"Afghanistan: equipping the fight"/More on Brits

Conference of Defence Associations media round-up--excerpt:

...
Defending Britain

John Burns for the New York Times analyses the British political debate over the Afghan mission and the equipping of British forces there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/world/europe/12britain.html

The Telegraph has published journal entries by Lieutenant Mark Evison, a British soldier who died in May from wounds received in Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5820679/Mark-Evison-We-are-walking-a-tight...

Michael Evans and Tom Coghlan for the Times and James Kirkup for the Telegraph report on comments by British Chief of the General Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt on required troops and equipment in Afghanistan.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6711041.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5824853/Army-chie...

Michael Evans for the Times reports on the equipment (armoured vehicles, helicopters) used by the British in Afghanistan.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6695154.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6715513.ece

Michael Evans for the Times writes on how the British prime minister chose the “cheapest” option when presented with options to boost the British military presence in Afghanistan.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6703626.ece

An editorial in the Times criticizes the British government’s approach and attitude towards the defence portfolio.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6702904.ece ...

Recent post here, with further Brit links. And another UK story:

MPs' report to say helicopter shortage puts troops at risk in Afghanistan

Ministers will come under intense pressure tomorrow [July 16] over their handling of Britain's military operations in Afghanistan when an influential committee of MPs challenges Gordon Brown's insistence that a lack of helicopters has not cost lives...

Today it emerged that [General Sir Richard] Dannatt [Chief of the General Staff] is being flown around Afghanistan in an American Black Hawk helicopter. "If I moved in an American helicopter, it's because I haven't got a British helicopter," he said...

Dannatt further increased pressure on the government by saying more "boots on the ground" were key to success in Helmand and that he would like to see "more energy" put into speeding up the supply of equipment to British troops...

Can you imagine Canadian Conservative MPs agreeing to a committee report critical of our government? Or, indeed, MPs from all parties actually working together to further what they see as real interests of the CF on any contentious issue?

Plus a major "Briefing" in The Economist:

British forces in Afghanistan

And the soldier home from the hill
The British public is honouring its fallen troops as never before. But for how long will it support the war in Afghanistan?



...
The British public has long been accustomed to the deaths in action of its servicemen. Almost every year since 1945 has seen military fatalities in some corner of the world. Indeed, Britain prides itself on being a nation of fine soldiers [not in Canada, pity]...

Ministers against generals

The cross-party consensus on Afghanistan is under more strain than ever before. Both the Tories and the Lib Dems still say they back the deployment, but they attack the government’s perceived lack of strategy and its parsimony towards the armed forces. Liam Fox, the Tory shadow defence secretary, has accused the government of “the ultimate dereliction of duty”. The Tories have concentrated their fire on the shortfall in the helicopters available to British forces—though the criticism is undermined by their reluctance to promise extra defence spending if they win the election due by next year. Nick Clegg, the leader of the Lib Dems, has been sharper: he talks about soldiers’ lives being “thrown away”, describing the mission in Afghanistan as “over-ambitious in aim and under-resourced in practice”.

Yet the most important divide may not be between political parties but between government ministers and military commanders. Gordon Brown’s ill-judged appointment of Des Browne in 2006 as defence secretary, doubling the next year as Scottish secretary, alienated some of the top brass. Confidence has hardly been increased by the loss of his successor, the well-liked John Hutton, during last month’s crisis over the future of Mr Brown, and the promotion of the junior defence minister, Bob Ainsworth, to the main job as the least bad option.

The prime minister now stands accused by many generals, more explicitly than is customary, of skimping on the men and kit needed for the Afghan campaign. In an interview this week in Helmand General Sir Richard Dannatt, the outgoing head of the army, noted that he was flying in an American helicopter because a British one was not available. He had asked in public for a reinforcement of 2,000 troops (and more in private), but received the promise of only a temporary boost of 700 soldiers, amid resistance from the Treasury and the Foreign Office. All this feeds the generals’ belief that Mr Brown does not much care for the armed forces. One general says: “Tony Blair did not understand us. Gordon Brown does not like us.”..

Update: Even more outspoken than Rick Hillier, I'd say:

Dannatt warns of strategic failure in Afghanistan as 16th soldier dies in a month

The head of the Army warned of strategic failure in Afghanistan today as it was announced that another British soldier had died in Helmand province.

General Sir Richard Danatt, who has been accused of playing politics over the issue of equipment, demanded more troops and greater investment as part of a shopping list of desires.

His plea was broadcast minutes before the Ministry of Defence said that a soldier from 2nd Battalion The Rifles was killed during a foot patrol in Helmand yesterday. Sixteen British soldiers have been killed this month.

General Danatt said: “Quite rightly if we carry on with the kind of casualty numbers we saw last week the people of our own country might say hold on this is not a price worth paying.”

“We do need more troops, we need more boots on the ground,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

General Dannatt claimed that more soldiers were required to reduce the impact of the improvised explosive devices, which have caused many of the British injuries including the soldier killed yesterday.

The general, who retires on August 28, said that it was vital to at least retain the number of British troops in Afghanistan at 9,000. He said that to reduce it to 8,300, as is currently planned after the Afghan elections, “would be quite wrong” [emphasis added].

“There may well be a case for what I would call a short term uplift, let’s not use the surge word that has sort of been worked to extinction in Iraq,” he said

The increasingly outspoken calls from General Dannatt led to senior Government officials questioning his behaviour this week. One junior minister accused him of “playing politics” and said: “This is a very difficult time and he should know better.”

Ministers fear that General Dannatt will launch an all-out attack on government policy when he retires as head of the Army next month [emphasis added].

General Dannatt suggested that as a temporary measure for 12-18 months, there may be a case for an increase in British troops while they wait for the Afghan National Army to be strong enough to take over...