UK Afghanistan Commander Quits Angry

November 1st, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

The British newspaper the Daily Telegraph reported Saturday that Britain’s top commander in Afghanistan resigned this week out of anger and frustration with his government’s unwillingness to provide British soldiers in the war-torn country with good equipment.

Major Sebastian Morley resigned suddenly this week citing “personal reasons.” The Telegraph, however, has found that his decision was not personal, but political.

He warned the British government constantly that the Snatch Land Rovers which British soldiers in Afghanistan used were too vulnerable to attacks. His warnings were ignored however, resulting in the deaths of four British soldiers, one of whom was the first female soldier to die in combat operations in Afghanistan.

Cpl Sarah Bryant and three male colleagues, the SAS soldiers, Cpl Sean Reeve, L/Cpl Richard Larkin and Paul Stout were killed when their lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover split apart after hitting a landmine in Helmand province in June,’ the Telegraph reported. Major Morley believes these deaths to be “needless.”

In his resignation letter the Major said that “chronic underinvestment” in equipment was the cause of the four soldiers’ death. Unwilling to be part of a system that lets its own soldiers be killed due to lack of funding, Major Morley resigned.

The report went on to say that the Major, who is a cousin of Princess Diana, called the lack of proper equipment “cavalier at best, criminal at worst.”

Like so many governments in western Europe, the British government has cut military funding for years, making a once strong army reasonably weak. Where European militaries were once the best equipped militaries in the world, soldiers now frequently complain that the lack of funding results in a lack of proper equipment which, in turn, costs lives.

The Major’s resignation should arose anger and passion in Britain about the government’s willingness to spend money on virtually every plan, except for the military. Funding a strong military is expensive, but it is worth it: the very first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens and its interests. In order to do so successfully, it needs a strong and well functioning army.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.