Comments on: More helicopters for Afghanistan – but what about troops?

By: Terry Noble

Terry Noble — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:17:16 +0000

I have just watched a report on the news saying there are 8 chinook helicopters sitting in Hampshire waiting to be made ready to Afganistan. they cannot go now because they need to be upgraded before they can be used. they cannot be upgraded because there are not enough aircraft engineers to do the work required.

why then am I, a qualified aircraft engineer, who has been out of work for the best part of the last three months unable to get any work in Hampshire where these helicopters are?

By: Simon Keen

Simon Keen — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:43:51 +0000

Reluctant though I am to assist the Prime Minister, he might wish to be aware that responsibility for the current shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan lies squarely with the last Conservative government. Its decision to procure from Westland Helicopters a small number of very expensive Merlins ignored a strong Army and RAF recommendation for a much larger number of cheaper Chinooks. The deaths that we see today arise directly from that decision. Sorry David!

By: justin boreland

justin boreland — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:54:50 +0000

David, as I served now lleft the RAF after 11 1/2 years service I can put some perspective on this.
If all aircraft and pilots are in Afghan then crews/ engineers would never get to home to UK, could never train and aircraft could never get deep servicing. In short unsustainable.

By: Clive Martin

Clive Martin — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:07:41 +0000

As Chancellor Gordon Brown spent 10 years systematically cutting defence spending. He refused to allow the Treasury to fund, as he saw them, Tony Blair’s wars. He made the Ministry of Defence pay for all operational expenditure and equipment using the urgent operational requirement budget. The Royal Navy has recently been forced to sell off some of its most capable and modern warships and aircraft have been retired early by the Royal Air Force. There has been a lot of talk about cuts or rationalisation or reprioritsing between the party leaders. But until the last few days no one has talked about the 12 years of defence cuts under this government.
If this culture of cuts in national defence hadn’t persisted and Gordon Brown would have invested in defence when he was chancellor the armed forces would not be in the mess they are today.
The Prime Minister said in a recent interview that the number of helicopters deployed to Afghanistan is double what the number was 2 years ago. This begs the question: Why weren’t enough helicopters in theatre 2 years ago? and Why has this problem taken so long to rectify?
I think part of the answer to these questions comes from Gordon Brown having more responsibility over the armed forces as Prime Minister than he did as Chancellor.
Every week at Prime Ministers questions Gordon Brown stands up and anounces the names of the latest brave soldiers to lose their lives in Afghanistan. This I think is an insult. Gordon Brown has never really cared for the armed forces. If he did he would have given the Ministry of Defence greater funding over the 10 years he was Chancellor. And if he had of funded the war in Afghanistan at an acceptable level from the start then the death toll might not be as high as it currently is.
Finally Bob Ainsworth as Defence Secretery needs to stand up and fight for the armed forces as bravely and ferociously as they fight for this country. Only then will this shameful lack of funding for kit and equipment and also troops on the ground be resolved.

By: MM

MM — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:10:57 +0000

Whatever the rights or wrongs of being in Afganistan – and however it is dressed up in fancy language – ‘heros being repatriated from the theatre of war’ – ‘posthumous bravery awards’ – ‘giving their lives to protect the freedoms of others’ etc – the brutal reality is scores of young dead men- many of them kids hardly out of school. All that potential lost. All that pain and grief. And when all this is forgotten and we’ve moved on to some other madness – they will still be dead. Forever. For what? Throughout history war has never solved anything – just entrenched hatred and bitterness that has led to more of the same. Don’t we ever bloody learn? It would make you weep with despair.

