Support our Soldiers

30 Nov 2007

Army Leader Praises PlayStation Gener...

Army Leader Praises PlayStation Generation

Posted by Shawn on Thursday, November 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm 

general121006_700×700.jpg

General Sir Richard Dannatt , Head of the British Army has praised the "PlayStation Generation" as being "more than a match" for combat in Afghanistan. He went on saying that they were indeed "exemplary" in their courage and bravery at his address of the Cardiff Business Club.

"There is no doubt in my mind that our people, whether from the specialist Air Assault and Commando Brigades, or from the Ground Manoeuvre Brigades are all up to the job.

"There was a time when commentators and some more experienced members of the Army expressed concern as to whether the 'PlayStation generation' were up to dealing with the gritty bloody conflict that is routine business in southern Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Well, I'm pleased to say that they are. Our young soldiers, drawn from across British society, are more than a match for what is required of them and I salute every one of them."

robert-green.jpgThe General's praise is in stark contrast to the accusations of West Ham goalkeeper Robert Green that Xbox and video games are the downfall of British football.

I think we would have the best team if we could go into every household and throw away every PlayStation, Xbox and video game. We have the players and the best league in the world. The way the game is played here is so different though.

Watching the Premier League is like Formula One - it's that quick - and then you go to an international game and it's like a game of chess.

Somehow I would have expected to hear this sentiment from a more ... authoritarian source, but Green goes on to insert the other foot in mouth considering his own recent performance in the national finals. (thanks GamePolitics)

Other countries seem to bring on world class players, countries like Brazil and Argentina where, often, it's football or nothing - in contrast, we live in a country where we have choices, and perhaps the will to do it and the need to escape from situations you're in are not so clear.

So there you have it. I guess video games prepare players to be better leaders of men than footballers. Which is better in my book anyway. Having been a footballer as a youth and a military man as an adult I know which one meant more to me in the long run.

26 Nov 2007

We've been robbed of our Englishness

From The Sunday Times
November 25, 2007

We've been robbed of our Englishness


As the nation settled down on Wednesday night to watch England play Croatia, I sensed an air of optimism in the land. A feeling that all would be well. I mean hey, England were holding their own against Brazil when Croatia didn't even exist as a nation state. So what chance would these swarthy-looking Yugo-ruffians have? They were minnows in a tank of sharks. They weren't going to be beaten. They were going to be eaten.

Hmmm. I'm afraid I knew we were going to lose moments before the match began. I looked at our players mumbling their way through the national anthem and realised they didn't really care about playing for England. Because they don't really know what England is. And truth be told, neither do I.

When I was their age it was crystal clear. Newspapers would report: "Fog in the Channel: Europe cut off." Peter Ustinov would arrive at JFK airport and, having studied the signs saying "US citizens" and "Aliens", he'd ask a security guard where the British should go. We were separate, different, better.

We had hardback dark blue passports with a personal message from the Queen on the inside cover "requiring" that foreign border guards allow the bearer to do whatever he or she pleased without let or hindrance. Slap one of those down on a Frenchman's desk and the crack of invitation grade cardboard would have the greasy little oik sitting up straight; that's for sure.

We had saved the world from tyranny so often we'd lost count; we'd brought decency, truth and cricket to every continent and every coral pinprick. We'd sailed iron steamships into America when they were still using coracles. We were defined by our brilliance, our superiority, our technical know-how.

Today, things are rather different. Mention the war and you'll be told by an outreach counsellor that we must empathise with the Germans, who are coming to terms with their mistakes of the past. "And you know, children, it was actually the British who invented concentration camps . . ."

Empire? When I was at school, teachers spoke with pride about how a little island in the north Atlantic turned a quarter of the world pink, but now all teachers talk about is the slave trade and how we must hang our heads in shame.

Right. So we must forgive Germany for invading Poland. But I must beat myself to death every night because my great-great-great-grandad moved some chap from a hellhole in Ghana to Barbados. In fact I can't even say we're British any more because then all of Scotland would rush over the border, pour porridge down my trousers and push a thistle up my bottom.

I believe people need to feel like they're part of a gang, part of a tribe. And I also believe we need to feel pride in our gang. But all we ever hear now is that we in England have nothing to be proud about. In a world of righteousness we are the child molesters and rapists.

Our soldiers were murderers. Our empire builders were thieves. Our class system was ridiculous and our industrial revolution set in motion a chain of events that, eventually, will kill every polar bear in the Arctic.

And it gets so much worse. Because if you say you are a patriot, men with beards and sandals will come round to your house in the night and daub BNP slogans on your front door. This is the only country in the world where the national flag is deemed offensive. Small wonder the England players were disinclined to sing the national anthem with any gusto. It's in English and that's offensive too. Unless it's simultaneously translated into Urdu, for the deaf.

Then there's our national character. In the past, boys were told in school assembly that their mothers had died and were expected to get over it in a nice game of rugby. Crying only happened abroad. Not any more. We were ordered to weep like Americans when Diana died, and no local news report is complete today without some fat oik sobbing because his house has fallen over. I sometimes get the impression Kate McCann is being hounded precisely because she has a stiff upper lip.

Every day we read obituaries about men who pressed on with the attack on a German machinegun nest even though their arms and legs had been blown off. Today disabled people get a statue in Trafalgar Square just because they got pregnant. Tomorrow all the obituaries will be for those who saved others from certain death by insisting they wear high visibility jackets. Cowardice is the new bravery.

As for that wounded soldier seen recently sporting a T-shirt that said: "I went to Afghanistan and all I got was this crappy false leg," I call that typically English. But not any more. It's appalling. A slight on disabled people. And you shouldn't have been in Afghanistan in the first place, you baby killer.

Do you see? We can't be proud of our past because it's all bad, we can't use British humour because it's offensive and we can't use understatement to deal with a crisis because the army of state-sponsored counsellors say we've got to sob uncontrollably at every small thing.

I want to end with a question. It's addressed to all the equal opportunity, human rights, diet carbon, back room, bleeding heart liberals who advise the government: "I am English. Why is that a good thing?"

I bet they don't have an answer. And until they can come up with one, chances are we'll never win at football again.

Nursing the mental scars of war

Nursing the mental scars of war


Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 26/11/2007

The Government is unveiling a new scheme to help soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. But for one widow, it is too little too late, Glenda Cooper finds

'Imagine your worst day and multiply it by a thousand," was how Captain Ken Masters described his time in Basra to his wife Alison. "In Bosnia and Afghanistan I felt I was doing some good. Here it's different."

 
Captain Ken Masters
'Imagine your worst day': Captain Ken Masters killed himself in Iraq

Four days before he was due to leave Iraq he walked into his small barrack room at Waterloo Lines military camp and hanged himself.

"He was out there looking after his men; why was no one looking after him?" his wife asks now.

