We Need Troops In Afghanistan, Not Just Timetables

Mission accomplished? Hardly

I must say, I'm afraid I found Liam Fox's explanations and justifications for the combat drawdown timetable in Afghanistan on Radio 4 this morning rather unconvincing. At one point he started to remind me of various Labour defence ministers (you can pick one) in his attempts to service the argument that the Afghan National Army will somehow be ready to take over from American and British troops in five years' time, despite mounting evidence to the contrary (not least yesterday's tragic rocket attack on British soldiers by an insurgent who had infiltrated the Afghan army) and continuing military reversals (I define losing territory you have just gained from the enemy because you don't have enough men to hold it a 'reversal', don't you?).

It's not that I don't buy what he says - in most ways, he is far more believable than his Labour predecessors, who spent most of their time lying through their teeth about helicopter numbers, among many other things - it's that things just don't add up given the time frame proposed and troop levels involved.

It's been said by a lot of commentators and experts alike that the mission, the war aims, the 'liberation not occupation' philosophy, the 'protecting us at home by fighting terror abroad' ideology, even the timetable that's been announced, are all theoretically sound apart from one, vitally important factor: for all these goals to be accomplished, our troop levels in the short term need to rise substantially; our level of engagement intensify dramatically.

Under-manning has and, it seems, always will be the British problem in Afghanistan. In order to fulfil the mission we set for ourselves, two or even three divisions of soldiers (around 30,000+ combat troops plus support) should have been committed, and now should be committed, to augment the USA's 10. "But that would cost the country a fortune!" I hear you gasp. Well, war does cost a fortune and if you are not prepared to pay it, then you should pull the hell out immediately because there is no point in staying.

It was a fortune of our treasure that Gordon Brown was not willing to spend on our behalf to protect our armed forces, so I place the blame squarely at his door for subsequent losses, both the ones caused by a lack of equipment - strength in the air - and the ones caused by insufficient strength on the ground.

I'm now wondering, though, will the Coalition government try to fight this war on the cheap as well? If they do, then we will lose.

Dr Fox had better wake up to that reality - fast. And so had David Cameron and the Coalition he purports to lead.

Kipling

Someone quoted Kipling with reference to Afghanistan in yesterday's Telegraph - and very aptly - though I can't be certain: I generally can't remember that far back these days. But it put me in mind of "Tommy", his wonderful satirical poem about the lot of the average squaddie, who, when called upon to execute the policy follies of men like Tony Blair, is treated with hypocritical reverence and, should he lose his life in the service of Queen and Country, can expect his memory to be honoured, for instance, with a cursory, solemn mention at the dispatch box - but not a visit from Gordon at his repatriation ceremony, of course. The rest of the time, he's ignored, underpaid, under-equipped, unappreciated, badly billeted and generally despised - especially by the people who would put him in harm's way just to suit their own political ambitions and vanities (Blair again).

The point is that the poem is as fresh now as it was when it was penned by the great man, in 1890. It's pretty funny, too:

Tommy
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, 'We serve no red-coats 'ere.'
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed and giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again, an' to myself sez I:
Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away':
But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play -
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
Oh, it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, wait outside';
But it's 'Special train for Atkins' when the trooper's on the tide -
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
Oh, it's 'Special train for Atkins' when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?'
But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes' when the drums begin to roll -
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
Oh, it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that , an' 'Tommy, fall be'ind,'
But it's 'Please to walk in front, sir,' when there's trouble in the wind -
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
Oh, it's 'Please to walk in front, sir,' when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

I don't know about you, but I think it's time to put an end to this Afghan thing, either by sending in massive reinforcements and actually paying the necessary price for final victory - in other words, not causing unnecessary death by doing everything on the cheap (one scandal for which Brown should genuinely never be forgiven) - or by bringing our army home. That's the choice Cameron will have to face. Why? Because, to coin a phrase, we can't go on like this.

Me, I would opt for the former and give our armed forces everything they need, and then some. Whatever it takes, Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is the right war and is a war that we have to win. We must respect our troops properly, therefore, by backing them to the hilt, even if it means making some sacrifices at home in the short term.

One thing is certain, if nothing else, our armed forces deserve much better than Labour, and much, much better than Brown.

Try To Remember Them

I do.

Robinson Misses Point (As Usual)

Brown: "Supplies Getting Through"

Mediocre BBC politics pundit Nick Robinson, of whom I generally think very little, misses the point entirely, as usual, about the problem with Gordon Brown.

