So some British soldiers in Afghanistan are going to be issued with more powerful rifles to replace the SA80 popgun. It's about time - I've been banging on about how ineffective the SA80 is in a theatre like Afghanistan for ages. It should be a national scandal that the Army's most effective infantry weapon in Afghanistan is a machine gun that first saw action in WW2.
Now all we need are some proper armoured patrol vehicles, decent close air support aircraft, a properly defined strategy and around 100,000 extra troops to implement it and we might start to win this war.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Friday, January 08, 2010
Sunday, November 08, 2009
No such thing as an "unwinnable" war
If you've been paying attention to the news at all over the last couple of weeks you must have noticed that the term "unwinnable war" is being applied more and more to our mission in Afghanistan.
It's a stupid phrase because there is no such thing as an unwinnable war. At the end of 1940 the war must have seemed "unwinnable" to the British people. By the end of 1941 the war must have seemed "unwinnable" to the Soviet people - but both eventually prevailed over their enemies.
All wars can be won - it just depends on the strategy and tactics applied. What you actually have are losing strategies and tactics or winning strategies and tactics. If your strategy is failing to achieve the objectives and the tactics are resulting in severe casualties then you need to address that strategy and those tactics - or take advantage of your enemies mistakes in their strategy and tactics.
The truth of Afghanistan - regardless of whether you think we should be there or not - is that our strategy is undefined and our tactics are obviously wrong. First of all, you can not win a war with a political strategy. The overriding strategy must be military. If we insist on pursuing this mission we must face the fact that the Afghan people are neither ready nor capable of governing their country themselves.
The discredited President and his abject, corrupt government must be replaced by a military governance. We ARE an occupying force and an occupying force must take control. Military commanders must have complete control over all areas and be free to take the decisions necessary to achieve objectives.
As for our tactics - well, we keep taking areas which we then withdraw from allowing the enemy to reclaim that land without any effort. Imagine if we had done the same against Nazi Germany? We'd still have a million soldiers camped on the borders of Holland, Belgium and France today!
Our strategy and tactics in Afghanistan are not working. It's always hard - if not impossible - with this style of warfare to achieve success. The only way you can do it is to apply tactics that work and we have only one example where this has been done to a successful conclusion - Malaya.
What we need is an updated version of the "Briggs Plan" - whereby the strategy was to deprive the enemy of resources and safety. Deprive them of food and people and harass them at every opportunity so that they never have a moments respite.
We're not doing that now and as long as we don't do that this war will remain unwinnable.
It's a stupid phrase because there is no such thing as an unwinnable war. At the end of 1940 the war must have seemed "unwinnable" to the British people. By the end of 1941 the war must have seemed "unwinnable" to the Soviet people - but both eventually prevailed over their enemies.
All wars can be won - it just depends on the strategy and tactics applied. What you actually have are losing strategies and tactics or winning strategies and tactics. If your strategy is failing to achieve the objectives and the tactics are resulting in severe casualties then you need to address that strategy and those tactics - or take advantage of your enemies mistakes in their strategy and tactics.
The truth of Afghanistan - regardless of whether you think we should be there or not - is that our strategy is undefined and our tactics are obviously wrong. First of all, you can not win a war with a political strategy. The overriding strategy must be military. If we insist on pursuing this mission we must face the fact that the Afghan people are neither ready nor capable of governing their country themselves.
The discredited President and his abject, corrupt government must be replaced by a military governance. We ARE an occupying force and an occupying force must take control. Military commanders must have complete control over all areas and be free to take the decisions necessary to achieve objectives.
As for our tactics - well, we keep taking areas which we then withdraw from allowing the enemy to reclaim that land without any effort. Imagine if we had done the same against Nazi Germany? We'd still have a million soldiers camped on the borders of Holland, Belgium and France today!
Our strategy and tactics in Afghanistan are not working. It's always hard - if not impossible - with this style of warfare to achieve success. The only way you can do it is to apply tactics that work and we have only one example where this has been done to a successful conclusion - Malaya.
What we need is an updated version of the "Briggs Plan" - whereby the strategy was to deprive the enemy of resources and safety. Deprive them of food and people and harass them at every opportunity so that they never have a moments respite.
We're not doing that now and as long as we don't do that this war will remain unwinnable.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
A fatal flaw
Can someone explain to me why we have men risking their lives trying to defuse IEDs in Afghanistan?
I mean, surely the safest thing to do - once an IED is discovered - is to get everyone safely away and blow the damn thing up from as far away as possible?
I could understand why they would try and defuse an unexploded bomb in a London street - but in a dump like Afghanistan I really don't see the point. You find the things, you evacuate everyone, you blow the sodding thing up then you get the locals to fill in the hole. Job done - move on.
