http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum This is an XML content feed of; Military Families Support Group : Last 10 Posts Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:14:23 UT Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:24:35 UT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 8.01 30 www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/RSS_topic_feed.asp http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_images/web_wiz_forums.gif http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138&PID=6560#6560 Author: Elaine
Subject: Snatch Land Rovers
Posted: 10 Mar 2010 at 9:24am


Troop training and equipment inadequate, says coroner

By Lesley Richardson, Press Association

Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Training of troops involved in an operation which led to the death of the first female British soldier in Afghanistan was inadequate, a coroner said today.

Wiltshire and Swindon Coroner David Masters also highlighted equipment shortages and pledged to raise his concerns with the Ministry of Defence.

Related articles

    * Snatch Land Rovers blamed for dozens of deaths
    * Search the news archive for more stories

He was speaking as he recorded unlawful killing verdicts at the end of an inquest into the deaths of Corporal Sarah Bryant, 26, and special forces reservists Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, 28, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin, 39, and Private Paul Stout, 31, when their Snatch Land Rover was hit by a roadside bomb in June 2008.

The six-day inquest into the deaths, held at Trowbridge Town Hall in Wiltshire, heard a string of criticisms of their equipment and training.

The coroner heard evidence that soldiers had not been shown how to use metal detectors in the UK due to an equipment shortage.

Troops were forced to hunt out an expert on base in Afghanistan who passed on his knowledge.

An Ebex metal detector became available only four months into the deployment, until which point the soldiers had to scan the ground for improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Summing up today, Mr Masters also highlighted the limitations of Snatch Land Rovers.

The inquest heard that the commander of the four soldiers had requested a replacement for their Snatch Land Rover but was refused due to equipment shortages.

The vehicles could not cover soft ground and became stuck in a little water, which restricted the unit to driving along dangerous tracks.

Giving his verdict, Mr Masters said today: "I intend to submit a report to the Ministry of Defence which will take up a number of these issues which this inquest has quite properly canvassed."

Referring to the Ebex metal detectors, Mr Masters said: "There was a theatre-wide shortage of that piece of vital equipment."

Soldiers said they had only received a 20-minute briefing on using the metal detector.

One witness, Staff Sergeant O, whose full identity was not revealed for security reasons, complained "he didn't feel he had been sufficiently trained on Ebex", the coroner said.

Another, identified as Corporal J, said he was given a 10 to 15 minute demonstration on using the piece of equipment but had to learn how to use it himself.

He told the inquest: "We worked it out ourselves with the use of the manual."

The coroner added: "He did not believe he had had enough training on it. He wanted further training and had been refused."

Issues that had not been covered in their briefings included the distance above the ground the Ebex had to be held in order to be effective, Mr Masters said.

Others complained they had not been taught how far below the ground metal could be detected.

The inquest heard that troops were forced to hunt out an expert on base who passed on his knowledge of metal detectors.

An Ebex only became available four months into the deployment, from December 2007, until which point the soldiers had to scan the ground for IEDs.

The lack of Ebex meant delays in progressing along the route.

Mr Masters said: "You would be at risk of enemy engagement the longer you are in a fixed position."

When you "dig a little deeper" into pre-deployment training there were "deficiencies", he said.

He added: "In my judgment there was an inadequacy in training for this unit and its members."

There was a "substantial threat" of an IED that day, he said.

They were in the Land Rover with a fifth soldier, the sole survivor, known as Soldier E.

Their patrol was instructed to provide vehicle checkpoints to help the Afghan police disrupt enemy lines of communication and recapture prisoners who had escaped from a prison in Kandahar.

They were then ordered to join another unit and deal with an enemy casualty.

Post-mortem examinations showed that L/Cpl Larkin, from Kidderminster, Worcs, died of injuries to the chest and abdomen following an explosion.

Cpl Bryant, from Chicksands, Bedfordshire, Cpl Reeve, from Brighton, and Pte Stout, from Liverpool, died of blast wounds caused by an explosion.

