David Cameron criticises comments over Libya mission

Source - BBC News

 

 

* RAF chief in warning over Libya

* Libya may cost 'more than £100m'

* Time is on our side in Libya - PM

 

The prime minister has expressed irritation at comments from military chiefs about the UK's role in Libya.

 

It comes after the RAF's second-in-command said "huge" demands were being placed on equipment and personnel.

 

David Cameron said: "There are moments when I wake up and read the newspapers and think: 'I tell you what, you do the fighting and I'll do the talking'."

 

He said military leaders were "absolutely clear" the mission could be kept going for as long as necessary.

 

"Time is on our side, not on Gaddafi's side," he said in a news conference.

Last week, the First Sea Lord, Sir Mark Stanhope, warned that continuing operations in Libya beyond September would mean taking ships away from other tasks.

 

And in briefing notes obtained by The Daily Telegraph and published on Tuesday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant, said morale among personnel was "fragile" and their fighting spirit was being threatened by being over-worked.

 

He said the service was being stretched by intense air operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

'Morale fragile'

 

According to the briefing paper, ACM Bryant warned MPs in May that many areas of the RAF were "running hot", while service personnel's sense that the nation valued their efforts was being undermined by the government's defence cuts.

 

ACM Bryant said: "The true strength is in our people in continuing to deliver, despite all that's asked of them.

 

It is time to listen to military advice, review the review and provide our forces with capabilities which match our foreign policy ambitions”

 

Jim Murphy Shadow defence secretary

 

"Morale remains fragile. Although fighting spirit remains positive, this assessment will be challenged by individual harmony targets as Operation Ellamy [in Libya] endures [after September]."

 

He continued: "The impact of SDSR [strategic defence and security review] continues to undermine the sense of being valued. There is concern over the perceived lack of strategic direction which is restricting confidence in the senior leadership."

 

The RAF faces cuts of 5,000 personnel over the next three years - a reduction of almost 15%.

 

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said the assumptions on which the government's defence review had been based were "fundamentally flawed".

 

"It is time to listen to military advice, review the review and provide our forces with capabilities which match our foreign policy ambitions," he said.

 

Armed forces minister Nick Harvey said tough but necessary measures had to be taken in the strategic defence and security review but the MoD continued to have the resources it needed.

 

The RAF is involved in a Nato mission to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians using "all necessary measures" short of a ground invasion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There really is no end to the arrogance of David Sca-Moron... I think it's blatantly obvious even to a complete idiot (unless his name happens to be Liam Fox or David Cameron) that we cannot sustain our military commitments in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq while at the same time making sweeping cuts to the armed forces... 5000 RAF personnel alone are to be made redundant.... We dont even have an in-service air-craft carrier anymore thanks to the Coalition moth-balling Ark Royal...

 

Frankly, I think we have to be realistic and pull out of Libya, we clearly dont have the resources, or even a clear mandate... We have no business conducting these raids upon Tripoli anyway, and frankly NATO operations in the country are becoming more and more a case of stepping way beyond the bounds of the original UN resolution of a NO FLY ZONE and protecting the citizens of Benghazi and Misratah.... What does bombing the crap out Tripoli and killing hundreds of civilians have to do with "protection of civilians"...? Seems like a contradiction in terms to me, save one city while bombing another..? Sounds a bit like the old saying in Vietnam - "To save the village, we had to burn the village...". The original UN resolution most certainly did NOT give a "blank cheque" to NATO, the US, France and UK to do what they're doing now, and neither did it give them a blank cheque to impose regime change or attempt an "extra-legal" assassination of Ghadafi......

 

I say - we pull out of this horrendous "vanity project" and concentrate our dwindling resources in shore-ing up Afghanistan.... I think our presence in Libya is actually getting in the way of a possible negotiated settlement....

From Guardian Online....

Liam Fox's Libya statement is almost comically short of detail

 

The statement is almost comically short of detail – especially when compared with the figures the US military has provided to Congress and, to a lesser extent, the figures the French government has published too.

 

In their attempt to shut off the debate, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence may have unwittingly spurred on critics who will now demand a more comprehensive breakdown of the finances.

 

The £120m figure is an estimate, based on current spend, of the extra cash the MoD needs to continue operations in Libya, over and above the money that was already in the budget for day-to-day training and exercises.

 

The figure does not include salaries, but it does include the cost of the fuel being burned by the ground attack aircraft, Apache helicopters and reconnaissance planes.

 

This is just one area in which defence experts are bound to raise further questions. The RAF has been involved in relentless activity over Libya in the last four and a half months. We know this because the MoD tells us so.

 

And although ministers will not give a breakdown of how many sorties have been made, the cost of nightly missions by multiple aircraft will be huge. The fuel costs of the Typhoon and Tornado aircraft alone are estimated at £25,000 per hour, per mission. Each mission lasts for about four hours.

 

The running costs of the ships in the Mediterranean are not inconsiderable either – estimated at £90,000 per day – although the MoD will rightly say that some of those involved were already destined for operations, and therefore the department had money in the bank to pay for them.