Capt Masters is one of 17 serving personnel posted to Iraq and Afghanistan who have committed suicide; one in 10 of those who have died in these two conflicts have taken their own lives.

According to the Ministry of Defence's own figures, of 1,158 serving personnel who developed mental health problems - such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), stress-related disturbance and depression - between January and March this year, 499 had been in either Iraq or Afghanistan.


Other figures show that the number of reservists sent to Iraq who suffer mental problems has doubled since 2003.

The last military psychiatric hospital, the Duchess of Kent in Yorkshire, was closed after a review in the 1990s. The MoD says it is accepted as best practice to treat service personnel with mental health disorders in the NHS in conjunction with the Priory group of clinics.

It spent £3.4 million on 307 such patients in 2006-07. However, on Friday the Government announced that it was also unrolling a pilot scheme across six sites in Britain that will provide trained mental health therapists for veterans.

The mental scars of war have always been with us. The veterans of the First World War called the symptoms they brought home shell shock; the Second World War generation talked about "going psycho".

Today, the buzz word is ''post-traumatic stress disorder", a term describing a severe reaction to an extreme psychological trauma.

Yet the story of Capt Masters and others like him raises profound questions about whether the military establishment recognises the invidious nature of anxiety disorders, PTSD and their manifestations, ranging from suicide to violence. In one case a former soldier fired a crossbow at his wife after experiencing a flashback.

"If you have a guy who has been hit by an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] then something simple like a metal bin lid falling to the ground can set off a flashback," warns Ed Tanner of the mental health charity Rethink.

Dr Mark Salter, a consultant psychiatrist in London, agrees. "About one in four soldiers will experience some form of mental trauma.

This can appear as night sweats, night terrors, self-harming. We may associate self-harming with women but you find it in veterans, too - whether hurting themselves with knives or just failing to look after themselves - not washing, not keeping themselves fit, anaesthetising themselves with alcohol and drugs."

Salter treated one veteran who had seen the dismembered bodies of children in a deep freeze while serving in Bosnia; on his return he experienced acute night terrors in which he dreamt he opened a freezer and found his family inside.

He suffered extreme anxiety, hyperventilation, cut his wrists and finally, on his son's second birthday, attempted to commit suicide by taking an overdose. "It was the strain of trying to be the cheerful dad, to adjust to normal life when he knew no one could understand what he had seen," says Salter.

Many experts now believe that while warfare has always exacted a toll, recent developments have exacerbated the problem.

"Because the Armed Forces are under more pressure, in the past you might have had one six-month tour in three years; now it's not unusual to have two tours in 18 months," says Tanner, whose charity, Rethink, is opening a new facility in Wiltshire offering accommodation for up to two years for veterans suffering mental trauma.

There is also another factor. In civilian life, a new therapy culture encourages us to talk about our feelings - but not in the military.

"The problem," says Prof Simon Wessely, director of the King's Centre for Military Health Research, "is that the things that make people good soldiers - stoicism, resilience, bravery - make them bad patients. It's a circle that is very difficult to square. Soldiers need to control their feelings, emotions and fears in order to go into battle and hence it is difficult later on to admit to weakness, fears and doubt."

Conflict has also evolved. "Conventional warfare as we understand it last happened in the Falklands," says Tanner. "It's all changed. You are dealing with an enemy that isn't clear cut."

James Hayter [not his real name], now 38, served in the first Gulf war in an artillery regiment. He was sent out to Iraq at the age of 20 and had no real idea what he was letting himself in for. He saw horrific injuries and deaths. Then, on the Basra Road, he was involved in a friendly fire incident.

Hayter was badly affected: "I noticed my character changing. I started to drink more and use drugs. I was very angry. When my partner was going to have a baby, the sergeant wouldn't give me leave for the birth, I was so angry, I just went Awol for six months. Of course then I couldn't do anything legal to support myself, so I just got caught up in bad company, drugs - everything except heroin - until I was caught and taken back."

He was discharged in 1993 but it was only four years ago, after going to prison for drug-related crime, that Hayter finally started to get help through Combat Stress, the charity that looks after veterans with mental health problems. He has subsequently been diagnosed with PTSD and receives an Army pension.

"The Army is changing, I think, but it's always one step behind," he says. "I speak to young lads who have been out in Afghanistan and Iraq this time and it's changed even from my time. You're not fighting an army that's wearing a uniform, you're fighting civilians and terrorists. How do you come back to civilian life after that?"

"With Afghanistan it has been particularly difficult," agrees Tanner. "We find people talk about seeing children picking up arms, kids being put on the back of bikes by the Taliban to shoot at our troops because they know our forces won't exchange fire. This can all have a massive psychological effect."

Too much of it unspoken. Alison Masters felt her husband, who committed suicide due to depression, was not able to articulate all his feelings. They had met when she was just 18 and he was 22. "He was my first love," she says.

Capt Masters worked for the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) - part of the military police - and, with Alison and their two daughters, Kirsten, now 16, and Hannah, 14, was posted all over the world.

He had worked in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq, but when he arrived in Basra in April 2004, British forces were facing damaging allegations of abusing Iraqis. By the time he came home in late July, for 10 days' rest and recuperation, he had lost a huge amount of weight and was not sleeping.

Alison persuaded him to see the doctor back in Basra, but felt she could not voice her concerns to his bosses in case it damaged his career. "Ken insisted it would all be OK," she says. Yet her husband's mental health deteriorated very swiftly.

"At his inquest one officer talked about coming in and seeing Ken rocking back and forth on his chair, just staring at a blank screen," she says. "Why did no one say anything? Why can't the Army see that depression is an illness, not a weakness?"

www.rethink.orgwww.combatstress.org.uk

Ex-defence secretary joins army funds...

Ex-defence secretary joins army funds row


By Lewis Carter
Last Updated: 6:44am GMT 26/11/2007

A former defence secretary intervened in the military funding row yesterday, calling for an extra £25 billion to be spent on the Armed Forces.

The plea from Lord Robertson, one of Gordon Brown's former Cabinet allies, came as figures show officers are quitting the Army in record numbers, blaming cost-cutting and family separation.

Speaking on BBC Scotland's Politics Show, Lord Robertson, defence secretary from 1997 to 1999, said military spending should increase from 2.3 per cent to three per cent of the country's GDP - a £25 billion rise. The demand comes as figures released by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) show that 1,344 officers have left the Army in the past six months, double the rate of the previous 12 months.


Capt Will Richards, 31, said yesterday: "We are overstretched and quite clearly underfunded. The incentive to stay in is no longer there."

Mark Pritchard, the secretary of the Conservative Defence Committee, said: "Soldiers are not being given the contact time with their families which they were promised."

A spokesman for the MoD said: "The UK's Defence budget is the second-highest in the world in real terms. The recent Comprehensive Spending Review settlement means an additional £7.7 billion for defence by 2011."