The latest rumblings about the underfunded, underequipped and understaffed mission in Afghanistan (what was that mission again?) caused by the resignation of some Scots trougher MP and ex-tartan Rupert called Joyce, in response to the smearing of senior officers among many other things (like that total moron, Ainsworth, being promoted over his head by Brown), have nothing to do with Brown's "leadership of the war effort", as Robinson (not the Sun) characterises it, but everything to do simply with Brown's leadership - period.

The resignation of a junior ministerial aide would matter little if it weren't for the fact that Eric Joyce is a former army officer and is echoing, in public, concerns and criticisms many in the military make in private. Fortunately, for Gordon Brown, he has a speech already written as a reply to his critics.

The prime minister is much more worried about losing the backing of the military, and of papers like the Sun, which have attacked him for showing no leadership of Britain's war effort - than he is of losing Eric Joyce. He is most concerned though about losing the argument.

Today, he will try to convince his own MPs, the military and the public of the value of his war mission, to describe what success looks like and to prove that our troops are not being left under-resourced.

If he does not begin to do that, he has a much much bigger problem than the resignation of a junior member of his defence team.

Not so, and Joyce's own letter did not really make the point very well either, though I am certain that he wanted it to. Brown's "bigger problem" is the most fundamental a leader can have: no one thinks he can lead. Today's speech, if it is the same, pre-written one as Robinson claims it will be, will merely further confirm how inflexible and convinced by his own sense of righteousness, but at the same time, moved by dishonest and unprincipled pragmatism and total, paranoiac insecurity Brown is. So full of contradictions and serious character flaws is this man that leadership of a MacDonalds would be a severe mental challenge for him. Leadership of a major Western power (let alone during a war)? Exactly!

But that, folks, is our Prime Minister. I don't think the troops will be paying much attention to him, unless he's planning on announcing his resignation. Do you?

An Army Without Ammunition

Yesterday's news, to be sure (literally), but interesting none the less. From time to time, it's worth paying a visit to the Army Rumour Service ("Arrse") to try to infer the mood of our servicemen, currently tasked with dealing with the most difficult enemy in the world: incompetent political leadership. This was the report:

From The Sunday Times
August 30, 2009
British soldiers banned from using live bullets to save money

Michael Smith

British soldiers are being forced to train with blanks rather than live rounds to save money.

The entire Territorial Army (TA) and a number of nonfrontline regular army units will be affected by the ban on the use of real bullets in personal weapons, according to defence sources.

Soldiers bound for Afghanistan will be spared the restrictions, but even they will start training with live rounds only in the last three months before departure. Those learning to shoot as part of basic training will also be allowed to use real bullets.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and a former infantry commanding officer, said: “The idea that our frontline reserves should not be able to use live rounds is quite extraordinary..."

Only a government that has no idea what it's doing - and has made some determined enemies within the civil service - would allow a story of this sort to leak when our moron Prime Minister has decided to pay the troops a morale boosting sapping visit on - or near(ish) - the front line.

But it was a bit of a non-story, in reality. I know from (limited) experience that the only time reservists use live ammunition is on the range, but finding time for that kind of training is not always easy for the part timers. Also, because of the way the war's going in Afghanistan, all live ammunition has probably been prioritised for the battlefield. Even so, it gives you some idea of the sort of pressure our supply chains are now under, and that there are some serious replenishment and supply problems brewing (not least over food and water, would you believe).

Thanks to this twit government - and twit-Brown in particular - trying to fight the war on the cheap, it's quite possible we'll be throwing rocks at the Taliban pretty soon. But 'twas ever thus!

So, why post this? Well, some of the reactions of people on that chat forum (quite a lot of whom are either current or former soldiers) are quite telling, in terms of the mood of people who are actually in or around the thick of it.

Have we, as a nation, really been reduced to this?
When will someone grow a spine and arrest brown and darling for criminal negligence, or at least misconduct in public office?

...writes "Skycarver". While "Diripio" says:

It is funny how things have gone full circle. I can remember in the 70's when I was in Sennelager and the last Liarbour government were in power, tankies being reduced to a maximum of 25 road miles a year and no live firing, no ranges due to a lack of 9mm and 7.62.

The sooner this government are put to sleep the better, but will the alternative make any difference?

Good question. We'll get to find out soon enough, though. I wonder if Bonkers Brown actually realises that yet.

