Report by the NAO on MOD Armoured Vehicle Procurement

The National Audit Office (NAO) has produced a report (20th May 2011) on The Cost Effective Delivery of Armoured Vehicle Capability. The NAO press release although couched in unemotional language, is damning of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) standard procurement process for Armoured Vehicles.
This is the key part of the Press Release dealing with the Standard Procurement Process:

The suspension and cancellation of a number of key armoured vehicle projects since the 1998 defence review has resulted in the Armed Forces facing a significant shortage in the principal armoured vehicles they require, until at least 2024-2025.

Today's National Audit Office report found that the Department's standard acquisition process has been undermined by a combination of over-ambitious requirements and unstable financial planning. Despite the commitment of considerable resources, since 1998, the MOD has received only a fraction of the armoured vehicles it has set out to buy through its standard acquisition process.

The Department's reluctance to compromise in setting technologically demanding requirements under its standard acquisition process has put the timely and cost-effective delivery of the equipment at risk. Unwieldy procurement processes have not coped well with rapid changes to equipment requirements in the light of operational experience, resulting in a number of armoured vehicle projects being delayed or abandoned.

Armoured Vehicle projects have also suffered from unstable budgets and continual changes to financial plans. As the NAO reported in its Strategic Financial Management of the Defence Budget report, the cycle of unrealistic planning followed by cost overruns has led to a need to find additional short-term savings on a regular basis. Spending to date includes £321 million on cancelled or suspended projects and a further £397 million funding on-going, but delayed, projects. Without significant additional investment sustained over time, the Department will have a shortfall in the armoured vehicles it says it needs until at least 2024-2025.

I am reminded of some of the comments and conclusions of the Review of Acquisition for the Secretary of State for Defence by Bernard Gray on the 15th October 2009 - For those without the time to read through the near 300 Page report should check out some of the other links on the MOD - Review of Acquisition Page.

Returning to the new NAO Report, it does have some 'nicer' things to say about the MOD's handling of Urgent Operational Requirements:

To address shortfalls in equipment for current operations, such as in Afghanistan, the Department has placed greater reliance on the Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) since 2003, at an additional cost of £2.8 billion. This has been more successful and has significantly improved protection levels for UK forces against today's threats. The UOR process is not a sustainable substitute for the standard acquisition process. While some UOR vehicles may be taken into the core fleet, the Department does not expect these vehicles to offer a long-term solution to its armoured vehicle needs.

The 'more successful' phrase might, I feel be disputed, certainly Richard North when he was covering the UOR purchases in his Defence of the Realm Blog would probably disagree. My view is the rash of 'panic' buying by the MOD did eventually meet operational requirements, but the process was expensive in both in British Casualties and Financially enormous.

The Government's initial reaction to the report was given by Defence Equipment minister Peter Luff a Career Politician with no Defence Experience prior to him appointment as a minister, who said:

"The report highlighted serious flaws in the process left by the previous Labour government.We are absolutely committed to a funded and realistic defence equipment programme to ensure our Armed Forces are properly equipped and taxpayers get value for money," he said. "Given the disastrous state of the department's finances we inherited, this change will take time."

Whilst it is true that the previous Labour Government on Defence Policy in general and Defence Procurement in particular was very poor, the same can be said of all previous Governments, Conservative, or Labour going back as far as the 1960's.
When this is coupled with the culture that exists in the MOD, also stretching back into the 1960's it is surprising the British Armed Services ever get the right equipment, almost never on time and never at the budgeted cost.

Sadly this NAO Report after the initial Media furore dies down and some temporary discomfort for some Officials in the MOD, being asked difficult questions, will like other Similar Reports be quietly ignored.

NAO The Cost Effective Delivery of Armoured Vehicle Capability Report Links:
Press Release
Full Report - The Cost Effective Delivery of Armoured Vehicle Capability -  PDF (730kb)
Executive Summary

Media Reaction to the Report:
BBC-Armed forces 'face vehicle shortages until 2025'
Guardian -Auditor attacks chaos in equipping British troops
Independent -Afghan war 'to leave UK short of armour'
Mail Online -MoD 'cost lives' by wasting £718m on vehicles never builtMirror -Troops 'face shortage of vehicles'
Reuters -Army faces armoured vehicles shortage - watchdog
Sky News -UK Forces' Vehicle Shortage 'Costs Millions'

Specialist Media:
Defence Viewpoints - NAO slams UK armoured vehicle procurement

Related Posts in this Blog:
Cormorant Communications System - Lame Duck in a War Zone
Lost Before It Started - A Defence of the Realm Series
Nimrod exposes contempt for Armed Forces

The death of Osama Bin Laden, but not of al-Qaeda

Due the evolution of the al-Qaeda, the death of Osama Bin Laden although hugely symbolic and a psychological shock, especially to the 'terminally deluded' who actually carry out atrocities, is not, sadly the death knell of the al-Qaeda.