I mean, surely the safest thing to do - once an IED is discovered - is to get everyone safely away and blow the damn thing up from as far away as possible?
I could understand why they would try and defuse an unexploded bomb in a London street - but in a dump like Afghanistan I really don't see the point. You find the things, you evacuate everyone, you blow the sodding thing up then you get the locals to fill in the hole. Job done - move on.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
And these are our "allies"?
The revelation that French soldiers were killed in Afghanistan after the Italian secret service stopped paying the local Taleban bribes to stop attacks in areas they controlled may cause revulsion and shock amongst many - but it should also serve as a signal warning to Britain.
When the Italians handed over the areas to the French the threat was underestimated and, as a consequence, a patrol was ambushed, ten soldiers killed and a further twenty one injured. The French people were rightly horrified - although the French press were not horrified enough for them not to arrange to meet and photograph the enemy soldiers who had killed their countrymen and stripped their mutilated corpses of guns and equipment.
You have to give modern photo journalism credit where its due - they are as adept at feigning shock and revulsion as anyone, but they never let that get in the way of a good photo op. Why the rest of the world then feels the need to publish those pictures around the world is beyond me - it can only serve as propaganda for our enemies, but ........ well, it's increasingly hard sometimes to tell whose side some people are on.
Anyway, this story - and the conflict in Afghanistan in general - should act as a wake up call to the EUPhiles in Britain who seem to think that we can rely on our European "partners" should things ever get sticky. We can not - nor will we ever be able to. Sure, there are a few EU nations who we can always rely on to back us up when the going gets tough, but they don't include Italy, Germany or France.
It's no coincidence that the bulk of the actual fighting in Afghanistan is being done by the same nations that did the bulk of the fighting in Normandy - Britain, Canada and the USA. This is how it was in 1944 and thus is how it will always be because they are our true allies - the nations of the Anglosphere. To the main nations of the EU what matters is looking after their own interests first and foremost while other countries soldiers are just considered cannon fodder - particularly British soldiers.
Our geographical location does not mean that we have anything in common with the other nations of Europe. In fact, other than our geographical location just about the only thing we do have in common with most of Europe is our Christian cultural heritage - and most of the EU nations (including Britain) are doing their best to dump that as fast as they can!
The allies of Britain do not lie across the English Channel. Our allies exist in the Anglosphere - USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. The rest are only our allies as long as it suits them to be so. Once that stops being the case they will drop us as fast as they can. That alone is a good enough reason to leave the EU.
When the Italians handed over the areas to the French the threat was underestimated and, as a consequence, a patrol was ambushed, ten soldiers killed and a further twenty one injured. The French people were rightly horrified - although the French press were not horrified enough for them not to arrange to meet and photograph the enemy soldiers who had killed their countrymen and stripped their mutilated corpses of guns and equipment.
You have to give modern photo journalism credit where its due - they are as adept at feigning shock and revulsion as anyone, but they never let that get in the way of a good photo op. Why the rest of the world then feels the need to publish those pictures around the world is beyond me - it can only serve as propaganda for our enemies, but ........ well, it's increasingly hard sometimes to tell whose side some people are on.
Anyway, this story - and the conflict in Afghanistan in general - should act as a wake up call to the EUPhiles in Britain who seem to think that we can rely on our European "partners" should things ever get sticky. We can not - nor will we ever be able to. Sure, there are a few EU nations who we can always rely on to back us up when the going gets tough, but they don't include Italy, Germany or France.
It's no coincidence that the bulk of the actual fighting in Afghanistan is being done by the same nations that did the bulk of the fighting in Normandy - Britain, Canada and the USA. This is how it was in 1944 and thus is how it will always be because they are our true allies - the nations of the Anglosphere. To the main nations of the EU what matters is looking after their own interests first and foremost while other countries soldiers are just considered cannon fodder - particularly British soldiers.
Our geographical location does not mean that we have anything in common with the other nations of Europe. In fact, other than our geographical location just about the only thing we do have in common with most of Europe is our Christian cultural heritage - and most of the EU nations (including Britain) are doing their best to dump that as fast as they can!
The allies of Britain do not lie across the English Channel. Our allies exist in the Anglosphere - USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. The rest are only our allies as long as it suits them to be so. Once that stops being the case they will drop us as fast as they can. That alone is a good enough reason to leave the EU.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Rumble in "The Jungle"
So the French are planning to close down the makeshift camp where immigrants gather before launching their attempt to come to the land of milk and honey - or, rather, housing and benefits - England. How very thoughtful of them.
It's also rather considerate of them not to bulldoze the camp during the month of Ramadan as most of the camps occupants are Moslem - predominantly Afghan from what I understand. Although it does strike me as a bit silly to give them all advance warning of the fact that they are to be rounded up and deported - but hey, what do I know. I'm sure it has nothing to do with France wanting to be seen to do something about the problem rather than actually dealing with it.
