Rishi Sunak\u2019s Mission Creep in Yemen<\/h2><\/a>\n READ MORE <\/i><\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\u2018Pre-war world\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSanders\u2019 intervention coincided with a rambling speech<\/a> by the British defence secretary, Grant Shapps, who called on the West to prepare for a \u201cpre-war world\u201d \u2013 noting, along the way, the benefits this would bring to Britain\u2019s arms industry. <\/p>\n\n\n\nHe seemed to be positively relishing the prospect of fighting in what he called \u201cmultiple theatres\u201d involving Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soon after delivering the speech, Shapps flew to Washington to offer to deploy one of the navy\u2019s aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales, to the Red Sea as a platform to attack Houthi targets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shapps\u2019 reported offer was an empty gesture. Britain\u2019s carriers, the largest ships built for the navy, have spent much of their short life in dock, for major repairs or refitting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fort Victoria, the only support ship capable of supplying the carriers with adequate ammunition, food and spare equipment, cannot<\/a> sail due to a lack of sailors.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Queen Elizabeth was due to take the lead in the largest Nato exercise since the end of the cold war but its role was cancelled at the last minute after a problem with a propeller shaft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The carriers, which cost more than \u00a33bn each, are at risk of being branded an expensive laughing stock<\/a>. They certainly risk being sitting ducks in any conflict zone.<\/p>\n\n\n\nUS cover<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nRecruiting youngsters and retaining experienced personnel has been hit by poor pay and living conditions, a culture of bullying and sexual abuse, and inadequate and unsuitable equipment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Morale, not least among senior officers, slumped after the disastrous invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The foreign secretary, David Cameron, warned \u2013 before he became prime minister \u2013 that insurgencies and highly-motivated militias cannot be defeated by bombing them from 15,000 feet. He ignored his own advice<\/a> by leading the calls for airstrikes against Muammar Gaddafi\u2019s Libya in 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n“The government is revelling in the gung-ho backing of much of the mainstream media”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
British air strikes now against an enemy that has proved resilient after many years of bombing by British warheads dropped from Saudi aircraft over Yemen, are more to do with giving the US political and diplomatic cover than anything else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government is revelling in the gung-ho backing of much of the mainstream media. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The House of Commons defence committee on Sunday warned<\/a> that the \u201chollowing out\u201d of the armed forces since 2010 had undermined the UK\u2019s war fighting resilience, and the army would exhaust its capabilities \u201cafter the first couple of months\u201d in a peer-on-peer war.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAll this is designed to get more money for the armed forces, an aim championed not least by senior military figures with their eyes on lucrative jobs in private arms suppliers in a practice called the \u201crevolving doors\u201d syndrome but which might be better described as thinly-disguised corruption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Lack of government transparency\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMore money for the armed forces would be throwing good money after bad. The defence committee which now seems to be advocating greater spending for the armed forces last year found that equipment was \u201carriving into service many years late and significantly over-budget with depressing regularity\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It concluded that \u201cneither taxpayers nor the armed forces were being served well, that the system was broken, and in need of meaningful change\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The National Audit Office said the MoD\u2019s equipment programme for the coming decade was \u201cunaffordable\u201d with forecast costs exceeding its available budget by \u00a316.9bn. The largest cost increases were to be found in nuclear and naval programmes, where combined costs had risen by \u00a354.6bn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
MPs on the defence committee said it was unacceptable<\/a> that they were hampered in their\u00a0 attempts to assess the state of the armed forces\u2019 readiness by \u201ca lack of Government transparency\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\nKey information readily available a decade ago was no longer published for reasons that they said were \u201cunclear\u201d.
The reasons are obvious and they have nothing to do with protecting national security. The MoD wants to protect itself from embarrassment.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n RELATED<\/h3>\n \n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n Exclusive: Israeli military planes have landed at four locations in...<\/h2><\/a>\n READ MORE <\/i><\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nWaste of money<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nNowhere is the waste of taxpayers\u2019 money more apparent than in the Trident nuclear weapons project whose renewal is likely to cost more than \u00a3200bn over the coming 30 years.
This estimate, which has not been challenged by the MoD, does not include newly-estimated cost increases<\/a> of more than 50% to nearly \u00a3100 billion over the coming decade, due partly to expensive repairs to the existing Vanguard-class nuclear missile submarine fleet.
Britain\u2019s nuclear weapons arsenal would not be a realistic deterrent in any foreseeable conflict involving Britain. While determined to spend more and more on nuclear weapons, including warheads and technology dependent on the US, Britain\u2019s military planners were very late in investing in weapons systems most relevant to modern conflict, including drones and countering cyber attacks.