Referring to Snatch Land Rovers, Mr Masters said: "We heard about, in comparison their disadvantages, that they had limited manoeuvrability being heavy in soft ground and rural areas, that they were top heavy and unstable in so far as top cover sentry was concerned, that they were relatively light armoured."

He added: "There was limited visibility. These concerns were raised by the commanding officer Colonel A."

He said Colonel A, who was not named for security reasons, requested a WMIK vehicle to replace the Snatch.

"There was a limited pool of vehicles available, a general shortage of vehicles available during that period," said Mr Masters.

"He wanted WMIKs because of the nature of the territory. He put in a request and justified it but he didn't get them. That shortage meant that they were unavailable to him.

"There was only a finite supply of vehicles to be allocated across the whole brigade."

A WMIK would have suffered the same level of "devastation" in the blast, he told Wiltshire Coroner's Court, sitting at Trowbridge Town Hall.

The widespread use of Snatch Land Rovers by frontline troops has provoked criticism.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown was forced to defend the use of the vehicles last week when he gave evidence to the Iraq inquiry.

He said "once these new vehicles were asked for, they were offered and the money was paid, I think within months."

And officials travelling with Mr Brown during a visit to Afghanistan this weekend said an announcement about 200 new armoured vehicles to replace the Snatch Land Rovers was expected within weeks.

But the Conservatives pointed out the original contract notice was for "up to 400" vehicles and accused the Government of cutting the number it was acquiring by half.

The sole survivor of the devastating explosion during an operation east of Lashkar Gah told the inquest last week the vehicle he and his fallen comrades were travelling in was "not adequate for the job".

Soldier E, who can not be named for security reasons, fought back tears during his evidence, telling the coroner: "Having used the Snatch in our pre-deployment training, our concerns were heightened, especially when off-road. The mobility and flexibility of the vehicle came into question."

Cumbria-born Cpl Bryant, of the Intelligence Corps, was described by her family as their own Angel of the North.

Her father Desmond Feely, who has criticised the MoD in the past, attended the inquest.

Colonel Graham Le Fevre, chief of staff intelligence corps, said outside the court: "We were all deeply saddened to learn of the deaths of Corporal Sarah Bryant, Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Private Paul Stout when this incident occurred in June 2008.

"Our thoughts are with their families at this difficult time.

"We extend our deepest sympathies to the families of these four soldiers who lost their lives while serving their country in Afghanistan.

"As tributes at the time said, all four soldiers were immensely professional and were dedicated to serving in the armed forces and on operations in Afghanistan.

"They were proud to serve their country and sadly paid the ultimate sacrifice playing their part to help begin to shape a better Afghanistan."

Mr Masters said his Rule 43 report, which is also copied to the Lord Chancellor, would help prevent future deaths.

He will raise concerns over Operation Barma drill training, the lack of metal detectors available to troops and the continued use of Snatch Land Rovers, particularly in Helmand, Afghanistan.

Mr Masters said: "At the time leading up to these deaths that training ... for this unit was inadequate.

"In predeployment training and from the evidence of so many witnesses there was not the equipment, the Ebex available to provide familiarity in all respects and training with hands on teaching to members of this unit which by reason of the tactical aid memoir guidance notes they needed to use so as to properly conduct the Operation Barma drills.

"Not only was there a shortage of that equipment for training but also for use in earnest in the field."

He added: "The evidence has clearly shown that Snatch Land Rovers were not the preferred vehicle of choice for the evolving task upon which PMT (Police Mentoring Team) were engaged.

"There was significant disquiet about these vehicles being the only resource available to this unit for a variety of reasons."

He said his report would seek a review on the use of Snatch Land Rovers by such a specialist unit.

"It seems that Snatch Land Rovers may not be currently used but the evidence which we have heard at this inquest indicates to me that this needs to be confirmed by the Minister," he added.

He said he will also inquire about their replacements, the Snatch Vixen and Vixen Plus, and their availability in theatre now.

Cpl Bryant's mother, Maureen Feely, reading a statement after the inquest, said: "We understand why Sarah has received so much media attention but this is something she would've hated.

"She would not have wished to be treated any differently from any other of her colleagues.