But I've got an idea.
You see, it may have escaped their attention in France, but NATO is currently engaged in operations in Afghanistan - including reconstruction work (for some reason). So why not just round up all these immigrants, fly them back to Afghanistan and put them up in a makeshift camp there while their asylum claims are processed (and refused). While they are there they can be put to work - paid of course, we don't do slave labour - making the camp more comfortable and permanent with a water and power supply. Over the course of time, these camps will evolve businesses - shops, restaurants and so on - which will offer employment and pay.
Many of those people will learn valuable skills which can then be applied to build new camps for more immigrants and before you know it you have a virtuous spiral. We could call these camps "new villages" and, as well as providing material support, our troops could offer security and safety. Once it becomes established that these "new villages" not only offer the opportunity to earn a decent living, but provide safety from the Taleban word will get around and everyone will want one. Hey, you could even go as far as moving whole villages out of Taleban areas into safe havens - thus depriving the Taleban of the vital resources of food and men.
Once that is done, you can squeeze the Taleban militarily until their starving, weary and demoralised troops decide to call it a day.
Far fetched? It worked great in Malaya.
It's also rather considerate of them not to bulldoze the camp during the month of Ramadan as most of the camps occupants are Moslem - predominantly Afghan from what I understand. Although it does strike me as a bit silly to give them all advance warning of the fact that they are to be rounded up and deported - but hey, what do I know. I'm sure it has nothing to do with France wanting to be seen to do something about the problem rather than actually dealing with it.
But I've got an idea.
You see, it may have escaped their attention in France, but NATO is currently engaged in operations in Afghanistan - including reconstruction work (for some reason). So why not just round up all these immigrants, fly them back to Afghanistan and put them up in a makeshift camp there while their asylum claims are processed (and refused). While they are there they can be put to work - paid of course, we don't do slave labour - making the camp more comfortable and permanent with a water and power supply. Over the course of time, these camps will evolve businesses - shops, restaurants and so on - which will offer employment and pay.
Many of those people will learn valuable skills which can then be applied to build new camps for more immigrants and before you know it you have a virtuous spiral. We could call these camps "new villages" and, as well as providing material support, our troops could offer security and safety. Once it becomes established that these "new villages" not only offer the opportunity to earn a decent living, but provide safety from the Taleban word will get around and everyone will want one. Hey, you could even go as far as moving whole villages out of Taleban areas into safe havens - thus depriving the Taleban of the vital resources of food and men.
Once that is done, you can squeeze the Taleban militarily until their starving, weary and demoralised troops decide to call it a day.
Far fetched? It worked great in Malaya.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Missing the point
I'm keep hearing people say that the war in Afghanistan is "pointless". I don't know why they keep saying that - maybe it's the hope that if they say it often and loudly enough it will become true - but whatever your views or opinions on a war it seems ridiculous to say that it has no point. Even at the very least, the point of the Afghan war is to defeat the enemy. Whether that can be achieved or not is another matter, but if people can't see the point of that then they really aren't trying very hard.
The question they should be asking is why are the Taliban our enemy? The reason, of course, is that Britain has a large, increasingly demanding and assertive Moslem population. Moslems are different to most people as they usually identify themselves first and foremost by their religion. Their first allegiance is not to a specific nation or a particular community, but to Islam - and this doesn't change.
So what happens in Moslem countries matters to them - and if a Moslem does something which they believe furthers the cause of Islam then they are generally supportive of it even if it is to the detriment of their host nation or the nation of their birth. It's actually quite often the case that those who claim that what happens in Afghanistan is nothing to do with us are often the same people who seem to think that the "plight" of the Palestinians is something to do with us. Why? Some sort of colonial responsibility? If that is the case then the same could be said for Afghanistan - or Iraq or Pakistan.
As long as we have a large Moslem population in Britain then what happens in any Moslem country will have an impact on our nation and we may well be required to act in some way. I don't necessarily like it, but at least I can see the point.
I'd just like to qualify all of that by pointing out that I don't believe we owe the Afghans anything - we don't owe them peace, we don't owe them democracy, we don't owe them prosperity, we don't owe them freedom, liberty or even hope. As long as what happens in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan they can do what they like - but as long as we have a large Moslem population living in this country then that will never be the case.
The question they should be asking is why are the Taliban our enemy? The reason, of course, is that Britain has a large, increasingly demanding and assertive Moslem population. Moslems are different to most people as they usually identify themselves first and foremost by their religion. Their first allegiance is not to a specific nation or a particular community, but to Islam - and this doesn't change.
