RSS Feed
February 1st, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
By
Rebecca Seales and Ian Drury
Last updated at 8:24 AM on 1st February 2012
Sir Peter Wall, Chief of the General Staff, said human rights lawyers were among those who had created an ‘expectation’ that troops should not come to harm in war zones
The head of the Army yesterday hit out at the ‘zero-risk culture’ which fuelled unrealistic demands that no British blood should be shed on battlefields.
General Sir Peter Wall said human rights lawyers were among those who had created an ‘expectation’ that troops should not come to harm in war zones.
Britain did not lose a single life in the war in Libya last summer and has finally kitted out service personnel in Afghanistan, where almost 400 troops have been killed, with state-of-the-art equipment which has since prevented many deaths.
But in a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies think-tank in London, General Wall said the public must be prepared for lives to be lost in future conflicts.
The Chief of the General Staff said the spotlight shone on the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had exposed ‘a variety of awkward ethical, legal, human rights and equipment issues’.
He added: ‘There will be an expectation in some circles in society that the sort of zero-risk culture that is understandably sought in many other walks of life ought to be achievable on the battlefield.’
General Wall said despite the equipment lessons learned in Afghanistan, the ‘operating risks’ would be greater on a future mission where the UK was forced to put ‘boots on the ground’ in an unknown theatre of war.
He also said redundancies and funding cuts are damaging morale and harming the Force’s capabilities.
The impact of job losses was being felt and troops are worried pension changes due this spring would leave them worse off than ever, he claimed.
His warning came after the former head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, said at the weekend that defence cuts meant Britain would not be able to reclaim the Falkland Islands if Argentina invaded again.
He told the Sunday Telegraph the Government’s decision to mothball the Harrier fleet had left Britain ‘unable to take air power by sea’, adding, ‘Let us hope we don’t live to regret the decision.’
General Sir Mike Jackson, former head of the Army, said at the weekend that defence cuts meant Britain would be unable to re-take the Falkland Islands if they were invaded
An official report from the Ministry of Defence published last month found that the Coalition was making good progress in improving the treatment of the Armed Forces and their families, in line with the Military Covenant.
However, a summary of the latest morale judging exercise published in the Army’s in-house magazine Soldier showed troops are concerned about staff cuts, pension provision and poor-quality Army housing.
Troop numbers are being cut from around 100,000 to 82,000 by 2020, and the latest round of 2,900 redundancies was announced earlier this month.
In an article for Soldier, General Wall said he understood his troops’ complaints and addressed fears that reduced staff numbers would increase the workload of those who remain in their jobs.
He wrote: ‘I appreciate that this is unsettling for many. During this early period of transition, I recognise that gaps are appearing as redundancy bites.’
General Wall said the Army would weather cuts to its fighting force by reorganising its units. The changes are expected to see some infantry regiments merge, while others will be abolished altogether.
Soldiers in the Territorial Army will also be given a greater role under the plans.
General Wall also pledged to keep pressure on the Government to ensure its public sector pension reforms do not leave soldiers with a poor deal when the Armed Forces pension scheme is reformed later this year.
The Army chief wrote: ‘It is acknowledged that the future Armed Forces pensions scheme remains one of the greatest concerns. We continue to ensure our particular case is heard and understood by the Government.’
In need of improvement: Budget cuts have forced the MoD to shelve a £1.5bn scheme to improve the upkeep of military homes
Charity The Armed Forces Pension Society has already accused the Coalition of ‘eroding trust in the sense of fair play’ regarding military pensions.
General Wall reserved his strongest words for the state of army accommodation, writing, ‘The quality of lodgings is not yet up to the standard we aspire to.’
The Coalition has promised the best possible housing for forces families, but the Ministry of Defence has already suspended work to renovate the worst army homes until 2016, citing budget cuts.
In a further blow, a £1.5bn plan to improve the upkeep of military homes was put on hold earlier this month.
