Libya & The UK Military

The UK is not only involved in the no-fly campaign against Libya but PM Cameron seems to be desperately pushing to specifically topple the regime and kill Gaddafi. Just the other day a specific attack against him was called off at the last minute because of the presence of the press at the site. In fact, the government is now involved in a public spat with their top General on whether or not such a thing is even permissible.

The fact that the UK is even involved in Libya is of major concern to me, and not only because it seems to be a badly conceived, poorly defined mission with no clear objectives or command structure. My main concern is with the men and women of the UK military and the effects that another war will have on them, especially since the government has recently taken a machete to the military budget. Under the auspices of the Strategic Defence Review, the government has slashed spending, slashed jobs and slashed our nation's capability to wage war. The Independent described the spending review as meaning that the UK would be 'unable to launch major military operations overseas'. Which, let's face it, is precisely where you want to launch military operations.

The problem with this is that the SDR was not driven by the needs of the military nor based on the realities of the dangerous world we live in, it was driven by a need to cut spending and damn the results. Not only did the recent Strategic Defence Review not mention N. Africa once- no hint of turmoil anywhere in what is now one of the most volatile areas of the world- it takes no account of having to wage an air war in the Mediterranean or of having ground forces in the desert kingdom of Libya. In short, the paper upon which we're basing our future defence needs did not even have the foresight to predict major unrest a handful of months after its publication. Given that the military procurement process and training process moves at an almost glacial pace, it's important that our future needs are carefully considered. Skill sets do not appear overnight. If we lose a skill or a capability due to redundancies, we cannot simply regain it overnight when needed- it can take months or even years for the skill to be re-acquired and then for trainers to pass that skill on to the men who will take it into battle with them. And re-learning skills during a war is a sure way to get people killed. If we scrap a particular piece of equipment now, we not only lose it but the men with the ability to use it, plus the skills of those who maintain it. If at some later date we discover that actually we do need it, we not only need to re-purchase it but we need to re-learn and re-train a whole new generation of soldiers in its care and use. Not to mention the integration of the equipment/skill with the wider military.

Right now, 800 Royal Marines are on stand by to go to Libya, as the air war threatens to expand to the ground, and the SAS & SBS are already in country. But the UK has no aircraft carrier to stand off the coast and no Harrier jump jets to provide ground support- our new aircraft carriers won't be ready until 2016 and won't be able to carry planes until 2019. Incidentally of the two we're buying, only one will ever be operational- that's right, we're buying two but can only afford to run one.

Our armoured vehicles and artillery have been slashed (we've lost 40% of our tanks alone) - because when will Britain ever be involved in the flat, open expanses of desert where they are essential? Given that tanks not only provide the ability to project power against the enemy but also provide ground forces with a great deal of protection this makes no sense to me. Especially since other nations, for example Canada, are currently using them to good effect in Afghanistan.

Our number of soldiers has been drastically cut too so that we could not even mount another conflict like the Falklands without the help of other nations. Given that Argentina recently made noises about reclaiming the islands because of the oil there one has to ask who in government thought it was a good idea to make our future defence of the islands dependent on other nations. Who precisely? The US remained essentially neutral in the last conflict and the French, our current allies, supplied the Argentinians with Exocet missiles to attack our Navy. If Argentina moves to take the islands again, who specifically does the government see as helping us protect them? Who is going to lend us a fully functioning aircraft carrier? Perhaps this is a question someone, say an elected representative, should have asked before now. As it stands the new cuts mean that not only are we unable to launch a major offensive we will not be able to fight wars in more than one country at a time- only 30,000 men are available for a major conflict while 45,000 were needed for the initial invasion of Iraq for example. In a smaller conflict like Afghanistan we will only have a pool of 6,500 men- down from 9,500. If the no-fly zone fails to topple Gaddafi, how many troops will be needed and/or available to go in? What will that mean for the mission in Afghanistan? It bears mentioning here too that of all the foreign fighters in Iraq, the majority were from Libya- will they turn their guns on Allied troops once Gaddafi is gone?

