I’m very against the war in Afghanistan, but you seem to be saying that a badly planned, run and equipped armed forces is potentially a good thing because if we take lots of casualty’s then the result will be an early withdrawal? And when were the “Right Wing Press” the problem here?

I read this blog rarely now, and when I do I am usually reminded of the musings of NUS ‘journalists’.

Oberon, sorry to hear you read it rarely.

I am not saying the casualties are a good thing. I am saying they are a bad thing. What I am saying is that if we don’t want casualties we need to get out.

Basically I am skeptical of the capacity of better equipment to lessen the casualty rate – especially given that it is so low by modern historical standards.

Yeah, I’m with Reuben here, the focus on the equipment just lets the right wing fill the war chest while beating their own chests. It’s a compelling argument that the state, while it proposes itself as a machine of life, is increasingly a war machine. Mothers crying (the height of emotion) for more money in the war coffers shouldn’t be normalised. It’s like priests threatening hellfire unless everyone signs up to wage labour. We should see through these tricks.

Gordon Brown has attracted a great deal of flak for doing his job as the head of the Treasury in trying to get the MoD’s spending properly managed. The MoD is probably the worst department for wasteful expenditure which is uncontrolled and has rarely brought in any of its projects to time to cost and to specification. In addition, it seems incapable of doing what any organisation, public or private, does if finances are tight which is to focus on priority spends and drop the luxuries.

The military have been adept in hiding their own part in both the supply chain of equipment and in the financing of military expenditure. They approve the kit the forces use. They also indulge in interservice rivalry to protect their own special interests with the consequences that the money is not directed where it is needed and that much of it is spent unnecessarily (and incompetently).

This doesn’t of course detract from your basic point which is if we don’t want casualties, we don’t fight unnecessary wars.

“Mothers crying (the height of emotion) for more money in the war coffers shouldn’t be normalised”

Quoted for fucking truth!

I fail to understand why ‘right-wing’ is the issue. We have had a Labour Government for 13 years. They took the decision to go to war, Gordon Brown told the Chilcot Inquiry that he supported this decision. If he didn’t under Cabinet convention he should have resigned as Robin Cook did. He didn’t, therefore he supported both wars. The military have no option from that point onwards, they have been ordered to go to war and must do so.

The Labour Governement are in charge of the Country and the MoD, they are responsible for the running of the MoD. I don’t dissagree that the MoD is an organisational mess – the cycling in and out repeated ministers, diluting the role by giving a dual brief whilst at war in two country’s was unbelievable to me. Project management and cost control are also disgracefull.

Gordon Brown, like many in Labour see military spending in terms of jobs for his constituents in Rosyth, hence the support for Trident and the unnecessary aircraft carriers. All carrier contracts ever launched were done so under Labour Governments.

The issue of equipment in Afghanistan has focused on helicopters because we have taken much more casualty’s from roadside bombs than the Americans. We have to foot patrol and therefore troop movements are predictasble, US troops are dropped in on helicopters and are much less vunerable to static threats.

Gordon Brown cut the helicopter budgets when he should not have, military spending priorities were politically motivated. Having sent our troops into Afghanistan there was a moral duty for Brown to make sure they were given priority over large construction projects at home. Brown also withdrew our troops too quickly from Basra in a politically motivated move prior to calling a general election in 2007. The result was chaos and violence against civilians at the hand of armed malitias. Gordon Brown is and has used the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and the MoD for political ends and the result has been waste, war and misery for our military and millions of civilians.

I have been very against the military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan – Iraq because it was American/Blair adventurism at it’s worst, ill concieved and badly executed – Afghanistan because there isn’t a military solution to the problem. But why the military and ‘right wing’ press are identified the problem here is beyond me.

Ruben, the reason I visit here less frequently is because discussions are often held on a level which I think are either simplistic or blinded by partisan thinking. I like understanding the views of the left because it helps me keep my eyes open, knowing that differing positions are a preference not a right or wrong. The issue of war isn’t usually a motive of political stance, rather national security, morality and defence but in the UK for the last few years it’s turned on other considerations.