Our armed forces are so depleted and thin on the ground What can be done to address this?

Question

Why were the Americans pulled out of Cabal only to be replaced by a much delepted British Army? What was Blair thinking about? I would like to see our boys come home but it now looks as though this is not going to happen for a long time to come.

I watched the six o'clock North tonight News, and it was so so to watch RAF Kinloss grieving for all their comrades, husbands and dads.

Trumain did you think about what you were writing. Are you speaking for the rest of your country men? I doubt it.

Answer 1

While the government is religiously following the RULES of Europe ( like the British do so well, following rules that is) & setting up & running the NEW European defence force in Whitwhall. ( wich is some article in the new constitution of Europe, wich don't exist because it was democratically voted against by the French & Duth people )
They had to make BIG cut backs in our armed forces, I mean what's a good few hundred years of historical regiments anyway, when you can rely on the Italians,french,Belgians, & Spanish."WOW".
Geoff Hoon knows where his bread is buttered, where is he NOW oh yes a very nice high paid job in Brussels.

Answer 2

Increased funding is the only way to improve the state of the Armed Forces. Blair and his Labour cronies must be removed from power. He has destroyed what was once a proud and respected military. Amalgamated Regiments that have been around for hundreds of years, destroyed the history of those regiments and then increased the commitments of this reduced force.

We do not have the resorces for the 'peace keeping' activities that Blair so frequently agrees to go in to once Bush asks.

There could be massive savings made in other budgets, and that money could be pushed in to the military, however, Labour historically, has never been a supporter of our proud military, and would rather squander those resources paying benefits to people that are not entitled to them, and then spending millions to find out where that money has gone.

It all boils done to a question of polotics, as does everything nowadays!

Answer 3

If the history of the C20th century showed us anything it was that irregular forces have only been totally defeated rarely by means of conventional warfare. More troops, more resources, more advanced technology are not the long term solution.

In the short term Blair must go - the sooner the better. In the longer term UK foreign policy must be reviewed and become more genuinely independent. Our troops must be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq - now.

Answer 4

The person above seem to fail to understand, that why the US military is no doubt superior to British forces of around 100,000 personnel [mainly due to recruitment issues of a small country]
only 30,000 of are front line infantry troops. for example Britain still has 8000 troops permanently based in Northern Ireland and a large posting in Germany. And the US forces may have alot more personnel but the same applies, that many of these are support services and not front line infantry. which illustrates the importance of defence spending especially in these times with other increasingly powerful and dangerous countries where they are no treaties.

They should try funding the British armed forces alot more, and offset the costs by cutting benefits and make people whom are capable of working work.
I read recently that one third of government spending alone on is on the benefits system.
The figures that I have read are as follows:
NHS gets 70 billion pounds a year as it should.
MOD gets 30 billion pounds which need to in my opinion needs to at least double to match the security now needed to protect our county.
And incapacity benefit alone gets 12 billion pounds a year, which as you know apart from genuine claimants it suffers alot of false claims. All thanks to the excessive liberal government of Tony Blair and his pal's.

Answer 5

I think we are at the stage when we should withdraw from all our commitments. I never thought I would say that, but the forces have been so emasculated and stripped of manpower that things can only get worse. This Labour government have completely wrecked the military. More men killed today . It is so sad.

Answer 6

The Brits bear a responsibilty to support the international effort to rebuild Afghanistan. As part of that effort, the UK armed forces are providing security for different parts of Afghanistan. What's so confusing?

Bill Clinto did not cut the Armed Forces. When he came into office 1993 defense budget was 291 billion. In 2000, his last year in office, it was 294 billion. The lowest year, 1996, was 265 Billion. Less than a 10% decrease in spending. And as for cutting numbers, in 1993 the Army had 550,000 troops, in 2000 the Army had 450,000 troops. Hardly a 50% cut.

Answer 7

Tony the Liar should stop trying to act big - especially given the way the Armed Forces are kept strapped for equipment and cash.

Answer 8

Thin? I never knew a 1 million+ man military as thin. The U.S. will probably be mostly out of Iraq in 18 months, where they can concentrate more on Afghanistan.

Answer 9

I reject the premise of your question. We have around 70,000 troops in Japan and Korea. From my recliner I see no reason for bases or troops in Japan or Korea. Both the Japanese and Korean's are more than capable of defending themselves. We need a WWII (pacific) and Korean War exit strategy. How are we going to get troops out of Japan and Korea and when are we going to "redeploy" those troops.

The first place to start is Europe. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 troops in Europe of which about 70,000 are in Germany. Again from my recliner view of the world, it looks like Germany surrendered about 60 years ago. I think we can say WWII (Europe) is over, we need an exist strategy for getting our troops out of Europe, exactly what are they doing there?

By my figuring that puts the total of redeployable troops to about equal the number in the middle east, not counting troops at U.S. bases. Where's the shortage of troops.

Phase II would be a shift in the tactics used to combat terrorist and the nations that harbor and support them. The same effects can be achieved without the extensive use of ground troops as the current tactics require.

We have a significant arsenal of ballastic missles which using modern targeting systems are capable of pin point precision. These missles can be armed with either nuclear or conventional weapons. Launched from land bases in the U.S or from submarines in mid ocean. They are capable of hitting any point on the face of the earth.

One way to reduce the number of combat troops need to defend ourselves is to become a just a little more concerned about our own casualties and a little less concerned about the casualities of terrorist and the people who support and harbor them.

Answer 10

the situatuation in the middle east and the rest is more political than military. the lads could have gone in to afganistan wiped out the taliban and been home for lunch if it wasn't for the meddling politicians.