 

It is possible that all the sums add up but, without further clarity, questions will remain.

 

The £140m spent on munitions reflects the enormous costs of some of the weapons being used by the British military. Tomahawk cruise missiles, Paveway, Storm Shadow and Brimstone munitions do not come cheap. Cruise missiles are £500,000 each.

 

The military will want firm assurances from the Treasury that the stockpiles will be properly replenished, and the First Sea Lord, Sir Mark Stanhope, recently said he had been told all submarine-fired Tomahawks would be replaced.

 

But the MoD admitted that the Paveways may not replaced like-for-like, the suggestion being that the money might be better spent on other weapons. The RAF will want to have a say in that.

 

Again, without the detail, it is hard for observers to know whether the figures provided are realistic or not.

 

The respected defence analyst Francis Tusa, who has spent his career gathering details of MoD procurement and spending, was unequivocal.

 

"In my view, they are telling fibs," he said. "And the stupid thing is, the National Audit Office will go through this in a year or two, and then they'll be found out. I simply don't understand why we cannot have a proper breakdown of costs."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, it's apparently £260 million in the past three months... But no break-downs in what is being spent where, so who knows if the figure is actually correct.... So, assuming this goes on for year, the figure will top £1bn... If we have a situation where "boots on the ground" are necessary, then costs of operations will spike dramatically....

 

Can the nation afford this in a time of "austerity"...?

#QTWTAIN

#QTWTAIN

 

???? Can you please make a proper post on this issue? Am I actually supposed to understand what this is...?

 

Questions to Which The Answer Is No. I did a quick Google, (I'd never heard of it either)

 

Not a particular well-thought out answer (and a bit spammy). I' say expand on this (just like you did in the other two threads).

 

Evidently the question is 'Can the Nation afford this in a time of austerity?'

 

Well, we're trying to cut, yes, but this is where money is well spent. If we ever needed to use a budget for international affairs, this is it.

 

'

 

Well, we're trying to cut, yes, but this is where money is well spent. If we ever needed to use a budget for international affairs, this is it.

 

Well, I'd argue that getting involved in a civil war is never really a particularly wise course, and the fact is, we're being rather selective as well.. I'd say there were many nasty things going on in Syria too, but so far, no involvement there... The UN mandate 1973 is also clearly being breached as well...

 

Questions to Which The Answer Is No. I did a quick Google, (I'd never heard of it either)

 

Not a particular well-thought out answer (and a bit spammy). I' say expand on this (just like you did in the other two threads).

 

Evidently the question is 'Can the Nation afford this in a time of austerity?'

 

Actually, I'm not sure which question they're answering, I've kind of posed several throughout the course of the thread, including the one in the title..... :lol: :lol:

 

Well, I'd argue that getting involved in a civil war is never really a particularly wise course, and the fact is, we're being rather selective as well.. I'd say there were many nasty things going on in Syria too, but so far, no involvement there... The UN mandate 1973 is also clearly being breached as well...

 

Libya has been consistently worse than Syria. The protests in Syria, from what I've seen, are a little worse than what was in Egypt at the beginning of the year. Libya is, like you say, a full-blown civil war, and sitting by while Gaddafi crushed the rebels wouldn't have been morally right with the international community, and that's why so many agreed to go in.

 

In a civil war where one can't see the right cause, yes, you shouldn't go in. In this, Gaddafi is clearly not a man who should be in control of a country, and that's why we need to go in and eventually remove him from power.

 

Actually, I'm not sure which question they're answering, I've kind of posed several throughout the course of the thread, including the one in the title..... :lol: :lol:

 

I didn't even see the one in the title :lol: Which would then mean something entirely different. http://forum.canterlot.net/images/emotes/mlp-dfacehoof.png

Libya has been consistently worse than Syria. The protests in Syria, from what I've seen, are a little worse than what was in Egypt at the beginning of the year. Libya is, like you say, a full-blown civil war, and sitting by while Gaddafi crushed the rebels wouldn't have been morally right with the international community, and that's why so many agreed to go in.

 

In a civil war where one can't see the right cause, yes, you shouldn't go in. In this, Gaddafi is clearly not a man who should be in control of a country, and that's why we need to go in and eventually remove him from power.

 

Funny how us and the Yanks had no problems selling lots of weapons to him for most of the last decade then, innit..? How does someone like him all of a sudden become "unfit" to run a country..? We all knew what he was like, I mean, after all, he gave the order to blow up Pan Am flight 101, surely if he's "unfit" now, he was "unfit" several years ago when we were all "chummy" with him... This is the whole problem I have with the West's rather two-faced, hypocritical policy in the Middle East....

 

As for Syria, well, it seems to me that we're not getting involved there because it's a "domestic situation", but so's Libya... Assad is still killing hundreds of civilians every week and torturing god knows how many others, so what's the difference...? Seems to me that it's a lot to do with the "black stuff" and the fact that Libya has shed-loads of it, and Syria doesn't....

