- Defence Policy
- Equipment and Support
- Modernising Defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land Vehicles
- Security
- HR and Training
- Defence Estates
News updates
Email
Print
Digg
reddit
StumbleUpon
Facebook
DeliciousTootal echoes call for hi-tech infantry
Wednesday, January 20, 2010A former Army commander has backed General Sir David Richards' calls for the next Strategic Defence Review to provide more hi-tech infantry and cyber defences.
Colonel Stuart Tootal, who commanded 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan in 2006, wrote in The Times that "General Richards' understanding of the strategic landscape demonstrates that he is a senior officer with vision at a time when that is desperately needed".
"There is a real danger that the Ministry of Defence will end up equipping and structuring the Armed Forces to fight the wars of the past," said Tootal. "In too many quarters of the MoD there is a marked reluctance to recognise that the Cold War ended in 1989. This is reflected in the costly and inefficient procurement of ships and aircraft designed to fight the Soviet Union, which, believe it or not, are still coming into service.
"The tactics of insurgents are hard to counter with tanks and fighter jets designed to fight on and above the West German plain. Success in places like Afghanistan requires our Armed Forces to be equipped and structured to take on guerrillas. This means, above all else, boots on the ground - enough soldiers to dominate and hold difficult terrain, operate among the people, provide them with security and to be able to earn their support," he said. "It also means more surveillance systems, such as drones to locate the insurgents, and helicopters to avoid IED-strewn routes.
"Additionally, it requires development aid to help to strengthen indigenous governments in places such as Kabul to bring security to their people without external support. Traditionally the military takes a subordinate role in delivering aid projects, but if those who are currently charged with doing it cannot operate in countries such as Afghanistan, then the military must be given the resources to allow it to take on a greater role."
Tootal concludes: "It is the Army that has borne the brunt in Afghanistan; and it is army commanders who have learnt the new fundamentals of conflict the hard way. Afghanistan - and the modern era of conflict - is impossible to understand unless you have fought and bled there."
HAVE YOUR SAY
I am stunned. An infantry officer stating the need for more infantry. What next, the Royal Navy asking for more ships and the RAF asking for more planes.
"He demonstrates that he is a senior officer with vision at a time when it is needed"?
No he is CGS with first hand experience of AFG and his speech supports an increase in the infantry. Tootal states "It is the Army that has borne the brunt in Afghanistan; and it is army commanders who have learnt the new fundamentals of conflict the hard way. Afghanistan - and the modern era of conflict - is impossible to understand unless you have fought and bled there".
A couple of points on that one. Firstly it shows a distinct lack of respect to the other two services who have also fought and bled there. He states that it is impossible to understand unless you have fought there. Well that is planning down the toilet then. The fundamentals of conflict? Are we not still going on dawn clearance patrols using the same tactics we have used for the last 50 years?
Where is our COIN doctrine? The US Army understood that they were doing things wrong so did a lessons learned exercise and re-wrote their doctrine to reflect that. Have we done that? Have we admitted mistakes? Are we learning the lessons and adapting the way we fight in this conflict? Or do we have Generals requesting more troops and retired senior officers telling everyone it is only them, they who have spilt blood, that know the answer.
Col Tootal, he is not looking at the strategic picture. He is looking at the Afghan picture and reacting to it.
8 years too late.
Lee Hannaford - Bristol