Another "Arrser" comments:

Look at all that crap Indian 9mil we bought & had to dump because it was pants!
What's next? The RAF dropping grenades out of Cessnas? The Navy going to sea in canal boats?
I wonder if all this penny-pinching woul've beenthought up if the Gov & MP's had'nt been cought out fiddling expenses....

Harsh and fair. But "Auld-Yin" reckons this is nothing new. It happened the last time the Labourists were busy trashing the country:

Very remininscent of the 60's early 70's where you were lucky to get a range day in between APWTs.
Several times doing your annual weapon test was the only time that live rounds were used - and I was Infantry FFS.

"Jeagar" spoils the party somewhat with a caution to err on the side of moderation (it's a pretty good post, though, so I've included it here):

Whenever I read something like this, which serves to confuse more than it illuminates, I'm reminded of the old adage about newspaper reporters, "first simplify, then exaggerate". I'm no fan of Brown or his utterly useless, discredited Goverment of course, but what exactly is being cut here? I've read the article and I'm none the wiser. Is it simply a reduction in ammo available for range days?,has BATUS gone completely blank?, are recruits not going to do any Stage 5 Live firing at all? What's happenig at Brecon, Warminster, Sandhurst etc?As for ammo only being available for training in the 3 months prior to deployment to Afghan, no big deal, theres lot's of other things to be getting on with in the meantime, I'm sure there will be sh*t-loads available then at least. Fact is, just how often, apart from in the run-up to APWT, do Infantry Units for example, actually go on the ranges? not THAT much in my experience.

There might be some point here in sticking your hand out for the Outrage-Bus, but not on the info. so far received and not on the basis of this tedious article in The Times.

True enough, but fails to nail the main point: as more and more of these types of story filter out, and the "utterly useless, discredited" government limps on, staggering from one crisis to another as the full scale of its incompetence and dishonesty becomes ever clearer, morale in the army will drain away. Only a change of government can reverse this because only a new government will have a mandate to change policy and fix the problems. It's pointless having a go at the press, (unless it's to make it damn clear that the MSM is partly responsible for putting these idiots in power in the first place).

Comments of the day go to "OldTimer":

How come we can't afford live ammunition but the taliban seem to have an abundant amount available. Perhaps they have a better government . Thinking of it it certainly couldn't be any worse than ours.

and to "HE117"(!), who makes this perceptive observation:

Actually I think we are looking at a shell crisis situation in the offing...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...is_of_1915

See any similarities?

Yes, and a couple of differences: Asquith was honest, honourable - and elected!

(PS: Hat tip to Anna Raccoon, who wrote an interesting piece on this latest Labourist fiasco earlier today, and who's a much better writer than me anyway ;)

The Sunday Times Weighs In

As if the smearing of General Dannatt were not bad enough, the true nature of this government's attitude to the armed forces has now been revealed. Aside from the terminal incompetence, the cynicism of Labour's parliamentary leadership simply takes your breath away.

Perhaps the Sunday Times, an erstwhile pro-Labour rag, sums it up best in its fresh leader on the subject (although it fails to mention one of the most extraordinary statistics - that the last four years of fighting have led to 14 thousand UK casualties). No wonder Labour tried to bury it. I've lifted the most damning part of the column. You can read the rest here.

Although governments can get away with such political cowardice for a while, taking no decision can be just as bad as taking the wrong one. Eventually, inevitably, the issues will return and the earlier failure to take a decision and look to the future will have damaging consequences. That is where we are now in Afghanistan. The failure to provide our troops with adequate equipment is the direct responsibility of a government that buried its head in the sand for more than a decade.

No government can predict specific circumstances. But what they must do is regularly take a panoramic view of defence needs. The last strategic review was conducted in 1998. “In corporate life no enterprise would persist with a 12-year-old strategy without at least re-evaluating it fully on a regular basis,” Mr Gray writes. “Few who would expect to prosper would even try to do so.” With the sole exception of John Hutton, who commissioned the Gray report, every defence secretary since 1998 — Geoff Hoon, John Reid, Des Browne and now woeful Bob Ainsworth — should hang their heads in shame. They are responsible for the situation in which failure at the Ministry of Defence is, according to Mr Gray, “endemic”.