This is due to al-Qaeda having evolved into initially a 'franchise' and now with the exception of the core group, more into a purely a brand name, used by groups loosely affiliated, rather than being directed by central a strategy. Even the al-Qaeda ideology package has been modified by these groups to suit local circumstances and due to rise of sectarian difference, the 'value' of the al-Qaeda brand has also declined with certain Groups distancing themselves from their al-Qaeda connections. What has not changed is that across the board these groups ideology is still the same mixture of hate, corrupted religious beliefs coupled with a nihilistic agenda (What I find strange and frankly worrying is that so many otherwise intelligent people can believe in an ideology that would have been considered extreme even in the 12th AD).

The remaining senior members of what formed the core of al-Qaeda have in relative terms, only a small number of terrorists under their direct control but still have influence, albeit declining, with some affiliates This does not mean this core group isn't still extremely dangerous. Although none of them has the profile, or charisma to replace Bin Laden, they are to some extent revered in their own right and it would make the world a better place if they could join their leader in hell as soon as possible..

It is almost certain that all groups using the al-Qaeda Brand and even those that due recent differences have distanced themselves from their al-Qaeda inspired roots will attempt revenge attacks. Indeed some have already announced their intention to do so. Whilst any successful attack will cause death, suffering and grief, what concerns me most is those groups who have learned the lessons of careful planning, have the money and human resources to attempt revenge on a single major attack on a high profile target and to whom 'revenge is a dish best eaten cold' makes sense.

However what may, or may not happen in the following days and weeks, the World is a better place for the death of this evil man and I can only commend the Intelligence operation and subsequent US Special Forces action that resulted in his death. It is already apparent that this took years of hard and often frustrating Intelligence work and I suspect at times carried out at high risk by individual agents, culminating a 40 minute fire fight as US Navy SEALS attacked the Compound. Whatever recognition the US gives those involved the rest of us should also give them our thanks and congratulations on a job well done.

Linda Norgrove Articles Guardian 21st Jan 2011

Today the Guardian ran two similar articles on Linda Norgrove and both are informative, interesting and worth reading:
Linda Norgrove took photos of Afghan captor before death in botched rescue
and
Linda Norgrove: 'She took a lot of risks'
I just wish they hadn't used the word 'botched' (twice in the first article and once in the second), 'failed' would have been fine.

Moving on: One important element in both articles is that Linda Norgrove's parents have established:
The Linda Norgrove Foundation which is a new grant-giving trust that provides funding for women, families and children in Afghanistan. The Foundation provides help in the following areas:

Education

Health

Childcare, including orphanages

Scholarships to help Afghan women go to university.

The foundation certainly deserves support in its aims.

To its credit the Guardian has made a donation to the Foundation. One hopes it makes similar donations to the families of British and Americian charities that support the families of those killed in action? Appears not, but then maybe I botched up my search keywords!

Granted Asylum in Britain dies an al-Qaeda Martyr in Afghanistan!

Having just read (belatedly) the Telegraph Article about Mahmoud Abu Rideh a British al-Qaeda refugee killed in Afghanistan. I thought I would do some limited research on the Background of this man.

Background to Mahmoud Abu Rideh in Britain:
Mahmoud Abu Rideh was born in Jordan to Palestinian refugee parents. He came to the UK in January 1995 and claimed asylum, whilst living off benefits with his wife and five children. Initially His asylum claim was refused because his story was not credible but he appealed and was granted refugee status in November 1998!

In December 2001 he was detained under anti-terrorism laws after the then home secretary David Blunkett concluded he was "an active supporter of various international terrorist groups, including those with links to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network". The reasons for which are covered in the Telegraph Article and I quote:

The central allegation was that he had been involved in fund raising and distribution of funds for terrorist groups with links to al-Qaeda as well as procuring false documents and facilitation of the travel for volunteers to training camps in Afghanistan.

Although he was living on benefits, he was said to have raised around £100,000 in just two years, using the Arab Bank in Park Lane to funnel his money to al-Qaeda.

He also held an account at the Wimbledon branch of HSBC entitled “Islamic Services Bureau – Treasurer’s Account.”

He was said to be closely involved with senior extremists and associates of Osama bin Laden both in Britain and overseas.

He spent most of his time after his arrest at Broadmoor Secure Hospital (I think all Islamist Terrorists are mentally deranged, but the Law says otherwise). Surprisingly he was granted bail in January 2005, due to his deteriorating mental health (surely all the more reason for keeping him in a secure environment?).

This followed the overturning by the Law Lords of the Detention without Trial System for Terrorism Suspects (on the 16th December 2004) as this was against European human rights laws. The same day as Charles Clarke became Home Secretary. As the European Laws are binding on this Country a way had to be found that was acceptable to the unelected people who made these laws and so Control Orders were introduced. This almost exactly coincided with Mahmoud Abu Rideh's release on bail. Not surprisingly Mahmoud Abu Rideh became one of those subject to a Control Order.

