Is British defence policy the most catastrophic in the western world?

[overlander]

Just a few examples from old times and present ones.
HMS,s Victorious and Eagle strike carriers they were practically rebuild in the late 50,s and 1964 respectively after spending a lot of money in them they were retired from service just 8 and 7 years respectively.

HMS Hermes after a extensive refit including the installation of the sky jump in 1981 to allow the ship to operate with Sea Harriers she was retired just 3 years later.

CVA-01 after a lot of delays and spend a lot of money in the project it was cancelled in the late 60,s

To be short I will describe only a few from the last labour and present conservative governments.

Withdrawn of the Sea Harriers FA2 arguing that the engines were not ready to tolerate hot, these fighters were one the best in the air air combat.

Future British Cariers QEII and POW, after a lot of delays and uncertain the project was approved in 2008 but with the arrival of the new conservative government the project get cut if not in reality canceled, they decided to go ahead with the construction simply because the cancellation costs were higher than to build them if not 100 per cent they were going to be canceled but now they explain that 1 of them possible POW will be finished in the strike role with only 12 fighters on board (ridiculous for a ship of this size and the other will be actively marketed i/e finished as a helicopter carrier, It,s possible that after the cancellation of the carrier strike capability durin 10 years they decide that strike capability is no longer needed, I am sure they will try to sale both the ships to navies like India, China, Brazil even to Russia, I am very pessimistic about the possibility that British carrier strike capability remains any more.

Harrier Force, very capable and useful fighter, after expending a lot of mey to upgrade them to the gr9 standard the new conservative government decided to scrap them leaving Britain without any fighter for the remaining carrier and without close air support for amphibious operations.

The valuable RFA Fort George has been withdrawn from service, it means that the oldest Rfa for Rosalie and sister will be retired without replacement leaving the RFA with just 11 ships in the best situation.

THe Tornado force is in question too as now the treasury needs more savings and could be scrap too if this happens they will leave Britain with less fighters than for example Spain.

There are more fiascoes in the British defence policy but I don't want to extend too much.

In the other side is France that maintains a credible and strong defence, they have been reduced too in the last decades but never to the level of the present wild cults made in Britain, now the french are the 1st navy of Europa not because they improve it very much but simply because British have scrap nearly 40 % of the capabilities in a few months.

Another consequence not very often discussed is the morale of servicemen and troops how they will feel if they see that defence is not a priority for british politicians and wors than it one day they could be forced to leave the service because another defence review which in Britain are mostly cuts can be implemented sooner than later.

All these stupid and suicide defence policies from past and present have made that today Britain could not be properly defended from possible aggressions i/e Falkland, Belize etc and they have reduced the capabilities of the 3 services to levels of simply a medium power.

But this is not the worst, the problem is that the cuts never have a limit and who know what these politicians will be thinking to cut for next defence review (cuts)

I am not British but I am sad to see the irresponsibility of these politicians with a country Britain that have contributed in history with bravery and sacrifice to the world stability and peace, my tribute to all british servicemen who lost their lives along the history.

 

[riksavage]

Just a few examples from old times and present ones.
HMS,s Victorious and Eagle strike carriers they were practically rebuild in the late 50,s and 1964 respectively after spending a lot of money in them they were retired from service just 8 and 7 years respectively.

HMS Hermes after a extensive refit including the installation of the sky jump in 1981 to allow the ship to operate with Sea Harriers she was retired just 3 years later.

CVA-01 after a lot of delays and spend a lot of money in the project it was cancelled in the late 60,s

To be short I will describe only a few from the last labour and present conservative governments.

Withdrawn of the Sea Harriers FA2 arguing that the engines were not ready to tolerate hot, these fighters were one the best in the air air combat.

Future British Cariers QEII and POW, after a lot of delays and uncertain the project was approved in 2008 but with the arrival of the new conservative government the project get cut if not in reality canceled, they decided to go ahead with the construction simply because the cancellation costs were higher than to build them if not 100 per cent they were going to be canceled but now they explain that 1 of them possible POW will be finished in the strike role with only 12 fighters on board (ridiculous for a ship of this size and the other will be actively marketed i/e finished as a helicopter carrier, It,s possible that after the cancellation of the carrier strike capability durin 10 years they decide that strike capability is no longer needed, I am sure they will try to sale both the ships to navies like India, China, Brazil even to Russia, I am very pessimistic about the possibility that British carrier strike capability remains any more.

