UK media interviews with British troops in iraq /afgan.

silverharp

just an observation of various reports about british troops returning from Iraq. On the surface there seems to be alot of whining by the troops about conditions and the stress they are under. My thoughts are, what do they expect? I mean the life of a soldier in combat will be 90% boredom and 10% hell on earth. Anyone joining the British army in the last 10 years must know the type of wars their gov. will get them involved in, that the UK population will not be 100% behind their campaigns and that they will be mistrusted and attacked by the local populations. I don't know to what extent the media are egging on these troops to create a story but given that these people sign up for this, is it a case of be careful what you wish for?

Manic Moran

Standard army policy, regardless of country. Troops aren't happy unless they're griping about something.

Never underestimate Tommy's ability to gripe about a 5-star hotel in Bahrain, let alone Afghanistan.

NTM

Fratton Fred

That was a quote I heard in a fil the other night. The only time you worry about a soldier is when he's not bitching about something.

on a side note, the current Iraq conflict aside, what other war in the last ten years has Britain been involved with that has not had the full backing of the UN or even the British people.

There are young muslims joining radical organisations becuase of Iraq and Afghanistan, but where were they when the Muslims were being "Etnically Cleansed" inthe balkans? was there a mad rush for 19 year old Pakistanis to join the British Army?

Flying

silverharp wrote: »

just an observation of various reports about british troops returning from Iraq. On the surface there seems to be alot of whining by the troops about conditions and the stress they are under. My thoughts are, what do they expect? I mean the life of a soldier in combat will be 90% boredom and 10% hell on earth. Anyone joining the British army in the last 10 years must know the type of wars their gov. will get them involved in, that the UK population will not be 100% behind their campaigns and that they will be mistrusted and attacked by the local populations. I don't know to what extent the media are egging on these troops to create a story but given that these people sign up for this, is it a case of be careful what you wish for?

Silverharp just a question have you ever been in an army and if so on a tour of duty that involved combat ?

The conditions a lot of those soliders are complaining around down to kit and armour etc not being given in adequate numbers for example men and buying their own MK IV body armour before going to Iraq or afghanistan, I have a friend in the Royal Marines and was told to me that they did not get enough body armour to go around and we "relocating it" from sources they should not have to go to.

I would'nt go judging unless you've being there or even worse had to worry about family at home, wife and children on income support because they are not paying that solider enough etc

NoQuarter

well said flying, ya got there before me,
silverharp you should keep observations like these to yourself because you havent a clue and thats very obvious to those of us that have actually served overseas.
as for your question, i wouldnt even dignify it by trying to explain why they are whining, perhaps you should try be a little less ingorant.

Fratton Fred

Flying wrote: »

I have a friend in the Royal Marines and was told to me that they did not get enough body armour to go around and we "relocating it" from sources they should not have to go to.

What's the story then. I have worked for a defence contractor and the attention to detail is incredible. Ensuring al the NATO stock numbers are available, equipment, spares etc bar coded and sent to the right warehouse. The central stores appear to be meticulous in their stock control etc. why is the gear not making it out to where it is needed?

Defence procurement has come on leaps and bounds in recent years and they are starting to reduce the time from development of equipment to the time it makes it out to the field, is it just a case that the simple things (Like body armour) are being overlooked or are they penny pinching.

I remember reading about Churchill doing his nut over supplies sent to the BEF in Dunkirk being the wrong size/shape/calibre etc for them use, have things really not improved since then?

Nuttzz

king-stew wrote: »

well said flying, ya got there before me,
silverharp you should keep observations like these to yourself because you havent a clue and thats very obvious to those of us that have actually served overseas.
as for your question, i wouldnt even dignify it by trying to explain why they are whining, perhaps you should try be a little less ingorant.

oh come on, why should he keep his observations to himself, how does asking a question make him ignorant, i remember being told once the only stupid question is the one you dont ask.

i'm sure much of joe public make the same opinions as silverharp, the focus is on the complaints but never on the source of complaints (flyings example of the body armour) by helping joe public understand the entire picture helps, calling them ignorant because they dont understand doesnt help at all.