At the time that Cameron was still threatening his intervention in Libya 170 nearly fully trained RAF pilots were made redundant, in addition to two whole Tornado squadrons (and all of our Harrier jump jets)- because when will Britain need pilots to enforce a no-fly zone or provide ground support to troops facing tanks?
Cameron has not only crippled the military with short-sighted cuts, his intervention in Libya now threatens to put servicemen at greater risk than they would have been only a year ago- in fact, the SDR specifically stated that there would be no wars of "liberal intervention" in the near future. The whole basis of the review was that Britain's future conflicts would look an awful lot like Afghanistan- it did not once take into account an action like Libya or any other potential hotspot around the world- back in October the thought of going to war against Libya was not even a possibility and yet here we are today on the verge of getting sucked into another ground war.

Basing future military needs on the actions we're currently involved in is not only short-sighted but it puts the lives of servicemen and women in danger- have they forgotten already how many died because British troops had Land Rovers and not armoured vehicles in Iraq? How many were killed because they had no body armour? In Afghanistan, troops have even needlessly been killed or maimed because they aren't even issued portable ladders so that they can enter walled compounds safely. Ladders for goodness sake- we can't provide troops with a simple item like that in the war that's already been going on for almost ten years and here we are starting another one.


Why is it always that the politicians who slash the military's capabilities are the same ones who so eagerly send them to war?

Armed Forces Day

It's Armed Forces Day here in the UK, so spare a thought for the men and women engaged in war in a far-off land.

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines don't get anywhere near the respect or gratitude that they deserve. The fighting in Afghanistan is brutal and intense- and the British public only hears a small fraction of what's actually going on over there. If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you head on over and read some of Michael Yon's posts.

Project Valor-IT

Hi folks, I've just made a donation to Soldiers' Angels Project Valor-IT. It's a very worthy cause helping wounded servicemen and I'd strongly recommend you donate whatever you can.
Pick a team- Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines- and give what you can to help those who have been wounded. Team Marines are currently in the lead- so do what you can to either keep them in front or help your preferred branch to do better. It also helps to spread the word so tell your friends and family too.

Project Valour-IT helps provide voice-controlled/adaptive laptop computers and other technology to support Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries. Items supplied include:

# Voice-controlled Laptops - Operated by speaking into a microphone or using other adaptive technologies, they allow the wounded to maintain connections with the rest of the world during recovery.
# Wii Video Game Systems - Whole-body game systems increase motivation and speed recovery when used under the guidance of physical therapists in therapy sessions (donated only to medical facilities).
# Personal GPS - Handheld GPS devices build self-confidence and independence by compensating for short-term memory loss and organizational challenges related to severe TBI and severe PTSD.

I just want to add- I'm a British citizen but the work American servicemen do, currently fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, serves to benefit not just America but the UK and many other nations. I'm thankful for the courage and dedication of America's servicemen and women.

Osprey To The Rescue

Another lucky escape for a British soldier- this time due to his Osprey body armour.

Shot in the back by a Taliban sniper, Lance Sergeant Daniel Collins must have thought his luck had finally run out.

Flattened by the force of the bullet, and in excruciating pain, he begged his platoon leader not to tell him how bad is injury was.

But when L/Sgt Grant Lewis went to his comrade's aid he was amazed to find that the bullet had been slowed down by the body armour and had only just penetrated his skin.

Unbelievably, he could even see the bullet and managed to dig it out with his bare hands.

Luckily for him the bullet clipped the very bottom edge of the ceramic plate in his armour- a fraction of an inch lower and he might very well have not lived to tell the tale.

Afghanistan Fashion

A great photo from the Daily Mail of troops in Afghanistan defending themselves from an attack. Roused from sleep, one soldier only had time to grab his weapon, vest and helmet- so he ended up fighting in flip-flops and pink "I love New York" boxer shorts.

The young man in question, Zachary Boyd, joined up because of the 9/11 attacks.

Double Standards and Political Abuses

A post related to the one I did on the absolutely fab work Joanna Lumley has been doing on behalf of the Gurkhas.

