Blair tells Britain that it must continue to have a strong military and fight wars

[Blackleaf]

Blair today told Britain that, unlike Canada, it must have a military that is strong enough to fight wars and not one used only to keep the peace. He praised the job that British soldiers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, said that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do and also praised Portsmouth, home of the Royal Navy.



Defiant Blair tells public to show backbone over wars

12th January 2007

Blair: Public must not get weary of war in Iraq




"To retreat in the face of this threat would be a catastrophe," he said in a keynote speech to an audience of servicemen aboard HMS Albion.

Mr Blair delivered a stark message to soldiers and their families that deaths in battle must now be accepted as a fact of life within the Armed Forces.

"On the part of the military, they need to accept that in a volunteer armed force, conflict and therefore casualty may be part of what they are called upon to face," he said.

To the public and his fellow politicians, the Prime Minister urged them to show backbone, saying: "The risk here ... is that the politicians decide it's all too difficult and default to an unstated, passive disengagement — that doing the right thing slips into doing the easy thing."

Mr Blair also appeared to make a pointed jibe at Gordon Brown’s preference for talking about African aid rather than military missions.

Blair gave speech onboard Royal Navy ship HMS Albion


"Poverty in Africa can't be solved simply by the presence of aid," he said. "It needs the absence of conflict."

Today's speech was billed as the sixth in a series of so-called farewell lectures by the outgoing Prime Minister, in which he passes on his experience.

It appeared to betray Mr Blair's fear that after he retires, Mr Brown may be tempted or forced by a public revolt to scale back the military's role.

That, Mr Blair said, would ruin British influence and shrink her ability to do good.

He also urged the Chancellor to provide the funds needed to keep the military at full strength.

"For our part, in Government, it will mean increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our Armed Forces; not in the short run but for the long term," he said.

Much of Mr Blair's address was a furious attack at those he accused of having fallen for terrorist propaganda.

In a clear reference to the BBC and sections of the media, he railed at the ease with which terrorists could plant morale-sapping propaganda on the airwaves.

(Britain is behind the US but does FAR better than other European countries when it comes to defence spending)

Defence budget 2006

United States - $470.2bn (No1 in the world)
Britain - $64bn (No2 in the world)
France - $41.5bn
Germany - $27.9bn
-----------------------------------

Defence budget (% of GDP)

United States - 4%
Britain - 2.5%
France - 1.95%
Germany - 1.30%
-------------------------

Active personnel

United States - 1,426,713
Britain - 201,400
France - 259,050
Germany - 284,500

(news.bbc.co.uk)





"They now know that if a suicide bomber kills 100 completely innocent people in Baghdad, then the image presented to a Western public is likely to be of a failed Western policy, not another outrage against democracy," he said.

Similarly, Mr Blair attacked the media for their reaction in the wake of the London bombings, saying: "In the months after 7/7, we had a debate in Britain as to whether foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan had 'caused' the terrorism by inflaming Muslim opinion."

The media, he said, had also "greatly embellished" reports of shabby conditions for Service families.

Although he agreed that the accommodation was not good enough, "so much of what is written distorts the truth".

Warning of the future risks in prosecuting wars, he went on: "Public opinion will be divided, feel that the cost is too great, the campaign too long and be unnerved by the absence of victory.

"They will be constantly bombarded by the propaganda of the enemy, often quite sympathetically treated by their own media, to the effect that it’s really all 'our' — that is the West’s — fault.

"That, in turn, impacts on the feelings of our Armed Forces. They want public opinion not just behind them but behind their mission."

dailymail.co.uk
***********************************

How Britain's military strength compares to that of other nations

NAVIES

World's largest navies (in terms of total tonnage)

1) United States - 3024 tons
2) Russia - 908
3) Royal Navy - 510
4) China - 346
5) Japan - 310


Canada - 78
----------------

Size of navies (total number of ships)

Selected nations

United States - 201
Britain - 102
France - 43


Canada - 20
----------------------------------

Most powerful navies (% of total world power)

1) United States - 53.46%
2) Royal Navy - 8.11%
3) Russia - 8.02%
4) Japan - 4.65%
5) China - 2.75%


Canada - 1.17%
----------------------------------

Air Forces (Total number of aircraft)

