You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
British army is "dangerously small", says former top general
2004-12-12
The former head of Britain's armed forces has warned against planned cuts in the standing army, saying they would leave it "dangerously small and over-committed," in comments published on Sunday. Lord Charles Guthrie told The Sunday Telegraph that the British army "has become dangerously small for what it is being asked to do."

"Of course, if you have too small an army you can't react," said Guthrie, a former chief of both the army general staff and the defense staff who holds the title of colonel commandant of the Special Air Service. His comments were published a day ahead of the expected announcement of government restructuring plans for the armed forces.
Why, it's almost by design.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government has already detailed its plans to reduce troop numbers and merge several regiments, in reforms, which are expected to save 250 million pounds (480 million dollars, 360 million euros) per year, according to The Sunday Telegraph. Guthrie countered that "none of them (in the cabinet) has been in the military and politicans do not understand nowadays that the army is not just another job." A Minister of Defence spokesman quoted by the newspaper said the army would actually have "more boots on the ground" because of efficiency-minded restructuring.
The Euro forces have becoming smaller and more efficient with more boots on the ground for the last couple of decades. That's why you see the Euro armies everywhere there's trouble.
Posted by:Steve White

#12  We (US Army and Marines) should offer all these soldiers positions, to include citizenship. I think many highly-qualfied Brits soldiers would jump at the opportunity and we would surely benefit.
Posted by: Brett_the_Quarkian   2004-12-12 9:23:55 PM  

#11  Tony (UK) - We feel your pain, bro, heh. Nice rant!

tw - Right on!
Posted by: .com   2004-12-12 8:45:32 PM  

#10  At this time of the year, Tony, one must use the full phrase, just for tradition's sake. "Bah, humbug!" with a full Scrooge emphasis, please. Otherwise, fabulous rant: not only did you convey your frustration, but you gave us facts and figures as well. All that's left for us to say is, "Heah, heah," as of course we now do.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-12-12 7:43:18 PM  

#9  All this to 'save' 250 million a year. Do you know how much the IT systems are going to cost for our 'much lauded, envy of the (third) world' 'health' service?

Guess.

30 billion pounds.

30,000,000,000 pounds. It's a lot of money. It's a (expletive deleted - I've not been on the wine this evening) waste of money too. The *waste* in the NHS (spit) is unreal.

Here's another one - another much-lauded initiative by the Labour (ie Socialist) government is LearnDirect - it's just about to be closed down and has cost 1 billion pounds over the few years it's been going.

I know a lot of people here think Blair is a good guy 'cos he helped out. That's as maybe (can you *imagine* what help you'd have got if Maggie were still around? - friggin hell, she'd have sent launch codes to the boomers!), but he is still a Socialist that used to be in CND and is happily selling our country out to Brussels.

250 million - it's peanuts, about a tenth the cost of our 'asylum' system.

Bah!
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2004-12-12 6:08:54 PM  

#8  It's Murphy all right. In the end you have to go to war with a grounded dredge and an attitude.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-12-12 2:45:36 PM  

#7  I think Murphy has something to do with it.
Posted by: Ptah   2004-12-12 2:19:33 PM  

#6  just when an army is at is lowest ebb, that's when a really big war comes along.

Yeah, strange how it seems to work out that way.
Posted by: too true   2004-12-12 6:45:32 AM  

#5  Hell, just look at Kosovo. They cannot even clean up the mess in their own backyard.

Or don't want to. After all, that would require believing in something ..... not to mention Work and Risk. (apologies to those who are offended by the rough language in that last phrase, I realize that W**k and R**k are strong words, but sometimes profanity is called for ....)

Posted by: too true   2004-12-12 6:44:42 AM  

#4  A contrarian might say, just when an army is at is lowest ebb, that's when a really big war comes along.
Posted by: HV   2004-12-12 5:56:13 AM  

#3  They just wanna all fit in the new NATO building in Brussels...
Posted by: Seafarious   2004-12-12 1:25:49 AM  

#2  Good thing the UK isn't as efficient in streamlining its forces as some of its Euro-peers - or they'd have no army at all.
Posted by: .com   2004-12-12 1:12:59 AM  

#1  Yeah, and they will do their verbal dumps on the US, but will cry and ask for help when they can't get the job done themselves. Hell, just look at Kosovo. They cannot even clean up the mess in their own backyard.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-12-12 12:30:54 AM  

00:00