British army rejects Brown's Afghan visit; Military's snub

• Don©

  23 Jul 09, 02:40

  Copyright 2009 Singapore Press Holdings Limited All Rights Reserved The Straits Times (Singapore)

  July 21, 2009 Tuesday

  790 words

  British army rejects Brown's Afghan visit;  Military's snub is over continuing dispute about the lack of equipment

  Jonathan Eyal, Straits Times Europe Bureau

  LONDON: British military commanders have turned down a request by British Premier Gordon Brown to visit his troops currently fighting in Afghanistan.   Although the official reason for the refusal is that a prime ministerial visit would interfere with ongoing operations, the episode represents a personal humiliation for Mr Brown. It is also a sign that the increasingly bitter dispute between his government and Britain's generals over the conduct of the war in Afghanistan will continue.   The row erupted when British forces recently lost 17 soldiers in two weeks, bringing total fatalities in the conflict to 186.   In theory, high casualty rates were only to be expected. British troops are now trying to regain control over the Helmand River valley, an ideal hiding ground for Taleban fighters.   The British are famously defiant when confronted with military sacrifices: 255 soldiers perished in a brief conflict with Argentina in the early 1980s, but popular support for that war hardly budged.   Yet matters are different this time, partly because the Afghan conflict is poorly understood, but also because the dead from Afghanistan are returned home - something unique for the British, who usually bury their casualties where they fall.   The stream of flag-draped coffins has attracted public anger: Tens of thousands of ordinary Britons now regularly line the streets to pay silent homage to the fallen.   But the biggest difference is that Britain's ground forces are now commanded by someone who is determined to speak up, even if this puts him in open conflict with the government.   General Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, is everything a top soldier should be: He earned a top bravery decoration at the age of 22, and has notched battle honours ever since.   Even before the Afghanistan war started, Gen Dannatt generated controversy, by reminding politicians that soldiers who are expected to die for their country are paid less than a London traffic warden.   Yet this was nothing compared with his statements over the last two weeks. He had openly accused the government of starving the military of the necessary equipment to conduct the war.   Mr Brown retorted that the armed forces are getting all that they need. However, evidence suggests otherwise.   Most of the British casualties are not from direct warfare with the Taleban but, rather, due to explosive booby traps which Afghan fighters hide on roadsides.   If the British had more helicopters to airlift troops into battle and better armour, the number of casualties could have been smaller. But it was none other than Mr Brown who slashed the helicopter procurement programme five years ago.   To make matters worse, he also rejected earlier this year a demand from Gen Dannatt to increase the number of British soldiers on the ground by 2,000, on top of the current 9,000. The consequences are obvious: The troops are thin on the ground and lack mobility. In short, Gen Dannatt is merely stating the obvious.   Many officials in London worry about the long-term consequences of this public spat. 'We are not a banana republic, where the military tells the government what to do,' a senior politician told The Straits Times on condition of anonymity. Yet there is a feeling that Mr Brown has only himself to blame for the current predicament.   Throughout his long political career, Mr Brown has never taken any interest in the military. He would be hard pressed to explain the difference between a regiment and a battalion.   His approach to the Afghan conflict essentially remained that of an accountant: He tried to reduce the yearly bill of &pound3.4 billion (S $8 billion). But, as a former foreign secretary told him in a devastating rebuke last week, the British 'did not defeat Hitler by deciding what we could afford'. If victory is what the government expects, it must pay for it.   Gen Dannatt is pressing his advantage. Later this week, he will present the government with a new shopping list of military equipment, which may cost an additional S $1.2 billion. And, despite Britain's terrible finances, the demand is almost certain to be accepted.   However, this is unlikely to be the end of Mr Brown's troubles. The British Premier cannot persuade Germany or France - who have large forces in Afghanistan - to commit these to battle. The British also cannot withdraw. And the United States expects more military contributions.   Above everything else, Mr Brown will pay the price for breaking one of the biggest taboos in British life: never engage in a public spat with the military, who enjoy a far greater national reputation than any politician.   Only one British leader successfully confronted the generals: Former premier Winston Churchill, during World War II.

• Don©

  23 Jul 09, 02:42

  Classic example of old men talking, young men dying.

  Politicians don't make good military decisions

• Crazydeezee

  23 Jul 09, 02:55

  Originally posted by Don©:

  Copyright 2009 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
  All Rights Reserved

  
  The Straits Times (Singapore)

   

  July 21, 2009 Tuesday

   

  790 words

      British army rejects Brown's Afghan visit; 
  Military's snub is over continuing dispute about the lack of equipment  

  Jonathan Eyal, Straits Times Europe Bureau

   

   

  LONDON: British military commanders have turned down a request by British Premier Gordon Brown to visit his troops currently fighting in Afghanistan.

