He says, she says

RAENORTH · **Posted:** Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:16 am

In a new book reviewed by the Great Sage Con Coughlin, we have Sandy Gall, the former ITN presenter, give an account of the views of the current CDS, Gen Sir David Richards, on the campaign in Afghanistan.

With the appearance of being disarmingly frank, Richards seemingly takes to task John Reid, defence secretary at the time, for his view that "we would be perfectly happy to leave in three years' time without firing one shot because our mission is to protect the reconstruction", despite "intelligence assessments conducted in southern Afghanistan concluded that they would receive a hostile reception".

View full article here

Brian · **Joined:** Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:28 am **Posts:** 805

Quote:

Even if Richards then concedes that the military establishment was "ill-prepared" and with a "rather amateurish approach to high-level military operations verging on the complacent",

So that's the defence budget well spent by the experts. It's as if they filed away the Haldane Reforms and bought another box of Brasso instead. What do they teach at the Joint Services Command and Staff College and its predecessors?

Watchet · **Posted:** Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:57 am

Quote:

Richards then concedes that the military establishment was "ill-prepared" and with a "rather amateurish approach to high-level military operations verging on the complacent",

Will this be what General Richards says to the Parliamentary Enquiry that follows the (coming) 2nd Falklands War when he tries to explain why:
a) Britain failed to predict the potential size of the Argentinian invasion this time,
b) British forces were so easily out-fought (they couldn't be re-supplied because there was effectively no UK navy anymore to run the Argentinian blockade), &
c) whatever attempts to re-supply our beleagured forces trapped on the Falklands were such a dsimal failure & were so costly in lost UK lives & materiel!

Watchet

RAENORTH · **Posted:** Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:00 pm

Brian wrote:

Quote:

Even if Richards then concedes that the military establishment was "ill-prepared" and with a "rather amateurish approach to high-level military operations verging on the complacent",

So that's the defence budget well spent by the experts. It's as if they filed away the Haldane Reforms and bought another box of Brasso instead. What do they teach at the Joint Services Command and Staff College and its predecessors?

Good point ... all these rising stars, on gold-plated salaries and pensions. Do we get a rebate?

permanentexpat · **Posted:** Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:20 pm

Quote:

Quote:
Richards then concedes that the military establishment was "ill-prepared" and with a "rather amateurish approach to high-level military operations verging on the complacent",

Will this be what General Richards says to the Parliamentary Enquiry that follows the (coming) 2nd Falklands War when he tries to explain why:
a) Britain failed to predict the potential size of the Argentinian invasion this time,
b) British forces were so easily out-fought (they couldn't be re-supplied because there was effectively no UK navy anymore to run the Argentinian blockade), &
c) whatever attempts to re-supply our beleagured forces trapped on the Falklands were such a dsimal failure & were so costly in lost UK lives & materiel!

Watchet

.........not to mention the shameful loss of our iPods.
Heaven protect us because nothing else will.

Stephen · **Joined:** Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:51 pm **Posts:** 163

"Richards then concedes that the military establishment was "ill-prepared" and with a "rather amateurish approach to high-level military operations verging on the complacent"

As I recall,one of Dr North's main points about the inadequacy of the British Army in Iraq was the belief that the Army knew all it had to know because of it's experience in Northern Ireland.

No doubt Dr North is ambivalent about having his views confirmed. While it must be personally satisfying to be proven right,I rather doubt our honored host is in any way,shape or form happy about the cost of such proof.

RAENORTH · **Posted:** Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:35 pm

Stephen wrote:

"Richards then concedes that the military establishment was "ill-prepared" and with a "rather amateurish approach to high-level military operations verging on the complacent"

As I recall,one of Dr North's main points about the inadequacy of the British Army in Iraq was the belief that the Army knew all it had to know because of it's experience in Northern Ireland.

No doubt Dr North is ambivalent about having his views confirmed. While it must be personally satisfying to be proven right,I rather doubt our honored host is in any way,shape or form happy about the cost of such proof.

The really bizarre thing about the Army citing its Northern Ireland experience is that it did not apply that experience either to Iraq or Afghanistan. Not least, Snatch Land Rovers were not permitted in country areas where roadside bombs were known to be used.

He says, she says

Who is online