25 Nov 2007

Brown hits back on forces funding - BBC News

Brown hits back on forces funding
British soldiers in Afghanistan
The government says defence spending is second only to the US

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has rejected criticism from five former military chiefs about the treatment of and funding for the armed forces.

He said he had "nothing but praise" for the forces and was putting more money into defence "than ever before".

Former chief of staff Lord Boyce said making Des Browne defence and Scottish secretary had been an "insult".

Tory leader David Cameron has written to Mr Brown asking him to divide the roles between two people.

'Great courage'

Asked about the criticism, the prime minister, who is in Kampala, Uganda, for a Commonwealth summit, said: "I have got nothing but praise for our armed forces.

"I have visited them in Iraq and Afghanistan and what they are doing are acts of great courage.

I will put my record in relation to both commitment and delivery up against anyone's
Des Browne
Defence secretary

"I want to see the armed forces properly equipped with the resources that they need. And that's why we've been increasing expenditure on defence compared with the cuts under the previous government."

Earlier Des Browne told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that being Scottish secretary did not detract from his role as defence secretary, as most of the Scottish post's powers were now devolved to Holyrood.

Morale 'high'

"I will put my record in relation to both commitment and delivery up against anyone's," said Mr Browne.

"This is not an issue that has ever been raised with me by any serving soldier."

Defence spending bar chart
Total MoD spending for 2007-08 is set at £33.4bn, but the cash or near-cash figure is £30bn; this has been used above to allow historical comparisons and does not include capital charge

He said morale was high among troops in Basra, the UK's defence budget was second only to that of the US and it would see an increase of £7.7bn over the next three years.

On Thursday five former chiefs of the defence staff had warned, during a debate in the House of Lords, of "blood on the floor" at the Ministry of Defence because of inadequate funding.

The government's commitment was "best exemplified by the fact that the prime minister can't be bothered to appoint a minister in charge of the armed forces on a full-time basis", said Admiral Lord Boyce, who retired as chief of defence staff in 2003.

He questioned the government's claim that it was overseeing the longest period of defence spending since the 1980s, saying the cost of military equipment was rising faster than budget increases.

'Rethink dual role'

And Britain was "vastly exceeding" planning assumptions made in 1998, because of commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.

On Friday, former head of the Army, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, added his voice to the debate by saying the budget discrepancies were not a sudden event.

It's personalised against Gordon Brown because for ten years, he signed the cheques
Vincent Cable
Lib Dems

"This didn't happen overnight, this imbalance, and the prime minister now was, of course, the chancellor during the 10 years over which this tempo has accelerated."

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "The government needs to accept that there are shortcomings at the present time which it still seems to be in denial about."

In his letter to Mr Brown, David Cameron wrote: "At a time when our forces are engaged in two highly dangerous missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for the defence secretary to be able to concentrate full-time on his role is surely a matter of plain common sense."

Long-term planning

The Liberal Democrats' acting leader Vincent Cable said criticism had been "personalised" against Gordon Brown because, as chancellor "he signed the cheque for £5bn for the war in Iraq at a time when the armed forces were already overstretched.

"That is why the troops are under-equipped, they are not properly housed, they are not cared for when they are injured - and they are very angry."

Organisations like the Royal British Legion say the armed forces are over-stretched and under-funded, and say that while 4.4% of GDP was spent on defence in the early 1980s, today the figure is about 2.3%.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the real question was whether the armed forces were being asked to do too much on the available resources.

Long-term defence planning failed to predict that Britain would be fighting two medium-sized campaigns on two fronts simultaneously, and facing lengthy ongoing commitments as a result, she said.

The last full review, which tried to match the armed forces to the threats they expected to counter, was carried out in 1998.

"The overstretch in the budget has led to calls from some for a new strategic defence review, which would outline exactly what military role and aims Britain wants to pursue - and how much it's prepared to pay for that," our correspondent said.

Bar chart showing UK military spending

Royal Anglians to return to frontline

Royal Anglians to return to frontline

Soldiers from the Royal Anglian Regiment in action in Helmand Province.
Soldiers from the Royal Anglian Regiment in action in Helmand Province.
LUCY BOLTON
24 November 2007 11:33

As Royal Anglian troops celebrate their homecoming, army chiefs today said 1st Battlion of the regiment will return to the frontline within 18 months.

Soldiers from the regiment have been told they will either continue the ongoing fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, or go to the frontline in Iraq. The British Army has confirmed operations will begin again for the battalion in 2009.

Major Fabrice Landragin said: "In early 2009 the battalion will go out on operation again. It could be Iraq or Afghanistan because these are the only two big theatres for operations at the moment.

"They can go and do the ground work that they always wanted to do when they became a soldier."

The final decision on when and where they go will be down to the government, but the current plan is for next year to be spent training with new equipment and then they will again prepare to fight.

Major Landragin added: "We are of course at the decision making powers of the MoD."

The tour, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, would again be for six months. Training beforehand will be mostly in the UK, but could also see troops taken to Kenya or Canada.

They will also learn the skills of new machinery, including a new "mini tank" named the bulldog.

Major Landragin said: "The bulldog will change what we call a mechanised infantry into a light armoured infantry. The soldiers will learn how to use the vehicle which is mainly for protection in combat."

Soldiers in the battalion have said they are aware of the prospect of returning to enemy lines, but questions have begun as to whether sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan can continue without an end in sight.

Pte Chris Goodwin from Eaton said he always knew there was the possibility of returning to Afghanistan or going to Iraq.

The 25-year-old added: "It's something you have got to expect. Obviously from the experience we have had we will be better prepared.

"Iraq at the moment is probably safer, but it could be quite different as it's a totally different country. In Iraq we'd be mostly patrolling the streets because they are starting to hand back the power now - either way it's the job we signed up to do when we joined and if you don't want to be there you shouldn't have become a soldier."

About 6,000 soldiers were sent to Afghanistan in October to replace "our boys" from the regiment, but the MoD has confirmed this will increase to 7,700 during the next year.

Pte Goodwin said that forces are based in Afghanistan under the request of the Afghan army. Training the army to protect the people and the country against the guerrilla army of the Taliban has been part of the ongoing mission named Operation Herrick.

Nine Royal Anglian soldiers, including two from Norfolk, were killed and 57 wounded in action during the tour.

Pte Craig Harrison from Clover Hill in Bowthorpe said: "I don't know what I think about going back - you are told to expect it, but we were waiting to know when it would be - however, I do like being in England.

"At the moment I'm prepared for going anywhere in the world and I think I'd like to go to Iraq."

However, sending troops to a war which could last for years, has been criticised in many quarters.

Ian Gibson MP for Norwich North said the current political pressure is to keep going and sending soldiers to the frontline for as long as it takes.

However, he added: "The top brasses at the MoD are getting fidgety. You have to ask the question of what are we achieving? I think we should be thinking about how we move out. There should be an exit strategy for both places - and currently there's not."