One of the excuses put forward by the Immigration Minister is that we can't possibly afford to allow Gurkhas to come to the UK. Funny, then, that they aren't doing everything they can about this-

AN AMNESTY allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the UK would cost a staggering £1million for each newcomer.

For the first time, the “huge, unnecessary burden” of letting up to 950,000 foreign nationals remain is revealed today by campaign group Migrationwatch.

The Labour government seems to have no problem with illegal immigrants staying in the country- people who not only have no ties whatsoever to the nation but have shown no respect for the rule of law here. On the other hand, Labour are all too worried about the cost of a relatively small number of Gurkhas- men who have put their very lives on the line for our nation and who wouldn't dream of breaking the law to enter the country.

It's a sickening double standard.

And then, dear reader, there's this- in a single year MPs milked £93 million in expenses from the taxpayer. There are so many abuses of the system that multiple blog posts would be needed to cover just a sampling of them. Let's just say that they have been using taxpayers' money to pay for everything from chocolate bars, dog food, bags of manure up to velvet rugs, renovations and even for property taxes. It's a shocking abuse of a system put in place to aid MPs who have to keep a house or flat in London while they attend Parliament. In fact, Sinn Fein/IRA MPs- who refuse to take their oath of office or even attend Parliament- are claiming the expenses-

With the party hitting back over allegations that the rental expenses were well above market rates, it was also reported that taxpayers paid for widescreen TVs and surround sound DVD systems for the accommodation.

Sinn Fein's five MPs were granted access to Commons expenses in 2001, despite their abstentionist policy towards the House.

Most controversially, this entitles them to a London living allowance now worth some £24,000 per year each.

In total they have claimed £437,405 since 2001. A sum that also flights to London- even though they refuse to sit in Parliament and thus have no need to travel there at the taxpayers' expense.

But the government claims that the cost of some elderly and infirm Gurkhas cannot come to live out their twilight years in Britain because of the cost? Nevermind the difference those millions of pounds in MP expenses would have made to a health service which denies the ill certain drugs and treatments because they are too expensive.

Joanna Lumley

Former New Avenger Joanna Lumley has been campaigning for the rights of former Gurkha soldiers to settle in the UK. Some of the men, highly decorated war heroes suffering from illnesses linked to their service, have been denied entry on the grounds that they do not have enough of a link to the UK. Fighting and bleeding for the nation is apparently not sufficient for Labour.

Meanwhile, the government has no problems allowing foreigners, with no link whatsoever to Britain, and who have also committed crimes to stay here. One example are the Afghans who high-jacked an airplane en route to London and then demanded asylum here. They can stay- but old and sick war heroes cannot.

Fighting the injustice of this system, Joanna Lovely Lumley has shown herself to be a determined, loyal and patriotic fighter. Most recently, she cornered the Immigration Minister (who happened to be in the same building as her) and not only demanded a meeting with him but also dragged him in front of the cameras where she basically humiliated him. It was an astonishing sight to behold on the news, with the press seemingly delighted by the theatre of it all.

Mr Woolas became embroiled in an extraordinary televised political pantomime with Miss Lumley yesterday after some veterans received letters rejecting their claims to live in the UK. In a bravura performance, the actress seized the initiative in her battle for soldiers' rights and reduced Phil Woolas to an abject and humiliated figure. Adopting the air of an angry schoolmistress, she sought him out at Westminster and frogmarched him to a live press conference for a very public dressing down. In the process, she effectively rewrote Government policy.

Bravo!

This picture says it all really-













Although, I have to say that this one (taken after Parliament voted against the government's preposterous rules) is also rather good-

Repeating Mistakes

Yet again we have a government minister in charge of defence making the classic error of basing future plans on the conflict we're currently in. And ignoring the equipment used in one that has only just finished. With the British pull out of Iraq complete, and the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan, the news has come that tanks will no longer be manufactured in the UK.

Now, nearly a century after inventing the first armoured warhorse - to storm through German lines in the First World War - Britain is to stop building its own tanks.

