Brown allows this farcicle war to go on, the worse it will be politicaly for him. He thinks that he is always right and can do no wrong.

Carry on, I lament the loss of life and frequent injury, but I am, with other distant objectors, a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Brown is now up againt the mothers and wives of this country. I recall the French Revolution, when the widows sat beneath the guillotine with their knitting. We are now seeing a similar vision,women seated beneath the political gallows. When Brown gets the chop, it will be violent and bloody for him.

The longer that he continues, the worse it will be.

Mark @ 57

yes, if he'd been DEAD against it he could maybe have stopped it; but he was agnostic I'm guessing and that, compared to Blair's messaniac zeal, was never going to get in the way - this, for me, is not a big issue between the 2 main parties (only the Lib Dems called Iraq right, for example) but it's only fair to point out that there was more opposition in the Labour Party to what Blair was doing than there was in the Tory Party

btw, did you see that Harriet Harman won "parliamentarian of the year" ... quite an honour

#4 you also have to question the role of NATO too

was it ok to postulate with troops you new were never going to
fight because the was MAD with the nukes and that was not going to happen


They benifit from the defence spending like EFA and others but not prepared to commit their own troops. Or are they not really with it.
which then leave blair/brown and Nu_labour on a limb.

They had the MP to stop it. A massive majority with 460+ MP's it did not matter what the oppositions thought.

So the blame lie squarly with them they have been in power for the last 12 years no one else

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

76. At 5:17pm on 13 Nov 2009, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
#4 you also have to question the role of NATO too

---

i absolutely do, a collective fighting force where each member countries have different rules of engagement and different levels of commitment to the war is hardly a collective at all.

I think my point was more along the lines of gordon brown announced today he was trying to secure an increase in troop numbers from non-US/UK NATO countries like it was a new policy. but both the UK & US have been trying to do that,unsuccessfully, for years.

Nick wrote:
"Those friends of the prime minister note bitterly that the president has been praised for taking his time, considering all the options and resisting the military's demands whereas Gordon Brown is now paying a heavy political price for allegedly failing to give the leadership this war demands."

Obama has inherited a war and is having to try and work a route between naturally high demands from the military against the political benefits to be gained via different actions.

Brown was part of the inner circle which approved and funded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm still amazed that with the apparent (or at least self-proclaimed)
massive intellectual talent available in Blair's Cabinet, nobody bothered to really ask if the "Intelligence Services" were actually contributing intelligence or just peddling junk.

It was fascinating that one key part of Blair's signed document released to the public, in support of the Iraq invasion, was a student's paper. And that the 45min WMD claim was dumped almost as soon as the paper was no longer needed (I understand because it was from a single, unsupported source).

I was "up" for a bit of regime change in Iraq. Sadam was tyrannical. But I'd have liked the "intelligence" to have been solid.
(The Hutton Inquiry had a whitewashing effect. He effectively said that the Government of the day was entitled to place emphasis on such facts as they believed made a proper case for a decision to go to war. In other words, spin stuff, or "sex it up" as the BBC reporter quite rightly, though rather colloquially, said.)

I was a bit doubtful about Afghanistan. I didn't like much of what the Taliban were imposing, but I don't like much of what the UK government does either. I wouldn't really want a UN approved invasion of the UK...

Judaism had a couple of thousand years head start on Christianity. Christianity took at least 1900 years (possibly more) to develop into a faith fairly tolerant of its own factions and the religion from which it emerged. Christianity had a 600 year head-start over Islam.

I don't like militantly extreme interpretations of any religion. Especially when they are forced onto people. But I'm not sure you should go to war because some people don't agree with a "Western" view of the world.

Al-Quaeda didn't seem to get a lot of support from Saddam or the Taliban. Saddam would probably have bumped off Bin Laden (from a Saudi family) and quietly had him buried in the desert, as a trouble maker. It seems the Taliban did once consider handing Bin Laden to the West.

I would really have liked to be at any cabinet meeting where wars were discussed. Just to know what types of questions every Minister asked. And what type of detail was actually provided to support a "Let's Just Do It" decision.

Browen claims a moral compass. Exactly how did he react to the idea of going to war on a flimsy layer of "intelligence"?