ScottishDanny

You could cite stories of inadequate equipment/supply from the Zulu campaign to this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7082689.stm

Flying

It is not just the brits the yanks aswell are having supply issues of armour and even down to ammo in certain places.

You would imagine with Trillions Spent by the UK/US on Defence that they would have 99% of troops on the ground fully kitted and ready to go at all times.

Even the Irish army is better equipped than the Brits, my experience in Kosovo where the brits could'nt believe we even had a bar and hot and cold running water in our camp within 4 weeks of setting it up.

Manic Moran

You would imagine with Trillions Spent by the UK/US on Defence that they would have 99% of troops on the ground fully kitted and ready to go at all times.

Part of the problem is fielding time. A lot of the 'short' equipment is new technology:. For a force as large as the US or UK, it simply takes time to filter down to units. This is unlike Ireland which only ever needs to equip a couple of companies at any one time Buying 24 Javelins or two dozen MOWAGs is pretty small-scale stuff. Also new requirements are being brought up on the fly: The whole Armoured HMMWV business was great to know with hindsight, but that wasn't incompetence, it was just nobody thought it was required. How many armoured Nissan Patrols does Ireland have?

Even the Irish army is better equipped than the Brits, my experience in Kosovo where the brits could'nt believe we even had a bar and hot and cold running water in our camp within 4 weeks of setting it up.

I'm not convinced that that is necessarily the best barometer. It might well be that the Irish with their smaller contingents and less varied requirements can afford to put a few more resources into having a bar set up. Instead of a bar, the British brought tanks and helicopters to the Balkans, and at $3million+ a tank and, what, $13mil for a chopper, you can probably buy a pre-fab bar or two for that. Which of those two, realistically, is more required for an Army to do its job, even on a UN op? Plus the British/US/whoever also devote a substantial amount of their military budget to conventional warfighting, this is less so for Ireland.

Even now, for this Chad business, the Irish seem concerned that it will be 'safe' enough for an Irish contingent. Not necessarily that they won't get shot at, but that they will have access to support and help if needed. Handy, that they can afford to buy a bar instead of buying their own support so that they're not reliant on anyone else.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Flying wrote: »

Even the Irish army is better equipped than the Brits, my experience in Kosovo where the brits could'nt believe we even had a bar and hot and cold running water in our camp within 4 weeks of setting it up.

why is it wherever the Irish go they have to set up a Pub:D

strangeloop

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why is it wherever the Irish go they have to set up a Pub:D

not a very professional image - but I'm really not surprised. A bunch of pissed up paddies playing at soldiers....Jesus

silverharp

king-stew wrote: »

well said flying, ya got there before me,
silverharp you should keep observations like these to yourself because you havent a clue and thats very obvious to those of us that have actually served overseas.
as for your question, i wouldnt even dignify it by trying to explain why they are whining, perhaps you should try be a little less ingorant.

with respect, it's my reaction to a couple of media pieces that is aimed at the general public so I am trying to tease it out. Is it a media bias which focuses on a negative angle, or is it a natural thing that morale drops when an army is involved in a long drawn out police action action like Afghanistan. The particular soldier being interviewed seemed to be depressed that people in the UK "weren't interested in the war and were more interested in Coronation street" to which my retort was what does he expect?

Hagar

strangeloop wrote: »

not a very professional image - but I'm really not surprised. A bunch of pissed up paddies playing at soldiers....Jesus

Effect on morale - priceless
British Navy - daily rum ration
Tot of whiskey - traditional before going over the top.
Vodka - More important than bullets to the Russian Army in WWII


Less of the "pissed up paddies" comments - Hagar

Fratton Fred

silverharp wrote: »

with respect, it's my reaction to a couple of media pieces that is aimed at the general public so I am trying to tease it out. Is it a media bias which focuses on a negative angle, or is it a natural thing that morale drops when an army is involved in a long drawn out police action action like Afghanistan. The particular soldier being interviewed seemed to be depressed that people in the UK "weren't interested in the war and were more interested in Coronation street" to which my retort was what does he expect?

I've said this on here before, but I don't think there is enough coverage of Afghanistan. From what I have read in newspapers etc it sounds a very difficult task the guys are doing out there, but the coverage appears to be pretty poor.

