PM 'refused extra Afghan troops'

[240 is Back]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused a major Afghanistan troop reinforcement against the military's advice, the former head of the Army has said.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt stood down in August 2009 after repeatedly speaking out against what he said were equipment shortages and poor pay and conditions.

He told the Sun that ministers had to be taken "screaming and kicking" to agree to necessary measures.

Downing Street has denied refusing a request for 2,000 extra personnel.

The cabinet is due to sit within the week to consider another request from military chiefs for more troops

<snip>

Gen Dannatt told the newspaper that the military's task was made harder by operating with what he terms "at least part of one arm tied behind one's back".

He added: "The military advice has been for an 

[GigantorX]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused a major Afghanistan troop reinforcement against the military's advice, the former head of the Army has said.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt stood down in August 2009 after repeatedly speaking out against what he said were equipment shortages and poor pay and conditions.

He told the Sun that ministers had to be taken "screaming and kicking" to agree to necessary measures.

Downing Street has denied refusing a request for 2,000 extra personnel.

The cabinet is due to sit within the week to consider another request from military chiefs for more troops

<snip>

Gen Dannatt told the newspaper that the military's task was made harder by operating with what he terms "at least part of one arm tied behind one's back".

He added: "The military advice has been for an 

They simply don't have the money. The Welfare State apparatus is sucking the nation completely dry and is in the process of making Britain a low-side marginal power with zero ability to  project power outside of the immediate European theatre.

[Hugo Chavez]

They simply don't have the money. The Welfare State apparatus is sucking the nation completely dry and is in the process of making Britain a low-side marginal power with zero ability to  project power outside of the immediate European theatre.

are you serious?  It's a small obligation.  I'm not saying they're right or wrong to make it.  I just seriously questioning your premise that they're to broke to do it.  Perhaps you can back up your claims with some numbers, I'm willing to listen?

[GigantorX]

are you serious?  It's a small obligation.  I'm not saying they're right or wrong to make it.  I just seriously questioning your premise that they're to broke to do it.  Perhaps you can back up your claims with some numbers, I'm willing to listen?

I'll dig. There was a good article in The Economist a while back that had some good numbers and such. I'll find it. Though, this isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass, even without numbers one could see that having a giant fiscal/economic crisis, lower tax revenue and a welfare state would make it very hard to maintain a top tier military that could project and sustain operations in far flung theatre's. Add that with a political power struggle at home and it would be very tough indeed.

[Hugo Chavez]

I'll dig. There was a good article in The Economist a while back that had some good numbers and such. I'll find it. Though, this isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass, even without numbers one could see that having a giant fiscal/economic crisis, lower tax revenue and a welfare state would make it very hard to maintain a top tier military that could project and sustain operations in far flung theatre's. Add that with a political power struggle at home and it would be very tough indeed.

come on, they're not nearly as engaged around the world as they once were and as we are now. We're not talking 200,000 troops, we're talking 2000 troops.  At this point I'm willing to say there's another deciding factor for Brown beyond budget on this.  You quickly made this decision about Britain's "welfare state" which to me suggests you just had a bias you wanted to exploit at the expense of the story.  I'm gonna call BS on that unless you got something real to back it up.

[GigantorX]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/209953

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6222685.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/3555259/Britains-defence-spending-is-a-disgrace.html

Some old, some new and I'm still searching for more.

Big budget deficit, political struggles...the list goes on. I have no bias, it is an assertion that I made, huge govt. apparatus with costs that keep rising usually eat into tax revenue. And transporting, equipping, housing, feeding an sustaining 2,000 troops abroad is nothing to scoff at when things are fiscally a mess at home. And how many are already deployed? Think of all that goes into sustaining a decent sized force that can carry out true offensive operations. Transport by air/sea, food, equipment, training, replacements (men and equipment), housing, fuel and all the other logistics that are interconnected. And when those 2,000 are up for rotation, it is time for the next 2,000 to take their place...and you repeat.

This isn't some screaming lash out at the British "welfare state", I'm just stating what I see.

[headhuntersix]

Lets look at all of what he said....their military is very under funded.  I have a good friend who does what I do, but in the Brit Army same rank etc. They get taxed to death in ina war zone...no medical...same as everybody else..which I didn't know. The MOD was slashed as soon as the wall fell and after they finished Desert Storm. The navy is tiny and they've become so "joint" with us because we foot the bill. These were some of the best soldiers in the world...now they're a shell. They've fought very hard in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

[Hugo Chavez]

This isn't some screaming lash out at the British "welfare state", I'm just stating what I see.

now wait, that's exactly what you made it sound like in your first post.  You then included things in your last post such as "political" that I would have thought weighed in.  It's been pretty unpopular over there with the people.  I don't think they're not sending them because they're flat busted by the welfare and that's what your first post pointed at.

[GigantorX]

now wait, that's exactly what you made it sound like in your first post.  You then included things in your last post such as "political" that I would have thought weighed in.  It's been pretty unpopular over there with the people.  I don't think they're not sending them because they're flat busted by the welfare and that's what your first post pointed at.

Politics weighs in, but with a budget crisis and a political crisis at home the spectre of sending more troops and spending more money in an unpopular war becomes quite unpalatable. And when I said "welfare state" what exactly do you think the biggest drain on the their treasury is? Do you think for a second that the MoD gets precedence  over public dispersal of money?

The MoD and overseas operations are the first to be squeezed and gutted.