Thread: Britian : 'We went to war to keep the Army busy'

'We went to war to keep the Army busy'
14th January 2011

Top diplomat sparks outrage saying troops were sent to Afghanistan so forces numbers would not be cut

A furious row has erupted in Whitehall after a former Kabul envoy claimed British commanders committed troops to war in Afghanistan because they feared cuts if they did not use them.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles said he had been told by the former head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, that if he did not re-deploy battlegroups coming free from Iraq he would lose them in a future defence review.

In a written memorandum to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, he said the Afghan campaign had seen 'unprecedented' resources diverted to the Army, and that most soldiers appeared to be 'enjoying' it.


Fury: Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles (left) claims former head of the Army General Sir Richard Dannatt committed troops to war in Afghanistan because of fears troop numbers would be cut if he did not use them

Sir Dannatt has strongly denied the allegations and slammed the remarks as 'a disgraceful set of comments', adding: 'It's not his business to opine about the Army. He is well out of lane and well out of order.'

However Sir Sherard claimed to The Times: 'He is lying, I am afraid. I can recall him saying it, sitting in his office in the Ministry of Defence.'

Sir Sherard said British commanders also saw the mission in Afghanistan as an opportunity to redeem their reputation in the eyes of the Americans after the criticisms of their performance in Basra.



Sir Sherard described the war in Afghanistan as giving the British Army a 'raison d'etre' it had previously lacked

'The war in Afghanistan has given the British Army a raison d'etre it has lacked for many years, and new resources on an unprecedented scale,' he said.

'In the eyes of the Army, Afghanistan has also given our forces the chance to redeem themselves, in the eyes of the Americans, in the wake of negative perceptions, whether or not they were justified, of the British Army's performance in Basra.

'Not surprisingly, in a profession paid to fight, most have been enjoying the campaign.

'Against that background, the then Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, told me in the summer of 2007 that, if he didn't use in Afghanistan the battle groups then starting to come free from Iraq, he would lose them in a future defence review.

'It's use them, or lose them', he said.

Sir Sherard added: 'In my view, the Army's 'strategy' in Helmand was driven at least as much by the level of resources available to the British Army as by an objective assessment of the needs of a proper counter-insurgency campaign in the province.'

An unnamed former brigade commander in Helmand said: 'Much of [Sir Sherard's] analysis of the military is correct and is representative of an organisation that has been unable to adapt to the circumstances it has found itself in.'

dailymail.co.uk

Great, the UK military seems to an end in itself. I hope that the British people feel happy about that.

Most armies are a complete waste of money & lives.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Most armies are a complete waste of money & lives.

In the modern day, the fact that many Nations have capable armed forces has probably saved more lives than it has cost.

Sabai Prai.

Originally Posted by Sabai Prai

In the modern day, the fact that many Nations have capable armed forces has probably saved more lives than it has cost.

without facts to back that up your so called probability is minute .

Great, the UK military seems to an end in itself. I hope that the British people feel happy about that.

'In the eyes of the Army, Afghanistan has also given our forces the chance to redeem themselves, in the eyes of the Americans, in the wake of negative perceptions, whether or not they were justified, of the British Army's performance in Basra.
'Not surprisingly, in a profession paid to fight, most have been enjoying the campaign.

nothing brit generals like more than the chance to put uppity fuzzy wuzzies in their place. they still think its the 18th century.

^Well said Corporal Jones.

What's the point in having a military, if you don't use it?
It's a shame they don't treat wars more like business ventures... considering how much they cost, it'd be nice to see a return on the investment, like in the good old days

Pointless paying all that money in wages and equipment if you only use it on the firing range.
Plus they like to keep the troops blooded.

The Thai army and Myanmar army both have little to do, hence why they end up becoming businessmen at best, and, at worst, snipering their own population.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Most armies are a complete waste of money & lives.

Yeah, like the allies armies in WW2.

What a waste of fucking time those armies where.

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by Sabai Prai

In the modern day, the fact that many Nations have capable armed forces has probably saved more lives than it has cost.

without facts to back that up your so called probability is minute .

You don't have the facts to refute it either.

Originally Posted by socal

Yeah, like the allies armies in WW2.

Why not mention the Napoleonic armies for all the relevance they have to the world today?

Most of their munitions have a "best before " date on them! Costs a lot of money to destroy them. Best just fire them off.

Originally Posted by socal

You don't have the facts to refute it either.

I don't need them as I did not make the assumption

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

It's a shame they don't treat wars more like business ventures... considering how much they cost, it'd be nice to see a return on the investment, like in the good old days

Today, same as it ever was. Cost of invasion and occupation vs return to nation's business community.

Fact is that wars spur economies; creativity, create Nationalistic fervour, employment, and give people a purpose, etc.
Humanity functions a lot better under adversity.

^As in Europe after the Plague. And Japan after the bomb.


Few would disagree that at least halving the world's population would be a good thing in the greater scheme of things. What this world really needs, urgently, is more war, famine and disease. The truth is often unpalatable innit.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

What this world really needs, urgently, is more war, famine and disease.

spoken by a member of the privileged portion

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by FlyFree

What this world really needs, urgently, is more war, famine and disease.

spoken by a member of the privileged portion

That's an assumption. I'll leave it at that.
If I am one of the victims, that's how it is.

And it doesn't change the fact that the world urgently needs a serious reduction in population, and family planning ain't gonna do it.

Nature is not cruel, it simply is. We haven't conquered nature, we've simply run around like snot-nosed kids fucking with it, and stuffing things up.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

And it doesn't change the fact that the world urgently needs a serious reduction in population, and family planning ain't gonna do it.

this ain't no fact , there is plenty of resources just the distribution is inequitable .

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by FlyFree

And it doesn't change the fact that the world urgently needs a serious reduction in population, and family planning ain't gonna do it.

this ain't no fact , there is plenty of resources just the distribution is inequitable .

Don't confuse him - he thinks there aren't enough iPhones to go around, so those without them should get nuked.

Originally Posted by taxexile

those living in freedom in the west these days would do well to remember the bravely and sacrifice of those who died to preserve those freedoms that we enjoy today.

Indeed. And it is their sacrifice that means the days of needing sizeable standing armies in the civilised world is over.