In the week British troops formally ended their military operations in Iraq, BAe Systems, which makes the Army's Challenger 2 tanks, revealed it was closing its tank-making operation at Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

And the sole reason is that they see no future contracts coming because tanks will not be used in Afghanistan.

Defence Secretary John Hutton has declared 'a rebalancing of investment in technology, equipment and people to meet the challenge of irregular warfare'.

He said he planned to strengthen and enlarge Special Forces but gave no hint of even a medium-weight tank in the Army's future.

Amazing that men the calibre of which SF takes their recruits from seem to exist in unlimited supply in the eyes of politicians. Astounding too that he's allowing us to off-shore our national security to other nations while also putting men and women out of work.

Is there any way this could be a more bone-headed decision?

And the mistake of basing future operating requirements on current operations isn't confined to Labour-

Experts insist that modern warfare require smaller, faster armoured vehicles. Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former infantry commander, said: 'The tank is not as relevant to today's form of battle.'

I'm stunned that a former infantry commander does not see the need for armoured support- and the short-sightedness of this, the fact that he cannot conceive of any other conflict existing other than the current one against lightly armed terrorists, is staggering. Frankly, he should know better. In fact, Mercer served in Bosnia and then worked as reporter in Kosovo- both places where the Challenger 2 tank served operationally. It is the only tank to be used in the invasion of Iraq which suffered no losses to enemy fire-

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.

But according to these experts, we don't need tanks like this any more- a smaller, faster vehicle with lighter armour is the way to go. Right? One wonders how many soldiers will have to die because they aren't in an actual tank or because they don't have the fire support a tank can provide before this appalling decision is reversed.

By the same reasoning we also have no need for fighter aircraft nor of our submarine fleet to name but two.

These were the same type experts who wanted to slash Britain's Navy just before the Falklands War, arguing that the UK didn't need the ability to transport troops and aircraft by sea any more.

You'd have thought after the Gulf War and the initial invasion of Iraq that these "experts" would realise the importance of tank warfare. Hell, you'd imagine that military experts would see that an armoured component is essential given that we cannot tell what threats we will face in the next five, ten or fifteen years.

They don't seem to realise that a sudden need for a main battle tank cannot be remedied in a short space of time- military procurement and training takes a long time.

Idiots.

Compendium

A lot to get through today and so little time.

An Arizona rancher is being sued for "civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes" by a group of illegal aliens he apprehended crossing his property and then handed over to the Border Patrol. Amazingly, their suit has not been laughed out of court.

Here in Britain a foster mother has been struck off the register after a 16 year old Muslim girl in her care converted to Christianity. Officials declared that she should have tried to prevent the girl's baptism and they have- incredibly- banned the now 17 year old from attending church for six months. How they intend to enforce that is beyond me- so much for freedom of religion.

British police have set up a new secret unit to deal with domestic extremists- and to collect "secret data". Worryingly, they seem intent on using "legal proceedings" to keep details of their operations secret from the public. So, now the UK actually has a secret police- one that will report directly to the government without any public oversight.

A video has been released of Polish hostage Piotr Stanczak being beheaded by Pakistani Taliban scum.

Brit PM Gordon Brown has added his voice to calls for a local council to allow a Royal Marine who lost both his legs fighting in Afghanistan to build a home in the grounds of his grandparent's house. The council claimed that the wounded Marine's circumstances "are not considered sufficient to warrant an exception to the usual restraint policies". I would love to hear what they normally consider to be an acceptable exception.

Democrat Greed

Obama had the audacity recently to decry the bonuses received on Wall Street- but he's silent on Congress giving itself another raise. As we've already seen with the new Democrat administration in power, there's one rule for them- and another for everybody else. Congress has just given itself a $93,000 increase in the amount of petty cash for each member. As Doug Ross notes, this comes at a time when Obama is demanding that the Pentagon- engaged in a war- shave more than 10% off its budget.

He's got no problem with a one trillion dollar Democrat pork-fest and a Congressional "pay rise" but the Pentagon, defending the nation, must cut spending.

He's only been in office for a matter of days- goodness only knows what harm he will inflict on America in the next four years.