In early 2007 Mahmoud Abu Rideh came before Mr Justice Beatson who on the 4th April 2007 ruled the order should be quashed, saying "its cumulative effects in my judgment deprive [Mr Rideh] of liberty, and the secretary of state has no power to make such an order". This judgement came as no surprise to Home Secretary John Reid (who would probably, if he had stayed in Office the best Home Secretary in living memory) as Mr Justice Beatson had made the same ruling in a previous case. However unlike most Home Secretaries who would have been 'extremely disappointed' by this judgement, John Reid immediately issued a new Control Order.

From this moment on there and increasing campaign to get the control order on Mahmoud Abu Rideh lifted.
When John Reid was sadly replaced by Jacqui Smith (who's lack of suitability for the post almost matched David Blunkett's) the campaign got seriously underway with Amnesty International (UK Branch) launching an appeal and PetionOnLine (they got 1078 Signatures).

By June 2009 he was working on generating his own publicity by appearing at the reception desk of the Guardian Newspaper. This resulted in the Guardian taking up the cause of this 'tragic figure' with his Walking Stick, worn clothes, visible evidence of self-harm and his tale of how his wife had finally left him with the five children to live with her parents in Jordan. The result was a 'heartbreaking article' and video: A day in the life of a terror suspect a man driven to despair due his loss of his freedom, his family and with suicide on his mind. Didn't actually mention his pre-British life working for a school in Afghanistan for Arab Speaking children, many of those fathers were some of the world’s most wanted men, or his later work with Islamic Services Bureau in Pakistan, run by Osama bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam. Or even his publicly known fund raising support of Terrorism whilst in the UK. But hey why spoil a good story!

On the 3rd July 2009 Amnesty International was able to trumpet that the Home Office, now under Alan Johnson had agreed to allow Mahmoud Abu Rideh to leave Britain (and Never Come back, although wasn't mention in the Amnesty release). So in September 2009 he left Britain but NOT off to Jordan to see the Wife and Children, no destination Syria and by whatever means eventually arriving in Afghanistan and then dying with a group of al-Qaeda Terrorists.

For 14 Years this man and his family lived in Britain at cost to the Taxpayer was a supporter of terrorism and when able was an active participant in raising funds for terrorist organisations and finally achieved what was probably his life's ambition of dying a terrorist. I hope whose who supported him like Mr Justice Beatson, the Guardian, Amnesty International and those who signed petitions are proud that they assisted him to achieve his goal of becoming a Martyr for a cause, that would, if it could, ensure that the very institutions and the people that supported him would be eliminated. In a world run by al-Qaeda, life in the 12th Century AD would appear utopian!

As Remembrance Day Approaches: Forever Young - A Song for Wootten Bassett

'Forever Young', is a song that was inspired by the people of Wootton Bassett for the silent and moving way they repatriate our fallen troops through the town. All involved in the production of this song gave of their time and talent for free, and all profits will be donated to the Charity 'Afghan Heroes' who's goal it is; to help and support the families of those affected by the war. We have been overwhelmed by the support and do hope you enjoy the song.

Although you can watch the especially commissioned video below (via YouTube) please visit the Forever Young a song for Wootton Bassett Website and don't forget to scroll down to buy the CD, and/or make a donation.

Now go to the Forever Young. A song for Wootton Bassett and Buy the CD and/or Donate.
Thank you

Should UK cyber defences include offensive operations to protect UK interests?

This question was posed in a tweet by @Warwick_Ashford, which was retweeted to me. He raised the question because of this article US Cyber Command calls for offensive powers in Computer Weekly.

The debate in the US over this request is not over National Interest, or National Security, but over the Legality of offensive operations and some Senior Advisors and Lawyers want to limit such operations to existing War Zones, such as Afghanistan.

I see this as somewhat 'out-dated thinking' Cyber-war can be waged without forces deployed in the field and a state, or indeed individuals can mount an attempted Cyber Attack without escalation to a Military Deployment. Perhaps the 'rules of cyber engagement' should be no 'First Strike' and that any offensive response against the perpetrators  of an attack should 'be measured' and except in exceptional cases Politically Approved by the Prime Minister, or in the case of the USA the president/ This would seem to me to be a reasonable base line posture to adopt for UK, USA, NATO Countries and indeed other Western Nations.

I would be interested in comments

The Parcel Bomb Attacks - Failure, or Win?

Despite the apparent sophistication of the Devices, the attack using Parcel Bombs Carried on Aircraft has, at least so far failed, or has it?

Even though detected, due the Media frenzy Worldwide a classic climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) has been generated, this in it's self could be considered a win by those who planned/authorised the attacks. There is nothing new about Parcel Bombs and other than these were designed to explode in Flight, were a reversion to 'old school terrorism'. What has changed is the way the Media now 'spin' such stories.