Above all, this is the responsibility of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Mr Blair took us into war without ensuring that our troops were backed by a defence administration and equipment suitable to their needs. In his liberal interventionist foreign policy he willed the ends but not the means. As for Mr Brown, his behaviour has been cynical in the extreme. His response to the warnings of shortages given by Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the army, was not to take heed but to allow a defence minister to attempt to smear the general over his expenses.

In 2002 the Dutch government resigned when a report found it had sent soldiers into combat without the necessary equipment. It says much about the prime minister that his only response has been to suppress the report.

Brown's government of all the smearers is falling apart - and he's on holiday. The storm clouds have been gathering for him for ages. I think that storm has just broken.

Swimming In Smears

"Medic!"

Uncle Bob has already blogged brilliantly about this latest piece of Labour filth, so I'll keep my scornful rant brief: New Labour are the most corrupt, twisted and morally empty group of incompetent wasters this country has ever had inflicted upon it. You still have doubts, after everything that's been written, blogged, proved and resigned over? Well, here's a bit more for you, this time from the ST. Read on...

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted to the Ministry of Defence, and uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, asks for publication of any correspondence between Gen Dannatt and Hadyn Parry, the chairman of the Help for Heroes charity.

It comes after Labour MPs and ministers were accused of using FOI laws to make trouble for Sir Richard by unearthing his expenses claims, after he publicly criticised the lack of resources given by the Government to the troops in Afghanistan.

Whilst the MoD would not disclose who was behind the Help for Heroes FOI request, which was submitted in June, Conservative MPs claimed it looked like fresh evidence of a smear campaign.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "There is no target that Brown's bullyboys will not pick upon to protect themselves or divert attention from their catastrophic management of the military. New Labour is now the most corrosive and corrupting influence in British politics."

Whoever submitted the FOI request could have been seeking to find out whether Gen Dannatt had claimed expenses from Help the Heroes following his unpaid work on the charity's behalf.

Mr Parry described Gen Dannatt's work for the charity as "exemplary". He said: "Sir Richard has done a tremendous job for the charity. His work has been exemplary – beyond reproach.

"He has never submitted any expenses claims, nor have any of the other charity trustees, because we want as much money to be spent on charitable work as possible."

Last week it was revealed that, on a tip-off from inside government, several FOI requests were submitted to expose the 58-year-old general's expenses. Kevan Jones, the Veterans Minister, was named on political website Guido Fawkes as the figure behind it. But he dismissed the accusation as summer tittle-tattle and heaped praise on Gen Dannatt.

Mr Jones last night denied again that there was a smear campaign, saying: "I do not know anything about this Freedom of Information request, nor do I know anything about Freedom of Information requests that were put in as part of a campaign against Sir Richard."

When allegations of a smear campaign first emerged a month ago, Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, sent a note to all his ministers – Mr Jones; Quentin Davies, Defence Equipment and Support; Bill Rammell, Armed Forces; Lord Drayson, Strategic Defence Acquisition; and Baroness Taylor, International Defence and Security – warning them not to brief against General Dannatt and demanding "complete support" for military commanders.

But last week it emerged that a minister had discussed "chasing" Gen Dannatt over his expenses in an attempt to smear him. Requests were allegedly made under the FOI Act, with the backing of the unnamed minister, to find out the extent of entertaining by the general, who retires as Chief of the General Staff next week.

It was also alleged that a minister had called Gen Dannatt a "complete bastard" for making so many public statements critical of the resources given to the troops in Afghanistan.

Wow! That list of "ministers" reads like a who's who of utter Labourist mediocrity.

Not content with their usual, now-predictable, contemptible attempt at rubbishing anyone who dares to speak the truth, a method perfected by Alistair Campbell and Mandelson (the truth in this case, as Dannatt has bravely implied on many occasions, is that total Labourist incompetence and, one is forced to suspect, their underlying hatred of the armed forces, has cost the lives of many British soldiers in Labour's foreign adventures), now they are willing to drag into their appalling smear campaign a charity set up to help the ones who make it back from the front merely wounded, but who are then abandoned by their own country (another Labour triumph).

Who needs the Taliban when you have an MoD occupied by these uberhoons? Just when you thought they couldn't get any worse...

Curious Casualty

Bare-faced Liar-In-Chief in action

The first casualty of war is the truth, so the saying goes. That may be so, but now it seems the lies themselves, once the truth is KIA, can claim the odd victim, too, or so Sky News reported this morning...

A former spin doctor is to sue the Government, claiming years of being made to tell lies over the war in Iraq made him ill.