Flying

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've said this on here before, but I don't think there is enough coverage of Afghanistan. From what I have read in newspapers etc it sounds a very difficult task the guys are doing out there, but the coverage appears to be pretty poor.

I think it is moreso the forgotten war.

As for Pis5ed paddies, well i'm saying nothing apart from when in the BBC (Blue Beret Club), you used to buy two crate of beer, drink from one and sit on the other thats the leb for ya, I'm sure Mairt will well know all about that and the P/X in Tibnin and $5 bottles of smirnoff vodka

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

Part of the problem is fielding time. A lot of the 'short' equipment is new technology:. For a force as large as the US or UK, it simply takes time to filter down to units. This is unlike Ireland which only ever needs to equip a couple of companies at any one time Buying 24 Javelins or two dozen MOWAGs is pretty small-scale stuff. Also new requirements are being brought up on the fly: The whole Armoured HMMWV business was great to know with hindsight, but that wasn't incompetence, it was just nobody thought it was required. How many armoured Nissan Patrols does Ireland have?



I'm not convinced that that is necessarily the best barometer. It might well be that the Irish with their smaller contingents and less varied requirements can afford to put a few more resources into having a bar set up. Instead of a bar, the British brought tanks and helicopters to the Balkans, and at $3million+ a tank and, what, $13mil for a chopper, you can probably buy a pre-fab bar or two for that. Which of those two, realistically, is more required for an Army to do its job, even on a UN op? Plus the British/US/whoever also devote a substantial amount of their military budget to conventional warfighting, this is less so for Ireland.

Even now, for this Chad business, the Irish seem concerned that it will be 'safe' enough for an Irish contingent. Not necessarily that they won't get shot at, but that they will have access to support and help if needed. Handy, that they can afford to buy a bar instead of buying their own support so that they're not reliant on anyone else.

NTM

indeed.

building a bar in a few weeks is hardly something to shout about when your commitment to probably the most strategicly important nationbuilding operation since Germany and Japan in 1945 can be counted on the fingers of two hands, or that you refuse to send helicopters on overseas jobs, or that someone else always has to move your kit and your people to wherever you decide to go, or that others have to give assurances that they will provide you with logistical support and fire or air support - including battlefield mobility - before you'll consider deploying....

if i built a bar in some ****hole while everyone else had to transport me, feed me, carry me around and protect me, i'd keep my fcuking 'hole shut!

Steyr

Manic Moran wrote: »

Even now, for this Chad business, the Irish seem concerned that it will be 'safe' enough for an Irish contingent. Not necessarily that they won't get shot at

Apparently Osama has said they will shoot at any UN Troops in Chad, so our guys could very well end up in fire fights.

By Kevin Myers
Irish Independent
Wednesday October 31 2007


Look, I'm not trying to rock the boat here, but I can't be alone in worrying about the Army's new mission in Chad. I don't worry about the capability of the Army itself, for it is composed of the best people in Ireland: I admire patriotism, and the soldiers of the Army are true patriots who loyally serve their country and their flag.

But who will they end up serving in Chad? Because it seems to me that a mightily complex command-chain is involved here. This, after all, is a UN-authorised EU operation, under the command of our own Major General Pat Nash. However, Pat will be based in Paris and the French have been involved in the region for over a century.

They still have garrisons in Chad, and interests. We'll just have troops. And that's my worry. Our motives are neither profit nor strategic interest, but human decency. Which is, of course, in itself grand; but how far will human decency take you in a country like Sudan, where governments tend to massacre for want of anything better to do?

Well, I'm sure Pat Nash is in no doubt whatever about how far virtue reaches in Sudan, and what a dangerous mission this will be. Moreover, this question is surely cycling and recycling in his mind: whose broader interests will our lads be serving? Not Ireland's -- so whose? The EU's? The African Union's? The UN's? France's? (And God help him in his dealings with the Quai d'Orsay, a snake-house populated by reptiles with enormous brains reaching from their forked tongues to their scaly bottoms).

Beyond his vision -- thankfully, for his peace of mind -- the Chinese (who get 10pc of their oil from Sudan, who own about half the Sudanese oil industry, and who know a thing or two about massacres) through thick and thin, whether it be government butchery or Janjaweed rape, generally support the government in Khartoum.