When Intelligence and Security services foil a planned attack without publicity, the Terror Planners, may, or may not learn a useful lesson from the failure, but there is no getting away from the fact it was a failure.

But when as in this case, the plan fails, but does so under the spotlight of intense Media Interest (almost obsessive analysis of every aspect) then the failure can be turned in to a PR win. Actually killing people can rebound by hardening the resolve of the targeted Nation, or Culture, but not killing anyone whilst reinforcing the possibility of at anytime doing so, generates the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Also the Media demands action, leading to Politicians having to react publicly and immediately, which can in turn result in unfortunate statements being made and possibly counterproductive reactive action being ordered.

I find causalities from IEDs tragic, but the IRA were using remotely detonated roadside devices 30+ years ago, parcel/letter bombs have been used by many groups , again including the IRA, even bombs on Aircraft predate Lockerbie by decades. What has changed is the way the Media Report these events (actually report is often an incorrect term, express opinions that they may not be qualified to give, is too often the case). It is fair to say groups such as Al-Qaeda has learned that in many ways the Western Media, due to the way they react to events, useful in assisting in raising the climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

It probably why, although individual Journalists and film units have been targeted, no attacks have been launched against News Media Studios and Headquarters.

A cynical update of the view: 'A capitalist is someone who sells you the rope with which you then hang him', could be rewritten as 'The Western News Media's way of reporting, assists in the destruction of their way of life'.

Link to an Article in Aircargo News 02nd November 2010: Bomb plot fails but terror still rules

Britain's New Aircraft Carriers

Having read Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends' an Article by Duncan Redford in the Telegraph, I am going to add my 'totally unqualified to comment' 10 pennyworth!

• A modern well equipped Warship forms a defensive bubble around itself and if the armament includes Cruise Missiles can provide considerable offensive capability, but that offensive capability lacks flexibility.
  A Carrier Group projects Power and provides the ability to give a flexible response to situations. Its very presence in theatre of operations gives pause to potential opponents as it is not just a threat, but an entire range of threat levels and this may give diplomacy the time needed to come to a peaceful resolution.
  Conversely the well equipped Warship will be seen as a single type of threat and possibly harden resolve not to back down.
• A Carrier Group provides a floating sovereign base and is therefore not subject to regional politics and as it is not located within a 'Host Nation' Air Base it is therefore not subject to local insurgency attacks.
• In the MoD Report one of the Threats Identified is to British Overseas Territories. The Falklands War may have happened a long time ago, but without the Carriers it would almost certainly not have been won.
• In the constantly evolving geopolitics, there is an ever increasing need for the ability to project power without necessarily having to use it. A Carrier Group provides a non-nuclear deterrent and an operational flexibility that in many circumstances would not otherwise be available.

Recent Related Posts:
Britain's Future Threats 14th September 2010
Defence of Britain 14th September 2010

External Links:
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - Royal Navy Site

Delegation to make its case for aircraft carrier contract Scotsman 15 Sep 2010

Britain's Future Threats

Following my previous post: Defence of Britain, I read Thomas Harding's article: Strategic Defence and Security Review: four future scenarios and how they might play out in the Telegraph, which mentioned and in turn led me to read the Ministry of Defence Document: The Future Character of Conflict. Neither the Article, nor the Document make comfortable reading.

In the Article Harding look at 4 Possible Scenarios all an increasing number of years away: Iran 2016, 2018 Pakistan, Uganda 2023 and Baltic States 2023. To each of these he gives an opinion as to probability and Britain's readiness to deal with the situation. I do not doubt he has given considerable thought before selecting these possibilities as the ones to be published and he obviously has access to sources unavailable to me, but for the first two Iran and Pakistan, I feel the timeline may be shorter than he proposes.

The MoD Report is actually a much more sober and in many ways sombre text, less about scenarios but types of threat and why they might occur. This is understandable as this is an official document. In summary the report details:
Global trends that indicate increasing instability and growing opportunity for confrontation and conflict.
State failure, extremists, increased competition for resources and the changing global balance of power will dictate why, where and how conflict occurs.
The study concludes that the character of conflict will continue to evolve. Though it is impossible to accurately predict the exact character of the future conflict, in many future operations the armed forces are likely to face a range of simultaneous threats and adversaries in an anarchic and extended operating area.

I am not qualified to comment on the analysis and conclusions of the MOD Report, but as a result of reading it, I do feel that the chances of Britain's Armed Services being involved (whether HMG, or the Public wish it) in further conflicts within the next few years is inevitable. In addition attacks, whether by hacking penetration or direct action against the infrastructure of Computer Network Operations (CNO), or as I think of it Cyber War, will be an increasing factor in conflicts. Now that is a sobering and sombre thought.