The press officer felt torn over the safety of the army's Snatch Land Rovers

John Salisbury-Baker was responsible for supporting dead soldiers' families, attending funerals and dealing with the media.

He claims holding back information about troops' safety led him to develop stress-related illnesses.

The 62-year-old is set to sue the MoD for disability discrimination.

While working at Imphal Barracks in York he told the media army vehicles such as Snatch Land Rovers could withstand roadside bombs.

He then "felt responsible in some way" when soldiers were killed, his partner Christine Brooke said.

She explained: "It goes back to the fact he felt torn because he had a moral dilemma based on the fact he knew a little bit more about the situation than the people he was dealing with whose sons had died."

Ms Brooke added: "We're all aware that some of the personal protection equipment wasn't of as good quality as it might have been and there were things missing, I think that's sort of common knowledge, but perhaps the families weren't as aware.

"John felt that he was holding back, being frugal with the truth.

"I think it's caught up with him really, it pushed him over the edge as far as his levels of stress were concerned."

Mr Salisbury-Baker was diagnosed with stress-related angina in 2007 and PTSD a year later.

But while Salisbury-Baker fights for his compensation for the 'damage' to his mental health being a mouthpiece for Labour's endless lies about our troops' equipment he claims has caused (yes, mate, it's called a guilty conscience), the lies go on and the troops keep dying, as umpteen reports and blog entries have shown just today. Here, for instance.

For myself, I would simply point out that if this bloke knew he was telling lies on behalf of a government hell-bent on keeping the truth about their incompetence from the nation when he was in post, and if he knew our troops were dying as a direct consequence of that government incompetence, then he should have had the courage to speak out about it in public at the time. That he didn't says as much about him as the lies themselves speak volumes about this Labour government (under both lying leaders, Blair and Brown).

He's a coward, isn't he? Yes, more or less. So it's pretty straightforward really: set aside the money he would be awarded if (ridiculously) he won his case for the genuinely wounded and the families of the war dead. After all, his willing dissemination of Labour's lies contributed to their plight, whether he liked it or not.

I wonder if Labour cabinet ministers will be trying-on the same scam once they're out of a job next summer. I wouldn't put it past them.

Randall: Voice of Reason

Jeff Randall's done it again. He's put into straightforward terms what we all want to say, this time about Brown's bloody responsibility for the deaths of young soldiers in Afghanistan. Randall's conclusions are inescapable:

...it is unthinkable for the mission to be run on the economics of Aldi. Defence is not like transport or housing. In a theatre of war, pinched pennies cost lives. If British forces are to be deployed as global policemen, they must not be undermined by Treasury bean counters, determined to put the brake on the state's runaway debts. The death of even one British soldier through lack of proper funding is a cause of national disgrace. Ministers responsible should be ashamed of themselves.

How Mr Brown can tell the Commons that recent losses had nothing to do with a lack of helicopters – and still sleep at night – is a mystery. The moral compass he was given at Kirkcaldy High School has gone with the spin.

Yesterday's report from the Defence Select Committee exploded the Prime Minister's self-justifying twaddle. Referring to the Army's capacity to protect troops while carrying out operations with current equipment, it concluded: "We are troubled by the forecast reduction in numbers of medium and heavy lift battlefield helicopters, which will make this worse."

Jack Welch, the legendary boss of General Electric, believed: "Insecure managers create complexity." This applies equally to political weaklings. Mr Brown would have us believe that the challenges defining our military presence in Afghanistan are devilishly difficult to understand. Actually, they could hardly be simpler. We must either pay up or pull out.

Brown is a liar and he has blood on his hands over Afghanistan. His punishment should fit his crimes. I leave it to readers to decide what form that punishment should take.

As for Randall: his column should be compulsory reading for Tory policy makers - and it should, as Randall says, make Brown Labour and its shrinking base of bovine support, thoroughly - utterly - ashamed. Of course, it won't - and that should tell decent people everything they need to know about them.

They must never be forgiven.

Wicked Labour Lies and the Tragic Truth

I don't think I was unduly harsh yesterday about the BBC and its fawning coverage of Brown's and Labour's latest wicked lies about the appalling conditions confronting our troops thanks to their determination to fight the war in Afghanistan on the cheap. And I'm prepared to give credit where it is due.

