A change of pace

I've been neglecting DOTR far too long – so tonight's piece is a review of Gen Richards' speech delivered yesterday:

If one equips more for the type of conflict we are actually having to fight, while significantly reducing investment in higher-end war-fighting capability, suddenly one can buy an impressive amount of "kit". So says General Sir David Richards, speaking to the IISS yesterday. He adds: "One can buy a lot of UAVs or Tucano aircraft for the cost of a few JSF and heavy tanks."

If I had a mind, I could link to all the pieces written on DOTR, which said the same thing, going back many years – but try this, written in March 2007 and then again in April 2009 - when we specifically mentioned Tucanos, for the umpteenth time.

More on Defence of the Realm for those that are interested.

Focused lethality

Such is the language of war: a new term has entered the vocabulary, brutal in its technical bluntness but one which, on the face of it, represents an enlightened concept. It is one that could have far-reaching implications on counter-insurgency operations, but it also has some disturbing implication.

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

Force multipliers

It was none other than Lord Malloch-Brown, junior foreign office minister, who yesterday was holding forth on the BBC Radio 4 programme The World Tonight about the need for European "force multipliers" to support the United Nations troops in Dafur. Perhaps he should also have a word with the MoD about Afghanistan.

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

Careful with the baby

One could almost hear the glee in the voice of the BBC newsreader as she announced what appears to be the demise of Blackwater, the private "security consultants" who provide the protection for – amongst others – US State Department officials in Iraq. However, in the wave of indignation that has followed an incident last Sunday, we need to be careful we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We look at some of the issues on Defence of the Realm.

Cathedral of ignorance

In the print edition of The Sunday Telegraph (but not yet on-line) we are offered an extraordinarily ill-informed letter from a Mr Paddy Keenan, who disputes the claim made by Tory MP Ann Winterton last week that the slower, propeller-driven ground attack versions of the Tucano would help reduce "friendly fire" mistakes.

We take Keenan and The Sunday Telegraph apart on Defence of the Realm.

The myth of the "super-bomb"

One approaches this subject with a degree of trepidation, not on the basis of expert knowledge but with political antennae twitching at the scent of something not quite right. The subject is the so-called "super-bomb", more prosaically known as an "explosively formed projectile" (EFP), a weapon that has made an appearance in Iraq and been used with deadly effect against coalition forces.

We have a look at some of the issues on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

The tale of the Panther

This week has seen the launch of a political campaign by the Services charity, the British Legion called "Honouring the Covenant", demanding better medical care, swifter holding of coroner's inquests into the deaths of those killed in action, and more generous compensation.

We look at some wider issues on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

Who will be first?

It has long been an open secret in defence circles that the one thing stopping the UK walking away from the last tranche of the Eurofighter order is the threat of multi-billion cancellation penalties. But it still wants to shed the burden – as do all the other "partners". Who will be the first to bite the bullet?

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

Spin and reality

In the previous post, on equipment spending, I remarked on how little Parliamentary scrutiny there was of smaller projects and that, once the equipment was in use, there was little or any follow-through to see how the equipment performed.

I have a look at how that works out in practice on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

Overspend! Overspend!

We saw yesterday the annual report from the Public Accounts Committee on defence spending on capital equipment - with the usual litany of woes over the overspend and delays on major defence projects.

We look at the report on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

That's progress

It was only a few months ago – in April - that, with Goebbels-like confidence, the MoD website was proudly announcing the delivery of the first set of wings for the RAF's future transport aircraft, the Airbus A400M. They had been flown to Spain to be fitted to other parts of the aircraft.

But they're going to have to wait a long time for the complete thing.

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

The turning point

An offbeat look at the US "surge" in Iraq, the subject of testimony by General Petraeus to Congress yesterday. We take the view that the Congressional hearing are "theatre". What is happening on the ground tells the real story.

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

These men should be dead

Anyone unfortunate enough to listen to the intolerably smug Eddie Mair on the PM programme yesterday, when he interviewed the forces minister Bob Ainsworth, may have recognised a common BBC technique.

Ostensibly, the interview was about the unfortunate Ben Parkinson. He had suffered terrible injuries when the WIMIK Land Rover in which he had been riding had been hit by a mine, and had since been awarded what was described as "paltry damages".

But, from the way Mair conducted his line of questioning of the minister, it was easy to discern that he wanted one thing – a personal admission from the minister that he thought the level of compensation awarded was "inadequate" – the game here to capture a damaging sound bite that could then be used on subsequent news bulletins, and perhaps be picked up by the print media.

So obsessed with his little game was Mair that he failed to pick up an outrageous assertion made by Ainsworth. The minister had it that the reason soldiers like Ben Parkinson were surviving was "better armoured vehicles", which allowed them to survive when, previously, they would have been killed.

