Interesting comments made by Lord Astor (Conservative shadow Defence Minister) during yesterday's House of Lords debate on the Queen's Speech:
"However, it is clear that something must be done about the Afghan Government's rampant corruption. Many returning members of the Armed Forces take this issue up with me.

They ask what cause their colleagues are dying for as they see the Afghan Government spending their time lining their pockets. We are annually putting £1.6 billion in aid into Afghanistan and apparently less than 4 per cent of it works through the system to ground level, largely due to corruption. It is outrageous that so little of our taxes go to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans. Far too much goes on luxuries such as cars and houses for Afghanistan's new rich. DfID must urgently redirect its policy on this".

I'd personally put it a darn sight stronger than "outrageous".

They Work For You: Lord Astor's speech

UK's commitment to the EU's embryonic military arm was further emphasised today when Defence Secretary, John Hutton welcomed his French counterpart for discussions in London on the next manifestation of the European Security and Defence Policy.
Britain, it seems, will be taking the lead in the next adventure for the European Defence Agency, "Operation Atlanta". OPAT is aimed at clearing the Indian Ocean of the pirates who are currently pillaging Europe's shipping as it passes the coast of East Africa.

It would seem that, while our European allies are always keen to use Britain's Armed Forces to fight their battles for them, they are rather less enthusiastic when it comes to sending their own troops to support Britain in Afghanistan.

Whitehall Pages:Hutton celebrates European Defence Policy

Whilst Foreign Secretary David Miliband may be prepared to send 2,000 more British troops to Afghanistan so that he can get into the good books of US President-elect Obama, British military commanders are making it clear that, instead of more troops on the ground, what's really needed is a greater effort with economic and social regeneration and that other countries should be pulling their weight here.

Addressing the Royal United Services Institute on Monday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff, said that greater assistance was needed in rebuilding Afghan economy and civil society. "I and others have been saying for over two years now that we have to get a grip of the civilian effort".

As some of our NATO allies are unwilling or unable to support UK Armed Forces militarily, then perhaps they could work on vital reconstruction projects (not that you could imagine them being able to transport a new turbine to Kajaki).

The Guardian: Military chief urges Afghanistan rethink
The Telegraph: More British troops could go to Afghanistan when Barack Obama asks, says David Miliband
MoD: Royal Engineers oversee Afghan reconstruction work

• £2.3billion is the amount the MoD has said that it will need to pay for the war in Afghanistan this year.
• £1.4billion is the likely figure for the war in Iraq this year.
• £3.7billion is therefore the total expected cost for 2008/09
• £13.2billion is the total for the two wars over the last six years.

This money does not come from the annual defence budget but is is met directly by the Treasury.

The Times: British cost of Iraq and Afghanistan reaches £13bn

                                              [24/11/08]
The Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) process has delivered more than £3.5billion's worth of kit and equipment to British forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan - almost £1billion in 2008-09 alone - and 85% of the spend has been geared to protecting the troops on the ground.
UORs are funded directly from the Treasury and not out of the defence budget. This not only makes significant amounts of additional money available,

it also means that the protracted processes which normally surround defence procurement can be short-cut. The result of this is greater flexibility and a fast response when it comes to meeting the needs of changed operational circumstances.

Some examples of UOR purchases are:

• Sangar base protection - remote weapon stations, Cortez Base Surveillance Control System
• Reaper Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - Desert Hawk, Hermes
• 600 Protected Patrol Vehicles - Ridgbacks, Mastiffs, Vectors
• 200 Supacat Jackals
• Medical equipment in support of troops on operations and well equipped field hospitals
• ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) control and communications equipment. Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance
• Infantry equipment - new range machine guns, grenade machine guns and launchers, mortar systems, night vision goggles, Osprey and Kestrel body armour
• Support vehicles - tankers, JCBs, Talisman route clearance (Buffalo & the Engineer excavator)
• Protection Mobility Package- Wolfhounds, Huskys and Coyotes

All this adds up to the provision of state-of-the-art kit which meets the urgent needs of our troops, enables them to conduct successful operations and saves lives.