Defence of Britain

In recent times I have not specifically covered Defence as regards policy, or politics, in the hope that Richard North would cover these areas in his Defence of the Realm Blog but as Richard is strangely quiet in that Blog (although he does touch on defence in the EU Referendum blog), I thought I would at least bring the following two articles in the Telegraph to your attention:
Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain faces impossible choices in an uncertain world 13th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review is being conducted against a backdrop of bitter arguments between the Services and the threat of cuts of up to 20 per cent, yet it is meant to define Britain’s place in the world and our foreign policy and defence priorities for decades to come, says Professor Michael Clarke.

What is effectively a follow up article: General Sir Richard Dannatt on the Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain is at stake 14th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review puts the Services under the
spotlight. Planners now have the job of predicting what future enemies we
might face; yet 10 years ago, no one foresaw the demands of Afghanistan, says General Sir Richard Dannatt.

Both articles are thought provoking and I recommend they are read in date order. Some will not agree with the conclusions, or perhaps even the tone of these articles, but both are written by those who's knowledge and experience means they are qualified to cover the subject, unlike so many of today's commentators: Professor Michael Clarke is Director of the Royal United Services Institute and General Sir Richard Dannatt was Chief of the General Staff from 2006 to
2009.

Zeroes and Heroes

Two aircraft landed in Southern Britain the other day at two different Airports :

The first carried a group of over paid, under achievers who complained they were tired and missed their families after two weeks in five star accommodation.

The other carried the coffins of 7 fallen soldiers who had spent months away from loved ones living in tents in a war zone, giving their lives for their country. Who are the Hero's ??, I know where my priorities lie. R.I.P lads.

Remember these soldiers earn 15k to 30k a year not a day. If you believe that the England team should donate their wages to Help the Hero's then please cut and paste and forward it on

Just in case they need help in donating here is a link to:

British Troops In Afghanistan winning Hearts & Minds

I received the following as a Chain Email with the subject line Keep this going; only takes 30 seconds which if it had not been from a trusted address would have been deleted. Instead I am republishing it here in the hope it will find a wider audience:

It is always good to see pictures like these. It proves they are BIG softies really:

Proof of 'abuse' by our Troops:

Armed Troops Force Afghans to Seesaw Until They Talk


Afghan Child Bites Soldier In Self Defence After Obvious Torture!


Soldier overheard to say 'Talk or I'll tickle you till you pee!' - More Evidence Of Failed Intelligence Policy.


Soldier Attempts to Eat Afghan Child!


Clear Evidence of Forced Labour by Troops!


Soldier Caught At 'Tickle-Torture' To Extract Intelligence!


Soldier forces child to hang by fingertips!


No Comment Required!

May the good Lord bless every one of our troops wherever they are!
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING - EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE!! Prayer wheel for our Armed Forces,
Please don't break it

Devaluing the Award of British Medals.

Britain has a tradition of awarding medals for displays of exceptional Courage, in the Armed Services (In the Army, one regiment will submit a request for an award, but another for exactly the same act will not, considering it within expected behaviour of members of that Regiment), the Police and Civilian Population. Getting an award in the Security Services, SIS (aka MI 6), or MI 5, is shall we say 'difficult', for serving officers 'extremely difficult'.

In the Armed Services there are also Campaign Medals for those who served in War Zones, although HMG has on some occasions tried to avoid awarding these for political reasons (e.g. the long campaign to recognise Suez Veterans), or diplomatic reasons (we were never there, honest). Even worse HMG (on the advice of the MoD) is refusing to give a medal to those wounded in action in Afghanistan, or elsewhere.

In my long professional career I have visited Countries and Cities in Countries which HM Foreign Office at the time considered unsafe. In some cases so unsafe that I and my Colleagues received protection. I viewed these visits as the risky part of my job at the time, not something to be given some award for although I did usually get paid something extra for being there and then only if staying for more than a couple of days!

Now as part of their job, Politicians and now Civil Servants are required to visit War Zones, or Countries/Cities Deemed High Risk. It comes with the territory, don't want to do it refuse, or change careers!
I have no problem with a plus payment for doing it, starting say, for stays longer than a week, but regardless of how many flying visits, no!

Yet Politicians who have neither served with the Armed Services, Police, Security Services and whose only likelihood of exceptional bravery in their professional life would to be to face Jeremy Paxman at the top of his form are being awarded Medals. Oh yes and what have they done to be so recognised?

Well they have to be members of a Club, sorry I mean Scheme, called the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (AFPS), and this scheme allows politicians to spend around 22 days a year with the Forces. So visits to Aldershot, an RN Ship, or RAF Base in Scotland all count. - Of course some do visit a War Zone where they were constantly surrounded by real British Soldiers and have had their Pictures taken, been interviewed and have then gone home. Fortunately the Queen does not have to present these Badges, because they are technically unofficial. So should they be called Medals, no, they are just a Badge showing long term (10 Years) club, sorry scheme membership.

So why are these called Medals, when they are only a Badge, because they are awarded to Politicians (vomiting at this point is permitted). At least if you are British Citizen you can indicate your anger at this by signing an E-Petition to the Prime Minister: Stop degrading our soldiers by handing out medals to MPs.