Funny how us and the Yanks had no problems selling lots of weapons to him for most of the last decade then, innit..? How does someone like him all of a sudden become "unfit" to run a country..? We all knew what he was like, I mean, after all, he gave the order to blow up Pan Am flight 101, surely if he's "unfit" now, he was "unfit" several years ago when we were all "chummy" with him... This is the whole problem I have with the West's rather two-faced, hypocritical policy in the Middle East....

 

Two wrongs don't make a right though, we may have made a grave mistake then but we shouldn't use that as a reason not to go in. I have issues with us taking part but that's mainly apprehension after Iraq and Afghanistan, morally I would maintain that we are right to help the rebels.

Two wrongs don't make a right though, we may have made a grave mistake then but we shouldn't use that as a reason not to go in. I have issues with us taking part but that's mainly apprehension after Iraq and Afghanistan, morally I would maintain that we are right to help the rebels.

 

Well, that was my first thought too, and at first, I actually supported the UN resolution, but the longer this has gone on and the more obvious that it's becoming more like another Imperialist war in the Middle-East, then I am no longer inclined to support military action....

 

I don't see Libya lasting as long as Afghanistan. The style of warfare is quite different, and we are facing an enemy which is 'there', as opposed to the Taliban, who are determined to make themselves the masters of guerilla warfare.

 

We do need to take more decisive action against Libya. In this, the recent arrest warrant on Gaddafi is a good step forward if we want to get this finished with quickly.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right though, we may have made a grave mistake then but we shouldn't use that as a reason not to go in. I have issues with us taking part but that's mainly apprehension after Iraq and Afghanistan, morally I would maintain that we are right to help the rebels.

 

And adding to that, this was the first time where his depraved actions are fully clear to the international community, and it's clear that the citizens of Libya are no longer safe with him as their leader, nor are their rights being met. Admittedly they weren't before, but now we have a clear reason to oust him, we should.

 

 

.

 

We do need to take more decisive action against Libya. In this, the recent arrest warrant on Gaddafi is a good step forward if we want to get this finished with quickly.

And adding to that, this was the first time where his depraved actions are fully clear to the international community, and it's clear that the citizens of Libya are no longer safe with him as their leader, nor are their rights being met. Admittedly they weren't before, but now we have a clear reason to oust him, we should.

 

I disagree, we had a FAR clearer reason to oust him after the bombing of Pan Am flight 101, because he was clearly guilty of a criminal act of murder, so that would've been the time for us and the Americans to have justifiably gone in and affected regime change.......

 

I disagree, we had a FAR clearer reason to oust him after the bombing of Pan Am flight 101, because he was clearly guilty of a criminal act of murder, so that would've been the time for us and the Americans to have justifiably gone in and affected regime change.......

 

With that bombing, however, Libya didn't formally admit that they had anything to do with it until 2003, and only this year did someone confirm that Gaddafi was personally involved. Oh, wait, he claimed that he had proof that Gaddafi personally ordered the bombings. Which would only be important if we didn't have proof.

 

Legally, we wouldn't have been able to do anything, and we clearly wouldn't have had support of the international community, even if he was guilty, which is a likely possibility.

 

 

With that bombing, however, Libya didn't formally admit that they had anything to do with it until 2003, and only this year did someone confirm that Gaddafi was personally involved. Oh, wait, he claimed that he had proof that Gaddafi personally ordered the bombings. Which would only be important if we didn't have proof.

 

Legally, we wouldn't have been able to do anything, and we clearly wouldn't have had support of the international community, even if he was guilty, which is a likely possibility.

 

Any sensible person knows that Al-Megraghi was acting "under orders", so personally I actually bear him no real animosity because he was just a foot-soldier carrying out those orders, one can only imagine the possible ramifications for his family if he had failed to carry out his orders... So, I never really had an issue with the Scottish Executive releasing him on "humanitarian" grounds because of his cancer.. The problem I have is more with Westminster Govt for using Megraghi's release to strike a deal with Ghadafi....

 

I disagree, we had a FAR clearer reason to oust him after the bombing of Pan Am flight 101, because he was clearly guilty of a criminal act of murder, so that would've been the time for us and the Americans to have justifiably gone in and affected regime change.......

Don't forget the US (loyally followed by the UK) initially pinned the blame on Syria. It was only when Assad senior supported the action against Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait (because Assad and Saddam both wanted to be seen as the predominant Arab leader) that Libya suddenly got the blame. George Orwell would have been proud.

Don't forget the US (loyally followed by the UK) initially pinned the blame on Syria. It was only when Assad senior supported the action against Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait (because Assad and Saddam both wanted to be seen as the predominant Arab leader) that Libya suddenly got the blame. George Orwell would have been proud.

 

Yeah, true, but this is what happens when you start fiddling in ME politics, you get your arse absolutely bitten somewhere down the line... Look at Afghanistan in the 80s - we supported the Mujahadeen and trained Bin Laden, which then turned into The Taliban and Al Qaeda.....Oooooooops..... Who's to say we wont be at war with these Libyan "rebels" at some point down the line...?