So what happens in Moslem countries matters to them - and if a Moslem does something which they believe furthers the cause of Islam then they are generally supportive of it even if it is to the detriment of their host nation or the nation of their birth. It's actually quite often the case that those who claim that what happens in Afghanistan is nothing to do with us are often the same people who seem to think that the "plight" of the Palestinians is something to do with us. Why? Some sort of colonial responsibility? If that is the case then the same could be said for Afghanistan - or Iraq or Pakistan.
As long as we have a large Moslem population in Britain then what happens in any Moslem country will have an impact on our nation and we may well be required to act in some way. I don't necessarily like it, but at least I can see the point.
I'd just like to qualify all of that by pointing out that I don't believe we owe the Afghans anything - we don't owe them peace, we don't owe them democracy, we don't owe them prosperity, we don't owe them freedom, liberty or even hope. As long as what happens in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan they can do what they like - but as long as we have a large Moslem population living in this country then that will never be the case.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Ill served and ill equipped
The government have (rightly) come in for a lot of criticism over the deaths of a number of British soldiers in Afghanistan over the last few days. Although I don't wish to trivialise those deaths which are, of course, tragic for every individual family I do think they need to be considered in context - particularly the fact that they occurred during what is a major military operation. It is the nature of war that when an army goes out to actively seek and engage an enemy they will take casualties at a significantly higher rate than they would while performing routine patrols.
Let us not forget either that the war in Afghanistan is the one which most of our media and politicians deemed to be the "just" and "legal" war. Personally, I believe that any war is legal - what is illegal are certain methods used in fighting a war (and most of those illegal acts are committed by our enemies) and I was happy to support action in Afghanistan and Iraq - but not the continued occupation of those countries which I believe serves no useful purpose.
Politicians on all sides tell us that they are acting in British interests by keeping British soldiers out there, but I have yet to see any justification of this. What interest is being served? Okay - I admit that I have rather flippantly suggested that we are learning a lot about our weapons and equipment (which have proven to be woefully inadequate) as well as developing new tactics and strategies for for dealing with asymmetrical warfare - flippant, but also very valid - but this is not why we are told they are there for.
Furthermore, those lessons we are learning about our weapons and equipment being inadequate are not being acted upon. The lack of close air support (CAS) is not being addressed. Why? Because our leaders can not get their heads away from highly complex and incredibly expensive helicopters. Helicopters are incredibly useful machines in the right theatre and have proven to be extraordinarily effective against armour, but - aside from their transport capabilities - this isn't the right theatre and the enemy doesn't have any armour worthy of the name.
Perhaps one of the most telling facts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that they have each lasted as long as or longer than the Second World War, but in that time there have been no significant development of new weapons. Partly this is due to the limited thinking that takes place in the MoD who have committed the bulk of armed forces spending to long term, ill conceived projects that are completely unsuited for the sort of warfare our soldiers are being required to fight, but it's also due to the lack of expertise and manufacturing capability we have in Britain.
Meanwhile, the most effective aircraft we have in the theatre is an aeroplane first designed in the 1950's and our soldiers are still equipped with a glorified rabbit gun. It's no coincidence that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen the re-emergence of the sniper armed with long range, high caliber rifles which is just about the only thing we have that can reliably hit a man at distance and make sure he bloody well stays hit.
So, given that our leaders are not bothering to listen to any of the lessons we are learning from these wars - what is the point of us staying there? What British interests are being served by our soldiers being in Afghanistan? In what way does the death of one of our lads help to improve the security of this nation - particularly given the fact that our government are still allowing all and sundry to pour into this country at will?
Like I said, I had no problem with us attacking Afghanistan (or anybody else that thinks they can use proxy warfare against Britain - and yes, that includes Iran) but only as a short, sharp invasion with limited and clear military objectives. Go in, achieve those goals - then get out again - leaving whatever regime was to emerge there in no doubt that they would get the same treatment even at the slightest suspicion that we were being threatened by their behaviour.
Our troops are being let down by our leaders by being left out on a limb. They don't know what they are doing there, they don't have the right equipment for what they can do there and the government have persistently failed to listen to any lessons that we have learned from there.
Time to get out.
Let us not forget either that the war in Afghanistan is the one which most of our media and politicians deemed to be the "just" and "legal" war. Personally, I believe that any war is legal - what is illegal are certain methods used in fighting a war (and most of those illegal acts are committed by our enemies) and I was happy to support action in Afghanistan and Iraq - but not the continued occupation of those countries which I believe serves no useful purpose.
Politicians on all sides tell us that they are acting in British interests by keeping British soldiers out there, but I have yet to see any justification of this. What interest is being served? Okay - I admit that I have rather flippantly suggested that we are learning a lot about our weapons and equipment (which have proven to be woefully inadequate) as well as developing new tactics and strategies for for dealing with asymmetrical warfare - flippant, but also very valid - but this is not why we are told they are there for.