"She was a soldier who died with honour."

She added: "We do not want some of the issues this inquest has raised to detract from Sarah's bravery, dedication and selflessness."

Adam Wilson, solicitor for the families of Cpl Reeve and L.Cpl Larkin, said: "We are at least comforted by the fact there has been careful and open consideration of the circumstances in which they died so that lessons may be learned for the future.

"We have heard over the course of the inquest how a lack of metal detectors and inappropriate vehicles contributed to their death.

"We hope that the lack of resources and shortcomings in training and planning which have been exposed in the evidence we have heard will not be repeated.

"We hope that the MoD will heed the recommendations of the Coroner and that by reason of the changes they make no other families will have to stand in the position in which we stand today.]]> Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:24:35 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138&PID=6560#6560 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138&PID=6559#6559 Author: Elaine
Subject: Snatch Land Rovers
Posted: 09 Mar 2010 at 11:20pm

defencemanagement.com

Brown promises Snatch replacement
Monday, March 08, 2010

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced that the first of 200 British-made light protected patrol vehicles are to begin replacing Snatch Land Rovers.

The LPPVs will feature much greater protection against improvised explosive devices (IEDS) than the Snatch Land Rovers, which troops had nicknamed "mobile coffins" following dozens of high profile deaths in the vehicles.

An MoD spokesman said that following delivery of the first 200 vehicles, more may follow. The name and specifications of the LPPVs are to be announced by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth shortly.

"We are currently assessing a range of cutting edge vehicles specifically designed to meet the requirement of both manoeuvrability and armoured protection," said the spokesman.

"These will be world beating British built vehicles and will provide unprecedented levels of protection for their weight class. There can be no clearer demonstration of our commitment to our troops."

The PM announced the LPPVs during a visit to Afghanistan following his appearance at Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the Iraq war.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said the timing of Brown's visit was questionable, and it was "unwise to allow the perception to emerge that this had more to do with domestic politics".

Shadow Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox said: "Gordon Brown was quick to use his visit to Afghanistan to reannounce the replacement for the Snatch Land Rovers which have resulted in unnecessary casualties for our Armed Forces and deserved political grief for the government. But when the replacement tender was issued it was for 400 vehicles. Brown announced only 200 in Afghanistan. What has happened to the rest? Is this another Treasury imposed cut in defence, is it sleight of hand, or a change in policy? We need to know where these vehicles will come from and how many there will be.

"Making half announcements and reannouncements to detract from the Prime Minister's pitiful dissembling at Chilcot is simply not on and insults our Armed Forces."

Responding to Dr Fox's comments, Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell said: "As with most military procurements, exactly how many we order and exactly when we order them will not be finalized until the last contract is signed. But we have not decided to reduce the overall requirement and Liam Fox is entirely wrong to claim otherwise." ]]> Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:20:44 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138&PID=6559#6559 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=412&PID=6558#6558 Author: Elaine
Subject: Two soldiers shot dead in Northern Ireland
Posted: 09 Mar 2010 at 10:39pm

From The Times
March 6, 2010
Relative of soldier killed by Real IRA says MoD failed them
David Sharrock, Ireland Correspondent

On the first anniversary of the murders of two soldiers by the Real IRA, a relative of one of the victims has told The Times that their lives would have been saved if the Ministry of Defence had protected them adequately.

Steven Hughes said he had carried out his own investigation into the events surrounding the murders of Sappers Mark Quinsey, 23, his nephew, and Patrick Azimkar, 21, at Massereene Barracks, Co Antrim, a year ago tomorrow.

They were the first soldiers to be killed in Northern Ireland by terrorists since Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick was shot dead by the Provisional IRA in 1997. Two days later the two soldiers were killed, PC Stephen Carroll was shot dead by the Continuity IRA.

Mr Hughes said he began investigating after Mark’s mother Pamela Brankin told him that she felt the Army was telling her lies. He said: “They lied to her about the CCTV footage available of what happened and also why the base wasn’t properly protected.”


It was 9.40pm when the soldier’s walked out of the Army base’s main gate to pick up a pizza delivery and gunmen hiding in bushes opened fire on them. They then walked over to finish off the two soldiers.