Meanwhile, the head of the British Army thanked families in Norfolk for their support during the homecoming of the Royal Anglians.

The Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt thanked the people of East Anglia, saying he was touched by the response he had seen from people across the region, after initially being worried about apparent reports of the gulf between the army and the nation.

He said: "In East Anglia, you have shown that you really understand and appreciate the sacrifices that our soldiers make - and the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment in particular, and you have turned out in your thousands to welcome home the Light Dragoons in Dereham and Royal Anglians in Norwich and Bury St Edmunds.

"I would therefore like to take the opportunity to thank you for the support that you have given, either individually or through various companies and organisations. You can take justifiable pride in the tremendous job that all our servicemen and women do for our country. They value your support and it gives them a huge boost to see that so many people appreciate what they do."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown this week fended off accusations in the House of Lords that he was treating the military with contempt because there is no "full time" defence secretary.

Did you serve in Afghanistan? Call Evening News reporter Lucy Bolton on 01603 772429 or email lucy.bolton@archant.co.uk


Officers quit army in record numbers

From The Sunday Times
November 25, 2007

Officers quit army in record numbers

THE army has suffered an unprecedented exodus of more than 1,300 officers in the past six months amid anger about government cost-cutting and equipment shortages.

The number quitting is more than double the rate in the previous 12 months and will add to pressure on Gordon Brown about the way his government is funding the armed services.

Many of those who have resigned their commissions are from frontline units. Most are captains or majors with invaluable experience of battle.

"The loss of a whole swathe of middle-ranking officers will leave us struggling to find the top quality generals of the future," said one senior officer. "But it is clear the government does not care and would be happy to see the army reduced to a token force."

One officer, who put in his 12-months' notice last month, said the reason most were leaving was that the army felt "undermanned, undervalued and underfunded".

"We are overstretched and quite clearly underfunded," said 31-year-old Captain Will Richards. "It's not a lack of job satisfaction – that still exists – but the incentive to stay in is no longer there. The forces no longer get the public appreciation and recognition, or the funding, they used to."

Last week Brown had to defend his record after five former chiefs of the defence staff accused him of treating Britain's fighting forces with contempt.

The new figures, released last week by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), show the criticisms are shared by serving officers. A total of 1,344 army officers have left in the past six months alone, more than 100% up on last year's rate and close to three times the figure for 2004-05. Since the Iraq war, the army has lost 5,790 officers, recruiting only 4,500 to replace them. It now has more than 200 too few majors – a rank in which it was traditionally overstaffed.

The Parachute Regiment has lost nine officers in the past few months, all quitting in disgust at the lack of resources and poor treatment of soldiers and their families.

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, another infantry regiment, has lost a dozen officers in the past year, according to one former member of the regiment. "They have lost a complete peer group," he said. "Many of the young captains have left." Derek Twigg, junior defence minister, claimed last week that the newly released figures show the overall numbers for personnel across the three services remain "broadly stable".

However, the latest MoD performance report suggests there is little chance of the armed forces meeting their manpower targets by next April. Government cost-cutting has left the forces fighting far more often but with an ever-decreasing number of troops, the report says. Those leaving cite extreme overstretch and undermanning and the poor treatment of soldiers and their families.

If some of the vast amounts of money wasted on ministerial 'initiatives' were used for the maintenance of our armed forces, it would make a significant difference and everyone would be grateful. It is time these self serving idiots woke up to their true responsibilities. When will they stop meddling and start performing ?

Diddly Do, Liverpool,

Its not the next ten years we have to worry about, its the previous. Browns too good to be true figures as chancellor were just that, and It is slowly coming to light that this country is almost bankrupt because of if. Of course our troops should have the best, they are the best, hand in hand with the american troops. Labour should have reversed Nigel Lawsons give away 1986 budget when the mega rich tax went from 95% to 40%. We have been so impoverished ever since that brown encourages crippling migration in order to get an extra few quid in taxation. Browns unelected government must go, and taxation has to be increased on the rich if we are ever to get out of the mess we are in.

kenny livitt, Hove, uk

This is simply a manifestation of the stresses within British society. The electorate care about unemployment, health and education. The government, whilst keen to please the electorate, want to pretend that Britain is a world power, of sorts.
The government has to spend money on the NHS, education and soaking up excess labour by employing it - all off which costs money. It doesn't have enough left over to be a world-power - even a very minor one. It has got by because the Army tends to grit its teeth and get on with it. Four years of war, with no end in sight , is bringing those stresses to the surface.
The electorate either needs to change its priorities or pay more tax or vote in a governemnt that will withdraw not only from Iraq but also, more cost-effectively, from Afghanistan.

Eddie Reader, birmingham, england

As a serving officer - albeit only for a few more days - this article is 100% correct. i have completed tours of afghanistan and iraq. but when we are on tour - and at home - the incentives and rewards for being a serviceman are being removed. allowances are being cut for serving and living in germany while the cost of living there increases. We are finding the time between tours is not as long as it should be - the figures are skewed by training regiment numbers and staff officers in posts that have not deployed for years - and will not.

My peers are leaving in their droves as they feel they are being asked to do too much for too little.

A.N. Officer, bournemouth,

The answer to the Armies loss of man power is to resurrect some of the old Gurkha regiments which were disbanded and their colours placed into mothballs. The Gurkhas have a proven and distinguished track record with the British army.

Thousands of Gurkhas try to enlist for service every year with less than 300 being successfull.

its a shame this government and previous governements do not extend rights to a full pension and citizenship to these outstanding men of Nepal who serve our country often for the full 22 years service.

Lance Harrington, Canterbury , Kent, UK

I don’t believe the indigenous population undervalues our armed forces, but I do believe that this governments constant meddling with our nations identity has left most people confused as to whether showing appreciation or gratitude towards our troops might lead to some form of criminal prosecution on either religious or racial grounds. As for soldier’s family accommodation, if those premises belonged to civilian landlords or local councils they would find themselves in court and the residents re-housed as they are a damn disgrace. How is it that this Labour government can waste billions on hosting the Olympics (games) yet when it comes to the welfare of the real heroes in our country they throw a twenty-four hour ration pack with a note attached stating this is really a forty eight hour pack? We are not amused Brown and our troops deserve better so take your fingers out of your ears and your cheque book out of your pocket.

Cromwell, Leeds, England

For too long the government has treated the armed forces of this country as its 'toy train set' to do its bidding (often unsupported by the public) whilst starving them of the resources and manpower to do the job properly. As a result, morale has sky-dived and those (expensively-trained), experienced and proud servants of their country have had enough and are voting with their feet. Another worrying consequence of this 'abuse' is the increasing politicisation of the armed forces. Traditionally fiercely apolitical as servants of the Crown, with no-one in the political and State apparatus seemingly looking after their interests, members, from top brass down are being forced to speak out to defend their people - a wretched situation. I am sure this state of affairs would not exist if more politicians had served in the armed forces of their Country, and seen the effects of their short-sighted policies first hand.