Well I have received Certificates for belonging to something for a long while, but quite honestly these go in the scrap book and even the Badges I have been given for membership of an Organisation, would only be worn (if I remembered), on occasions when it is likely to encounter other members.

Having dealt with Politicians, let us look at the Civil Service. In particular the MoD where Civil Servants are traditionally niggardly when recommending Medals for real Heroes and Service in Campaigns. Well guess what now they are actually expected to spend time in a War Zone they are getting a Campaign Medal, no, not a Badge, a real Campaign Medal as worn by Real Soldiers, Royal Marines and the RAF Personnel (providing they spend as certain amount of time there and this varies between 21 and 30 Days not the six month tours of real Soldiers and other Service Personnel). So are these people on the front line? No don't be silly, they work mainly inside Camp Bastion surrounded by Real Servicemen and Women and when they venture out they are very well protected. Also they get Bonus payments and salaries which make the real Heroes amongst the most underpaid in our society.

So they are, Civilians in a War Zone where it is just possible they might get Killed (None has), or Wounded (no medal for being wounded remember - MoD didn't go for it), well the Naafi Manager does that as do the other Civilians, are they going to be awarded a Campaign Medal? Again don't be silly and they don't expect it, yet in other wars Naafi Staff have taken the fight to enemy (Falklands) and from memory they didn't get a medal, neither do Chinese Civilian Laundrymen who serve on Royal Navy Ships and have died alongside the British Crew in wars large and small. So what is special about Civil Servants that means they deserve a medal! NOTHING!

The awards to MPs and Civil Servants devalues the British Medal Award System which is moving the way of the former USSR, where you got a medal for just staying Alive for a very long time in the Soviet Paradise, contributing to the Population Explosion, or being a Sycophant to the right people, among many other possibilities.

Links:
E-Petiion to the Prime Minister: Stop degrading our soldiers by handing out medals to MPs.

MPs criticised for accepting 'Mickey Mouse' medals

Anger as penpushers at MoD get same Afghan medal as troops risking their lives on front line

To finish a picture of Real Soldiers, just to remind us of those who deserve much more than we give them and who are entitled to Wear their Medals with Pride:

The Soldiers Memorial to Their Fallen:

Michael Yon has been spending time with the US Army 1-17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division much of it at a the small base at Arghandab in Afghanistan, which sits on the bordeline of 'friendly' and 'enemy' territory.

His blog article on New years Eve 2009 entitled: Into Thine Hand I Commit My Spirit is dedicated to a Memorial Tepee that has been erected just next to the Chapel. Inside the tepee are 21 photos of 21 soldiers killed during the first months of a year-long tour of duty. Michael has illustrated his article with a series of extremely evocative photographs, most of which were taken at night. Whilst I urge you to read the Article, I could not resist including three of the Photographs (I just hope he doesn't mind):

Mostly there is silence.

Sometimes the soldiers walk by carrying lights that are red or green, or sometimes white. Tonight, Cobra Battery was firing illumination rounds from the cannons, which boom from the darkness, arcing a round into the night, where miles away a canister unsheathes, and the parachute opens, and brightness floats silently, shimmering over the valley where these soldiers died.

Soldiers put cigarettes in front of each photo, though they say that many of the fallen did not smoke.

Cormorant Communications System - Lame Duck in a War Zone

I have been leaving the slating of the Ministry of Defence systemic failures in Procurement to the redoubtable Richard North over at the Defence of the Realm, but this one it appears has slipped his notice. Fortunately The Register picked up on this in its story of the 8th September: Army's £114m battle-comms net not up to Afghan demands with the sub-heading of: Israeli off-the-shelf replacements rushed in and then BBC News published a very similar story on the 10th September: MoD withdraws £114m comms system in its Technology Section.

In non-technical terms, the Cormorant System was designed to replace the various legacy and ad-hoc off the shelf equipment used by the British Joint Task Force Headquarters with a purpose designed integrated system to provide the communications links to the in-theatre sub-commands, certainly a worthy objective.

The £114 Million contract was placed with EADS Wales, part of EADS UK and the system was scheduled to start in service deliveries during 2002. But the project suffered a series of delays and wasn't declared operational until December 2004. Now an MoD project that is only two years late, is actually unusual as often it is much longer.

But a two year delay to ensure that the Cormorant System met the needs of the Joint Services Commands, and that would, with regular updating meet its 20 Year planned service life, would surely be worth it, wouldn't it?

Almost immediately it was introduced, muted criticism (because the Armed Forces aren't allowed any other kind) began and in even in summary are pretty damning: "cursed with some of the worst procurement decisions, shoddy workmanship, non-existent quality control and so-called support arrangements which verge on criminal neglect ".

As an aside: Cormorant is deployed at the in-theatre command level, it needs to integrate with tactical systems such the Ptarmigan System which was already approaching obsolescence when introduced during the 1980's and by the time it was fully functional in the 1990's was obsolete, but will only start to be replaced by the BAE Systems Falcon in 2010.

In Afghanistan the Cormorant Systems role is to link the British Main Operational Bases, exactly what it was designed to do. BUT it isn't up to it!
So to supplement a system that was specifically designed to avoid the need for ad-hoc off the shelf equipment, back in June the MoD rush ordered off the shelf the Israeli RADWIN 2000 System and it is currently being implemented by Horsebridge Network Systems.What makes this even more ironic is a quote from Major Lee Hawkes:
"RADWIN’s systems meet our requirements, without additional modification or equipment."

From the above it would appear that the RADWIN System will provide added capability to Cormorant, but this does not actually reflect the true state of affairs as it now appears much of the Cormorant Infrastructure in Afghanistan is being withdrawn back to the UK and replaced by the much cheaper RADWIN System.

If the Cormorant saga was an isolated case it would be a disgrace, but from the leaks of the Gray Report (See: Times Online 23rd August and 24th August ), this is just another example of the Ministry of Defence systemic failures in Procurement, However in my opinion, these failings are deeply rooted and go back as far as the early 1960's. in part exacerbated by the ever changing Political view of Defence , which rarely has anything to do with the Nations Defence Requirement, but instead mainly with Party Political expediency and short term Political gain.

Michael Yon with British Troops in Helmand

Michael Yon who?
American Citizen and former United States Army Green Beret, turned Author and Reporter. He recently spent approximately a month with British Forces (for whom he has a lot of respect) in Helmand Province and spent his time living and patrolling with the 2nd Rifles (a Unit he had previously spent time with in Iraq). His stay would have been longer, but the Ministry of Defence (bless them) took umbrage at this report Michael filed on the 24th August 2009 entitled: Bad Medicine

However an even more interesting Blog Post was made on the 31st August and although it discusses the Afghan Elections as a future event (and was posted after they were held) is a must read for the realities of the War in Afghanistan: Precision Voting

Michael is moving on, but not back home, instead now trying to get permission to embed with US Forces. In the meantime he has filed a story that was published in the New York Daily News on the 6th September:
New Afghan war: Frontline correspondent says fight has morphed – but we still can't afford to lose
This makes sombre reading (especially from a British prespective), but is an article that it is too important to ignore.

Update: 08th September 2009 Another fascinating article on being with the British Troops in Helmand. Although posted today. the article is based on a patrol just prior to his permission to remain with British Forces was revoked. The title of the Article is Misleading, but it is really worth reading: Eight Years After 9/11

British Sons and Daughters

I received this as a chain email and unusually for me, immediately passed it on to many of my contacts. However by posting it here I hope to distribute it even more widely and quickly - The Idle Man:

If you read this, you WILL forward it on.You just won't be able to stop yourself.

Here's to the heroes: Especially for all of the young ones we have recently lost.

The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, just old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either.





He's a recent Comprehensive School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away He listens to rock and roll or hip-hop or rap or jazz or swing and a 155mm howitzer.

He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk. He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but hecan field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark. And He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must.

He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional.

He can march until he is told to stop, or stop until he is told to march.

He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity. He is self-sufficient.

He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.

He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts.

If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low.

He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands.

He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.

He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay, and still find ironic humour in it all.

He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime.



He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.

He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, all the while tempering the burning desire to 'square-away' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop talking.

In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful.

Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom. Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the BRITISH Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years.




He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding.
Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.

And now we even have women over there in danger, doing their part in this tradition of going to War when our nation calls us to do so.

As you go to bed tonight, remember this shot. ...

A short lull, a little shade and a picture of loved ones in their helmets.



Prayer wheel for our military... please don't break it Please send this on, after a short prayer.

Prayer Wheel

'Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands.
Protect them as they protect us.
Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen.'

There is nothing attached...
This can be very powerful...
Of all the gifts you could give a British Soldier, Sailor, or Airman, prayer is the very best one.

I wouldn’t dream of breaking this one,Please pass it on to everyone

Taliban - Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul FIG

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul FIG (Former Inmate Guantanamo) and now using the nom de guerre Mullah Abdullah Zakir, has been identified as the Taliban's Chief of Operations in Southern Afghanistan. His stated mission is to step up Taliban Operations to Counter the US Surge.

Whilst the Idle Man has long suspected that being a FIG would become a 'badge of honour', like JBB (Jailed By the British) was in the 1950's and 1960's and that a proportion of the former Guantanamo detainees would join/rejoin either Al-Qaeda, or the Taliban after their release (see below).

But the surfacing of Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was a surprise, because he wasn't released, but transferred into the custody of the Afghan Governemnt in December 2007 (along with 12 others). Why the Afghan Government released him is a mystery, but a decision that will be paid for by the lives of Afghan and Coalition Service Personnel.