Two pizza delivery men were also seriously wounded.

Mr Hughes believes that at least one of the gunmen entered the base in pursuit of soldiers. He is angered by the explanation given by Brigadier George Norton, the most senior officer in Northern Ireland, as to why the civilian guard, did not return fire when the Real IRA attack began.

Brigadier Norton told a reporter: “Are you suggesting that people should have shot into a closely compact group including my five soldiers?”

Mr Hughes said he had established that there were at least three occasions when the security guards could have returned fire. “He is talking nonsense. From beginning to end there could have been no mistake over who was friend or foe.

“After their first burst of gunfire the gunmen could have been shot at while crossing the road when they approached the gates to ‘finish off’ the soldiers.

“Then when they reached the gates they were easily distinguishable from their victims, who were lying on the ground. The Real IRA were the only men standing, they were perfect targets.

“The soldiers were wearing desert fatigues so they couldn’t have been confused with the gunmen. And finally there was another opportunity when the Real IRA men were returning to their getaway car.

“But the civilian guards didn’t even fire a warning shot in the air which would have unsettled the gunmen. The whole thing was a total disaster.”

He believes the true explanation for the failure to react lies elsewhere. “After looking into it I concluded that the security was outgunned, under-trained, probably unarmed — it has been suggested to me their pistols weren’t even loaded — and most probably scared to death.”

The proof of the truth of his claims, he argues, lies in the fact that the civilian security guard was immediately replaced after the murders by soldiers armed with SA80 rifles.

A year ago Army sources told The Times that an investigation would be opened into why there was no armed response and why soldiers were allowed to walk unarmed out of their base only days after the terrorist threat level had been raised from “substantial” to “severe”.

However, Mr Hughes said that the Army stalled on the investigation the family was promised and finally admitted it would not take place, saying that it could prejudice criminal trials. Two men have been charged in relation to the murders.

“The security at Massereene was non-existent,” said Mr Hughes.

“If the Army had changed just one thing out of a whole chain of events the boys would be alive today.

“The simplest thing of all would have been to confine soldiers, with the terrorist threat level raised to severe, to barracks. As we know now, too late, the threat level should have been at critical.”

Mr Hughes also alleges that the Army has tried to obstruct his inquiries, trying to “scare” Pamela Brankin into believing that his efforts on her behalf would ruin the chances of convictions.

The Army, he believes, issued him with a “veiled threat” in a letter confirming the decision to abandon a possible inquiry until after prosecutions have taken place.

He said: “It is 12 months since that terrible night at Massereene. Pamela has stated many times that she doesn’t want to go to litigation or even speak to the press as long as the Army keep its word to hold an inquiry.

“But it is quite plain to see that absolutely nothing was done regarding security when MI5 raised the threat level, compared with what was done immediately after the attack.

“All Pam wanted was a sincere apology from the Army, to hear them say ‘We made mistakes and we are sorry’. But where, on that terrible night, did you see any concern for the welfare of their soldiers? Did they really care?”

An Army spokesman said: “We appreciate and understand the family’s concerns, however this is a matter of an ongoing police investigation.”

    

Edited by Elaine - Yesterday at 10:40pm]]> Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:39:51 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=412&PID=6558#6558 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138&PID=6557#6557 Author: elsie
Subject: Snatch Land Rovers
Posted: 09 Mar 2010 at 10:38pm

    About time too,pity they didnt listen earlier . ]]> Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:38:20 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138&PID=6557#6557 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138&PID=6556#6556 Author: Elaine
Subject: Snatch Land Rovers
Posted: 09 Mar 2010 at 10:35pm

Government to place £100m order to replace maligned Snatch Land Rovers

Fleet of new armoured vehicles seen as admission by MoD that existing Snatches blamed for deaths are not up to the job

    

    * Richard Norton-Taylor
    * guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 March 2010 22.47 GMT
Snatch Land Rovers have been blamed for more than 35 British troop deaths due to their lack of protection from roadside bombs.