Harrier Force, very capable and useful fighter, after expending a lot of mey to upgrade them to the gr9 standard the new conservative government decided to scrap them leaving Britain without any fighter for the remaining carrier and without close air support for amphibious operations.

The valuable RFA Fort George has been withdrawn from service, it means that the oldest Rfa for Rosalie and sister will be retired without replacement leaving the RFA with just 11 ships in the best situation.

THe Tornado force is in question too as now the treasury needs more savings and could be scrap too if this happens they will leave Britain with less fighters than for example Spain.

There are more fiascoes in the British defence policy but I don't want to extend too much.

In the other side is France that maintains a credible and strong defence, they have been reduced too in the last decades but never to the level of the present wild cults made in Britain, now the french are the 1st navy of Europa not because they improve it very much but simply because British have scrap nearly 40 % of the capabilities in a few months.

Another consequence not very often discussed is the morale of servicemen and troops how they will feel if they see that defence is not a priority for british politicians and wors than it one day they could be forced to leave the service because another defence review which in Britain are mostly cuts can be implemented sooner than later.

All these stupid and suicide defence policies from past and present have made that today Britain could not be properly defended from possible aggressions i/e Falkland, Belize etc and they have reduced the capabilities of the 3 services to levels of simply a medium power.

But this is not the worst, the problem is that the cuts never have a limit and who know what these politicians will be thinking to cut for next defence review (cuts)

I am not British but I am sad to see the irresponsibility of these politicians with a country Britain that have contributed in history with bravery and sacrifice to the world stability and peace, my tribute to all british servicemen who lost their lives along the history.

Unfortunately the UK military suffers from eyes, which are often bigger than ones stomach - order, over-spec and then re-spec equipment without realizing the knock-on consequences. Add the Politics factor, governments swinging back and forth from left to right resulting in projects such as TSR2 and VA-01 being cancelled and you have a toxic cocktail. Another factor influencing the UK's often disjointed approach to acquisition has been driven by operational driven changes (Falklands, GWI, Sierra Leone, GWII, A-Stan). A piece of equipment will be spec'd, then some senior officer will go 'hang-on we need to apply the following lessons' and it's back to the drawing board because the prototype fails the trials.

Whilst there have been many nightmares (Nimrod being the finest) there has also been some marked successes - the UOR programme and Government/Industry long-term agreements being one. The average UK foot-soldier's equipment has been completely upgraded/replaced over a ten year period and the troops now fighting in A-Stan are probably the best equipped outside of the US contingent. This transformation was accomplished in double quick time. The UK military still remains the only force in Europe, which can (and has) deployed in the last 20 years every single unit on combat operations (not at the same time obviously), that feat requires a great deal of logistics planning, preparation and rapid acquisition of appropriate equipment (transforming from a Western Europe focused heavy army to a desert/mountain all arms expeditionary force. So whilst we bemoan some of the big ticket headline grabbing shockers there has also been some serious lessons learnt.

The current Conservative Government has bitten the bullet and is putting in place individuals with project management experience in the private sector, this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately from a maritime perspective the balancing of books and continued commitment to A-Stan has forced the RN to suffer a capability gap until 2020. Going for 2 x 65K carriers was a mistake, the Admirals should have gone for 3 x UK spec'd Wasp Class. Lean manned Commando/Strike Carriers, F35B capable built around supporting 16 Air Assault (hele) and 3 Commando (amphibious).

If you look in detail at some of the kit, which was retired there were operational reasons, not just financial. Hermes was replaced by three new Invincible class and Sea Harrier was obsolete. Other than against a 3rd world airforce they would have been target practice. GR9's were great aircraft, but they lacked the weapons capacity (not Stormshadow capable) of GR4's. One had to go, the right choice was made. T45 will have to fil the gap until 2020, sad but 6 dedicated AAW platforms fitted with a tier one air-defence system is better than 10 obsolete T42's. At the peak of the RN's power the UK spent 25% of GDP on defence, those days are long gone.

 

[Lucasnz]

Unfortunately the UK military suffers from eyes, which are often bigger than ones stomach - order, over-spec and then re-spec equipment without realizing the knock-on consequences. Add the Politics factor, governments swinging back and forth from left to right resulting in projects such as TSR2 and VA-01 being cancelled and you have a toxic cocktail. Another factor influencing the UK's often disjointed approach to acquisition has been driven by operational driven changes (Falklands, GWI, Sierra Leone, GWII, A-Stan). A piece of equipment will be spec'd, then some senior officer will go 'hang-on we need to apply the following lessons' and it's back to the drawing board because the prototype fails the trials.