Furthermore, those lessons we are learning about our weapons and equipment being inadequate are not being acted upon. The lack of close air support (CAS) is not being addressed. Why? Because our leaders can not get their heads away from highly complex and incredibly expensive helicopters. Helicopters are incredibly useful machines in the right theatre and have proven to be extraordinarily effective against armour, but - aside from their transport capabilities - this isn't the right theatre and the enemy doesn't have any armour worthy of the name.
Perhaps one of the most telling facts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that they have each lasted as long as or longer than the Second World War, but in that time there have been no significant development of new weapons. Partly this is due to the limited thinking that takes place in the MoD who have committed the bulk of armed forces spending to long term, ill conceived projects that are completely unsuited for the sort of warfare our soldiers are being required to fight, but it's also due to the lack of expertise and manufacturing capability we have in Britain.
Meanwhile, the most effective aircraft we have in the theatre is an aeroplane first designed in the 1950's and our soldiers are still equipped with a glorified rabbit gun. It's no coincidence that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen the re-emergence of the sniper armed with long range, high caliber rifles which is just about the only thing we have that can reliably hit a man at distance and make sure he bloody well stays hit.
So, given that our leaders are not bothering to listen to any of the lessons we are learning from these wars - what is the point of us staying there? What British interests are being served by our soldiers being in Afghanistan? In what way does the death of one of our lads help to improve the security of this nation - particularly given the fact that our government are still allowing all and sundry to pour into this country at will?
Like I said, I had no problem with us attacking Afghanistan (or anybody else that thinks they can use proxy warfare against Britain - and yes, that includes Iran) but only as a short, sharp invasion with limited and clear military objectives. Go in, achieve those goals - then get out again - leaving whatever regime was to emerge there in no doubt that they would get the same treatment even at the slightest suspicion that we were being threatened by their behaviour.
Our troops are being let down by our leaders by being left out on a limb. They don't know what they are doing there, they don't have the right equipment for what they can do there and the government have persistently failed to listen to any lessons that we have learned from there.
Time to get out.
Friday, November 07, 2008
W is for well done
Earlier this week I referred to a quote by Ann Coulter about the respect conservatives should give Obama - about the same as they gave to Bush. In other words - absolutely none whatsoever. To be fair, though, over on the Opinion Journal there is a positive article about Bush by a former member of John Kerry's team in 2004, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
I tend to agree with that. The bare bones of the financial crisis which has engulfed the world were laid down during Clinton's tenure.
Whatever your views on global warming and Kyoto, the criticism of Bush for not signing the treaty should be balanced by the fact that Clinton didn't either - but at least the US rate of CO2 emissions declined under Bush, which is more than can be said for the majority of nations that did sign the treaty. It's one of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency - while everyone else talked the talk, he actually walked the walk.
Same with poverty. Our government and the UN did all the chat, but even Saint Bob Geldof was forced to concede that nobody - ever - has done more for Africa than George W Bush. All this while dealing with the biggest political issues in a generation. Once again, the soft lefties of Europe wrung their hands and delivered earnest platitudes - Bush just delivered.
And what about the foreign policies? Well, Iraq has been a success - even the most hardened left wing self-loathers are having to admit that now. Far from the "quagmire" they were predicting Iraq has been a significant achievement. I know it'll be a shit hole in no time at all once we're out of there, but you can't have everything. Afghanistan was always the "just" war for the lefties - probably the reason we decided to stay there - but now that is the quagmire. It was always going to be a fruitless exercise - you can't civilise people who don't want to be civilised. Afghanistan remains a 12th century feudal outpost and will stay that way until they decide they want to join the rest of the world.
I don't know much about US politics - the economy, standard of living or what have you - but I do know that millions of illegal immigrants can't be wrong. If the USA was really such a crap place under Bush, why did so many people flock there - including hundreds of thousands from the "enlightened" European nations? Germany, Italy and other EU nations have a population in free fall - the USA just keeps getting bigger. The "land of the free" appears to be a bigger draw than the "land of the freebie".
Bush was never as bad a President as the media would have you believe - just as JFK was never as good as they try to make out (hey, no one came closer to bringing nuclear holocaust down on us all). Bush's problem is that he was faced by a malevolent media from the outset. A media who, more often than not, sided with our enemies rather than be seen to support George W Bush.
I've no doubt that, eventually, someone, somewhere will sit down and write a proper unbiased review of the last eight years and find that, far from being the worst President ever, Bush responded to the worst attack on it's soil since Pearl Harbor in a decisive and correct manner and kept his country safe from harm for the next seven years while conducting a successful campaign against the enemy in their own lands.
Well done, Mr Bush.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
I tend to agree with that. The bare bones of the financial crisis which has engulfed the world were laid down during Clinton's tenure.