Steve (former RN officer), Yorks, UK

It is the primary requirement of any government of whatever political hue to attend to this country's defence. It is not an equivelent with health care nor civil bureacracy which the Prime Minister is reported to have claimed have equal claims on the Crown's purse.

The government is repeating a neglect of this country's defences which echoes the neglect of the 1930's which but for the efforts of a few partiots would have left this country at the mercy of the Nazis.

This is starting to look like a dogmatic betrayal of our armed forces.

Andrew Lewis, Chelmsford, England

The real problem will manifest itself in about ten years. These men are the future staff ranks. They are not only experienced in warfare,but clearly are thoughtful. The army needs men like this.

Bill, Belfast, N.I.

this is to add to the doctors and dentists quitting the NHS, Teachers quitting the schools in this country...etc. Well done Gordon BROWN

Genco Abbandando, Naples,

good
let's send brown and blair to iraq and afganistan with a pack of sandwiches and a bow and arrow.Sniffing both factions and with Allah's help, they can do it.
you just need vision.

doug, northwood, England

Mick Smith has revealed the true tragedy of recent years. The loss of highly trained, skilled and experienced officers is appalling. These people should have been nurtured and retained. Without them the armed forces are substantially weaker and less efficient.

I'd go further. This wholsale destruction of the backbone of the armed forces places those remaining in grave danger - precisely when they are enaged fighting for our country.

For too long we have heard the Ministry of Defence repeating that recruitment is going well. It's not recruitment which is the problem, it's retention. Overall the armed forces remain substantially under strength, and with these major losses, under skilled.

Derek Twigg has either not understood or, as we have come to expect, is dissimulating.

Chuck Unsworth, London,

This Government doesn't care about the Armed forces since taking office 10years ago it hastheir aim to run down the regular armed forces and they will continue to do so unless someone has the courage to say enough is enough and there is a vote of no confidence in in this administration in the House of Commons and House of Lords.

AMAC, St.Helens, England

Armed Forces face 'failure' in Afghan...

Armed Forces face 'failure' in Afghanistan


By Sean Rayment and Jasper Copping
Last Updated: 1:49am GMT 25/11/2007

 Have your say      Read comments

British troops are facing "operational failure" in Afghanistan due to years of chronic Government under-funding, according to former heads of the armed forces.

Generals enter military covenant debate Key issues facing Britain's Armed Forces Frontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan



The lives of hundreds of soldiers could be lost unless the Government starts to fund the military properly, they argue.

 
Lord Guthrie, Troops face 'operational failure' in Afghanistan
Lord Guthrie: desperate funding situation

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, who served as the Chief of the Defence Staff in 2001, said: "Operational and tactical failure in Afghanistan is now not impossible to believe."

Their warning follows one of the most damaging weeks for the Government since Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair in June.

The Prime Minister and his Defence Secretary were accused of failing the services in one of the most extraordinary political events of recent times when five lords attacked the Government's defence-spending policy.

Gen Lord Guthrie, who launched a blistering attack on Gordon Brown during the defence debate in the House of Lords last week, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The Prime Minister could be presiding over damaging one of the really great institutions of our state.

"It [the military] is about to break if he is not careful. By this I mean no one will want to join the Armed Forces and the operational consequence of this is a failure in Afghanistan. It could well mean that the Taliban actually win a battle and kill a lot of our soldiers. Operational and tactical failure is now impossible to believe."

Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who served as the Chief of the Defence Staff at the start of the Iraq war, echoed his fears, saying that the persistent under-funding was "bound to have operational consequences".

The former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Jock Slater, also warned that the military could fail in Afghanistan if it was not properly supported.


Liam Fox, the shadow secretary of state for defence, who has just returned from visiting troops in Afghanistan, said: "There is no doubt that frontline shortages, particularly in battlefield helicopters, will put us at a significant disadvantage despite the heroic efforts of our forces. Responsibility for this has to lie with the Government."

Defence sources claim that relations between the Government and the military are at an all-time low with both sides being deeply mistrustful of each other.

Although Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence, said he welcomed the debate, he was said to be at first stunned then furious that he was given no prior warning of the intensity and the personal nature of the attacks.

Mr Brown, who returns from the Commonwealth leaders' summit in Uganda tomorrow, attempted unsuccessfully to quell the growing dispute by insisting that he had nothing but praise for the Armed Forces and pledged to match their professionalism "with the resources they need".

The Lords debate followed revelations in last week's Sunday Telegraph that a report written for the head of the Army said that British troops felt "devalued, angry and suffering from Iraq fatigue".

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, also admitted in the report that the military covenant was "out of kilter" and that more needed to be done to improve standards of pay, accommodation and medical care.

"Troops are having to deploy without having had the equipment and training to properly prepare," said Admiral Boyce yesterday. "You have people leaving because of low morale and no Army infantry battalion is fully manned. That is bound to have operational consequences. The unintended consequence of all this could be some kind of operational failure."

Sir Jock added: "We have poor support, poor training and an equipment programme looking shaky. If you don't fund properly, the initial result is that people begin to complain and then people begin to lose. You only have to look at Afghanistan and Iraq to see that if troops are not properly supported ... then one day things will go extremely, badly wrong, militarily."

Admiral Sir Henry Leach, who served as head of the Royal Navy in the Falklands War, said: "Our people in Afghanistan have to be absolutely impeccably equipped. The consequence otherwise will be an endless campaign with a steady rate of casualties."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence, said: "Recruitment remains robust and we are taking action. The recently announced Command Paper is tackling a number of areas for our brave personnel."

Armed Forces face 'failure' in Afghan...

Armed Forces face 'failure' in Afghanistan


By Sean Rayment and Jasper Copping
Last Updated: 1:49am GMT 25/11/2007

 Have your say      Read comments

British troops are facing "operational failure" in Afghanistan due to years of chronic Government under-funding, according to former heads of the armed forces.

Generals enter military covenant debate Key issues facing Britain's Armed Forces Frontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan



The lives of hundreds of soldiers could be lost unless the Government starts to fund the military properly, they argue.

 
Lord Guthrie, Troops face 'operational failure' in Afghanistan
Lord Guthrie: desperate funding situation

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, who served as the Chief of the Defence Staff in 2001, said: "Operational and tactical failure in Afghanistan is now not impossible to believe."

Their warning follows one of the most damaging weeks for the Government since Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair in June.

The Prime Minister and his Defence Secretary were accused of failing the services in one of the most extraordinary political events of recent times when five lords attacked the Government's defence-spending policy.

Gen Lord Guthrie, who launched a blistering attack on Gordon Brown during the defence debate in the House of Lords last week, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The Prime Minister could be presiding over damaging one of the really great institutions of our state.