Two pieces today - from that very same BBC, no less - perfectly illustrate the yawning gap between the lies Labour have spun and the reality on the ground. Well done to Andrew Neil for almost perfectly skewering Bill Ramell over the scandelous abuse of British armed forces by this government. It doesn't really matter to Rammell, of course. He has the third smallest majority in parliament and will not be an MP next year. Why should he give a toss?



Compare this stinking spinning of a talentless, honourless career politician with the stoic dignity of the grieving mother of one of the victims of Brown's lies, cuts and lethal incompetence.



One can only assume that the current situation with our public broadcaster is that the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing, and/or vice versa.

The same must be said of the worst government ever inflicted upon the people of Britain and the servicemen and women, desperately trying to obey its orders but discovering it to be as big a threat to their wellbeing as the Taleban itself.

BBC Labour

A rare sight in Afghanistan

I must have missed the launch of this new web channel but it seems to be up and running now. Its purpose appears to be to disseminate, decode and discuss the Labour party line on, well, just about everything. The new outlet has its work cut out, though, because that Labour line changes at the drop of a hat (or should that be a shrapnel-damaged infantry helmet) in these dying days of a government beset by paralysis and held hostage by the constant unravelling of years of its lies.

BBC Labour's latest offering is a case in point. A report about helicopters has appeared this evening, presumably written to disseminate, decode and discuss the evil Brown's latest bout of lying about the state of our army - you know, that underequipped force of brave young British men currently trying to contain a fearsome enemy in the arid, alien cauldron of Helmand. It doesn't seem to think it needs to bother to mention the views of senior officers like Sir Richard Dannatt who in their expertise have judged that British soldiers are dying because of a critical lack of troops and a scandalous shortage of key equipment - like helicopters. Then again, that's not the remit of BBC Labour. It's not there to report the truth. Its job is to support Brown at all costs, even if that support flies in the face of reason, insults the intelligence of the British public and is biased to the point of absurdity. None of that matters. So the articles and the clips just keep on coming, with scant regard for the anger of a public that knows and can see the effect of Brown and Labour's hopeless, murderous ineptitude. But, hey ho. We just pay for it all.

But this one is extraordinary. Thinking that by referencing the bizarre opinions of a couple of ex-military duffers (Amyas Godfrey, RUSI associate fellow, for example) no one will spot her hideously Labourist political agenda, Maria Jackson (for she is the I assume expert BBC Labour journalist responsible for it) proceeds to make the most sickeningly dishonest case against the need for more troop transport helicopters ever heard. Most of the report simply follows the government line that the lack of helicopters is not to blame for troop deaths - which is a wicked falsehood. But it's the end of the piece that turns the stomach the most:

The government though says it has made efforts to boost its fleet.

Six Merlins, which are medium-weight troop-carrying helicopters, have been bought from Denmark and are expected to be operating in Afghanistan by December.

Defence officials say there are also plans to spend £2.5bn upgrading more than 200 helicopters and £3.5bn acquiring about 120 new ones over the next 10 years.

However, in stark contrast to Britain, the US reportedly has 120 helicopters in Afghanistan.

Mr Codner puts this down to the US's much larger defence budget and the fact they have made a bigger commitment in Afghanistan.

Mr Godfrey says it is also to do with a different ethos.

Ever since the Vietnam war, the US wanted to create an "air cavalry", whereas that was never a goal for the British army, he explains.

You might not think the spin here is particularly bad, especially since it appears to be supported by a pair of rentaquote militarists. If you do, you are as wrong as the evil Brown and his lethally incompetent coterie. Why, exactly, do the Americans believe 120 troop transport helicopters are the minimum requirement for 8000 marines? Because that's just what it is: the bare minimum. Assuming you want to remain a superior, more mobile and vastly more efficient fighting force than the enemy, and assuming you wish to protect your personnel from unnecessary danger wherever possible, that is. And their strategy is borne out by the casualty count in the recent operation there. UK: 15+ dead and umpteen wounded; US, nil and nil.

I guess Brown and his lickspittles at BBC Labour think those deaths are a price worth paying for keeping Blair's war cheap. The men on the ground use American cast-off equipment, eat American food and use American showers. They have been turned into a second class army and they find it humiliating. But they suffer this government's abuse of the covenant in dignified silence and get on with fighting for each other, for their country and for freedom. That they have to put up with BBC pro-Labour propaganda as well is just too much. They might be too professional to speak up about it (although a quick peak at the squaddie boards tells rather a different story), but we don't have to be.