Yet, as even the Daily Mail story made clear, Parkinson was riding in an "unprotected Land Rover". Ainsworth's point, which has some general validity, was wholly untrue in this incident. Had the soldier been riding in a properly protected vehicle, he would have been uninjured, and would still be serving in the Army.

That we can make such an assertion with such confidence stems from a remarkable report in The Northern Echo which features three soldiers (pictured above) who, "owe their lives to a new £500,000 vehicle". They were all in Mastiff armoured personnel carriers when they hit landmines or were attacked by Taliban fighters with rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

One solider, Private Stephen Mac-Lauchlan, from York, survived four RPGs hitting his vehicle. One struck the windscreen and exploded, but failed to penetrate the toughened 6in glass. Another hit armour on the side of the vehicle and exploded harmlessly, while the other two hit the fuel tank, but only left it badly dented. Said Pte MacLauchlan, "If I had been in any other armoured personnel carrier, I would almost certainly be dead now."

Pte Lee Ashton, on the other hand, was on a mission to supply food and water to frontline troops, when his vehicle hit an anti-tank mine. He said: "It blew the front tyre off and the wheel arch, but it kept driving. It just felt like we had hit a huge pothole. I only realised we had hit a mine when I saw the tyre was off. A big cloud of dust came in through the vents into the cab. The man on top-cover then shouted that we had hit a mine. "It was a big anti-tank mine and if I had been in any other vehicle, I would probably be dead."

Then there was Pte Lee Jones, 24, from Penrith, Cumbria. He was also in a Mastiff when it hit an anti-tank mine. He said: "There was big explosion and a lot of dust. It lifted the vehicle between seven and 8ft. It was like a car crash. It blew the front wheels off, but this vehicle is brilliant. It saved my life. It has saved a lot of lives."

Even without these accounts, though, we already had good evidence of the life-saving role of these vehicles. Thus armed, I placed a post on the PM blog. It says everything about the BBC that, with now 47 comments posted on the blog, the comment that went against the narrative and pointed out that Mair had failed to task the minister with an obvious untruth, did not get published. Thou shalt not criticise the BBC.

Therein lies the true dereliction of the BBC. Mair had an opportunity to point out that life-saving technology was available and was not used, but squandered it in his attempt to score a cheap point against the minister. Then his dire organisation covers up for him and hides criticism from the public gaze.

Unfortunately, it is not only the Beeb which so singularly fails to hit the mark. A few days ago, the noble Rees Mogg held forth in The Times on the theme," Blood on a budget: our soldiers betrayed". Amongst his priceless observations was this:

Throughout the Iraq war, our Forces have been short of suitable armoured vehicles. For years, the Basra Palace run had to be performed in vulnerable Snatch vehicles; these have only recently been replaced by the Warrior, which is itself vulnerable to roadside bombs. Unlike American vehicles, the Warrior is not air-conditioned and can get unbearably hot in the sun.

The noble Lord is, or course, misinformed. The "Snatch" Land Rovers were not replaced by Warriors but by Mastiffs (which are, incidentally, air-conditioned). The trouble is that there are not enough of them, or their equivalents, so soldiers are still riding and dying in Snatches. Meanwhile, men are also dying or being horribly injured in less protected WIMIK Land Rovers in Afghanistan, and in the equally useless Pinzgauer Vector.

Furthermore, while the noble Lord complains that, "Treasury parsimony can cost lives," somewhere in England there are now stored 401 entirely useless Italian-built Panther Command and Liaison Vehicles. Ordered in November 2003, in preference to the RG-31, this batch was priced at £166 million - equating to £413,000 for each vehicle – a sum that would have bought anther 300 Mastiffs or a greater number of RG-31s. It is by no means only Treasury parsimony that is the problem.

Nevertheless, this does not inhibit Rees Mogg from intoning that, "Soldiers do not object to being sent to war as such. They do object to having to fight without the best equipment and support…". He is partly right, but soldiers also need the support of the media – an informed media.

To be fair, The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph did play their part in bringing the current batch of Mastiffs to theatre. Because of that, three young men who, by their own estimation, should be dead, are now alive. But, if the smug little Eddie Mair's of this world - and the pompous Rees Moggs – did their jobs properly and also supported our troops, there would be more men alive today and even more uninjured.

So it is that this blog, which should be spending its time fighting for an EU referendum, is devoting time and space to this issue. Perforce, we will continue to do so, until this matter is resolved.

Troop photograph copyright: Nigel Green Media. Supplied FOC to this blog, with many thanks.

COMMENT THREAD

Coincidence?

After the bomb attack in Basra last week, in which four British service personnel and their translator were murdered while travelling in their Warrior infantry combat vehicle, another major incident in Basra has been reported – mercifully with no loss of life amongst coalition forces.

