What the Brits may do in Afstan, and what the US thinks
Defence chiefs plan to deploy 3,000 more troops in Helmand [but no political decision]Seeems to me the Times papers are still trying to stir things up--see the end of this post. And this is what The Times was reporting six days ago (at preceding link):
US opens fire on Brown’s ‘war fatigue’
American defence chiefs believe Britain is not pulling its weight in Afghanistan and say more British troops are needed
Secret planning has been under way for some time to deploy another 2,000 troops, although the Ministry of Defence has previously denied reports that reinforcements were likely to be sent next year."Quality" Brit journalism at work: 3,000, 2,000, what's the diff?
Meanwhile, I think these views are also quite applicable to Canada:
Britain has lost the stomach for a fight [by Michael Portillo]
...The extent of Britain’s fiasco has been masked by the media’s relief that we are at last leaving Iraq. Those who have been urging Britain to quit are not in a strong position to criticise the government’s lack of staying power. Reporting of Basra has mainly focused on British casualties and the prospect for withdrawal. The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack.
The United States will have drawn its conclusions about our reliability in future and British policy-makers, too, will need to recognise that we lack the troops, wealth and stomach for anything more than the briefest conflict. How long will we remain in Afghanistan? There, in contrast to our past two years in Basra, our forces engage the enemy robustly. But as a result the attrition rate is high. We look, rightly, for more help from Nato allies such as Germany, although humility should temper that criticism, given our own performance in Iraq...
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 9:18 a.m.
1 Comments:
Besides the British timidity in Basra, what was equally unimpressive was the tame surrender of the British Sailors and Royal Marines to those Iranian speedboats in March 2007.
A British Naval Officer, Sailors and Royal Marines giving up without a fight to a bunch of thugs in speedboats! They then compound this lack of martial ardor with their behavior in captivity, cooperating in filming propaganda "news stories" for Iranian and world TV consumption.
And the British commander of the coalition surface warship squadron right nearby who did nothing about that attack and kidnapping? No action and no consequences for his timidity.
Even worse and most telling of all was the lack of shame in their behavior by the British people. No Falklands-like anger or resolve there!
Neither of the RN Officers were court-martialed for this, nor were any of the others punished for their disgraceful behavior.
While nobody disputes that the British Army, esp. their Special Forces, have done some fine work in Af-stan, it's things like Britain's failure of will in Basra -with enormous negative consequences- and this supine response to Iran that make Americans uninterested in hearing about tiresomely parroted "expertise" from Northern Ireland and Malaya. Those condescending British senior officers need to look to their own glass houses.
Post a Comment
<< Home