Furthermore, is this Sudan/Chad mission not mere internationalist tokenism? The few thousand foreign troops don't even match British troop levels in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles; yet Darfur, where 400,000 people have been murdered in the past decade, is the size of France.

However, all else aside, this is a historically important mission for the Army. It's the first time since the foundation of the State that it might be engaged in a military conflict with global implications. Osama bin Laden has called for Muslims to oppose the EU troops by force of arms.

When he calls, others usually obey. And the border between Sudan and Chad is a sandy abstract. Last March, Janjaweed militiamen from Sudan killed some 400 people in a single raid into Chad. Our boys -- and no doubt a few girls -- might be heading for a real war.

Yet there's been a curious kind of public passivity over this deployment. There shouldn't be. All recent western military experience in Islamic countries has been melancholy indeed. Though Afghanistan is a UN-mandated mission, it is drifting towards disaster; and as for Iraq, you know about that. Meanwhile, Iran fuels wars in both countries. It could do the same in Chad/Darfur.

But actually, it doesn't need to. The Janjaweed, the government-backed Islamic terrorists, have already massacred hundreds of thousands of Christian animists and ethnic Africans in Darfur.

So, whether they are either simply engaging in the perfectly normal African practice of regional tribal genocide, or are emulating their Islamic brothers in Glasgow, London, Amsterdam, Baghdad and Helmand province, is actually now quite irrelevant.

The franchisees of al-Qa'ida always adjust to local conditions, and the chances are that once white Christian troops are deployed against Muslim militia, the issue will no longer be inter-tribal, but will be rebranded as jihad.

Moreover, this is not a peace-keeping operation, but peace-enforcement. There's a big difference. The former is trying to retain what people already have; the latter is trying to impose what they haven't. To do this, you need to have guns, and be prepared to use them. That can mean casualties, and in both directions -- in which case, one needs to have good allies.

Who are the Army's allies on the Sudan/Chad mission, apart from the French? Well, there are contingents from Austria and Sweden in Chad, and there's a relatively small force of African Union troops.

Now, though the AU military record in the past has been comically deplorable, for political reasons, it's been given mission-leadership within Sudan. But those AU troops already in theatre can't even defend or feed themselves, and they haven't got a single helicopter -- helicopter-owning countries tending not to entrust the AU with expensive bits of hardware.

Because, you see, on AU missions, things tend to go missing overnight, leaving you with not so much a helicopter, as a local molecular memory of where a helicopter once had been.

So our soldiers -- the best men and women we breed -- will essentially be protecting a vast population of refugees, alongside a relatively small and thoroughly incompetent African peace-enforcing mission, possibly -- if unintentionally -- serving some inscrutable, long-term French interests, and meanwhile facing lethal Islamic ire: all this, some 2,500km from the nearest port, and 1,000km from the nearest runway.

Mick86

silverharp wrote: »

just an observation of various reports about british troops returning from Iraq. On the surface there seems to be alot of whining by the troops about conditions and the stress they are under. ......I don't know to what extent the media are egging on these troops to create a story but given that these people sign up for this, is it a case of be careful what you wish for?

So what if they complain, the only thing that matters is they did the job they were asked to do and probably will again. I'm sure you've complained about your job from time to time.

Incidentally, I notice the tendency to knock the Irish DF is becoming commonplace. Thankfully those who make the most negative comments are doing so from ignorance.

Steyr

Mick86 wrote: »

Incidentally, I notice the tendency to knock the Irish DF is becoming commonplace. Thankfully those who make the most negative comments are doing so from ignorance.

Or from the fact they prob tried to get in but werent of DF Calibre!:) Either way the DF is better off with those types.

Mick86

I wonder what would have been recorded if modern journalism existed in the past.

Would Sky News have sent a camera crew to record the comments of men about to go over the top at the Somme? CNN could have done frontline interviews before Pickett's Charge. Some Italian station might interview a Centurion about to lead the assault on Masada.

Interviewer;So tell me Marcus Rutilius how do you feel about going up that hill to attack a bunch of Jewish Zealots?