This was a street battle in Basra's southwestern Qibla district yesterday where, according to Reuters, British troops were engaged in a major gun battle after coming under fire during a routine search operation.

Army spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Stratford-Wright confirmed the action, saying that "ten of the enemy were hit", although he did not know whether they had been wounded or killed. "There was a substantial exchange of gunfire," he added.

According to his account, gunmen had opened fire on the British force from alleyways and rooftops with machinegun fire and several rocket-propelled grenades. The soldiers returned fire from machineguns mounted on armoured personnel carriers.

There have been very few such reports of fighting on this scale – where the fighting has been initiated by the insurgents - and, although there have been concerns about the growing intensity of attacks on British forces, this appears to be a significant escalation.

Coming so soon after the release of the fifteen naval hostages from Iran, in a display of weakness that has repeatedly been aired on Arab television throughout the region, one can only ask if the hostage-taking is in some way linked to what appears to be the growing confidence of the largely Iranian-backed insurgents.

It is perhaps too early to tell and, with the paucity of western journalists in the city, the flow of news may not be sufficiently reliable to judge from future reports.

However, no one can say that the compliant behaviour of the navy hostages in Iranian hands and the ease with which they were captured has actually enhanced Britain's reputation abroad. Therefore, the possibility that the yesterday's attack on British troops is related cannot be dismissed.

The MoD will, of course, deny any linkage but it will be tragic if it is the Army which pays the price for the Navy's carelessness.

COMMENT THREAD

Neither one thing nor another

Loathsome though the newspaper is, it is very hard to disagree with the general thrust of the front-page headline in the Independent today, or the tenor of their story, which begins:

It is an admission of defeat. Iraq is turning into one of the world's bloodiest battlefields in which nobody is safe. Blind to this reality, Tony Blair said yesterday that Britain could safely cut its forces in Iraq because the apparatus of the Iraqi government is growing stronger. In fact the civil war is getting worse by the day…

And, while withdrawing troops seems to be in accord with the majority sentiment, according to a BBC online poll, which records 72 percent in favour – there is still a sizeable minority which agues that we should stay until the job is done, if necessary, increasing the number of troops deployed.

On reflection, though, what is actually happening is neither one thing nor the other. We are not retreating entirely. In fact, what is emerging is that the troop cuts were not as large as were expected – or the Army had planned-for – and the rate at which the garrison will be cut, over term, is not as fast as predicted. Some sources are suggesting that at least 4,000 troops will be kept in Iraq until at least 2012.

Furthermore, since the Shaiba logistics base is being shut down and operations from the other three bases in central Basra are being transferred to Basra Air Station (pictured), five miles to the west, a goodly proportion of the 1,600 cut-back will comprise the logistic and administrative "tail". The effective combat force need not be proportionately reduced.

Nevertheless, the force is not to be increased and, while Blair confidently asserts that it will be available to support the Iraqi security services "in an emergency", this might not be as easy as he appears to make out. Stuck out of town in a single location, with a very limited road network, British forces intent on intervention will be prey to ambushes and, given their distance from any action, their ability to react swiftly to events will be severely circumscribed.

We are thus in exactly that situation which we highlighted in May last year, when we published a piece entitled "Shape up or get out". I wrote, of the situation in Iraq:

As it stands, with too few troops on the ground to make a difference, in a hostile environment with no clear mandate, and with inadequate equipment that makes them extremely vulnerable targets, we cannot see what Mr Blair thinks he is achieving by having them there.

If this is just gesture politics, and there is no intention to send reinforcements and new equipment – and it is hard to see how this could be done - then our soldiers' lives are worth more than that. They should be withdrawn. In other words, Mr Blair, shape up or get out.

What is particularly troubling though is that, while Blair presents a glowing account of the success of British operations in southern Iraq, claiming also that Iraq has made "remarkable" progress, an article in The Times confirms that which our own observations already tell us, that security in Basra is worse now than it was three years ago. The report states:

On military charts, significant swaths of the southern city are security coded scarlet, for unsatisfactory. Other zones are marked green, satisfactory, or amber, between the two. Levels of violence and anti-coalition attacks are far lower in the Shia-dominated south than the Sunni triangle around Baghdad. But British casualties have been increasing over the last year, with more than ten soldiers killed and 60 injured since November.

It then falls to The Daily Telegraph to tell us that "violence will intensify" in the battle for Basra as Shia insurgent groups try to kill more soldiers than their rivals to show who is strongest. For the coming months, the soldiers in the three barracks in Basra will continue to present rogue militias with one potential target after another.

This is by Thomas Harding who has at least the value of faithfully echoing the Army establishment view.

Thus it is he who conveys the particularly noxious view that the Army's continued presence has now become part of the problem, inviting the obvious and intended conclusion that, if only all the troops ran away, the "nasties" would stop doing nasty things like shooting at them, mortaring them and blowing them up with concealed roadside bombs.