"It [the military] is about to break if he is not careful. By this I mean no one will want to join the Armed Forces and the operational consequence of this is a failure in Afghanistan. It could well mean that the Taliban actually win a battle and kill a lot of our soldiers. Operational and tactical failure is now impossible to believe."

Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who served as the Chief of the Defence Staff at the start of the Iraq war, echoed his fears, saying that the persistent under-funding was "bound to have operational consequences".

The former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Jock Slater, also warned that the military could fail in Afghanistan if it was not properly supported.


Liam Fox, the shadow secretary of state for defence, who has just returned from visiting troops in Afghanistan, said: "There is no doubt that frontline shortages, particularly in battlefield helicopters, will put us at a significant disadvantage despite the heroic efforts of our forces. Responsibility for this has to lie with the Government."

Defence sources claim that relations between the Government and the military are at an all-time low with both sides being deeply mistrustful of each other.

Although Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence, said he welcomed the debate, he was said to be at first stunned then furious that he was given no prior warning of the intensity and the personal nature of the attacks.

Mr Brown, who returns from the Commonwealth leaders' summit in Uganda tomorrow, attempted unsuccessfully to quell the growing dispute by insisting that he had nothing but praise for the Armed Forces and pledged to match their professionalism "with the resources they need".

The Lords debate followed revelations in last week's Sunday Telegraph that a report written for the head of the Army said that British troops felt "devalued, angry and suffering from Iraq fatigue".

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, also admitted in the report that the military covenant was "out of kilter" and that more needed to be done to improve standards of pay, accommodation and medical care.

"Troops are having to deploy without having had the equipment and training to properly prepare," said Admiral Boyce yesterday. "You have people leaving because of low morale and no Army infantry battalion is fully manned. That is bound to have operational consequences. The unintended consequence of all this could be some kind of operational failure."

Sir Jock added: "We have poor support, poor training and an equipment programme looking shaky. If you don't fund properly, the initial result is that people begin to complain and then people begin to lose. You only have to look at Afghanistan and Iraq to see that if troops are not properly supported ... then one day things will go extremely, badly wrong, militarily."

Admiral Sir Henry Leach, who served as head of the Royal Navy in the Falklands War, said: "Our people in Afghanistan have to be absolutely impeccably equipped. The consequence otherwise will be an endless campaign with a steady rate of casualties."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence, said: "Recruitment remains robust and we are taking action. The recently announced Command Paper is tackling a number of areas for our brave personnel."


MoD set to DOUBLE the time troops spend on the front-line to a year

By MARK NICHOL - Daily Mail


Fears are growing that tens of thousands of British soldiers will have the duration of their front-line tours doubled to a year.

Senior officers serving in Afghanistan have already seen their tours extended by up to six months.

And military experts fear it is a precursor to the hard-pressed Ministry of Defence forcing all troops to serve overseas for longer.

The experts point out that while our Service personnel currently return home after six months abroad, American soldiers already do one-year tours – a fact the MoD could use to help justify doubling the duration of British deployments.

Any extension of overseas tours is certain to prove deeply unpopular with troops – particularly married personnel – and could persuade even more experienced soldiers to quit.


Are you concerned about the pressures placed on our troops? Email us here


The senior officers who have had their tours lengthened include Lieutenant General Jonathan Riley, the current Deputy Commander of ISAF – the International Security Assistance Force. He has been told to serve a year in the country's capital, Kabul, instead of the expected six months.

Dozens of senior officers in southern Afghanistan, where the vast majority of British troops are operating, have also been ordered to stay longer.

But, so far, these officers – including Major General Jacko Page, who is commanding troops in Kandahar Province – have seen their tour extended to only nine months rather than a full year.

Some military experts are urging the MoD to adopt 12-month tours immediately. US counter-insurgency guru Dr David Kilcullen says longer deployments will help British forces build better relations with tribal leaders. He also believes Coalition Forces should always serve in the same villages and towns so they become familiar, trusted faces.

Mr Kilcullen said: "Key personnel within Coalition Forces should not rotate as fast as six months and they should also go back into areas where they are familiar."

"I think US forces have it right. Tours of Afghanistan do need to be that long."

Until the Eighties, overseas tours for British forces lasted four months. In an effort to improve relations with local leaders in Northern Ireland, this was extended to six months.

Former British Army colonel Patrick Mercer, who served in Northern Ireland and Bosnia and is now a Tory MP, said: "Operationally in Afghanistan this makes perfect sense. Anyone familiar with the tactics of counter-insurgency can see that. Logistically it's also beneficial: you don't have to move so many people around."

But he added: "What worries me is the impact on Service families. While the young, single soldiers won't mind that much as they will get more time off after serving on such a long tour, it will put married personnel under even greater pressure."

"The biggest issue facing the Army is retention. We are losing so many experienced soldiers at such a rate it's terrifying. This has seen battalions deploying overseas with dangerously low levels of manpower."

According to the latest statistics, 12,500 soldiers quit last year, a ten per cent increase on the previous year. The MoD says it needs 88,450 soldiers, including the Territorial Army. The figure currently stands at 83,860.

An MoD spokesman said: "We realise the value of continuity in key roles and have extended selected key appointments. Currently there are no plans to extend tour lengths for front-line battalions. Commanders are also aware of the impact that operational tours, their frequency and length, have on our personnel and military families."

22 Nov 2007

A PARA who lost his legs

By TOM NEWTON DUNN
Defence Editor

Published: Today

A PARA who lost his legs in the Afghan badlands was given a huge boost yesterday with a VIP visit to Top Gear.

Lc Bomb Ben Parkinson, 23, watches DVDs of the car show from his hospital bed every night.

Presenter Jeremy Clarkson, patron of The Sun's Help For Heroes appeal, heard about their mega-fan — and fixed a day with the team for him.


Click HERE to support our campaign by making a donation or buying a wristband


Ben saw his hero, test driver The Stig, pull some jaw-dropping stunts in a £350,000 Ascari A10 supercar and £160,000 Aston Martin DBS at BBC2's Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey.

Brilliant

The Stig, whose identity is a mystery, asked him back for a spin when he is well enough.

Cheered ... Ben and Clarkson

Cheered ... Ben and Clarkson

Frank Barrett

Grinning Ben — who cannot yet talk — typed on his computer: "That was brilliant. It has been a nine out of ten day — it will be a ten when I come back next year with some legs."

The hero soldier, of 7 Para Royal Horse Artillery, also suffered brain and spine fractures in a mine blast in Helmand. He was then stricken with MRSA.

Sun columnist Jeremy — left with Ben, who he first met last year — said: "He's come on so much." Ben's mum Diane, 49, said: "It's the happiest I've seen him since the accident."


Click HERE to print out your wristband coupon

Para hero quits over squaddies' treat...

Para hero quits over squaddies' treatment

 
The below article has been written by John Kay and Edited by Tom Mewton Dunn for the Sun newspaper (www.thesun.co.uk)
 
EXCLUSIVE by JOHN KAY, Chief Reporter, and TOM MEWTON DUNN, Defence Editor.