Whilst there have been many nightmares (Nimrod being the finest) there has also been some marked successes - the UOR programme and Government/Industry long-term agreements being one. The average UK foot-soldier's equipment has been completely upgraded/replaced over a ten year period and the troops now fighting in A-Stan are probably the best equipped outside of the US contingent. This transformation was accomplished in double quick time. The UK military still remains the only force in Europe, which can (and has) deployed in the last 20 years every single unit on combat operations (not at the same time obviously), that feat requires a great deal of logistics planning, preparation and rapid acquisition of appropriate equipment (transforming from a Western Europe focused heavy army to a desert/mountain all arms expeditionary force. So whilst we bemoan some of the big ticket headline grabbing shockers there has also been some serious lessons learnt.

The current Conservative Government has bitten the bullet and is putting in place individuals with project management experience in the private sector, this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately from a maritime perspective the balancing of books and continued commitment to A-Stan has forced the RN to suffer a capability gap until 2020. Going for 2 x 65K carriers was a mistake, the Admirals should have gone for 3 x UK spec'd Wasp Class. Lean manned Commando/Strike Carriers, F35B capable built around supporting 16 Air Assault (hele) and 3 Commando (amphibious).

If you look in detail at some of the kit, which was retired there were operational factors, not just financial. Hermes was replaced by three new Invincible class and Sea Harrier was obsolete, other than against a 3rd world airforce they would have been target practice. GR9's were great aircraft, but they lacked the weapons capacity (not Stormshadow capable) of GR4's. One had to go, the right choice was made. T45 will have to fil the gap until 2020, sad but 6 dedicated AAW platforms fitted with a tier one air-defence system is better than 10 obsolete T42's. At the peak of the RN's power the UK spent 25% of GDP on defence, those days are long gone.

I tend to agree with most of your analysis but some of the decisions like scrapping the Nimrod without a replacement were and are so short sighted as to stagger belief. I'm not convinced about with your comments on the Harrier. They were never meant to carry out the role of a GR4 - they were designed more as close support aircraft. However the need for them I guess has diminished given the use of the Apache. The RAF focus on high end high value assets like GR4 / Typhoon appears to me to be following the same mistake as the RN in focus on a small number of high end ships when in really most navies need more ships like the French Floreal / Danish Abalsom / Theitis class (i.e Gunboats).

 

[F-15 Eagle]

British defense policy is not a defense policy at all..if complete total defense disarmament and suicide!!!!

Britain is no longer a major military power and has become irrelevant and wont be able to defend themselves no longer.

"But this is not the worst, the problem is that the cuts never have a limit and who know what these politicians will be thinking to cut for next defense review (cuts)"

Thats the worst part and its true there is no limit when there should be one. These cuts are an attack on Britain's military itself far worse than any attack the Taliban could ever dream of in Afghanistan.

 

[riksavage]

British defense policy is not a defense policy at all..if complete total defense disarmament and suicide!!!!

Britain is no longer a major military power and has become irrelevant and wont be able to defend themselves no longer.

"But this is not the worst, the problem is that the cuts never have a limit and who know what these politicians will be thinking to cut for next defense review (cuts)"

Thats the worst part and its true there is no limit when there should be one. These cuts are an attack on Britain's military itself far worse than any attack the Taliban could ever dream of in Afghanistan.

Britain's no longer a major military power?

OK then, if its alright with you the UK can withdraw 3 Commando Brigade (42 & 45) from A-Stan, recall elements 40 Commando deploying to the ME as part of an amphibious readiness group, withdraw the operational training teams from Sierra Leone (let the country revert to being a basket case), Uganda and Kenya, stop the GR4's, Typhoon's, Sentinels, Nimrod R1's, E3D's, VC10's, Frigates and SSN deploying to Libya and finally send all those overseas military students back from Sandhurst, Warminster, Shrivenham, Lympstone, Dartmouth and Cranwell, close GCHQ (largest intelligence gathering facility outside the NSA), sell off the SSBN's, SSN's, C17's and finally cancel the tanker program and QE's.

The UK can follow Ireland's example, after all there are other nations lined up around the block to step into the UK's boots (combat high) to take up the slack across the green zone!

The UK get's bugger all recognition from your illustrious leader, so we might as well sell-up and go home and live in our tiny Island complete with self-defence force.