Thus does Harding quote, with not a hint of disapproval, how, under the recent leadership of Major Gen Richard Shirreff, some bold moves have been made that allowed the Prime Minister to announce yesterday's withdrawals. And one of those "bold moves" has been to desert the town of al Amarah, a stunning success that – as Harding acknowledges – has almost certainly left the town under the sway of the militia loyal to Moqtada al Sadr, with the Americans fearing it is harbouring insurgents.

Nevertheless, Harding faithfully repeats the establishment line, declaring, "…without thousands of extra troops there is little else the British could have done."

Therein lies a very part of the problem for, from being a "can do" organisation which had no problem bullying worried farmers at the height of the 2001 Foot & Mouth epidemic, the Army - in the face of an enemy that can shoot back - seems to have acquired the aura of a defeated force, exuding negativity. Thus, despite the technology and the tactics being well established (and successful), the Army is acting as if it has lost the will to win and is simply serving out its time, waiting to go home, where it can play with its new toys in peace and safety.

And bless us, it was Shirreff who briefed Cameron on his one and only visit to the theatre, which enables the Boy – with not enough experience of knowledge to know any better - to trot out the preferred party line, that the Army has done all it can usefully do. Such is the current definition of failure.

Thus it is that The Telegraph leader churns out its usual, Anglo-centric drivel, this time calling in aid Richard Dannatt who, we are reminded, has called for an early withdrawal "on the grounds that our military presence is exacerbating the security situation".

One wonders how Monty would have dealt with this fine piece of military logic on the eve of the final battle of el Alamein… "Withdraw your troops and those nasty Germans and Italians will stop shooting at you," the siren voices would have said. It is as well then that our forebears were made of sterner stuff. And, once upon a time, so was the Telegraph.

COMMENT THREAD

Airy promises

Something we meant to pick up yesterday was a letter from a Mr A James of London N1, who wrote, under the heading, "Airy promises, but still no choppers":

When Tony Blair last summer promised the British soldiers serving in Afghanistan that they would get "anything they need" we were told that there was hollow laughter at the Ministry of Defence and among Service chiefs, because supplies, and especially the desperately-needed extra helicopters, cannot be conjured up from nowhere.

So maybe it would be unfair to ask the Prime Minister at this year's end how many helicopters have been sent to Helmand since he made that promise. But, when he returns from having suntan oil rubbed into his shoulders by the Bee Gees, can he tell us whether one single new helicopter has actually been ordered and, if so, when it will reach our Armed Forces?

Actually, if we had halfway decent newspapers, they would be asking the questions.

And they might also be asking why, in the absence of enough helicopters, the US were providing them, to the extent that the UK was relying on "charity" to conduct its normal operations. The photograph above shows the gunner on a US UH-60 helicopter giving the thumbs up while transporting "British air reaction forces" near Al Amarah, on 15 December 2005 (British soldier arrowed).

This is one of the many stories the British media have missed, another of which is the tangible effect of the lack of tactical helicopters – brought home by this remarkable series of photographs of the British Army headquarters building in the Basra Palace complex.

This first one (right) shows part of the main building as it was in 2003, shortly after it had been occupied by British forces and taken over as the Brigade headquarters. (Note the parked Land Rover in front of the entrance.)

A year later, in May 2004, and the same bulding looks a little the worse for wear. It has acquired a radio mast and a shack in the roof, and some camouflage netting is draped over one wall, but the aspect is still open and there are vehicles parked in front of the entrance. Note also the tree to the right of centre, which appears to be thriving.

An now for the most recent of the photographs. This is taken October 2005, after three and a half years of "peacekeeping" which has been so successful that the British government is ready to hand control back to the civil authorities.

And, as testament to that "peace and stability", gone is the open aspect to the grand palace entrance. After months of rocket and mortar attacks, the area is barricaded with huge concrete blast walls and Hesco fortifications, with sundry equipment in the forecourt. The tree appears to be dying and the lamp post is damaged.

None of these are media photographs and they, unlike the media, illustrate how bad the situation really is in Basra, providing some background to the evacuation of the British Consulate, an ignominious decision to run away, for want of suitable counter-measures - including, as both Booker and I have pointed out, tactical assault helicopters.

As to the rest of the equipment needed, we get no detail from the media at large and while it is now becoming almost fashionable to criticise the government for its failures to provide equipment, Gen Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of Defence Staff, now joining the chorus (again). But not one of them, nor any media source seems to be able to get past the simplistic mantra of a "chronic lack of transport helicopters and adequately protected vehicles".

Perhaps they ought to look over the Iraqi border. Even the Jordanian Army is curently better equipped than us (above left) - and yes, it is (ironically) a Eurocopter.

COMMENT THREAD