Marcus; Top notch old boy. Little bit of hack and thrust, crucify the surviving men and rape the women. Can't wait. Then it's back to Rome for me. Haven't seen the wife in twenty years. Not sure she's still alive actually. There goes the trumpet, Ciao buddy.

cp251

In anything I've read about the British army on campaign over the centuries. There is the one consistent complaint regarding shortage of supplies and equipment. Also they invariably seem to have obsolete or useless equipment particularly in comparsion to the Americans. So nothing much has changed. I remember reading about Falklands boots debacle. Irony of ironies the FCA had better boots than the Paras. Some were forced to take boots off dead Argentinians. Of course this kind of thing has led to a long standing tradition of 'acquiring' kit unofficially just as soon as they arrive on campaign. In the first Gulf war a shortage of landrovers in one unit was soon remedied by a quick raid and a couple of tins of paint.

Also the tendency to knock the Irish DF is not 'becoming' commonplace. It's a long standing tradition. When I announced my interest in joining the Air Corps as a teenager, my Father denounced the everyone in the military as 'institutionalised'. The truth is that for the most part in Ireland the average civilian has little respect for serving soldiers. That is in part because most people have never served in the military in any form or base their ideas on the old FCA which was for the most part, a glorified boy scout troop in many parts of the country. Also I believe that the fact the Irish army has never actually fought in a war of any consequence colours people views.

On top of that, if you want a serious military career. The British army is still more than glad to take you into one of their Irish regiments both of which have a strong reputation. The Irish army is seen as the easy option.

Flying

cp251 wrote: »

In anything I've read about the British army on campaign over the centuries. There is the one consistent complaint regarding shortage of supplies and equipment. Also they invariably seem to have obsolete or useless equipment particularly in comparsion to the Americans. So nothing much has changed. I remember reading about Falklands boots debacle. Irony of ironies the FCA had better boots than the Paras. Some were forced to take boots off dead Argentinians. Of course this kind of thing has led to a long standing tradition of 'acquiring' kit unofficially just as soon as they arrive on campaign. In the first Gulf war a shortage of landrovers in one unit was soon remedied by a quick raid and a couple of tins of paint.

Also the tendency to knock the Irish DF is not 'becoming' commonplace. It's a long standing tradition. When I announced my interest in joining the Air Corps as a teenager, my Father denounced the everyone in the military as 'institutionalised'. The truth is that for the most part in Ireland the average civilian has little respect for serving soldiers. That is in part because most people have never served in the military in any form or base their ideas on the old FCA which was for the most part, a glorified boy scout troop in many parts of the country. Also I believe that the fact the Irish army has never actually fought in a war of any consequence colours people views.

On top of that, if you want a serious military career. The British army is still more than glad to take you into one of their Irish regiments both of which have a strong reputation. The Irish army is seen as the easy option.

You dont necessarily have to go into an Irish Regiment in the BA, all regiments are open to Irish Citizens.

As for the Irish army, they have been in almost every major incident, battle in Lebanon from 1977 onwards until the first withdrawl and dont forget the congo and the major battles fought there.

There is no such thing as a small war when your in it, war is war on any level.

cp251

Flying wrote: »

You dont necessarily have to go into an Irish Regiment in the BA, all regiments are open to Irish Citizens.

As for the Irish army, they have been in almost every major incident, battle in Lebanon from 1977 onwards until the first withdrawal and dont forget the congo and the major battles fought there.

There is no such thing as a small war when your in it, war is war on any level.

It's all about perception and the public perception is that the Leb was a bit of a holiday for the troops.
The Congo was a long time ago and public perception is of the Niemba massacre where the enemy had bows and arrows. If the siege at Jadotville had involved the British army there would have been medals galore. If the US army was there, then there would have been several movies. As it was the 155 Irish soldiers who held off 4000 rebels for several days killing hundreds, were treated as cowards when they surrendered after they ran out of ammunition and water because it was an embarrassment to the UN and the Irish government.

It's all perception, not helped when you see fat soldiers in their forties on guards of honour or security duties, virtually the only time the public see them. Then there was the army deafness thing a few years ago. :rolleyes: It all adds to negative perception.