| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| British Admiral: 'tinpot' armed services |
| 2006-12-24 |
| Britain's beleaguered Armed Forces are in danger of being turned by the Government into a "tinpot gendarmerie" incapable of defending UK interests, according to one of the country's top military figures. Defence cuts and financial infighting at the Ministry of Defence are threatening Britain's status as a world power, said Admiral Sir Alan West in a blistering attack on Labour's defence policy. In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, he said the Government was risking the future security of British interests by reshaping the armed forces to wage long-term "anti-terror" campaigns in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Sir Alan, 58, said the MoD was behaving "like these tinpot countries" that fail to invest in major equipment programmes, and spend defence budgets on running rather than developing their armed forces. "That way is a recipe for disaster for a defence force that has to do all the things that Britain may have to do in the next 50 years," he said. In 10 years' time, the threat facing the UK could be something "far more dangerous than terrorism in central Asia". He added: "All we could be left with is an Armed Forces that is effectively a gendarmerie. And I suppose we would retire to our island and hope that no one gets to us." Sir Alan's comments follow recent criticisms of Government treatment of the Army from General Sir Richard Dannatt and General Sir Mike Jackson, the present and former heads of the Army respectively. The latest attack comes amid speculation that the MoD is about to delay or even cancel its "Carrier Strike" programme to build two aircraft carriers by 2015. Sir Alan, who retired as head of the Royal Navy this year, said he now feared that the £3.5 billion he had ring-fenced for the project was under threat from MoD officials trying to "undermine the programme" so that the money could be used elsewhere in the cash-strapped department. He said: "The carrier programme is the jewel in the crown of the strategic defence review. Yet there are officials within the MoD who are casting lascivious looks at it. There is no doubt that the rats are out there having a nibble. If Britain wants to remain a world power and to operate with a deal of freedom around the world, these two carriers are vital." Sir Alan also criticised the Army for not "going through the pain" of addressing its own financial problems in the way the Navy had done over the past few years. He described the Army's attitude towards cost-cutting as "atrocious" and accused senior officers of attempting to "raid" the Forces' overall equipment budget in an effort to solve its own financial problems. |
| Posted by:mrp |
| #9 That's hardly new "Money spent on an Army or Fleet Is homicidal lunacy. . . ." Kipling Natural Theology |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-12-24 21:11 |
| #8 Well, they wanted their armed forces to be able to integrate with the Europeans, so they need to be just as worthless. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-12-24 20:17 |
| #7 somewhere since the end of Thatcher's government it had started heading down a multiculti slope leading to the cesspit Margaret Thatcher was a truly great leader, but unlike Ronald Reagan, she only cared about the social and economical battleground in her struggle against the Forces Of Progress. The cultural and societal (does this word even exists in english?) fields were left wide open for the marxists, gramscists, and assorted memetic warriors, and they changed british society as deeply as they did in other european countries, even while Thatcher reformed the economical structures (and ironically salvaged the UK, allowing the left not to be blamed for its past and inherent mismanagement). Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was a product of a real conservative intellectual trend dating back to the 50's IIUC, and he was a really coherent, deep and well-thought ideologist himself, a far cry from the simpleton portrait made of him by the Enlightened Elites. Thus, the "Culture war" (IE the relentless assault againt the western civilization by the Forces Of Progress) is still being fought in the USA, but it has been lost in Europe, including the UK. My 0.02. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-12-24 15:14 |
| #6 'Moose, I read through the comments section last week in the Sun newspaper about why so many Britons are leaving Britain. There were 28 pages of comments! No. 1 Complaint: too many immigrants, most of whom had no desire to assimilate. No. 2 Complaint: taxes too high. No. 3 Complaint: tax money spent to fund and aid the non-assimilating immigrants and the yobs and chavs. No. 4 Complaint: crime through the roof and no effective police worthy of the name. It truly sounded like most of the people writing didn't feel like Britain was their country anymore; somewhere since the end of Thatcher's government it had started heading down a multiculti slope leading to the cesspit and they saw the change picking up pace with every passing day. Bitter, bitter people, and I believe with good reason. |
| Posted by: mac 2006-12-24 14:17 |
| #5 This is what happens when the socialist/communist/democrats take over a government. The down turn occurred here during the duration of Blow Job's term. It will begin again on Jan.4. And, we'll be in real deep shit if Hildebeest ascends to the throne in Jan 2009. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-12-24 12:12 |
| #4 It seems that Britain could actually *save* money if it created a bunch of military field training camps, rounded up its unemployed hoodies, ASBOs, chavs and hooligans, and sent them there for some training under the paternal eye of Ghurka NCOs. Not only would they empty out a lot of their jails and slums, but instead of paying unemployment, they would pay a low military wage. Large tents instead of ghetto housing. The emphasis could be on discipline training and "conservation and improvement" projects, under military discipline. If they showed improvement and a good attitude, they might even become eligible for regular military service. Last but not least, everyone, especially new immigrants, would qualify for participation in this new programme. Which would undoubtedly mean a LOT fewer immigrants to Britain. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-12-24 11:09 |
| #3 Yes. The question is does it have the will. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-12-24 10:41 |
| #2 Does Britain have the budget to support two carriers? Functional, working carriers, I mean. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-12-24 10:31 |
| #1 Not just Britain; IIUC, french armed forces are mostly operational around an hardcore of "projection forces" (marines, special operations command, a few alpine and dragon units) used as a foreign policy tool, think "africa", while the army by itself is not really able to fill its national defense role due to underfunding and lack of proper personel. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-12-24 10:28 |