 

[Bonza]

Maybe we can avoid this devolving into a mudslinging match between our British and American members? I understand the topic is close to people's hearts but there's no need for it to go down this direction. Cheers guys.

As for you F-15, I'd really appreciate if you'd think before you speak, next time. Calling an allied nation "irrelevant" isn't going to do anything but cause these confrontations, and in the context you're using it's a ridiculous assertion in the first place.

 

[Kirkzzy]

...this is probably going to piss some people off but here it goes....

I have often wondered in today's day and age.. why Britain needs a big military budget. I mean for defence they are covered. To invade Britain you would have to get through Spain, France or Germany (maybe all of em). The only thing at this current day and age the UK needs a big budget for is for power projection. Like I guess it has the Falklands, but if they didn't do things like Iraq and Afghanistan (not necessarily saying they weren't in the right to go, i am a strong supporter of Afghanistan) how much money do you think could have been saved? Why does it need 2 super carriers, over 100 aircraft in the RAF as none of its neighbours would be willing to attack her.

Don't mean to piss anyone off with this, but I am just seeing that something more could be done from a general point of view. (try and look at this post not from a defence analyst's point of view but as a general citizen of a country)

 

[My2Cents]

(try and look at this post not from a defence analyst's point of view but as a general citizen of a country)

Could you explain a little clearer what you mean by this?
Are you just looking for some justification to cut the defense budget?
Or are you looking for reasons to maintain a military capable of influencing the world beyond your coastline?

 

[StingrayOZ]

To invade Britain you would have to get through Spain, France or Germany (maybe all of em).

Briton has not been invaded for about 1000 years. Even during extremely high end conflicts, the UK was unlikely to be invaded, more likely bombed into submission. The Uk is an excolonial (and still a colonial) power with territory all over the globe. The UK has responsibilities and interests entailing that.

I think its important for the UK to keep its current place in international affairs. The US can not and should not be the only power while countries like the UK ditch any responsibilities and capability and cost.

Beyond that UK citizens would expect the government to aid in their removal from countries such as the evacuation of lebanon in 2006 or would it be fair to leave its citizens their while France, US, etc all evacuated their own?

The UK has a very capable military, while economic restraints means some cut backs are required its has not been military costs that have sent the UK economy to the toilet.

 

[riksavage]

...this is probably going to piss some people off but here it goes....

I have often wondered in today's day and age.. why Britain needs a big military budget. I mean for defence they are covered. To invade Britain you would have to get through Spain, France or Germany (maybe all of em). The only thing at this current day and age the UK needs a big budget for is for power projection. Like I guess it has the Falklands, but if they didn't do things like Iraq and Afghanistan (not necessarily saying they weren't in the right to go, i am a strong supporter of Afghanistan) how much money do you think could have been saved? Why does it need 2 super carriers, over 100 aircraft in the RAF as none of its neighbours would be willing to attack her.

Don't mean to piss anyone off with this, but I am just seeing that something more could be done from a general point of view. (try and look at this post not from a defence analyst's point of view but as a general citizen of a country)

It's in the UK's interest to remain active in world affairs, whether through the application of soft power (diplomacy, African training missions, aid, BBC World Service etc.) or hard power (combat operations in Libya and Afghanistan). Fortunately the general public are pretty hardened to UK military activity as a result of continuous operations since 1968.

If the UK steps back, who in Europe will take her place? No single country is prepared to spend the required percentage of GDP to enable them to conduct autonomous operations capable of dealing with a Libya type crisis, which requires expeditionary/logistics capabilities few nations possess. People love to talk about numbers of shiny tanks and planes etc, but very few look at sustainability (number of stockpiled weapons, spare parts) and supporting enablers/supply-chain.

Recent examples have shown the UK's vital importance to NATO. Since the US pulled back around 50 combat planes from Libyan operations following NATO's take-over of command only 6 out of 28 NATO nations are still conducting air strikes, half by France and Britain, the other half by Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Canada. Note a very distinct lack of Mediterranean NATO county participation and the largest economy in Europe - Germany. The organisation has become a two tier club with the head-honcho (USA) getting evermore frustrated with having to do the hard yards all the time.

The ongoing instability has reinforced the Anglo-French decision to tie up militarily. Both have similar capabilities. but in these austere times need to leverage off each others strengths. They also share a rare desire to get involved if the national interest is at stake.