The Birthday Present

Not often we get to hear good news so this is worth looking at-

Gabriel Hurles celebrated his sixth birthday by unwrapping the best present ever - his father home on leave from Iraq.

I particularly liked this part-

After Hurles sat down and ate a cupcake with the birthday boy, teacher Dawn VanSickle presented him with a banner from the class that read, 'Welcome Home. Thank you for your service.'

VanSickle told the Nevada Appeal she was happy to arrange the reunion in her classroom.

'One of the first things Gabriel shared about himself was that his dad was in Iraq and that he was waiting for his dad to come home,' she said. 'He talks about his dad all the time.'

The Obama Snub

Telling, isn't it?

Another milestone for our new President: he’s the first President in 56 years to snub the American Legion’s “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.”

I guess Obama thinks hanging out with Medal of Honor recipients is less important than having all those Hollywood celebrities to schmooze with.

Another Compilation

A little collection -

Labour does even more to reduce the rights of British home-owners. Try to restrain a burglar breaking into your home or attacking you and you'll be charged- but now debt collectors are being given the right to not only break into homes to collection possessions, but they're also being allowed to use "reasonable force" against home-owners.

So much for the GOP learning their lesson from McCain's defeat. Michael Steele shows he's no friend of the Second Amendment.

Army scientists delve into the realms of science fiction- by developing the ability to regrow lost tissue (for example a lost fingertip) and new research which has allowed them to regrow bone in rats.

Have a happy Christmas!

Round Up

Some news from the UK.

Science standards in schools have slipped ‘catastrophically’, the Royal Society of Chemistry declared yesterday. The eminent scientific body said it had ‘hard evidence’ that exams had been dumbed down since the 1960s.

Check out the two sample questions for proof.

British police raid a woman's house for cannabis plants- she was actually growing tomato plants on the windowsill.

Bureaucrats strike again-

A charity raft race which has never suffered a serious accident in its 27-year history has been sunk by the health and safety demands of police and council risk assessors.

A disgrace-

A lesbian soldier last night celebrated winning almost £200,000 compensation after being subjected to a lewd campaign of sexual harassment by a male sergeant.

Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and former Army officer said: 'Servicemen and women who have been hideously injured defending this country receive a paltry amount in comparison. That can't be right.'

And finally, a sign of the times-

Teenage thieves, vandals, muggers and burglars will escape any punishment if they agree to say sorry 'on the spot' under a proposed scheme.

Justice Minister David Hanson said: 'Court is often an inappropriate option for young people who have never committed any previous offence.

'This will steer young people away from trouble at the earliest possible stage, particularly if their first offence is very minor.

'By introducing this option for the police, bad behaviour can be nipped in the bud at the same time as the victim's feelings are addressed.

Sure, making them say sorry and then letting them off with it is proven to be more of a deterrent than actually punishing them for breaking the law. And nothing makes the victim of a mugging or burglary feel better than knowing that their assailant is free as a bird and escaping any kind of consequences for their actions.

Makes you wonder what kind of world some of these politicians live in, doesn't it?

Support The Troops

A comment quoted at Smallest Minorty-

In my lifetime I've seen two Democrat Congresses clamor to allow the military to lose a war; one successfully (Viet Nam), one unsuccessfully (OIF). I've seen two Democrat Presidential candidates demand that they be voted in as Commander in Chief so that they can so order the US military to lose said war; one unsuccessful (McGovern), and one successful (Obama). I've watched Democrat Senators and Congressmen defame the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who daily risk their lives so that these retards can do that defaming at no risk to themselves. And I've just retired after 22 years as a commissioned officer in the US Army, so I can now freely criticize the US President.

No, I'm not going to hold back just because I'm "above all that". I'm going to be just as brutal to Obama as any Lefty was to George Bush because it matters. It matters that we didn't fight back against the slime merchants at their level, and now they’ve won. And now my fellow soldiers, my brothers-in-arms, the folks who had my back in harm's way, have to serve once again under someone who not only doesn't understand them, but loathes them and their honor. Now I have their back.

