British Army running out of money

It would seem that senior British military leaders have realised, and are starting to voice, the costs of following Bush's trail on the War On Terror. The War On Terror seems to be little more than a war on nations that don't kiss Bush's ass sincerely enough, and it's only diminishing America's respect in the world.

In Iraq, we essentially went after a loudmouth dictator and implied he was responsible for 9/11. Despite the majority of the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks being Saudis, we instead cozied up to Saudi Arabia. Now another loudmouth, albeit elected, is being portrayed as dangerous and an invasion is being scheduled.

Meanwhile, the federal tribal areas of Pakistan (where Bin Laden is believed to be - remember him?) is even more chaotic and more sympathetic to the Taliban than it was before Bush launched his overly-optimistic effort there. The man continually plans for only the best outcomes, and never thinks of formulating a "Plan B", because everything always goes our way in the movies, I guess.

Now the British public is going to have to come up with the cash to finance the endless wars. Unlike the dollar, the pound is not the world's reserve currency and borrowing money to finance wars is very expensive. None of these wars promise to make any money for the participants. In fact, in Iraq the plan was to let the multinational oil companies buy the oil for cheap and sell it back to us at huge profits. These aren't 'American" or British" companies; they are huge conglomerates with no loyalty to any nation. How much are Britons willing to pay to keep the Decider from having to admit his incompetence?

Armed forces 'are running out of money'

By Thomas Harding Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 1:48pm GMT 20/11/2007

The former head of the Army has warned that the Forces are facing a cash crisis with it becoming unlikely that the military will be able to pay for future operations.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson said recent spending commitments by the Chancellor Alistair Darling were likely to prove insufficient to pay for future operations.

The officer, who has been critical of the Government since retiring as Chief of the General Staff, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I fear there is some sort of crunch on the horizon."

He added: "I detect, I fear, some crisis ahead in defence spending, if things go on as they are in terms of what we do, what we might have to do and the money allocated."

Despite the Government announcing an extra £400 million for operations in last month’s pre budget report on top of a 1.5 per cent increase in the defence budget, Gen Jackson said this was still not enough.

The MoD is currently battling with the Treasury over funding of equipment projects and payment for vehicles being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are significant worries that without proper funding the military are going to continue to lose substantial numbers of troops fed up with poor pay, accommodation and constant operations.

The Treasury’s offer of extra funding was still unlikely to prove enough for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or for potential future engagements.

Gen Jackson suggested that what people “never really grasped” was there would not be enough funding “to do the things which we do now and the things which we may have to do in the future".

The officer, who was replaced by Gen Sir Richard Dannatt after he retired last year, acknowledged British defence spending was already above the European average.

But he insisted such a comparison risked ignoring Britain’s "strategic" needs and suggested that Britain's influence in the world could wane.

"The analysis must start in logic from what it is that the UK thinks is its part to play in a very uncertain and difficult world," he went on.

"You've got to get that analysis right because from that then flows the tools you need... to do the job."

Since resigning, Gen Jackson has criticised the M0D's treatment of soldiers, particularly in the standards of pay and living accommodation.

He said today there was a widespread recognition that the conditions of service for army personnel were "not how they should be".