Calling for less provocative interventions is not synonymous with appeasement as so many ministers and MPs claim. On the contrary. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThose who now evoke the years before the first and second world wars as Anthony Eden did during the 1956 Suez crisis, and Tony Blair did during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and bang the drums of war, are going down a path that would lead to never-ending conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The conflicts in the Middle East can only be settled by countries in the Middle East. Why does the US have bases in Iraq and on the Syria\/Jordan border anyway?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Occupation, interference from the West, and the US and Britain in particular, exacerbates the conflicts throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping look on, hoping to reap the benefits.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The British government is playing a very dangerous game. Ministers and military chiefs are indulging in war fever, backed up not by credible threats but by empty rhetoric. They appear to enjoy the prospect of escalating conflict, and by doing so threaten Britain\u2019s own security, rather than protect it as they claim. It is as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":41,"featured_media":54784,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,18,6],"tags":[140],"coauthors":[218],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Who should we bomb next?<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n
Sanders\u2019 intervention coincided with a rambling speech<\/a> by the British defence secretary, Grant Shapps, who called on the West to prepare for a \u201cpre-war world\u201d \u2013 noting, along the way, the benefits this would bring to Britain\u2019s arms industry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He seemed to be positively relishing the prospect of fighting in what he called \u201cmultiple theatres\u201d involving Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Soon after delivering the speech, Shapps flew to Washington to offer to deploy one of the navy\u2019s aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales, to the Red Sea as a platform to attack Houthi targets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shapps\u2019 reported offer was an empty gesture. Britain\u2019s carriers, the largest ships built for the navy, have spent much of their short life in dock, for major repairs or refitting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Fort Victoria, the only support ship capable of supplying the carriers with adequate ammunition, food and spare equipment, cannot<\/a> sail due to a lack of sailors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Queen Elizabeth was due to take the lead in the largest Nato exercise since the end of the cold war but its role was cancelled at the last minute after a problem with a propeller shaft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The carriers, which cost more than \u00a33bn each, are at risk of being branded an expensive laughing stock<\/a>. They certainly risk being sitting ducks in any conflict zone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recruiting youngsters and retaining experienced personnel has been hit by poor pay and living conditions, a culture of bullying and sexual abuse, and inadequate and unsuitable equipment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Morale, not least among senior officers, slumped after the disastrous invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The foreign secretary, David Cameron, warned \u2013 before he became prime minister \u2013 that insurgencies and highly-motivated militias cannot be defeated by bombing them from 15,000 feet. He ignored his own advice<\/a> by leading the calls for airstrikes against Muammar Gaddafi\u2019s Libya in 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The government is revelling in the gung-ho backing of much of the mainstream media”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n British air strikes now against an enemy that has proved resilient after many years of bombing by British warheads dropped from Saudi aircraft over Yemen, are more to do with giving the US political and diplomatic cover than anything else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The government is revelling in the gung-ho backing of much of the mainstream media. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Commons defence committee on Sunday warned<\/a> that the \u201chollowing out\u201d of the armed forces since 2010 had undermined the UK\u2019s war fighting resilience, and the army would exhaust its capabilities \u201cafter the first couple of months\u201d in a peer-on-peer war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All this is designed to get more money for the armed forces, an aim championed not least by senior military figures with their eyes on lucrative jobs in private arms suppliers in a practice called the \u201crevolving doors\u201d syndrome but which might be better described as thinly-disguised corruption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n More money for the armed forces would be throwing good money after bad. The defence committee which now seems to be advocating greater spending for the armed forces last year found that equipment was \u201carriving into service many years late and significantly over-budget with depressing regularity\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It concluded that \u201cneither taxpayers nor the armed forces were being served well, that the system was broken, and in need of meaningful change\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The National Audit Office said the MoD\u2019s equipment programme for the coming decade was \u201cunaffordable\u201d with forecast costs exceeding its available budget by \u00a316.9bn. The largest cost increases were to be found in nuclear and naval programmes, where combined costs had risen by \u00a354.6bn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MPs on the defence committee said it was unacceptable<\/a> that they were hampered in their\u00a0 attempts to assess the state of the armed forces\u2019 readiness by \u201ca lack of Government transparency\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key information readily available a decade ago was no longer published for reasons that they said were \u201cunclear\u201d. Nowhere is the waste of taxpayers\u2019 money more apparent than in the Trident nuclear weapons project whose renewal is likely to cost more than \u00a3200bn over the coming 30 years. Those who now evoke the years before the first and second world wars as Anthony Eden did during the 1956 Suez crisis, and Tony Blair did during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and bang the drums of war, are going down a path that would lead to never-ending conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The conflicts in the Middle East can only be settled by countries in the Middle East. Why does the US have bases in Iraq and on the Syria\/Jordan border anyway?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Occupation, interference from the West, and the US and Britain in particular, exacerbates the conflicts throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping look on, hoping to reap the benefits.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The British government is playing a very dangerous game. Ministers and military chiefs are indulging in war fever, backed up not by credible threats but by empty rhetoric. They appear to enjoy the prospect of escalating conflict, and by doing so threaten Britain\u2019s own security, rather than protect it as they claim. It is as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":41,"featured_media":54784,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,18,6],"tags":[140],"coauthors":[218],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nUS cover<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\u2018Lack of government transparency\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The reasons are obvious and they have nothing to do with protecting national security. The MoD wants to protect itself from embarrassment.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\nRELATED<\/h3>\n
Exclusive: Israeli military planes have landed at four locations in...<\/h2><\/a>\n READ MORE <\/i><\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Waste of money<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
This estimate, which has not been challenged by the MoD, does not include newly-estimated cost increases<\/a> of more than 50% to nearly \u00a3100 billion over the coming decade, due partly to expensive repairs to the existing Vanguard-class nuclear missile submarine fleet.
Britain\u2019s nuclear weapons arsenal would not be a realistic deterrent in any foreseeable conflict involving Britain. While determined to spend more and more on nuclear weapons, including warheads and technology dependent on the US, Britain\u2019s military planners were very late in investing in weapons systems most relevant to modern conflict, including drones and countering cyber attacks.
Calling for less provocative interventions is not synonymous with appeasement as so many ministers and MPs claim. On the contrary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n