SNATCH Land Rovers - We're Having a Review

When told on the 12th June 2006 by Lord Astor of Hever that the Snatch Land Rover was "not remotely adequate" for patrolling in Iraq "where insurgents use landmines" Dodgy 'Lord' Drayson, the defence procurement minister replied:

I do not accept that Snatch Land Rovers are not appropriate for the role. We must recognise the difference between protection and survivability. It is important that we have the trade-offs that we need for mobility. The Snatch Land Rover provides us with the mobility and level of protection that we need.

Now, 14 days later - following some excellent coverage in the Sunday Times by Michael Smith and Jon Ungoed-Thomas [see earlier posts] - the government is apparently sensing that the issue could well escalate out of control and in doing so cause them some political damage. "What, Tony Blair lets our troops die rather than cough up a few million quid for some decent armour?". Erm, yes, that has certainly been the case up to now - and that is likely to be the case for some time to come. Having said that, our new defence secretary Des Browne told MPs he could not fail to be aware of concerns about the vehicles after recently visiting Iraq- and had this to say in the House of Commons today regarding an action plan:

"This is a serious issue. I've asked for a review into this,"

"There are medium and long-term plans in relation to vehicles and I will be looking in the short-term at what we can do to respond to the situation."

Yes folks, we're gonna have a review! Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, sensing an opportunity to make some political capital but no less correct in his observations stated that Snatch Land Rovers did not offer "the level of protection our troops need in Iraq - yet we continue to use them. Our troops are quite right to demand the level of protection afforded to their American colleagues. They must be asking if the MoD is acting through complacency or incompetence." Or possibly both - with a set of priorities that ranks the necks of those forced to fight in the government's 'wars of choice' very low - when it comes to spending money. In fairness though, when troops get blown to pieces - perhaps unneccessarily - all parties make an excellent job of saying the right thing. See John Reid's tribute to Gordon Gentle [emphasis added]:

"The loss of Fusilier Gentle is devastating for all who knew him, and I extend my deepest sympathies to his family, friends and colleagues. The death of any member of the Armed Forces is extremely serious - the safety of our personnel is and must remain paramount.

"Whilst every possible precaution is taken to protect Service personnel the unfortunate reality is that, despite the best training, tactics and equipment, military operations are dangerous. That is why I stand in awe of the bravery displayed by those who volunteer to take part in them.