The government is to place an urgent order for armoured vehicles to replace Snatch Land Rovers, the defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, will announce this week.

Years after soldiers first complained about the lack of protection that Snatch Land Rovers offer, Ainsworth will tell MPs that the Ministry of Defence has ordered some 200 "light-protected patrol vehicles" at an estimated cost of £100m.

The MoD appeared unsure tonight how many of the British-built vehicles would be bought, although the first will not be ready until the end of next year.

An MoD spokesman said the government "expect initially to buy in the region of 200 vehicles. We are currently assessing a range of cutting-edge vehicles specifically designed to meet the requirement of both manoeuvrability and armoured protection," the spokesman said. "These will … provide unprecedented levels of protection for their weight class."

The MoD was unable to respond to a claim by the shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, that the original order was for 400 new vehicles. "We have been waiting for years for replacements to the Snatch Land Rovers," Fox told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show. "There is one very curious element about this, because the public tender that was put out was for 400 vehicles to replace Snatch. The prime minister yesterday said it would be 200."

The lightly armoured Snatch Land Rovers, designed for use in low-risk areas, have been blamed by troops for more than 35 deaths caused by roadside bombs in Afghanistan.

Asked by the Chilcot inquiry panel about the failure to replace Snatch Land Rovers, Gordon Brown said that money was made available at every point when requests were made to fund new equipment.

However, former chiefs of the defence staff accused the prime minister of being "disingenuous". Admiral Lord Boyce and General Lord Guthrie said that while individual urgent requests for equipment were financed, the military suffered from an overall shortage of funds to fight two wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, told the BBC's Politics Show: "We spent about £400bn on defence over the last 12-13 years and we're absolutely clear – Gordon, and now me – with troops deployed in the field, if the officers come to us and they say that they need more equipment, as they have done in relation to the armoured vehicles in Afghanistan yesterday, we will provide the money, we will provide the resources."]]> Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:35:16 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138&PID=6556#6556 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=373&PID=6555#6555 Author: Elaine
Subject: Military Inquest news & verdicts.
Posted: 09 Mar 2010 at 5:49pm


Cpl Sarah Bryant unlawfully killed in Afghanistan after 'inadequate' training
Four soldiers including Cpl Sarah Bryant, the first female to die in Afghanistan, were unlawfully killed after troops were given "inadequate" training, a coroner has ruled.

By Aislinn Laing

Cpl Sarah Bryant Cpl was taking part in a planned operation when she died.
L/Cpl Richard larkin, Cpl Sean Reeve and Paul Stout died in the Snatch Land Rover along with Cpl Sarah Bryant

Wiltshire Coroner David Masters said he would write to the Ministry of Defence to raise concerns about "theatre-wide" equipment shortages and gaps in training which led to the deaths.

"I intend to submit a report to the Ministry of Defence which will take up a number of these issues which this inquest has quite properly canvassed," Mr Masters said at the conclusion of a six-day inquest into the deaths at Trowbridge Town Hall.

Cpl Bryant, 26, and special forces reservists Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, 28, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin, 39, and Private Paul Stout, 31, died when their Snatch Land Rover detonated a roadside bomb hidden in a shallow ditch near Lashkar Gah, Helmand in June 2008.

Following Mr Master's verdict, Cpl Bryant's mother Maureen Feely read a statement in which she said that none of the issues raised in the inquest should detract from her attributes as a soldier.

"Sarah would not have wished to be treated any differently from any other of her colleagues," she said.

"She was a soldier who died with honour. We do not want some of the issues this inquest has raised to detract from Sarah's bravery, dedication and selflessness."

The use of the Snatch Land Rover has long been controversial due to the numbers that have died in them and the inquest heard that it had been nicknamed the "mobile coffin" because of the lack of protection it afforded troops.

The vehicles could not cover soft ground and became stuck in a little water, which restricted the unit to driving along dangerous tracks, witnesses said.

The commanding officer of 23 SAS regiment, the Territorial Army battalion, told the hearing that he had raised concerns about the lack of safer vehicles and was told that he would have to make do as no others were available.