Whatever your views on global warming and Kyoto, the criticism of Bush for not signing the treaty should be balanced by the fact that Clinton didn't either - but at least the US rate of CO2 emissions declined under Bush, which is more than can be said for the majority of nations that did sign the treaty. It's one of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency - while everyone else talked the talk, he actually walked the walk.
Same with poverty. Our government and the UN did all the chat, but even Saint Bob Geldof was forced to concede that nobody - ever - has done more for Africa than George W Bush. All this while dealing with the biggest political issues in a generation. Once again, the soft lefties of Europe wrung their hands and delivered earnest platitudes - Bush just delivered.
And what about the foreign policies? Well, Iraq has been a success - even the most hardened left wing self-loathers are having to admit that now. Far from the "quagmire" they were predicting Iraq has been a significant achievement. I know it'll be a shit hole in no time at all once we're out of there, but you can't have everything. Afghanistan was always the "just" war for the lefties - probably the reason we decided to stay there - but now that is the quagmire. It was always going to be a fruitless exercise - you can't civilise people who don't want to be civilised. Afghanistan remains a 12th century feudal outpost and will stay that way until they decide they want to join the rest of the world.
I don't know much about US politics - the economy, standard of living or what have you - but I do know that millions of illegal immigrants can't be wrong. If the USA was really such a crap place under Bush, why did so many people flock there - including hundreds of thousands from the "enlightened" European nations? Germany, Italy and other EU nations have a population in free fall - the USA just keeps getting bigger. The "land of the free" appears to be a bigger draw than the "land of the freebie".
Bush was never as bad a President as the media would have you believe - just as JFK was never as good as they try to make out (hey, no one came closer to bringing nuclear holocaust down on us all). Bush's problem is that he was faced by a malevolent media from the outset. A media who, more often than not, sided with our enemies rather than be seen to support George W Bush.
I've no doubt that, eventually, someone, somewhere will sit down and write a proper unbiased review of the last eight years and find that, far from being the worst President ever, Bush responded to the worst attack on it's soil since Pearl Harbor in a decisive and correct manner and kept his country safe from harm for the next seven years while conducting a successful campaign against the enemy in their own lands.
Well done, Mr Bush.
Obama fails the strategy test
There's a decent piece by Con Coughlin on the Telegraph's comment page today in which we are reminded that President Elect Obama's foreign policy is still nothing more than a pretty vague wish list.
It is one thing to speak eloquently to a crowd of semi-delirious supporters about the sacrifices being made on an almost daily basis by those serving on the front line of the war on terror; another matter to take the tough decisions that will ensure that those sacrifices are not in vain.
Quite right. And as Coughlin correctly pointed out, Bush may not have taken popular decisions, but they were decisions that needed to be taken and have ensured that America has not suffered s similar attack to 9/11. Obama will need to learn very quickly that rhetoric is not enough.
Coughlin points out the chilling prospect of a nuclear weapon capable Iran by the end of next year - which is a real concern - but the most worrying thing for me was something which I think most people will have missed.
An opponent of the Iraq war from the outset, Mr Obama has indicated he would like to redeploy many of the 160,000 US troops based in Iraq to Afghanistan, which he describes as the "central front" in the war on terrorism. (My italics).
You see, if Obama really believes that Afghanistan is the "central front" in the war on terror then we have the most strategically inept President in waiting that we have had since Carter. Afghanistan isn't now, never was and never will be the "central front" in this very long war. It is and always has been a sideshow.
The war on terror - or whatever you want to call it - is a global thing. On one side we have the free world. On the other the Islamists who want to establish Islam as the dominant ideology over the entire globe. The sides are clearly defined - less clearly defined are the boundaries. Islamists exist and operate in virtually every nation. We know where they are - we just don't know who they are.
Rather than being obvious national confrontations as we get in most wars, we are faced with an amorphous blob of enemies who consist of various nations (Iran the most obvious), various covert armies (such as Hammas and Hezbollah) which are well armed and well trained and a multitude of individuals all over the world who are loosely interconnected.
When the Taliban were in place in Afghanistan there is no doubt that these factions used that nation as a place to train - but it was by no means the only place. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and the Palestinian lands are just as useful. Since kicking the Taliban out of government we have deprived terrorists of one safe haven - but that is as far as it goes. And as they can infiltrate and hideout quite easily in the nations they are trying to bring down - including our own, it's not really a big deal for them.
The majority of the fighting in Afghanistan is between western forces along with the ANA against opposing Afghan tribes backed by the Taliban. Yes, there are foreign Islamists tagging along, but they are tolerated rather than welcomed. The Afghans are an incredibly proud and independent people - they don't take easily to foreign fighters joining in whichever side they are on. So they don't like us and they don't like swarms of Pakistani, Arab or Iranian Islamists either.