MoD Factsheet: Urgent Operational Requirements
MoD: Security, surveillance and 'Super Sangars'
They Work For You: 10 largest UOR projects

The bosses of some of Britain's leading arms manufacturing companies have publicly warned that the cuts in military expenditure being talked about by the Government will leave Britain unable to wage an Iraq-sized war in the future. The Defence Industries Council says that unless major projects - Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), Future Lynx, Eurofighter Typhoon,

Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF), - go ahead as planned, Britain will cease to be a major military power. But then I suppose they would say that wouldn't they.
Britain's defence and aerospace industry is the largest outside America, with an annual turnover of about £21bn. It invests about £2.5bn in research and development a year. However the MoD has admitted that, to meet the ongoing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time of economic belt-tightening, the viability of major projects is having to be reassessed. Orders for Type 45 Destroyers, Typoons and replacement Nimrods have already been scaled down or postponed in order to meet this year's anticipated £2bn shortfall in the defence budget and more cuts are being contemplated.
.
What is clear is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must take priority when it comes to defence spending; no more lives must be put at risk due to shortages in equipment on the frontline.

MoD Oracle: Cuts Leave Armed Forces Unable to Fight [Daily Telegraph]

General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army and Chief of the General Staff, today warned that you cannot cut corners when it comes to defence. In an interview in today's Daily Telegraph Gen. Dannatt reiterated that it is the Government's responsibnility to provide the best training and equipment for those serving on the frontline.

The General maintains that no more British troops should go to Afghanistan, insisting that the Army only has the manpower and resources to fight one foreign war at a time.
For the last two years Gen. Dannatt has presided over a period of significant improvement in equipment and welfare support available to Britain's frontline troops; considering the deplorable situation at the early stages of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some improvement had to take place. However, just because the troops are better equipped now does not mean that more improvements are not still required: particularly more helicopters and tougher armoured vehicles,
Let's hope that Gen. Dannatt's successor next year will continue to take a strong stand to ensure that a poor economic situation doesn't mean we see a reversion to the bad old days of cuts in the defence budget.

The Telegraph:Ministers must not resort to 'cheap options' on defence, says British Army chief

Britain's NATO allies must pull their weight   [10/11/08]

The success of British military operations in Iraq has means that a large-scale British military presence in Basra is no longer needed and that troops will be able to leave earlier than was being planned only a few months ago.
However concerns are now being raised amongst UK's military establishment that troops released from Iraq may be immediately re-deployed to Afghanistan.

The British Government may well be thinking that such a move would put them in President-elect Barack Obama's good books since he has already expressed his wish to build up the number of troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup said it was "crucial" for the Armed Forces to experience a reduction in the tempo of operations in order to recover from several years of overstretch.
It is NATO that is fighting in Afghanistan and it is Britain's NATO war-shy allies who should meet any additional troop requirement; Britain has borne a disproportionate burden of the fighting for too long!

BBC: 'No Afghan move' for UK troops
The Independent : Forces chief demands cut in 'operational tempo'
MoD: CDS: "Our top priority is to deliver military success"
The Guardian: Troops prepare for early exit
Daily Mail: Exhausted British troops must not go straight from Iraq to Afghanistan

The MoD has today published its annual Recruit Trainee Survey covering the period October 2006 to November 2007. The views of 25,000 recruits were surveyed on issues ranging from accommodation to recreational facilites and the results are used to determine what has been successful and areas where improvements can be made.

The latest statistics show:

Minister for the Armed Forces Bob Ainsworth said: "These surveys offer a useful snapshot of perceptions from the training environment. They help the Armed Forces target issues that concern our people and ensure changes in policy and new initiatives. This ensures the Services remain a top quality employer and that our recruits receive world class training. "

[I can't yet find this survey on the MoD's website]

Whitehall Pages: Latest Recruit Trainee Survey released
MoD: Recruit Trainee Survey Annual Report 2006

Just when you thought things couldn't get much worse, Brown & Co - always eager to grab centre stage and to hog the world's spotlights - are now considering sending British troops to fight in the Congo.
For months, if not years, Army chiefs have been screaming "overstretch!", that there aren't even enough troops and equipment to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (not forgetting the deployments to the Balkans) let alone to take on another military venture.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, is even contemplating a joint EU force with his new French buddies. Bearing in mind Brussel's bureaucratic bungling, such an escapade would be doomed from the start.
If our politicians want to play at being international policemen, then they must ensure that the resources are available at the outset and not struggle to pick up the pieces afterwards.

The Telegraph: Britain may deploy troops to Congo
The Sun: 'We may send troops to DRC'