We have 9,000 of our armed forces on duty in Afghanistan. They have been sent there, supposedly to protect us citizens of the UK, by both ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair and the present Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
What are they doing in Afghanistan? Any plan that did exist is less coherent today than it was even a month ago, compounded by Bob Ainsworth admitting, during his photo opportunity visit with Alan Johnson to Helmand, that it would take time - and help from other Nato allies - to provide the extra troops called for by General McChrystal.
What's really happening is the government are keeping these men and women in this hostile country for prestige which has nothing to do with the safety of our islands. Because of Gordon Brown's obsession to be seen as the saviour of the world, he is happy to sacrifice the lives of many in the armed forces. His Defence Secretary admits the government's war chest is empty. Surely that is proof enough that our soldiers will not be receiving the equipment and supplies they need to survive. Ainsworth continues by saying Britain needs more support from Nato allies. Hasn't it yet occurred to him that other Nato countries are not prepared to offer more troops because they know their people will rebel?
We have soldiers pleading for extra support, senior British military officers warning of the risks of sending more troops without the equipment required to protect them, the US Commander insisting more personnel are essential because he does have a plan yet the leaders of Britain and the US refuse to make decisions and seem content to allow their military to continue to be killed. Life seems so cheap to those in power doesn't it.
Of course military bosses don't want to be seen as having failed either, but there's no honour in allowing the people under their command to be sitting ducks.
I cannot comment on how effective General McChrystal's strategy would be, but it seems President Obama doesn't like it.
To quote General McChrystal: "Waiting does not prolong a favourable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely and nor will it win public support."
It is to be hoped this will waken Americans to the futility of this war. They respect their armed forces far more than the British. What it will take to waken us and demand these courageous people return home I leave that to you to decide
Update: Clarinda has provided me with this post. It gives basic and very underestimated costs of this war to America.
Posts
12 comments:
Very good read, strong and meaningful.
Ken Barnwell
http://kbarnwell.blogspot.com/
I've just blogged on the fact that General Richard Dannatt has given an exclusive to 'The Sun' on the lies that the government are telling about the war. I included a wee plea for you to write something about the substance of the interview.... as you know the subject much better than I do....
So, if you've got time.... pretty please, big smile, bunch of roses... bottle of malt..... what d'ya think?
Thanks Ken. Nice blog - although I won't read it early in the mornings because I see enough spots before my eyes then. :)
I'll go and look Tris, but I'm sure you've written an excellent post.
From TomDispatch:
A brief financial overview of the "staggeringly expensive" costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
It costs 750,000 dollars for each US soldier to be kept in the war zone. General McChrystal wants another 40,000 soldiers ASAP.
It costs up to 100 dollars to deliver 1 gallon of fuel.
Annual US military upgrades cost 8 billion dollars per year. This is additional to the 128 billion for basic funding.
We are recommended to regard these figures as grossly underestimated.
An author on this site refers to these two wars as occuring in "Pipelinestan" - so what are we talking about in terms of oil and mineral resource profits when the wars financial costs appear subsiduary in comparison?
Clarinda, I will put a link to TomDispatch's post on this one. Many thanks. For some reason this one didn't come through my reader.
We've been an unreliable ally thanks to our lack of critical military kit for a while now. An example is the withdrawl from Southern Iraq, where we left it to the Americans to sort out.
Now McChrystal is asking for more troops and getting short shrift on his side of the Atlantic.
I have the feeling that America is looking for more reliable partners regarding the Iranian problem and asking Russia and China to become involved. After all, they have Islamic insurgencies within their own borders, so its in their interests to snuff extremists out before they get supplied with Iranian-made nukes. Obama is a pragmatist and knows he can't do it on his own, but the EU states have thus far proved unreliable and innefective allies.
I just wonder if this unwillingness to ramp up troop and equipment numbers is related.
It wouldn't suprise me if deals are being done regarding the divvying up of the spoils and some time in the New Year we see Russian and Chinese troops moving in to Afghanistan to "help" western troops along with a concerted reinforcement of our own in Iraq before setting up a staging post for the invasion of Iran.
What an interesting comment Delphius.
I think the unwillingness from other EU countries is a political one. These countries know their people don't support this war and therefore they don't want to lose public support.
We're just broke and so is America so they're looking for a cheaper way with the elite troops plan. They need to save face against all the accurate reports which state that Nato has made a complete mess of this.
You're last paragraph contains some of my thoughts although somehow I never considered the Chinese becoming involved. The Russians yes, after all the pipelines going through Afghanistan are for their oil.
I'll watch info about them more carefully.
Maintaining an armed force in the field is a hugely complicated and expensive business. It cannot be run by cost accountants, and you cannot succeed by making economies. Once you are in then you have to understand the implications and pay the price. If you do not, then you face either defeat, or the need to settle quickly. This is beginning to look bad, Michael Yon's latest post is worrying.
It has looked bad for some while now Demetrius, according to those in the field and of course the likes of the excellent Michael Yon.
This government shamefully has sent our forces without any planning for funding or understanding of the terrain and the cost of ensuring each soldier has at least the minimum in supplies, kit and support. That's not happening and many are so exhausted, they're worried more accidents will happen.
Now of course Ainsworth realises the public are onto it all and has to admit he doesn't have the money to send more troops so he says. That's not the whole story - he doesn't have the money to look after those who are there either.
Question: if WW2 bankrupted Britain at the hight of empire how come when the banks have bankrupted us in 2008/09 (and 10-20 I should think) we can still afford to fight a large war in Afganistan? Second part: For how much longer?
We're broke Dram hence the fact that Brown can't send 2000 more troops because he doesn't have the money to even provide the transport.
Post a Comment