General Wall said he was determined to address this issue, and was calling on ministers to spend more on housing ‘sooner rather than later’.
He wrote: ‘It is unfortunately one of the impacts of the continuing financial climate and one of the many difficult decisions defence has had to take.
‘While I welcome the recent investment in single living accommodation and service families accommodation, and I am glad to see further upgrades are planned for the coming years, more funding is needed sooner rather than later.’
Share this article:
Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have not been moderated.
-
Newest -
Oldest -
Best rated -
Worst rated
‘Finally kitted out our Troops with State of the Art equipment’ eh? The damn war been going on for what is it – 9 years. WW 2 was over in 6 – we haven’t learnt much, have we?
Report abuse
fed up, England, 01/2/2012 14:24. To Fed up, accepted, thank you. I don’t do a dangerous job anymore or earn the commensurate wage to go with it sadly. However at the back of my mind is the lads who are serving at the sharp end as I once was.
Report abuse
By 2020 there will be about 122,000 in the Army with the TA being included in the field force All thats being done is to save money by replacing regular Troops with TA who only get full pay and allowances when with the Colours.
Report abuse
To Peter,Petersfield…….. I confess I had not considered that and my remark was flippant, I stand corrected and apologise.
Report abuse
May all the evil that has been done be fruitless.
Report abuse
Zero-risk is an impossible goal even for nine-to-five jobs never mind for soldiers on battlefield but “democratic” governments should send them there just like last resort and both politicians at home and military officers in war-zone should do their best in order to minimize soldier’s injuries and loss of soldier’s lives accordingly to mission targets. As far as I’m concerned this is not not a human right lawyer’s attitude, sometimes to lessen risks for the troops could mean a more aggressive approach against the enemy for example, I think many human right lawyers wouldn’t agree about it.
Report abuse
fed up, England, 01/2/2012 10:13 – To Fed up, I am a MOD desk jockey after serviing 20+ years, 6 of which were in Belfast at the height of the troubles. Have you considered that the MOD employ civilian staff to support those at the front because it is more cost effective than employing service personnel by a long shot. What have you done for your country?
Report abuse
What he’s saying is right. The bottom line is that we, or rather our politicians, should be a damn sight more circumspect about sending our people into harms way in the first place. There should always be an end game and under no circumstances “mission creep”. If we send them into harms way then we should expect casualties, it’s reality, but and it’s a damned big but, they should have the very best kit and the very best care when hurt. The LibLabConmen have betrayed the people of Britain time and time again and none more so than the armed forces. I wonder how many people who post here have actually read UKIP’s defence policy on their website and will then have the wisdom to support them.
Report abuse
The only place ‘human rights’ lawyers have in relation to modern warfare is when there is a shortage of sandbags for the FDL parapet. They are only interested in sabotaging the defence of this country and should be used as such………..
NOW….. The battlefield is an inherently dangerous place – I can confirm people DO get injured and even killed (“deaded with death and killed all over”….. NOT “fingers crossed”, but for REAL……)
Soldiers understand this, they know the risks they are taking. All they ask – and deserve – of the politicians who send them to battlefields is that the decision to do so is NOT taken lightly, is taken only if there is no alternative and that those who take it understand that war is NOT A GAME……especially not one to be played by genteel rules dreamed up by some sheltered political chimp who has never seen an angry NAAFI girl…… But that is exactly what is happening these days.
Report abuse
Zero risk ,We are paid, and licensed, to kill, as is the other half of the battle field. Human rights only apply to those that are prisoners. We knew what we were doing when we joined up,and we don’t ask for anything else, laywers have no place in a battle field, and I doubt I would see one. As for housing, all the other paid employees in the world ,either have to rent or buy their own house, I don’t see where the problem is. We buy our own personnel equipement, we buy our house and leave us alone to get on with the job. Dilly dallying politicians putting their noses in;; from thousands of miles away without understanding the military mentality. A legionnaire, happy , shut your mouth and get on with it kind of reasoning.
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
