OUCH That Hurts

[jcj]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...t-in-Iraq.html

"Further evidence is emerging of just what an abject failure Britain’s military intervention in Iraq has been."

[Rog Ball 01]

What is the evidence Colin?

[jcj]

What is the evidence Colin?

The evidence he uses is in the link to the comments page.I am not saying he is right, but it is an interesting article espcially if read in conjuction with the article in the Sunday Times about General David Petraeus.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5437950.ece

The Americans believe themselves now to be superior to us in COIN.

[ap1]

The fault for this lies almost entirely with Tony Blair, abetted by one or two very senior military commanders, who failed at any point after the invasion to provide the men and equipment needed to carry out the task to which Blair had vaingloriously agreed.

Christopher Bookers comments above are so true. having left the mil in 2001 and now on the outside looking in, it all seems so wrong. The troops and their units are excellent at what they do, buts its all been done at a very heavy cost in life, with extremely poor or unsuitable equipment and not in sufficient amounts. To send men and women to war without body armour is criminal. A small example perhaps, but it speaks volumes. Jackson and Guthrie both played their part in the demise of our military machine, but hey, at least they had decent book deals!!!

A few months ago, I watched the current CDS Jock Stirrup being interviewed by Andrew Marr, it was toe curling stuff. Even Marr appeared to be frustrated by Stirrup. His answers were full of political speak, open to different interpretations, nothing specific, I couldn't believe I was listening to the head of the armed forces.....but then again he was probably displaying the very attributes that secured him an extension in post.

[Paul Hinge]

Alan, the theme that runs through your thoughts is mirrored throughout the whole military community both serving (who cannot voice their concerns) and through those of us who are now comrades. FRUSTRATION at having to do the bidding of people who really have no idea how or why they enter into spine chilling foreign policy actions and seek to obfuscate their actions by blaming others.
The reason that all those Generals/Air Marshalls/ Admirals have reached the dissy heights of CDS is because they play the political game and say the things the politicans want to hear.
All the really good leaders drop out much sooner because they are frustrated with having to deal with people who quiet frankly could not run a fish and chip shop neither alone a nation states foreign policy. The implications of which we are still having to mop up even as I type out this short missive.

Hingey

[sox3044]

How true, i can only recall Jackson complaining about conditions and equipment when he left his job not whilst serving. He wanted to keep politicians sweet.

People have said to me he was a soldiers soldier, but i dont agree, a soldiers soldier is some one who isnt scared of putting their neck on the line for the troops below them.

[Gwyn Nicholas]

Well put Sox! I think the only time the British Army has had Generals who were "Soldiers Soldiers" has been in times of war. A GOOD General or senior officer (for me anyway) is one who is a soldier first and foremost with NO political ambition. If they want to be in Politics, good luck to them but leave the Army first and allow the job to be done by guys who want to be Soldiers leading Soldiers. (Truth of the matter is, that most, without the military service as a stepping stone, would probably not make an impact on the political scene.) You can argue that you may lose some of the best "Tactical Brains" (on paper) but i'm sure a squaddie would much prefer fighting for an General who is not afraid to kick **** and shout the odds rather than a mouthpiece for the Government. Problem is, these guys do not often make General -do they?

[Rog Ball 01]

What about the Generals like, Mike Jackson, he put his neck on line and it cost him.