If you have a blog, bloody well get angry about it and demand that this most treacherous of governments is brought down - taking its broadcasting arm with it - and that the next one, whoever forms it, either gives our troops the equipment it needs to prosecute its campaign immediately or brings them home and suffers the consequences of the national disgrace that that would cause.

Labour got us into this appalling mess, it must fall to a new government of integrity, vision and not some sort of fake "courage", but simple, old-fashioned bottle, to get us out of it.

Let's hope Cameron has a hell of a lot of all three - not just for the army's, but for all our sakes.

Betrayal

The Telegraph has revealed the latest government minister to have lined his pockets at the taxpayer's expense. He is Bob Ainsworth, the Armed Forces minister. He "claimed nearly £6,000 for the redecoration of his designated second home, submitting bills that included rebuilding the fireplace and fitting oak beams into his ceiling," the Telegraph says.

...[he] also tried to claim £2,225 for a sofa and £1,000 for a LCD Samsung television, both of which were reduced by the fees office. According to the Green Book of parliamentary rules, MPs are not allowed to claim “the capital cost of repairs which go beyond making good dilapidations and enhance the property”.

And so it goes on - and on and on and on. I suppose it's worth noting this man is also a serial flipper who, as has become the norm, denies he's done anything wrong.

So why bother bringing it up, then? Well, this case is a lot different in my opinion. While this man was busy doing-up his house with oak beams and artex or whatever it was - paid for by us - the troops in the field for whom his department has a duty of care are badly-paid, ill-equipped, over-stretched and under-fire. They are fighting and dying in Afghanistan while he is troughing away merrily, beautifying his house so he can sell it on, turning a profit and rubbing his hands. While the lions of Britain and their families are forced to live in damp, cheap, dilapidated accommodation on ancient bases, one (probably all) of their ministers of state has been filling his bank account by playing a property game that tax* on the fighting soldiers' income has helped finance. (*It's worth remembering American soldiers do not pay income tax while on active duty, unlike their British counterparts.)

This isn't merely a disgusting insult to the armed forces Ainsworth represents, it's a betrayal. It reveals the most serious breakdown in basic morality at the heart of the British government. You would need to go back to the days of the Napoleonic Wars and the mutinies in Spithead and Nore in 1797 to find some sort of historical comparison for this kind of corruption, at least in terms of the yawning moral gulf that has opened between rulers, ruled and the guardians of the land. The rulers are filling their chests with the nation's treasure while the people and the armed forces are expected to make do and do as they're told. Naturally, 212 years on, there are differences. But the underlying symptoms indicative of the decadence of the powerful in this country are the same.

So if this Ainsworth character is not removed from his post immediately, our forces in combat would be perfectly within their rights to stop fighting as far as I'm concerned. They should go all the way and consider their service abused, the military covenant broken and refuse to fight until this parliament is dissolved and a new parliament elected. Of course, they will continue fighting because they know what's at stake. Besides, their loyalty is to the country, to the Queen and to each other, not to Bob 'Oak Beams' Ainsworth or Gordon 'D-Day Invite' Brown.

Gordon doesn't 'do' loyalty and neither does his dead, chaotic regime.

Army Anger Over Expenses Scandal

Brits who truly deserve "expenses" (but get nothing)

A letter to the Telegraph today shows the impact the expenses scandal is having on our troops', currently in combat in Afghanistan, morale. For all those readers who still imagine that this scandal is not overly serious, this should put that view in sharp perspective. Westminster losing the faith of the armed forces is extremely serious and provides further evidence that this is the worst constitutional crisis this country has faced since 1909. I'll say it again - and I'll keep saying it until it's gone, gone, gone: this parliament is a dead, stinking corpse and must now be buried.

The letter:

SIR – Can someone put me in touch with the MPs' financial adviser? My troops here in Afghanistan are eager to claim for second-home allowances, furnishings and a reduction in council tax charges for the palatial accommodations we find ourselves in, courtesy of MPs.

We have also found it difficult to commute to our normal, fully-taxed homes in Britain.

Sergeant Major Max Jackson
Afghanistan

Brilliant. MPs have put him in harm's way while venally feathering their own nests. They had better pray nothing happens to this soldier. The public mood is turning ugly because it shares this fighting man's anger: all they (we) need is a battle cry - or a martyr - to rally around. The pressure on this government - or David Cameron - to dissolve parliament is growing hourly.

An ostensible betrayal of our fighting forces is the final straw. Little piggies: you better believe it!