By: Cliff Allum

Cliff Allum — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:08:47 +0000

I want to complain. On a day when 8 of my former comrades are brought home I was dismayed at the clear anti war bias of your reporting. Whilst I respect your right to take this stance, after all its called freedom of expression, not something that the Taliban are famous for. I am very offended by what I saw as a sneering commentary on the prosecution of the war. How dare your so called journalist say that it was inappropriate to comment on the virtue of the war and in doing so make such a comment. Furthermore, You do not speak for me or for anyone that I know in the military or wider community when you suggest that there may be some compassion fatigue. You misunderstand the depth of feeling and you totally misjudge the professionalism and commitment of the army in the conduct of this war . In addition, your suggestion that our young warriors had fear in their eyes whilst they watched their comrades come home in coffins is reprehensible. Have you any idea how insulting that would be to soldier? You seem to assume that we all hold your liberal views and that a random poll of the non involved gives you the right to state that 59% of the population are against the war. Of course poll results depend on the way that a question is couched perhaps you would get different result if you posed the question in a different way, how about; would you prefer to fight Islamic extremism in Afghanistan or in the UK you may get a different result. I contend that 100% of the population are against the loss of young men but that is not the same thing. In my own and my comrades view the war is not only justified but is essential if we are to defeat the threat that militant Islam poses to the civilised world. Finally I am very offended, and have been for some time that Mr Snow, whom I do not recall ever seeing in uniform chooses to further his own career and image by wearing comedy ties and socks whilst reporting on such grave matters. I know that it has become his trade mark but I find it innappropriate and insulting. Do you care? I guess not but you are not doing the fighting.

By: Bill Wood

Bill Wood — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:59:56 +0000

Lies on top of more lies , with 8 dead soldiers returning to UK today and a total of 15 killed in 7 days I wonder how these politicians can face their electrorate, If they all handed back their expenses perhaps we would have more resourses available for our brave soldiers.
I wonder how many Ministers have been to Lynham to recieve our returning hero’s, or regularly visit Selly Oak Hospital to visit our injured soldiers.
It is a total disaster and we should withdraw by Christmas

By: David Smith

David Smith — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:51:34 +0000

Two weeks ago I looked up from my stroll in Battersea Park. What I saw was 4 Chinook helicopters in formation. I wondered at the time why we had so many over South London and yet so few in Afghanistan. I also hoped that soldiers weren’t dying from lack of helicopter support……

Can somebody in government answer this?

By: jr

jr — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:24:58 +0000

“I have to say that I do believe we are right to be in Afghanistan, trying to change the lives and human riights that so many Afghans deserve. It would be sheer devastation for many countries if the forces pulled out.”

please follow these links, perhaps you’ll change your mind as to why so many lives on both sides are being sacrificed.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/6962.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:07:33 +0000

The British army has an unbalanced phoney aristocratic composure that is outdated and badly led. The reasons soldiers are getting killed is not about equipment, it’s about poor strategy, and most of all leadership. This can be seen in strategic preferences that disregard the risk in relation to some none existing operational objective. After numerous troops have been killed in roadside ambushes the best plan they can come up with is crying for better armoured vehicles. On the news hardly a day passes without some a senior officer appearing on television talking about the chronic shortages of military equipment. They seem to forget the armed forces are given a £30+ billion yearly defence budget and most of this has been squandered by the same officers on numerous disastrous equipment blunders. We have a leadership with no ability to control their fund and politicians lacking the guts to sack them. Then we have the terminology of lies and like every other military engagement a fabricate enemy. These are given a name such as “Taliban”. In Northern Ireland they gave the gangs military titles such as the Belfast Brigade of the IRA a collection of a dozen or so snipers and bombers. Today the Afghan fighters are smart they will not go into battle against tanks and heavy artillery. They will only employ actual combat if they are in no doubt they will succeed with little of no casualties to themselves. He relies on concealment, surprise and escape; thus making any action too small to allow the use of advanced weapon systems. He has weaknesses his attacks are a simple constellation of opportunities concentrated in time, geographical location and depend on identifiable controlling factors that are not entirely unpredictable. In reality British leadership always on the lookout for knighthoods are being outsmarted by these guys. In truth the army has an undeniable equipment and training superiority that is let down by strategic, and operational, weaknesses. You cannot win a war against the people riding around in armoured vehicles armed with fast firing Gatling guns or using large scale televised attacks.