United States - 9000
India - 1129
Royal Air Force - 1000
French Air Force - 560
German Air Force - 426 (may be cut to 265 by 2015)
-------------------------------

Armies (number of soldiers)

China - 2.25 million
US army - 494,295
Britain - 146,000 (including the TA)
France - 138,000
Italy - 112,000



Britain's military strength has always been in its navy

 

[tracy]

Right, cause Canada's military isn't doing any fighting in Afghanistan at all. It's just peacekeeping. Glad he still thinks the war in Iraq was the right thing to do (just like most of the people in the UK right?). How many more British soldiers are going to be going to Iraq to help the additional 20 000 American troops being sent in the next few weeks?

I'm surprised to see they have less active personnel than France and Germany.

 

[Blackleaf]

Britain's military spending, already the biggest in Europe, should be increased even more. The fighting element of the Army needs to be bigger but with less focus on tanks and heavy artillery. Tank wars are over. The combat infantry should be increased by a brigade, about 4,000-5,000 soldiers. More Apache attack helicopters should also be purchased and more transport helicopters.

Blair yesterday acknowledged that there is a manning crisis in the military (maybe all but one of the British Army regiments are short on manpower and this is probably as a result of less people wanting to join up in case they are sent to Iraq) but has said that this is a problem that will be sorted out and manpower will be taken back up to normal levels.

Britain already has the world's second-biggest defence budgetand spends more of its GDP on defence than any other country in Europe. But the British taxpayer must be aware that the defence budget will increase even more.



Times Online


January 13, 2007

Armed Forces this country's 'greatest asset'

Michael Evans, Defence Editor of The Times

The British Army, the best (and the second most advanced) in the world, could be made larger (by at least the size of a brigade) as Tony Blair said Britain should keep a strong military and not just reduce it to a peacekeeping force.





The Armed Forces are this country’s greatest asset. You only have to read the bravery citations of the two soldiers who have been awarded Victoria Crosses and the three soldiers given the George Cross since 2003, one of them only 18 at the time, to feel a sense of awe that there are men and women prepared to put themselves into the gravest danger for the sake of their comrades and their country.

When planning for the Armed Forces of the future, the current Prime Minister and his successors need to remember the priceless acts of bravery demonstrated by young men and women every day in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other operational theatres.

It would be a betrayal of the worst kind and a dereliction of duty by this or any future Government if these men and women were put under even further strain and pressure by cutbacks in manpower, equipment and training.

The Government has to be as courageous in treating these people properly as the soldiers, sailors and airmen are in protecting the interests of this country. Tony Blair, in his speech in Plymouth, has clearly recognised this.

If they are to play a key role in facing up to the potential crises of the future, the Armed Forces will need to be robust, superbly equipped and sufficient in number for them to receive proper training and recuperation as well as ensuring their availability for the unpredictable events that are bound to occur in the next two decades.

There should no longer be any debate about this: the British people will accept that more of their money now needs to be spent on defence to protect their futures, but the reasons have to be spelled out.

The fighting element of the Army needs to be bigger but with less focus on tanks and heavy artillery. Tank wars are over. The combat infantry should be increased by a brigade, about 4,000-5,000 soldiers, either through increasing overall manpower or by switching other units, from the Royal Armoured Corps and Royal Artillery, to frontline infantry fighting roles.

HMS Bulwark



This will need extensive periods of training. More Apache attack helicopters should also be purchased and more transport helicopters.


With the threat from global warming crises in mind, potentially leading to humanitarian catastrophes, it would also be imprudent and short-sighted to reduce substantially the size of the Royal Navy. We will still need warships around the globe to intervene rapidly. But naval battles are a thing of the past, so every effort should be made to develop ships that have multiple roles, like HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, a new class of assault ship.


They are the future, not anti-submarine warfare frigates. The proposed two large carriers are also unquestionably needed for future wars and for protecting British interests.


Like tank wars and naval battles, air-to-air combat days are also over. We don’t need hundreds of air defence aircraft. If we buy 150 Joint Strike Fighters, as proposed, we won’t need 232 Eurofighter Typhoons (the RAF is buying more than any other airforce), even though every effort is now being made to turn all Typhoons into multirole aircraft. But ground-attack aircraft, like the Army’s Apaches, have proven in Iraq and Afghanistan that they are a vital asset to the troops on the ground.