As for other FIGs resurfacing as Al-Qaeda, or the Taliban Terrorists this is a quote from an Associated Press Article:
The officials, who spoke anonymously because they are not authorized to release the information, said Rasoul has joined a growing faction of former Guantanamo prisoners who have rejoined militant groups and taken action against U.S. interests. Pentagon officials have said that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on foreign battlefields.
So it appears the Idle Man's suspicions are confirmed. Another occasion when being correct gives no pleasure at all.

Also see: Afghan Taliban Leader Was At Gitmo

Attack in Sri Lankan Cricket Team -Six Police Die in the line of Duty

There has been a lot of criticism over the measures taken by Pakistan to secure the safety of the Sri Lankan Cricket Team.

Well six Policemen Died in the Line of Duty as part of that security failure!

Ambushed and Outgunned the Police did not really stand much chance, but their deaths along with the quick actions of the Driver of the Team Coach saved the Cricketers lives.

Already their deaths and those of the two civilians also killed are footnotes in todays stories in the media. But the Idle Man hopes that the Lahore Police Force buried their dead with Honour and Ceremony due to those who died in the line of duty and will help their families through this time of their grief and into the future.

Moving on to the overall security arrangements, well much better qualified people than I, have stated these were less than adequate, and therefore must have been privy to these arrangements prior to the attack. If this is so, did they raise these concerns before the attack?

Sorry I am being ironic, the people commenting of the security arrangements in the media wouldn't have been briefed and as usual are being wise after the event.

The primary failure as in all highly successful terrorist attacks is in Intelligence. If you don't have prior knowledge of at least the general plan then you cannot quantify the action needed to either arrest those planning to take part, or provide the correct security needed to thwart the attack if it occurs.

That does not mean there were not failures in security on the ground. Mention has been made that the Team Coach took the same route each day. The small scale map of the area I have seen, seems to indicate that the Liberty Roundabout, scene of the attack was going to be part of any route to the ground. Commonsense dictates that if this is a 'choke point' on the route it is where security needs to be at its highest. But the level of security like any insurance is based on risk assessment, which brings us back to the failure in Intelligence.

Every successful Terrorist attack is a failure in Intelligence and Security. But to paraphrase an IRA Terrorist 'you can stop us 9 times out 10, but we only need that one success'.

I am extremely pleased that the casualties to the Sri Lankan Sportsmen and the Officials were limited to minor wounds and also laud the efforts of the Coach Driver to save himself and his passengers.

But my sympathies lie with the families of the two civilians and six policemen who died and the Men and Women of the Lahore police force who lost six colleagues, but today have to carry on policing the city.

External Links:
BBC - How the attack on cricketers happened

Lost Before It Started - A Defence of the Realm Series

One of the Blogs the Idle Man considers a must read is:
Defence of the Realm

Whilst I don't always agree with the authors opinions, I do find the articles interesting and thought provoking. Currently there is a series running on this blog entitled: Lost Before it Started, which is highly critical of the senior echelons of the British Army, the MOD and their Political Masters.

Whilst the main theme is the Authors view that the British Army Mission in Iraq was more than a failure it was a defeat and the implications for ongoing operation in Afghanistan. He backs this up with an analysis of the Politics, both internal Army as well as Government and how in part the problems stem back to the Blair vision of European defence integration.Of special interest is how these policy failures have been exacerbated by systemic (and therefore fatal to the troops on the ground) flaws in equipment procurement (something the idle Man has believed was the case for over 30 years). The author plans seven articles in this series and I suggest they must be read in order as follows:

Lost before it started - Part 1
Focuses on the Blair vision of European defence integration and its effects on UK Defence Strategy and in particular the Army and the perceived procurement requirements.

Lost before it started – Part 2
Looks at the effects of the 2003 Defence Whitepaper and how this lead the senior echelons of the Army to focus on implications of this strategy change (without seriously challenging them), rather than the immediate needs of the Army in Iraq. Leading to the setting of long term procurement projects, whilst to a large extent ignoring major shortfalls in current equipment,

Lost before it started - Part 3
A new Chief of the General Staff take over – General Sir Richard Dannatt. But the madness goes on.

Lost before it started – Part 4
This compares the Army as envisioned under the 2003 Whitepaper (the so called fantasy army) as might have been, and finds it still casts a long shadow over the operational capabilities of the Army.

Lost before it started – Part 5
The Army's response to criticisms, and its broader response to its own failures, reflecting on the nature of the problems which affect the Army high command..

Lost before it started – Part 6
The vexed question of under-resourcing. Throughout the Iraqi campaign, the mantras of "underfunding" and "over-stretch" were frequently in the media and came easily from the lips of opposition politicians. More "boots on the ground" and more money were the answers to all ills. However, as always, there are more to these issues than meets the eye.

Lost before it started – Part 7
In this final part, the Author on whether the British Arny, despite the handicaps, could have succeeded. Reviewing what actually did happen after the British had retreated to their final base at Basra airport, we believe they could.