Mr Masters said the commanding officer, named only as Colonel A at the inquest, had wanted the better-armoured WMIK vehicle to replace the Snatch - even though it too might been badly damaged by the "massive" bomb concerned.

"There was a limited pool of vehicles available, a general shortage of vehicles available during that period," said Mr Masters.

"He wanted WMIKs because of the nature of the territory. He put in a request and justified it but he didn't get them. That shortage meant that they were unavailable to him. There was only a finite supply of vehicles to be allocated across the whole brigade."

Major Sebastian Morley, Cpl Bryant's SAS squadron commander in Helmand, later resigned, accusing the Government of being "cavalier at best, criminal at worst" for ill-equipping troops.

Mr Masters heard that shortages of metal detectors meant soldiers had not been shown how to use them before deploying to Afghanistan and were forced to ask an expert on base in Afghanistan how to do so.

An Ebex metal detector became available only four months into the deployment, until which point the soldiers had to scan the ground for improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

One witness told the coroner of his training on the Ebex: "We worked it out ourselves with the use of the manual."

"There was a theatre-wide shortage of that piece of vital equipment," Mr Masters said.

He said that the lack of Ebex meant convoys took longer to move along a route and their slow pace opened them up to increased risk of attack.

"In my judgment there was an inadequacy in training for this unit and its members," he said.
    

Edited by Elaine - Yesterday at 5:52pm]]> Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:49:32 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=373&PID=6555#6555 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=566&PID=6554#6554 Author: Mike_C
Subject: Do you have a story to tell? Look here.
Posted: 08 Mar 2010 at 11:55am

Hello,

My name’s Michael. I am a radio journalism, student in myfinal year, and I’m in the process of putting together my final project. I am basedin Farnham, Surrey.

I have spent the past few weeks reading the stories you haveshared with your community here. I have found them incredibly insightful, and I’malso amazed at the help that you have all been able to offer eachother.

I would like to make a radio feature telling some of yourstories. We hear in the news everyday about the state of the war inAfghanistan, but we rarely, if ever, hear about how it is affecting thefamilies that are left at home, fighting their own personal battles.

I understand that this is a very personal request. However,I feel that what families of soldiers are going through is something thatdeserves to be shared. I have read articles that have made brief reference topartners struggling to cope with the pressure, having little or no support andfeeling alienated from their communities.

Here is my request: I would like to spend some time with afamily who is missing someone due to being on tour. I want to see how thefamily cope with everyday things, as well as get an insight into how thedistance between partners is coped with.

I am sorry for using your forum for this purpose, but Ithought it would be the best way to reach out to families who are beingaffected by the war. If you feel that you have a story to tell, and are notafraid to share those experiences so that others may learn what it is like,then please get in touch.

If you’d like more details you can email me atmikecopus45[at]hotmail[dot]com, or contact me through the forum.

Edited by Mike_C - 08 Mar 2010 at 11:58am]]> Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:55:35 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=566&PID=6554#6554 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=306&PID=6553#6553 Author: Elaine
Subject: Daily News
Posted: 06 Mar 2010 at 9:21am

Times -
Former commanders accused Gordon Brown of deliberately misleading the Iraq inquiry after he blamed the military for failing properly to equip the Armed Forces for war.

The Prime Minister denied putting the lives of British troops at risk by starving the military of equipment. In a confident performance yesterday at the Chilcot inquiry, he admitted curbing spending while troops were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop public finances spiralling out of control. But he insisted this had not affected soldiers on the front line.

Admiral Lord Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff up to the start of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, disagreed. “He’s dissembling, he’s being disingenuous. It’s just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed,” he said.

“There may have been a 1.5 per cent increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds.”

Year on year when Mr Brown was Chancellor it failed to get the money it needed to meet the level of activity demanded by the Government, he said.

Mr Brown said that every request for money for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and occupation of Iraq was swiftly approved by the Treasury. He shifted the blame on to generals when confronted with complaints from the relatives of soldiers killed by in attacks on Snatch Land Rovers.