That was always the problem with Afghanistan. It was too remote from the heartland of Islamism and it failed to attract Islamists into the battle - which is one of the reasons why the Iraq war was necessary. It was guaranteed to bring hordes of terrorists swarming into it to defend the cradle of Islam - Babylon - and it worked superbly.
The objective of the Afghan war was achieved a long time ago. Why we remain there is a mystery to me - it serves us no useful purpose except as an excellent proving ground for men, weapons and tactics. Useful, but not essential. Afghanistan is never going to become a stable democracy - it's a nation that has been in a state of perpetual war for hundreds of years dominated by tribalism and infighting.
Iraq, on the other hand, has been a success. Our losses in comparison to the enemy have been tiny. We have killed huge numbers of terrorists - literally tens of thousands - many of whom travelled from all over the world to die there. That was the point. The media portrayed it as a Vietnamesque quagmire - focusing on the huge loss of civilian life which was perpetrated almost entirely by the Islamists while ignoring the vast numbers of terrorists who were being killed almost daily..
All we need to do in Afghanistan is pull out with the clear message that they either behave themselves or we'll be back - next time with a short, sharp campaign instead of the protracted "nation building" exercise we are doing now. What we also do need is to ensure that we keep the Islamists occupied somewhere. They've lost in Iraq and have pretty much given up - so where next? Syria? Iran? Pakistan?
I don't know or care as long as the battleground is in their territory and not ours. Afghanistan isn't it and never will be.
It is one thing to speak eloquently to a crowd of semi-delirious supporters about the sacrifices being made on an almost daily basis by those serving on the front line of the war on terror; another matter to take the tough decisions that will ensure that those sacrifices are not in vain.
Quite right. And as Coughlin correctly pointed out, Bush may not have taken popular decisions, but they were decisions that needed to be taken and have ensured that America has not suffered s similar attack to 9/11. Obama will need to learn very quickly that rhetoric is not enough.
Coughlin points out the chilling prospect of a nuclear weapon capable Iran by the end of next year - which is a real concern - but the most worrying thing for me was something which I think most people will have missed.
An opponent of the Iraq war from the outset, Mr Obama has indicated he would like to redeploy many of the 160,000 US troops based in Iraq to Afghanistan, which he describes as the "central front" in the war on terrorism. (My italics).
You see, if Obama really believes that Afghanistan is the "central front" in the war on terror then we have the most strategically inept President in waiting that we have had since Carter. Afghanistan isn't now, never was and never will be the "central front" in this very long war. It is and always has been a sideshow.
The war on terror - or whatever you want to call it - is a global thing. On one side we have the free world. On the other the Islamists who want to establish Islam as the dominant ideology over the entire globe. The sides are clearly defined - less clearly defined are the boundaries. Islamists exist and operate in virtually every nation. We know where they are - we just don't know who they are.
Rather than being obvious national confrontations as we get in most wars, we are faced with an amorphous blob of enemies who consist of various nations (Iran the most obvious), various covert armies (such as Hammas and Hezbollah) which are well armed and well trained and a multitude of individuals all over the world who are loosely interconnected.
When the Taliban were in place in Afghanistan there is no doubt that these factions used that nation as a place to train - but it was by no means the only place. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and the Palestinian lands are just as useful. Since kicking the Taliban out of government we have deprived terrorists of one safe haven - but that is as far as it goes. And as they can infiltrate and hideout quite easily in the nations they are trying to bring down - including our own, it's not really a big deal for them.
The majority of the fighting in Afghanistan is between western forces along with the ANA against opposing Afghan tribes backed by the Taliban. Yes, there are foreign Islamists tagging along, but they are tolerated rather than welcomed. The Afghans are an incredibly proud and independent people - they don't take easily to foreign fighters joining in whichever side they are on. So they don't like us and they don't like swarms of Pakistani, Arab or Iranian Islamists either.
That was always the problem with Afghanistan. It was too remote from the heartland of Islamism and it failed to attract Islamists into the battle - which is one of the reasons why the Iraq war was necessary. It was guaranteed to bring hordes of terrorists swarming into it to defend the cradle of Islam - Babylon - and it worked superbly.
The objective of the Afghan war was achieved a long time ago. Why we remain there is a mystery to me - it serves us no useful purpose except as an excellent proving ground for men, weapons and tactics. Useful, but not essential. Afghanistan is never going to become a stable democracy - it's a nation that has been in a state of perpetual war for hundreds of years dominated by tribalism and infighting.
Iraq, on the other hand, has been a success. Our losses in comparison to the enemy have been tiny. We have killed huge numbers of terrorists - literally tens of thousands - many of whom travelled from all over the world to die there. That was the point. The media portrayed it as a Vietnamesque quagmire - focusing on the huge loss of civilian life which was perpetrated almost entirely by the Islamists while ignoring the vast numbers of terrorists who were being killed almost daily..