 

A WAR hero Para chief is quitting the Army in disgust over the "appalling" and "shoddy" treatment of troops it was revealed yesterday.

 

Lt Col Stuart Tootal, 42, commanding officer of 3 Para penned a bombshell resignation letter spelling out his reasons for quitting his £70,000 a year post.

 

The OBE officer, hotly-tipped to one day head the Army, highlighted:

  • Soldiers POOR PAY
  • A lack of training EQUIPMENT
  • Appalling Army HOUSING
  • Shoddy TREATMENT by the health service.

His letter to personnel chiefs was last night described as a "devastating indictment" of the Government.

A senior source said: "A young private earns as little as £15,000 a year for facing immense danger on frontlines that is £10,000 less than police and firefighters' pay."

 

Another said: " He spelled out his frustrations at being unable to train men properly. All the equipment has been shipped out to war zones leaving nothing to practice on at home. He also listed appalling accommodation for married servicemen."

And Col Tootal blasted the "shoddy" care injured Paras have received at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham. A source said: "NHS nurses seemed to show little care for  specific needs."

 

Col Tootal was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for is leadership of 3 Para when they spent six months in Afghanistan last year. But he could be out of the Army by March.

 

An insider said: "The final straw was when he was denied his dream job as Chief of Staff to 3 Division in Bulford for a posting in York instead, away from his Wilshire home and girlfriend."

 

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The MoD is aware that Lt Col Tootal intends to leave the Army. We would like to thank him for his loyal service over 20 years, particularly his exceptional leadership of 3 Para in Helmand Province."

21 Nov 2007

British MPs express Taleban fears

British MPs express Taleban fears
By David Loyn
BBC News, Kabul

Afghan police
The British MPs are particularly worried about the Afghan police
An all-party committee of British MPs has issued a report expressing concern about progress in Afghanistan.

The MPs visited the country last month and issued interim findings ahead of a major statement on Afghanistan by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

The International Development Committee reserved its strongest criticisms for the state of Afghan justice.

The MPs said failure in this area could lead directly to an increase in support for the Taleban.

Aid criticised

They said a lack of training and corruption meant that the police were not an effective national force, and it would be another four years before the army was capable of conducting independent operations.

At the same time, the aid agency Oxfam published the evidence it gave to the committee. It criticised aid spending as ineffective or inefficient, saying almost half of the US' aid budget goes directly to five US contractors.

Oxfam is highly critical of the international community for not building Afghan capacity to help itself, and it believes the military is making a mistake in engaging too much in development.

All of these announcements are designed to influence decision-making in Britain ahead of a statement which Mr Brown is due to make shortly, amid growing unease about the direction of events six years after the Taleban were pushed from power in Afghanistan.

Guns for Vicars

Army chaplains want right to carry weapons to protect themselves against the Taliban



Debate: Revd Stuart Hallam, Royal Navy Chaplain, says the issue of carrying guns is ' a debate that needs resolving'


British military chaplains in Afghanistan are urging an historic change in the rules to allow them to carry weapons when out on patrol alongside troops fighting the Taliban, because of the risk of capture.

For the first time in any theatre of conflict chaplains are no longer considered to be protected by the rules of war, because of the propaganda Taliban extremists would gain from showing "trophy" footage of a captive Christian priest.

By long tradition, clergy serving in Britain's armed forces have not carried weapons in war-zones, but now some Royal Navy Commando chaplains want to be allowed to carry a side-arm, stating that as a last resort they would rather take their own life than fall into the hands of the Taliban.

The issue has sparked an intense debate within the chaplain community, where some oppose the move on principle.

Under the Geneva Convention all military chaplains are 'non-combatants' and are granted certain protections if taken prisoner, but in Afghanistan such rules are irrelevant since the Taliban pay no heed to international law or the Convention.

UK forces in Afghanistan have already stopped observing one requirement of the Geneva Convention, as for the first time both chaplains and frontline medics have abandoned their traditional Red Cross arm bands when out in the field.

The assessment by commanders is that far from enjoying any protection, anyone wearing the Red Cross would be at greater risk from the enemy.

So far the firearms debate only involves Royal Navy Commando chaplains who minister to the Royal Marines, currently fighting and working to build security in southern Afghanistan.

Commando chaplains routinely visit forward operating bases to conduct services and offer pastoral support, and unlike most of their Army counterparts they also join troops on patrols in order to share and understand their experiences.

Uniquely among military clergy they have all completed the same training as their "flock" - in this case the gruelling 32-week Commando training course - enabling them to live and work on the frontline without being a burden to the men or their commanders.

Without Red Cross armbands they are now indistinguishable within a group of Marines, wearing identical uniform, body armour and helmets.

During training they are taught to handle and fire SA-80 assault rifles and pistols, because as trained first-aiders they are allowed to use a wounded Marine's own weapon to protect him on a battlefield.

But now some chaplains are pressing for the rules barring them from carrying their own personal weapon to be relaxed - specifically within Afghanistan, because of the nature of the enemy - giving them the discretion to take a sidearm on patrol.

There are about a dozen chaplains in Afghanistan.

The Revd Stuart Hallam, (Church of England) Royal Navy Chaplain to 40 Commando, currently serving in Afghanistan, is one of those in favour.

Scroll down for more...

taliban

Ruthless: Taliban fighters would use chaplains as 'Christian trophies', it is feared

He told the Mail: "For the first time in any theatre of war we are seen as a legitimate target by the enemy.

"We are already effectively breaking the Geneva Convention by not wearing red arm bands. Maybe we're passed gentlemen's agreements, and have to re-think the way we go about our ministry in this kind of conflict.

"The Convention itself doesn't actually prohibit us from carrying a weapon, but long tradition and UK military rules do, and the issue has divided the chaplain community.

"For Commando chaplains our ethos is that to serve our people we have to be able to go through what they go through, which includes patrolling on the ground.

"In theory if we're captured in war we are supposed to be allowed to go about our ministry among prisoners. But that's a very long way from the reality in Afghanistan."

He added: "It's very unlikely we could be captured here, but if we were, the Taliban may well use us for publicity, and then probably execute us - just as they probably would any other coalition serviceman.

"I don't think I could put my wife through that. I personally would not want to let myself be captured.

"For that reason I think we should be pragmatic over sidearms. None of us are comfortable with this, and there are those who think it's going too far.

"But it's a debate which needs resolving, because of the kind of operations the Royal Marines are carrying out and are likely to in the years ahead."

Monsignor Paul Donovan, (Roman Catholic) Director of the Naval Chaplaincy Service (Operations), said: "The Chaplain on the ground needs to make the judgement whether the Red Cross symbol, which is meant to afford protection under the Geneva Convention, instead stands him in greater danger.

"Whilst some other nations do arm their chaplains as a matter of course, current British practice is not to."