Colonel Stuart Tootal, former commander of 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, said: “I am quite staggered by the lack of any sense of responsibility. He was the man with the purse strings.”

The Prime Minister repeatedly expressed sorrow for the British and Iraqi deaths. He told the inquiry: “I think this is the gravest decision to go to war. It was the right decision and it was for the right reasons.”

A No10 spokesman said: "The Prime Minister could not have been clearer in responses to repeated questions about military funding. Every request that the military commanders made to us for equipment was answered. No request was ever turned down.
    

Edited by Elaine - 06 Mar 2010 at 9:21am]]> Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:21:14 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=306&PID=6553#6553 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=491&PID=6552#6552 Author: Elaine
Subject: The Iraq Inquiry.
Posted: 06 Mar 2010 at 8:57am

Don't blame me for Iraq: Gordon Brown tells Chilcot Inquiry that war, lack of kit and chaotic aftermath were not his fault

By James Chapman - Mail.
Gordon Brown denied all responsibility yesterday for mistakes made in Iraq, prompting a backlash from military top brass and families of the war dead.

The Prime Minister told the Chilcot Inquiry that he was not party to private assurances given by Tony Blair to George Bush that Britain would join military action come what may - and blamed the U.S. for lack of post-war planning.

He insisted he had never turned down any request for money to buy military equipment as Chancellor and suggested defence chiefs had been happy with what they got.

And he angered families by appearing to blame commanders for the choice of vehicles on the ground, which have been linked to many British casualties.

Mr Brown insisted a move to rein in the Ministry of Defence budget in the aftermath of the invasion had been necessary to prevent public finances spiralling out of control.

But he added: 'The Ministry of Defence ended up with more money than had been expected originally. At any point the military commanders were able to ask for equipment that they needed and I know of no occasion when they were turned down.'

Senior military sources expressed incredulity at Mr Brown's evidence, pointing out that General Lord Walker, former Chief of the Defence Staff, had revealed how in 2004 Britain's senior commanders threatened to quit over cuts sought by the Treasury.

During his six-hour session, the Prime Minister said the turmoil which had gripped post-war Iraq was the fault of the U.S., which failed to heed his warnings of the need to plan better for reconstruction.

Mr Brown insisted that going to war had been the 'right decision for the right reasons'. Unlike his predecessor Mr Blair, he expressed regret for the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq.

But he sidestepped questions from the inquiry panel about why he did not push for a delay in military action if he believed there was no proper post-war plan.


He took a swipe at the 'informality' of government decision-making under Mr Blair, claiming he had not seen draft legal advice from the Attorney General warning that a conflict would be in breach of international law.

Mr Brown said he assured Mr Blair in mid 2002 that money would be no object to military action. But he said that up until the day before a Commons vote approving military action in 2003, he had been pressing for a diplomatic solution.

The former head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, who is now an adviser to the Conservatives, said: 'Gordon Brown bears responsibility for not fully funding the defence review of his government, and for claiming credit for increasing funding when actually there was a reduction in value.

'There is a certain amount of wishful thinking and rewriting history. But of course the elephant in the room was that underlying underfunding of defence that has been endemic for the last several years going right back to the defence review of 1997/98.'

Conservative defence spokesman Dr Liam Fox said: 'Gordon Brown, with typical weasel words, tried to pin the blame on everyone else, above all the Americans.'

Among the audience at the inquiry was Susan Smith, whose son Private Phillip Hewett, 21, died when his lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover was blown up in Al Amarah in July 2005. She accused the Prime Minister of evading questions in his evidence and attempting to shift the blame on to military commanders.

'It's very low to blame commanders,' said Mrs Smith, from Tamworth, Staffordshire. 'Phillip's commander died alongside him in the back of a Snatch Land Rover.'

Mr Brown suggested the main reason for his support for war was because Iraq was a 'serial violator of international law', rather than because of weapons of mass destruction.

Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, said: 'The Prime Minister was economical with the truth.

