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
Britain
How Blair is destroying our Forces
2006-06-19
One reason British troops continue to be killed and injured in southern Iraq is that they are expected to patrol in lightly-armoured Land Rovers which give them no protection against roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. Meanwhile, their American counterparts walk away unscathed, even when their RG31 armoured patrol vehicles are hit by the same explosives. Yet the Ministry of Defence has not equipped the British Army with the RG31, even though it is built by a British-owned company.

This is a small but chilling example of the shambles the MoD is making of Britain's defences, thanks not least to the way Tony Blair is trying to pursue two contradictory policies at the same time. This has not been properly appreciated because media coverage of defence has become so scrappy.

On one hand, as we saw yet again with his recent visit to Washington, Mr Blair tries to keep in with the Americans by committing thousands of hard-pressed and ill-equipped British troops to fighting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush and Blair still like to talk of keeping alive the Joint Strike Fighter project, the last major example of Anglo-US collaboration on military hardware.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#7  The variables in combat:

Money Blood Time

The more you spend of two the less you spend of the other.

As an example, the Chinese were short on Money and Time in Korea so they paid a horrific cost in blood.

In recent times, Britain has shorted itself on money, and time is fixed - so blood cost goes up.

US leftists will short us on time, and staple the money shut - leaving our cost in blood to go up.

ONly by putting sufficient money and being patient with the time factor can we avoid large amouts of costs being paid in blood.

Thus it alwayd has been, and likely always will be - the unholy trinity of combat costs.


Posted by: Oldspook   2006-06-19 22:31  

#6  Tony (UK): From what I see, the alternatives look worse.
Posted by: JSU   2006-06-19 17:14  

#5  You have no idea how much this depresses me. I'll say it again, and again - this man is no good for Britain.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2006-06-19 15:17  

#4  It really doesn't matter how much they spend if they spend it on a Euro force. British forces can no longer fight with American forces because the radios don't work together. By Euro design. Too bad. The Brits have truly joined the French, Italians and Germans in being good troops led by idiots.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-06-19 07:09  

#3  Buying equipment like this costs serious money, and the Brits have not been willing to put serious money into the upgrades. They do better than some of the other Euro nations, but as I recall they're still under 2% of GDP, whereas we're about 4% or so.

They're doing some useful things -- a carrier task force is no easy undertaking -- but unless they're willing to put a few billion pounds more into defense each year they simply can't afford to equip their troops like we do. And that means their troops pay the price when in a tough battle environment.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-06-19 02:19  

#2  Read Melanie Phillip's "Londonistan." She gives Tony Blair praise where it is due, but she is not too happy with either his politically correct war-making or internal dhimmitude. Can you believe that UK cops have to remove their shoes when they raid a mosque?

Melanie for PM!

Non-Brit readers might consider buying her book for info on escalating Muslim demands, when their overseas community's grow. Forewarned is forearmed.
Posted by: Shurt Angaimble9728   2006-06-19 01:35  

#1  In this regard, the Brits are strictly Euro, requiring soldiers to play out their leaders fantasy in charm school warfare.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-06-19 00:59  

00:00