The current Governments desire to balance the books is driven by an eye watering bow wave of expensive procument projects, which have got to be sorted out. To pay for strategic tankers, A400, QE's, FRES Recce, F35C, Widlcat and ongoing Typhoon upgrades some projects simply had to be ditched and older platforms disposed of. Sad but there simply was no other choice. The price hopefully will be a leap in capabilities come 2020.

 

[Troothsayer]

It's in the UK's interest to remain active in world affairs, whether through the application of soft power (diplomacy, African training missions, aid, BBC World Service etc.) or hard power (combat operations in Libya and Afghanistan).

Absolutely, the UK should try and shape the world the way it wants rather than to sit back and let it be shaped by others. Within its own limitations of course, we're not talking empire here!
Far, far better to take the fight to any potential foe than for them to arrive on your doorstep and fight them there.

To invade Britain you would have to get through Spain, France or Germany (maybe all of em).

Kirkzzy, are you seriously suggesting Britain puts its future in the hands of other countries willingness to defend it?

Britain spends 2% of its GDP on defence, as opposed to 6% in 1980 or 11% in 1954. It can hardly be said to be over indulging in terms of defence spending.

 

[Troothsayer]

Well let's pick this apart without resorting to flaming

British defense policy is not a defense policy at all..if complete total defense disarmament and suicide!!!!

Britain spends the 4th highest amount of any country on its armed forces. It is a nuclear power and has modern armed forces. Some disarmament.

Britain is no longer a major military power and has become irrelevant and wont be able to defend themselves no longer.

Hyperbole this really isn't it? Which country is going to step into its space and who is going to attack a nation with a nuclear deterrent?

Thats the worst part and its true there is no limit when there should be one. These cuts are an attack on Britain's military itself far worse than any attack the Taliban could ever dream of in Afghanistan.

Money doesn't grow on trees. The UK has a defecit of 11%+ and has an overspent defence budget of £36bn over the next decade. Failing to deal with that was a national security problem all in itself.

There is far, far too much nonsense spoken about UK defence cuts.

 

[Seraph]

I think a big reason for the problems regarding the British armed forces is the political situation. Tories and Labour constantly switch seats at the helm of the nation, so the budget gets shaken up every few years, all ongoing projects/developments are re-evaluated (and you know how political parties like to cut off whatever their predecessors/opponents were doing at the knees), and it's easy to target the Defence budget for cuts these days, because it doesn't directly affect the population.

Of course, it doesn't help that (AFAIK) there is no clear indication whether the British armed forces want to focus on territorial defence, international peacekeeping, a combination of the two, or something entirely different - this lack of commitment (vis-a-vis for example the Swedish armed forces) makes it easy for politicians to whittle away at both budget and manpower "allowance" of the British armed forces.

 

[Neutral Zone]

Liam Fox gave a speech earlier this week highlighting that the root cause of much of Britain's chaotic defence policies since 1945 was mainly economic weakness. In particular he highlighted the decision to cut and run from Palestine and the ending of the Suez operation because of the collapse in the value of Sterling as examples of this as well as the whole CVA.01/TSR.2 fiasco which was largely driven by the decision to drop the East of Suez presence because the Nation simply couldn't afford it. Had both those projects been given the go ahead then it's likely that they would have been severely curtailed if not cancelled outright as a result of Britain's economic train wreck in the early 1970's (I'm actually not a fan of TSR.2 as I think it was too complex and costly a design. Mountbatten's infamous briefcase stunt may not have been the most tactful thing but his point was spot on. An enhanced Buccaneer of something like the AFVG could have fulfilled the TSR.2's role at a lower cost.)

Time after time since 1945 Britain's defence planners mapped out a strategy for future defence needs only to find in a few years that because the economy wasn't growing as strongly as predicted they had to make another round of cuts and cancellations. Undoubtedly there were some poor choices made in those projects that survived the axe, the OP refers to the scrapping of Eagle and Victorious when they could have served on for several years, while that was a stupid decision I question the original decisions to try and rebuild WW2 designs for the jet age. Personally I wouldn't have bothered with any of those rebuilds and spent the money on the 1952 Carrier Design that would have been purpose built for jet operations.

Again it all comes down to the fact that Britain's economy didn't perform well enough in the post war era to sustain the level of armed forces and commitments that people would have liked to have seen, that was due to political mismanagement. Had Britain performed more like Germany or Japan then I've no doubt that we would still have the size of armed forces we did in the 1960's with 4 or 5 large carriers and significant presence in the Middle East and SE Asia.