Military chaplains - commonly known as Padres - have a proud history of supporting Britain's frontline forces often at great personal risk, and some have been decorated for extreme valour in helping wounded troops under fire.

In World War Two 134 British and Commonwealth Padres were killed, and chaplains followed the troops ashore on D-Day and jumped with Paratroopers behind enemy lines.

Ex-Army chief Jackson warns on cash c...

Ex-Army chief Jackson warns on cash crunch


By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:31am GMT 21/11/2007

The former head of the Army has warned that the Armed Forces are facing a cash "crisis" raising doubts over whether the military will be able to pay for future operations or major equipment projects.


Military 'could have avoided Iraq boat deaths'Injured 'psycho' soldier gets £25k from MoDFrontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan


Gen Sir Mike Jackson said recent spending commitments by the Chancellor were likely to prove insufficient to ensure the country's "national insurance policy".

 
Gen Sir Mike Jackson
Since resigning, Gen Sir Mike Jackson has criticised the MoD's treatment of soldiers

The officer, who has been critical of the Government since retiring as Chief of the General Staff, said: "I fear there is some sort of crunch on the horizon."

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I detect, I fear, some crisis ahead in defence spending, if things go on as they are in terms of what we do, what we might have to do and the money allocated"

Despite the Government announcing an extra £400 million for operations in last month's Pre-Budget Report on top of a 1.5 per cent increase in the £31 billion defence budget, Sir Mike said this was still not enough.

He suggested that a national debate was needed on major equipment programmes "to make sure we are paying the right sort of premium for our national insurance policy on defence".


He hinted that there might be bad news ahead for one of the military's main procurement projects, such as new destroyers or submarines.

"The analysis must start in logic from what it is that the UK thinks is its part to play in a very uncertain and difficult world," he went on.

"You have got to get that analysis right because from that then flows the tools you need... to do the job."

Since resigning, Sir Mike has criticised the MoD's treatment of soldiers, particularly the standards of pay and living accommodation.

He said yesterday that there was a widespread recognition that the conditions of service for Army personnel were "not as people would wish them to be in every case".

The MoD is currently battling with the Treasury over funding of equipment projects and "urgent operational requirements" of kit needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are also worries that without proper funding the military is going to continue to lose substantial numbers of troops who are fed up with poor pay, accommodation and constant operations.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the taxpayer £6.6 billion out of the Treasury's reserve funds.

But the Chancellor's offer of extra funding was still unlikely to prove enough for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or for potential future engagements, Sir Mike said.

He suggested that people "never really grasped the nettle" that there would not be enough funding "to do the things which we do now and the things which we may have to do in the future".

The "exam question" was whether there was enough spending on defence.

The officer, who was replaced by Gen Sir Richard Dannatt after he retired last year, acknowledged that British defence spending was above the European average.

But he insisted such a comparison risked ignoring the country's "strategic" needs and said that Britain's influence in the world could wane.

An MoD spokesman said: "We have always made it clear that the MoD and wider government is committed to providing all the resources commanders need to achieve operational success."

ROSS V TALIBAN

ROSS V TALIBAN

EXCLUSIVE EastEnders tough-guy joins British troops in war-torn Afghanistan Kemp admits: 'I fear for my life' as TV chiefs insure him for £1million

Ross Kemp 


TV HARDMAN Ross Kemp has joined British troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The former EastEnders star is spending four weeks on operations with the infantry in the lawless Helmand Province to film a documentary aimed at boosting recruitment figures.

Kemp, whose dad was in the Army, has already undergone a gruelling training programme and has learned how to fire a weapon.

He headed off with the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment and a small film crew early last week after picking up a BAFTA award for his latest TV series, Ross Kemp On Gangs.

The 42-year-old actor, who played tough guy Grant Mitchell in the BBC1 soap, has been overheard telling friends he was scared of being shot and has been insured by programme-makers Tiger Aspect for £1million.

One pal said: "He told us it had been really difficult to get insurance because they're going to the frontline and the bosses at Tiger were very worried about something happening out there.

"For the four weeks they're going to be at great risk and Ross said he and the crew were very nervous. He made a point of saying goodbye to everyone he could. He also joked there was one bit of him they weren't able to insure - his private parts. But he wouldn't say why."

Kemp and his team of two cameramen, a sound man and producer have been training with the regiment - nicknamed the Vikings - since the start of the year. They took part in military exercises on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire wearing heavy backpacks, firing live ammunition and learning to fend for themselves.

The crew is being given unprecedented access by the Royal Anglian Regiment in the hope the programme can help the Army boost recruitment, with 2,500 posts unfilled and numbers at their lowest since the Napoleonic Wars.

After playing an SAS sergeant in TV drama Ultimate Force - and with his father formerly in The Royal Norfolk Regiment - Kemp was keen to investigate life in the Army today.

The documentary aims to show how 21st Century soldiers fight the Taliban, survive in extreme conditions and try to win the hearts and minds of locals.

An insider said: "The MoD are bending over backwards to help. They really hope the programme will present the Army in a good light and attract more recruits.

"A lot of filming's been done already and the MoD gets a big say on what stays in the final cut.

"The trouble is, one scene he's insisting has to stay shows some of the lads having to use their own money to buy kit on eBay. It's not great PR but the top brass hope it will be overshadowed by some Boys' Own stuff from the front."

Last year 14,000 recruits left the Army and only 12,000 joined, despite the recruitment age limit being raised from 26 to 33.

The Army has also had to recruit from abroad, with one in 10 British soldiers now a foreign national.

The four-part series, called Ross Kemp On Afghanistan, will be shown in the autumn. (Author's note) watch out for this at the end of Nov possibly on Sky (if you know the time and channel pls post a comment.)


Grenadier Guard Thanks Observer Readers

Grenadier Guard Thanks Observer Readers



Lee Hastings now back from Afghanistan
Lee Hastings now back from Afghanistan

Thanks for the letters, parcels and support.
That's the message from 24 year old Lee Hastings of the Grenadier Guards on returning home after months fighting in Afghanistan.

While he was out there, attached to The Anglians Regiment based in Helmand Province, he appealed through the Observer for readers to write to him and his comrades.

His mother Angela, of Salisbury Road, this week called to say: "He wants to say thank you to everybody that supported him by sending out parcels and letters which he and all his friends appreciated."
Lee is now back in Aldershott after spending seven months in Afghanistan.

"He is obviously glad to be home, glad to be back, but he misses his friends in The Anglians, and is just happy to have done some good out there."

Angela added: "It is a relief...you almost feel guilty that you want them back, but you are no longer listening to the radio or watching the television all the time and getting so anxious. But obviously bad things are happening - I don't think people realise because you only hear about the people that die, you don't hear about the people who are injured over there."

She is hoping to see Lee in a Sky One film about Ross Kemp in Afghanistan with The Anglians, expected to be broadcast at the end of November.