What is our policy ?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tomahawk6, Jul 12, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. "You ask, What is our policy? I will say; It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us. . . . That is our policy. You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory--victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."

    --Winston Churchill, first speech as prime minister to the House of Commons
    May 13, 1940

    Those words were powerful in 1940. But could just as well be said in 2005. It was true then and it is true today. Some want to ignore or appease the Islamofascists and others feel it is a better policy to confront them wherever they might appear. Appeasement although a failure historically, is attractive because one doesnt have to do anything. Confrontation is the hard road - it costs blood and treasure but in the end confrontation means defeat for the enemy, as long as we dont deviate from the course.
  2. Dear Tomahawk!

    There is a lot of true patriots in Iraq (on both sides). Do you see a problem there? Should the partiots be killed? It is quite natural thing to resist, to fight against occupants. American troops left Somalia but who now does remember it? Yes, there would be short period of so called 'humiliation' but it is so important? Just now US/UK can say that all possible efforts were applied to establish democracy in Iraq. And that now it is up to Iraqi people to contimue this work. Why not?

    As to terrorists then their appeasement is absolutely impossible.
  3. Wonder if Sergey is keen to apply to same logic to Chechnya and the other dissident republics in the Russian south?
  4. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    Just out of interest Sergei - how many Soviet casualties were there in Afghanistan before the nomenklatura decided to withdraw ?

    What proportion of those casualties were Greater Russians ?

    << a bas les aristos - en avant avec les ouvriers! >>

    Le Chevre
  5. The use of the term "Islamo-fascist" is one of the barriers to winning this bloody conflict. It encourages a mindset whereby the opposition is seen as a single homogenous entity that can be attacked in the same way as the Nazis during WW2 or the Warsaw Pact. Life is however far more complicated and challenging and soundbite strategy won't work. They do not have a coherent strategy, ideology or structure.

    Some of our enemies will not be deterred by anything we do, such as AQ. However they operate as a fluid highly decentralised network and as such tend to get inside the OODA loop of our bureaucratic hierarchical security agencies. The Warsaw Pact may have gone but we still have institutions set up to fight them.

    Some of our enemies can be silenced by getting out of their country, or clearing up the mess we've made, or by a combination of carrot and stick that appeals to their worldview. What we get is US foreign policy that by accident or design pleases only middle America.

    And remember that terrorists are only terrorists until they either win (just ask the Israelis) or get recognised as a local militia by the occupying forces so they can draw down their troop levels.
  6. Well said.