All we need to do in Afghanistan is pull out with the clear message that they either behave themselves or we'll be back - next time with a short, sharp campaign instead of the protracted "nation building" exercise we are doing now. What we also do need is to ensure that we keep the Islamists occupied somewhere. They've lost in Iraq and have pretty much given up - so where next? Syria? Iran? Pakistan?
I don't know or care as long as the battleground is in their territory and not ours. Afghanistan isn't it and never will be.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Lost momentum
As anyone who reads this blog regularly will know, I am a supporter of our armed forces. That might seem obvious - aren't we all. Well - no, not really. A lot of people, especially politicians, will say that they support our armed forces, but they don't really. If they truly did they would ensure that they are armed, equipped and supplied as well as they possibly can be - but they'd rather spend billions on a sporting event then national defence.
I was also a supporter of our action in both Afghanistan and Iraq - but I've always had my doubts about the idea of nation building. My view was that taking military action post 9/11 was the right thing to do, but the way we did it was very wrong - and I don't believe it was a strategy that military leaders came up with or even endorsed. I believe we should have gone in hard and fast, deposed the regimes that were there, disabled the bulk of their military capability and then withdrawn just as quickly - leaving those nations with no doubt that should anything emanating from that region ever threaten our nation again we'd do the same.
I agree that there is some value to remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan - it gives us a battleground to fight Moslem terrorists well away from our own shores and our troops are becoming battle hardened veterans through contact with real action - but other than that it is pretty pointless us being there. The belief that we will create some sort of western style liberal democracy in the region is misguided - it won't. Both Iraq and Afghanistan - should they ever become stable enough for us to pull out - will rapidly descend into a despot ruled hell hole once we leave.
It would never be enough to make one or even two nations in that region even semi-democratic as long as they remain surrounded by the autocratic dictatorships and theocracies which dominate the region - and this is where I feel we have missed an opportunity following the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
As soon as we began these adventures the shock waves were felt throughout the Middle East. Previously belligerent nations - Libya and Syria for example - quickly made moves to placate the west and the people of Lebanon rose up against their own oppressors (Syria) and demanded they leave - but by hanging around and "nation building" that momentum was lost and with it the possibility of real progress in the region.
The "Cedar Revolution" of 2005 quickly evaporated and instead of improving prospects for that nation they were launched instead into the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war as Islamic insurgents, buoyed by the various "victories" in Iraq and armed by the Iranians, displayed their new found confidence.
This may sound callous, but I do not care about the people of Afghanistan or Iraq. If they want better lives it is their responsibility to do something about it other than flood into our country from their piss pot nations. Our only consideration for those nations should be how they effect our own - and they should have learned from a short, sharp but very resounding military action that if they try and mess with us they will pay for it very dearly. Again and again - until they stop.
I was also a supporter of our action in both Afghanistan and Iraq - but I've always had my doubts about the idea of nation building. My view was that taking military action post 9/11 was the right thing to do, but the way we did it was very wrong - and I don't believe it was a strategy that military leaders came up with or even endorsed. I believe we should have gone in hard and fast, deposed the regimes that were there, disabled the bulk of their military capability and then withdrawn just as quickly - leaving those nations with no doubt that should anything emanating from that region ever threaten our nation again we'd do the same.
I agree that there is some value to remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan - it gives us a battleground to fight Moslem terrorists well away from our own shores and our troops are becoming battle hardened veterans through contact with real action - but other than that it is pretty pointless us being there. The belief that we will create some sort of western style liberal democracy in the region is misguided - it won't. Both Iraq and Afghanistan - should they ever become stable enough for us to pull out - will rapidly descend into a despot ruled hell hole once we leave.
It would never be enough to make one or even two nations in that region even semi-democratic as long as they remain surrounded by the autocratic dictatorships and theocracies which dominate the region - and this is where I feel we have missed an opportunity following the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
As soon as we began these adventures the shock waves were felt throughout the Middle East. Previously belligerent nations - Libya and Syria for example - quickly made moves to placate the west and the people of Lebanon rose up against their own oppressors (Syria) and demanded they leave - but by hanging around and "nation building" that momentum was lost and with it the possibility of real progress in the region.
The "Cedar Revolution" of 2005 quickly evaporated and instead of improving prospects for that nation they were launched instead into the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war as Islamic insurgents, buoyed by the various "victories" in Iraq and armed by the Iranians, displayed their new found confidence.
This may sound callous, but I do not care about the people of Afghanistan or Iraq. If they want better lives it is their responsibility to do something about it other than flood into our country from their piss pot nations. Our only consideration for those nations should be how they effect our own - and they should have learned from a short, sharp but very resounding military action that if they try and mess with us they will pay for it very dearly. Again and again - until they stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)