Special forces have already grown significantly, with the addition of two more regiments, the Special Forces Support Group based around the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment, and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, partly made up of covert surveillance experts from counter-terrorist operations in Northern Ireland.. But further expansion would be an excellent investment for the future, because this is one element of the Armed Forces that can take an active and deadly role in countering international terrorism.

Britain's special forces have already grown in the last few years, with the addition of two more regiments: The Special Forces Support Group......

....and the Special Reconnaissance Unit

One key decision that has to be made: ballistic missile defence. If the world is going to become more nuclear, as feared (Iran, the most obvious example), Britain may have to invest serious money in collaborating with Europe and the US in devising mobile systems.

We don’t need large static sites in the UK to fend off incoming missiles, but we will need ship-launched systems that can be in position in the right place at the right time to counter any moves to launch nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Despite all the reservations about the invasion of Iraq and the post-invasion problems, this country has never lacked the political will to commit its Armed Forces to serve in operations overseas and I don’t believe the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan will change that.

Our Armed Forces are designed for expeditionary warfare and we have proved on countless occasions that we’re among the best in the business.

This country should never show weakness when it comes to political will because we have the military assets to back up strong decision-making. But intelligence has proved wanting, and, in future, any interventionist policy, particularly if it is preemptive - striking before we are struck - must be based on sound, accurate and authoritative intelligence.

SOME BRITISH ARMY BRIGADES

19 Light Brigade
------------------------

43 Wessex Brigade
------------------------

15 (North East) Brigade
------------------------

20th Armoured Brigade
---------------------

7th Armoured Brigade ("The Desert Rats")
--------------------

107 Ulster Brigade
---------------------

The Catterick Garrison
************************************************************
THE PM last night urged Britain to become
a nation of WARRIORS not WORRIERS


Blair: We must stay a warrior nation


By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor
January 13, 2007


TONY Blair last night urged Britain to become a nation of WARRIORS not WORRIERS, braced for more military action to crush al-Qaeda.

The PM issued a rallying cry to war wobblers not to go soft.

He aped wartime leader Winston Churchill, calling for a Blitz spirit in the face of global terrorism.

And he warned that it would be a “catastrophe” for Britain to run from the battle with al-Qaeda.

Mr Blair also admitted he has let down the armed forces with sub-standard accommodation and faulty kit and equipment.

He vowed to make amends with a huge surge in defence spending.

In return, he called for Britain to show more backbone with further Iraq and Afghanistan-style missions.

Tony Blair meets troops on board HMS Albion in Plymouth


Mr Blair boarded the Royal Navy’s landing ship HMS Albion in Plymouth, Devon, to make his rallying cry.

He said it was vital to stand up to al-Qaeda who sought to cause “grief and anguish” by killing British soldiers.

He said there was then “a questioning of why we are ‘there’; what it’s go to do with ‘us’; and how can the struggle be worth the sacrifice in human terms”.

But Mr Blair stressed: “To retreat in the face of this threat would be a catastrophe.”

He promised more cash for the armed forces so they remain the envy of the world. But he called on them — and their families — to accept that signing up can lead to death or serious injury.

He declared: “The military need to accept that in a volunteer armed force, conflict — and therefore casualty — may be part of what they are called upon to face.”

Mr Blair also pointed out the danger of leaders like him — and successor Gordon Brown — bowing to war wobblers’ nerves.

He insisted Prime Ministers must have the courage to fight despite public protests about war.

He warned the battle against Islamic extremists will take DECADES, saying: “It has taken a generation for the enemy to grow. It will take a generation to defeat.”

Mr Blair also hit out at the disloyal BBC and the anti-war brigade for undermining morale in the forces by criticising their missions.

He said in general the armed forces were “superbly equipped” but he accepted faulty weapons and equipment had caused anger.

“We know there are real problems. The extraordinary job that servicemen do needs to be reflected in the quality of accommodation provided for them and their families.”

The PM said there were two types of nations — war fighters who also did peacekeeping and “those who have retreated to peacekeeping alone.”

He stressed: “Britain does both. We should stay that way.”

thesun.co.uk