'Undoubtedly, we did lack many things when we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. To say we didn't need more helicopters or armoured protection was quite wrong. It is astonishing and offensive to suggest that if officers had a choice they would have chosen the Snatch Land Rover.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255814/Gordon-Brown-tells-Chilcots-Iraq-war-inquiry-War-right-I-DO-regret-loss-life.html#ixzz0hNtFUvMG ]]> Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:57:26 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=491&PID=6552#6552 http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=306&PID=6551#6551 Author: Elaine
Subject: Daily News
Posted: 06 Mar 2010 at 8:49am

Don't blame me for Iraq: Gordon Brown tells Chilcot Inquiry that war, lack of kit and chaotic aftermath were not his fault

By James Chapman - Mail.
Gordon Brown denied all responsibility yesterday for mistakes made in Iraq, prompting a backlash from military top brass and families of the war dead.

The Prime Minister told the Chilcot Inquiry that he was not party to private assurances given by Tony Blair to George Bush that Britain would join military action come what may - and blamed the U.S. for lack of post-war planning.

He insisted he had never turned down any request for money to buy military equipment as Chancellor and suggested defence chiefs had been happy with what they got.

And he angered families by appearing to blame commanders for the choice of vehicles on the ground, which have been linked to many British casualties.

Mr Brown insisted a move to rein in the Ministry of Defence budget in the aftermath of the invasion had been necessary to prevent public finances spiralling out of control.

But he added: 'The Ministry of Defence ended up with more money than had been expected originally. At any point the military commanders were able to ask for equipment that they needed and I know of no occasion when they were turned down.'

Senior military sources expressed incredulity at Mr Brown's evidence, pointing out that General Lord Walker, former Chief of the Defence Staff, had revealed how in 2004 Britain's senior commanders threatened to quit over cuts sought by the Treasury.

During his six-hour session, the Prime Minister said the turmoil which had gripped post-war Iraq was the fault of the U.S., which failed to heed his warnings of the need to plan better for reconstruction.

Mr Brown insisted that going to war had been the 'right decision for the right reasons'. Unlike his predecessor Mr Blair, he expressed regret for the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq.

But he sidestepped questions from the inquiry panel about why he did not push for a delay in military action if he believed there was no proper post-war plan.


He took a swipe at the 'informality' of government decision-making under Mr Blair, claiming he had not seen draft legal advice from the Attorney General warning that a conflict would be in breach of international law.

Mr Brown said he assured Mr Blair in mid 2002 that money would be no object to military action. But he said that up until the day before a Commons vote approving military action in 2003, he had been pressing for a diplomatic solution.

The former head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, who is now an adviser to the Conservatives, said: 'Gordon Brown bears responsibility for not fully funding the defence review of his government, and for claiming credit for increasing funding when actually there was a reduction in value.

'There is a certain amount of wishful thinking and rewriting history. But of course the elephant in the room was that underlying underfunding of defence that has been endemic for the last several years going right back to the defence review of 1997/98.'

Conservative defence spokesman Dr Liam Fox said: 'Gordon Brown, with typical weasel words, tried to pin the blame on everyone else, above all the Americans.'

Among the audience at the inquiry was Susan Smith, whose son Private Phillip Hewett, 21, died when his lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover was blown up in Al Amarah in July 2005. She accused the Prime Minister of evading questions in his evidence and attempting to shift the blame on to military commanders.

'It's very low to blame commanders,' said Mrs Smith, from Tamworth, Staffordshire. 'Phillip's commander died alongside him in the back of a Snatch Land Rover.'

Mr Brown suggested the main reason for his support for war was because Iraq was a 'serial violator of international law', rather than because of weapons of mass destruction.

Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, said: 'The Prime Minister was economical with the truth.

'Undoubtedly, we did lack many things when we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. To say we didn't need more helicopters or armoured protection was quite wrong. It is astonishing and offensive to suggest that if officers had a choice they would have chosen the Snatch Land Rover.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255814/Gordon-Brown-tells-Chilcots-Iraq-war-inquiry-War-right-I-DO-regret-loss-life.html#ixzz0hNtFUvMG

    

Edited by Elaine - 06 Mar 2010 at 8:56am]]> Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:49:59 UT http://www.mfsg.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=306&PID=6551#6551