Obama isn't worthy to lick the Iraqi dirt off the bottom of the lowest ranking Army Private's boots. And I'm not going to let him and his ilk slime the military any more just because it's not proper.

No damn way.

Obama's already vowed to slash military spending, missile defence and to slow the development of future weapon systems. But he wants to increase language and culture skills.

His inane brand of hope and change applied to the US military. Now, more than ever, it would seem that the military needs all the support it can get.

Obama On Security

Obama on Homeland Security-

Prepare the Military to Meet 21st Century Threats: Barack Obama will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a threat to America. Obama will ensure that our military becomes more stealthy, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. He will bolster our military's ability to speak different languages, navigate different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

Note the facets of the US military that he wants to improve. Now watch this-



He's going to slow America's development of future weapon systems but he wants to improve the Army's ability to navigate different cultures?

I don't know what to say.

Weakening The Military

As the race nears the end, shouldn't McCain be reminding voters that the economy isn't the major issue at hand? There are numerous dangers around the globe facing America and, as Biden himself admits, not only will Obama be tested by those who believe he is weak, but the Presidency doesn't lend itself to on-the-job training.

Black Ops

Barack Obama has repeatedly said that he wants to pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan which is, he claims, the central front in the war on terrorism.

More than 3,500 insurgents have been "taken off the streets of Baghdad" by the elite British force in a series of audacious "Black Ops" over the past two years.

It is understood that while the majority of the terrorists were captured, several hundred, who were mainly members of the organisation known as "al-Qa'eda in Iraq" have been killed by the SAS.

Actually it's a joint SAS and Delta Force operation.

Using intelligence gleaned from spies and informers, Task Force Black has nearly broken the back of the terrorist network and reduced bombings in Baghdad from about 150 a month to just two.

When is Obama going to be asked how leaving Iraq- and the very real presence of terrorists there, including Al Qaeda- is going to help fighting terrorism?

The SAS-Delta Force operation was part of the surge strategy which has turned the conflict around-

Gen David Petraeus, the head of the US forces in Iraq, who is due to leave his post shortly, has praised the courage of the SAS.

He said: “They have helped immensely in Baghdad … they have done a phenomenal job.”

If Obama had his way those 3,500 terrorists (and this is just in Baghdad remember) would have been free to either wreak havoc on the local populace- or to turn their attention elsewhere.

Obama's Words And Deeds

Barack Obama calls the presence of US troops in Iraq an occupation. He refuses to go visit the wounded while on a self-promotion tour.

The Iraqi Interior Minister, on the other hand, made the time to go visit wounded servicemen at Walter Reed where he had this to say-

Jawad al-Bulani told reporters that he wanted to convey his country’s “gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices made by these great warrior-soldiers, in the freeing of the Iraqi people and in helping us in Iraq to recover from tyranny and dictatorship.”

Bulani also praised U.S. servicemembers’ families, noting their sacrifices are equally important and appreciated by his nation.

So the Iraqi minister refers to freeing the Iraqi people while visiting wounded US servicemen- but the man who wants to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief blows off the troops and slanders their sacrifice and their honour by calling them occupiers rather than liberators.

Which one sounds like he respects the US Armed Forces more?

Perhaps someone needs to remind Obama that words do matter- and that he will be judged on his deeds.

Not Supporting The Troops

I'm hoping for a reduction of Obama posts over the next day or two. Given the importance of the position he hopes to attain though, I think it's important to cast light on his character- especially since the MSM is steadfastly refusing to vet him in public the way they would a Republican candidate.

I already pointed out that Obama cancelled a planned visit to military hospital facilities in Germany, where he would have seen troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. At first it seemed that he had cancelled because of time limitations but then a member of the media let it slip that Obama told them that he had some "down time" and wanted to go sightseeing.

Hot Air has a follow up post and it appears that Obama cancelled simply because he couldn't use the visit as a campaign prop- the press weren't permitted to accompany him. With no personal benefits to his lust for power, he ditched the visit.

And he wants to be Commander in Chief?