   

  Although the official reason for the refusal is that a prime ministerial visit would interfere with ongoing operations, the episode represents a personal humiliation for Mr Brown. It is also a sign that the increasingly bitter dispute between his government and Britain's generals over the conduct of the war in Afghanistan will continue.

   

  The row erupted when British forces recently lost 17 soldiers in two weeks, bringing total fatalities in the conflict to 186.

   

  In theory, high casualty rates were only to be expected. British troops are now trying to regain control over the Helmand River valley, an ideal hiding ground for Taleban fighters.

   

  The British are famously defiant when confronted with military sacrifices: 255 soldiers perished in a brief conflict with Argentina in the early 1980s, but popular support for that war hardly budged.

   

  Yet matters are different this time, partly because the Afghan conflict is poorly understood, but also because the dead from Afghanistan are returned home - something unique for the British, who usually bury their casualties where they fall.

   

  The stream of flag-draped coffins has attracted public anger: Tens of thousands of ordinary Britons now regularly line the streets to pay silent homage to the fallen.

   

  But the biggest difference is that Britain's ground forces are now commanded by someone who is determined to speak up, even if this puts him in open conflict with the government.

   

  General Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, is everything a top soldier should be: He earned a top bravery decoration at the age of 22, and has notched battle honours ever since.

   

  Even before the Afghanistan war started, Gen Dannatt generated controversy, by reminding politicians that soldiers who are expected to die for their country are paid less than a London traffic warden.

   

  Yet this was nothing compared with his statements over the last two weeks. He had openly accused the government of starving the military of the necessary equipment to conduct the war.

   

  Mr Brown retorted that the armed forces are getting all that they need. However, evidence suggests otherwise.

   

  Most of the British casualties are not from direct warfare with the Taleban but, rather, due to explosive booby traps which Afghan fighters hide on roadsides.

   

  If the British had more helicopters to airlift troops into battle and better armour, the number of casualties could have been smaller. But it was none other than Mr Brown who slashed the helicopter procurement programme five years ago.

   

  To make matters worse, he also rejected earlier this year a demand from Gen Dannatt to increase the number of British soldiers on the ground by 2,000, on top of the current 9,000. The consequences are obvious: The troops are thin on the ground and lack mobility. In short, Gen Dannatt is merely stating the obvious.

   

  Many officials in London worry about the long-term consequences of this public spat. 'We are not a banana republic, where the military tells the government what to do,' a senior politician told The Straits Times on condition of anonymity. Yet there is a feeling that Mr Brown has only himself to blame for the current predicament.

   

  Throughout his long political career, Mr Brown has never taken any interest in the military. He would be hard pressed to explain the difference between a regiment and a battalion.

   

  His approach to the Afghan conflict essentially remained that of an accountant: He tried to reduce the yearly bill of &pound3.4 billion (S $8 billion). But, as a former foreign secretary told him in a devastating rebuke last week, the British 'did not defeat Hitler by deciding what we could afford'. If victory is what the government expects, it must pay for it.

   

  Gen Dannatt is pressing his advantage. Later this week, he will present the government with a new shopping list of military equipment, which may cost an additional S $1.2 billion. And, despite Britain's terrible finances, the demand is almost certain to be accepted.

   

  However, this is unlikely to be the end of Mr Brown's troubles. The British Premier cannot persuade Germany or France - who have large forces in Afghanistan - to commit these to battle. The British also cannot withdraw. And the United States expects more military contributions.

   

  Above everything else, Mr Brown will pay the price for breaking one of the biggest taboos in British life: never engage in a public spat with the military, who enjoy a far greater national reputation than any politician.

   

  Only one British leader successfully confronted the generals: Former premier Winston Churchill, during World War II.

  
  That general deserves respect.

  The politicians, i don't know......

• slim10

  23 Jul 09, 18:36

  An outgoing junior minister Malloch-Brown just resigned had yesterday whacked the UK govt and GB for not providing sufficient tpt helos.

   

  The funny part is GB insisting that the UK armed forces got everything they wanted when former commanders are saying otherwise.

   

  According to the UK newspaper the Times, 67% agree with the latter that soldiers have died due to inadequate equipment rather than GB and with Norwich by-election a sure loss, GB will read about the whole issue again in the UK press tomorrow. Didn't think he would last this long. Neither did the military commanders. Won't make it through the next general elections though.

• Acidshuriken

  23 Jul 09, 22:02

  they fighting for years already, equipment wear and tear, failure, inadequacy all showing up now. army and public fatigue of extended deployment with no end in sight
• Arapahoe

  23 Jul 09, 23:06

  yeah war time equipment turn around deplete stocks faster and it needs large  civilian supplies and servicing to support to continue substained combat activities.

  Procurement decision are done independently on projects may not necessary take overall aspects into consideration.

• Acidshuriken

  24 Jul 09, 10:05

  they might even pull out of aghanistan soon unless obama give some sort of incentive to delay exit.