 

[Palnatoke]

To me there seems to be serveral things wrong.

First of all procurement seems to be dominated by a "buy british" agenda that does a lot of disservice to the armed forces, because they doesn't get the right stuff at the right price at the right time.
(That policy is probably inherited from a classical british habbit of highly destructive industrial policies, that in 50 years transformed a leading industrial power to a country that most of us will be hard press to mention 10 products from.)

It seems to me that the UK focusses a lot on high end and very advanced systems that combined with the above "buy local" means that some stuff gets way too costly.

-We should remember that a builded and working "less cabable" system is still far more cabable than drawings and blue prints.


And overall. How can UK think that they can maintain a modern socity, a large army etc. with a very low tax rate???

 

[swerve]

Briton has not been invaded for about 1000 years. ....

322 years, 7 months, 4 days ago. The landing was at Brixham, in Devon. This town fell 5 weeks later, in the bloodiest fighting of the invasion. The Dutch troops of the invading army were supported by local people against the mostly Irish troops of the king holding the town. The (mostly Irish) dead were buried 2 km from where I'm sitting.

OK, it was an invasion with considerable support from the English, & there was little fighting because James didn't trust his own army, & dithered until it started crumbling, but it was certainly an invasion. Over 20000 troops landed, 80% of them (the best 80%) foreigners, led by a foreign general & head of state of another country, one we'd been at war with 4 times in the previous 40 years.

 

[martyn]

Hardly the most catastrophic in the western world, but the SDSR has been, I think, an exercise in budget cutting which has paid scant regard to the UK's maritime status and foreign policy interests.

It beggars belief that the SDSR is closely followed by an operation against Libya where no vital national interests are at stake. But the point here is that defence and foreign policy are contradictory. If Cameron wants to adopt an interventionist foreign policy then he can't afford to have no fixed wing carrier capability. Equally, if he wants to cut defence spending as he has, then he must accept that the UK can't adopt a global foreign policy stance.

I'm afraid that the foreign and defence policy of the coalition is incoherent, and that's a fairly damning criticism of any government. Ultimately, Cameron must bridge the inconsistency between the two or the UK risks humiliation on the global military stage.

 

[StobieWan]

I think a big reason for the problems regarding the British armed forces is the political situation. Tories and Labour constantly switch seats at the helm of the nation, so the budget gets shaken up every few years

Hardly, we've had the longest period of stable government in history - 15 or more years of conservative rule followed about about as much by Labour.

Labour dropped the ball by committing to but not funding a COIN war in Afghanistan and the coalition government made some very hard decisions. Cancelling Nimrod was probably a smart move in the longer term as there's every indication that the airframes were really in a much worse state of repair than indicated - and we may well get P8's to replace them in time. If the project had been properly managed in the earlier stages and gone through on time, it might have been useful but as it was, not so much.


The MOD needs a solid reform with better project management for sure but we're still very much in the game, with a well equipped and modern trio of fighting forces and a particularly well equipped and trained Army. And we have combat experience *in spades* - other than the US I can't think of another country that's had quite as much involvement in major theatre level warfare, or in smaller more local concerns.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

322 years, 7 months, 4 days ago. The landing was at Brixham, in Devon. This town fell 5 weeks later, in the bloodiest fighting of the invasion. The Dutch troops of the invading army were supported by local people against the mostly Irish troops of the king holding the town. The (mostly Irish) dead were buried 2 km from where I'm sitting.

OK, it was an invasion with considerable support from the English, & there was little fighting because James didn't trust his own army, & dithered until it started crumbling, but it was certainly an invasion. Over 20000 troops landed, 80% of them (the best 80%) foreigners, led by a foreign general & head of state of another country, one we'd been at war with 4 times in the previous 40 years.

There's the Jacobite invasion of England in 1745 as well...

Plus of course, all the invasion *attempts* by France, Spain, Germany, Holland etc along the way

Ian

 

[88a]

No doubt!!!

British were saved from defeat by US in World War, then they had been a failure in Iraq, and now in Helmand where the British Army was facing a Strategic Defeat, hadn't US troops popped in to help them.

British are ones who still propagate to stay till 2015 in Afghanistan accusing Pakistan of their inability, while their own force levels is just 10,000 plus, Damn stupid to think and trust British committement, they are simply a sad stock of coalition through a chest-thumping David Cameron.

It is sad and hurtful. :argue