RAF chief hits at politicians

Hampshire Chronicle: Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Pulford says military figures "want answers now" unlike politicians Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Pulford says military figures "want answers now" unlike politicians

The head of the Royal Air Force (RAF) has delivered a stark critique of politicians for lacking decisiveness and "making it up as they go along".

Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Pulford said military figures wanted "answers now", but had to deal with civilian leaders who left everything till the last moment and were obsessed with cost.

The comments, which could irritate David Cameron and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond among others, came in a speech to a conference organised by think-tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

Sir Andrew, Chief of the Air Staff, told the event in London that the RAF's core function was to look after the airspace of British territory.

"That simple answer to what we are for is why so many governments take the easy way with their air forces," he said.

"Look at how many air forces in the world simply do that... they do the non-discretionary.

"It's that further ambition that really puzzles us.

"That balance between what the politicians might want me to do and how much they want me to pay for it, and how much time and effort and resource they wish me to invest in it.

"That has always been the way, that balance between politics and the military."

Sir Andrew went on: "I am a military man, I want an answer now. The politician - 'if I could leave it a couple of days, could you wait till the end of next week, I really don't feel like making a decision just yet. I'll leave it right till the last moment, do I have to make a decision now?'

"I want that decision now... I want to know exactly what you want me to do and I want the end state...

"The politician, he's not really sure what the end state is, he doesn't really care, he's got to be seen to be doing something, 'we need to be there, I'll make that up as we go along...'

"That doesn't sit comfortably.

"I want to take enough people and enough equipment to get the job done to meet that end state, and I want the decision now.

"'Well, can you go with fewer people, because politically I want to be seen maintaining a sort of level on this...'

"And of course, the big cruncher, 'how much is all this going to cost?' I don't care about the cost. I need the resource, the people to get the job done, get the end state in the timeline...

"'Ooh, if you could do it for a couple of million less that would be great, because the Treasury are not being quite...' That tension is there.

"Of course that's in an operational time... in peacetime we are in that balance every year.

"We are trying to balance that political ambition with my military ambition, my need to explain to the politicians, if you give me X, I can do Y."

Senior military figures have repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of the coalition's spending curbs, which have seen force levels cut and equipment programmes trimmed.

An RAF spokesman said: " The comments made by the Chief of the Air Staff must not be taken out of context. His commentary was based on previous academic discussions at the conference and related to the differences between any international military leader, who has to make decisions based on tactical circumstances and political decision makers who have to take into account a far broader and more complex picture.

"It was certainly not intended as any form of critique of the current UK Government or any previous UK Government."

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:11pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

"It was certainly not intended as any form of critique of the current UK Government or any previous UK Government." .........
........why not?
It should be.........because the Governments for the past 20 odd years have been reducing the size of the Armed Forces, yet expecting them to do more, in more locations around the world.
"It was certainly not intended as any form of critique of the current UK Government or any previous UK Government." ......... ........why not? It should be.........because the Governments for the past 20 odd years have been reducing the size of the Armed Forces, yet expecting them to do more, in more locations around the world. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 2

1:27pm Fri 11 Jul 14

RealLivin says...

The governments treatment of the armed forces is a disgrace, they send them to war then sack them when they come home, can any one name me a company or corporate that sacks its most loyal and skilled work force to take on and train young inexperienced staff to then go do the same job. Soldiers are coming back injured and ending up in civilian hospital with doctors who have no idea how to treat their type of injuries and staff, patients and general public who abuse them for their contribution to the conflict. When I first moved to the NE Catterick had its own hospital, it now uses Northallerton, which they are trying to close. If politicians what our forces in these conflicts protecting our interests then they should be fulled kited out with only the best and looked after when they come home, if we cant afford to do that then we should not stick our noses in where it usually doesn't belong.
The governments treatment of the armed forces is a disgrace, they send them to war then sack them when they come home, can any one name me a company or corporate that sacks its most loyal and skilled work force to take on and train young inexperienced staff to then go do the same job. Soldiers are coming back injured and ending up in civilian hospital with doctors who have no idea how to treat their type of injuries and staff, patients and general public who abuse them for their contribution to the conflict. When I first moved to the NE Catterick had its own hospital, it now uses Northallerton, which they are trying to close. If politicians what our forces in these conflicts protecting our interests then they should be fulled kited out with only the best and looked after when they come home, if we cant afford to do that then we should not stick our noses in where it usually doesn't belong. RealLivin
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Fri 11 Jul 14

varteg1 says...

This lot are the inheritors of what Churchill left in his wake, although not in any way Tory supporter, I have to say, we really need a guy of his ilk looking after our military today.

Otherwise, just hand it over to the combined Euro military machine, it couldn't do any worse.

Then again, we will soon be getting a new and apparently high trained Muslim army coming home, maybe we can turn it into a new force for the defence of the realm.
This lot are the inheritors of what Churchill left in his wake, although not in any way Tory supporter, I have to say, we really need a guy of his ilk looking after our military today. Otherwise, just hand it over to the combined Euro military machine, it couldn't do any worse. Then again, we will soon be getting a new and apparently high trained Muslim army coming home, maybe we can turn it into a new force for the defence of the realm. varteg1
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree