Home or Away

A NATO boss has felt the need to point out the possible consequences of a withdrawal of NATO forced from Afghanistan. He raises the spectre of terrorism on the street of Europe and in UK. His opinion but, so far as I can establish, he has not stated what intelligence has led to this conclusion. We are never privy to intelligence that leads to momentous decisions (vide the warlike entry to Iraq). There is some slight evidence that international sympathy for the aims of Talib is lessening. There might be a case that recent attacks outside Afghanistan have been a major factor here.
We are being told that remaining in Afghanistan is a long haul - 3 or 4 years of actual combat with a armed presence alongside reconstruction work of years into the teens.
Whilst not wishing to denigrate life and death into a sporting match, it seems to me that there are some benefits in fighting as a Home match rather than an Away game. Others here will be able to comment on fighting in an urban setting as opposed to the wide open spaces out there. From the reports I see, fighting foot by foot through vegetation and ditches is not as simple as a progress along Aldershot High Street potting from house to house. Laying IED in Islington - difficulty to undertake unseen. We would be able to concentrate all our forces all of the time and not just those dragooned into tour after debilitating tour. Getting men and supplies some 4,000 miles away must be a very costly process in terms of £ and wear and tear on assets we are short of anyway. The relatively low percentage of heli resources devoted to Afg would be adjusted. We, surely, have greater int capability in UK and should be better able to pick up on any increased terrorist chatter.
The - I agree - heightened risk to our people should concentrate their thinking and increase pressure on Westminster to fit the tools to the job.
Sure, we would need some strengthening of current legislation as to what we may do in investigation and criminal proceedings but new legislation does not seem to scare our current bosses. Public acceptance could well be heightened when it is their street, office or industry that is being targeted. I am unable to guess what the pay-off might be in the general Muslim world if we were to remove ourselves as intruders in Holy real estate. Withdrawal as a hearts and minds exercise?
To reduce some of the bandwidth devoted to castigate me as a gutless bstard, may I say that I think the battle should be pursued over there. BUT only if things are improved. More men in the right vehicles and aircraft with political action to support their presence. Now and not after some long drawn out procurement process. If there is something better on someone else's shelf - get it. If the story of "Oh but there is a problem with training/spares/tech support etc etc" is parroted - hire that as well.
OK - your turn now.

Maybe review this inthe context of http://tinyurl.com/m37898
Home AND away is a sensible policy. Denial of a safe base to your enemies is pretty sound military thinking if it is resourced properly.

The problem is, thanks to the HRA, UK is a safe base for our enemies and we are in the ludicrous situation where the government grants human rights to the enemy, while at the same time launching expensive legal action to deny those same human rights to our forces.

Notwithstanding the Islamist threat, the fact is, the biggest threat to our liberty and our way of life is actually our government who are already dealing in "Unconventional Politics"

New Posts

Latest Threads