Thursday 15 October 2009

NATO Isn't Working

Possibly the most expensive office in the UK

This week, after 3 months holiday from the office, our 646 political representatives finally returned to their desks. These MPs voted for our military to go to war in Afghanistan yet they still have their annual 12 week summer holiday. There is no War Cabinet to plan strategy and troop movements; all we've had in the past 3 months is various politicians singularly popping up in the media insisting the military is well equipped. Because there is no structure within the government, the military bosses have also used the media to further their cause and at times their comments have been less than helpful but where else could they air their concerns? There is nowhere.

Parliament should have been in session throughout the summer and with a full War Cabinet in operation. Discussions between politicians and military chiefs should have been kept within this group and not played out in the media. The enemy will know, just from a simple internet search, how disorganised we are and using this to their advantage.

At PMQs yesterday Gordon Brown read a roll call of our war dead - all 37 of them. Thirty seven soldiers who died when our MPs were not in their place of business where national issues are debated.

Gordon Brown at PMQs: “This is a solemn moment for this House and our country. It is a day on which we put on record our gratitude and our commemoration of the sacrifice made by 37 of our armed forces serving our country in Afghanistan.”

Pity these brave soldiers had to wait 3 months before their ultimate sacrifice was acknowledged by our leaders isn't it. No, it's far more than a pity, it's shameful and shows the level of concern the UK government has for Her Majesty's Forces.

We have over 9,000 of our troops in a war zone - in a war which has no direction and one which the PM can't even justify, yet our Prime Minister decided the UK Parliament can take the The reasons for it are explained as "protecting our streets", "helping the Afghani people and getting them onside", "assisting with the training of the Afghan army".

Yesterday I noticed, when any politician was asked "Why are we there to help a corrupt Afghani government?" the above reasons, plus a few others, poured forth.

One of the most honest answers was from a politician (I can't remember his name) on radio yesterday. "We can't withdraw from Afghanistan, America needs us. Nato would collapse and Britain's standing as a military power would be greatly diminished."

That's more like it. NATO isn't working, many countries refuse to send troops to this war and others intend to withdraw troops next year, yet there's no mention of an emergency NATO summit to sort out problems. Why not? Is it because this is seen as America's war? Why aren't America and Britain insisting NATO meet to resolve the manning issues?

Now we're sending an extra 500 soldiers to the front. On Newsnight the Afghani ambassador said he was waiting for confirmation that Obama is also sending more troops. The spin being issued yesterday was that the 500 will only be sent if other NATO countries contribute. They won't, we all know that.

Meanwhile our soldiers will continue to be killed and maimed while they await orders from on high. Orders which should have been in place before they even left these shores and not made on the hoof by inexperienced politicians. Of course situations change instantly during war but our armed forces can handle instant changes of direction even when they're being pulled from pillar to post by various defence chiefs and politicians singing from different hymn sheets.

And yet, throughout the posturing and misinformation from the US and Britain, NATO continues to survive intact - no questions asked.

Not one more British soldier should be sent to Afghanistan until all NATO countries engage their military in this conflict and honour their NATO agreement. As most of my regular readers know, I would prefer we started a withdrawal schedule because this war will never be won.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

"We can't withdraw from Afghanistan, America needs us. Nato would collapse and Britain's standing as a military power would be greatly diminished."

I've been saying this all along. That's why we are there. That's why people are dying.

So what good does Britain's military standing do for you and me? It may mean that the likes of Denmark or Norway wouldn't dare go to go to war with the UK's mighty forces. But then, was that ever likely to happen?

Nope. The benefit from all of this went to the likes of Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown, not to mention their rag tag cabinets of wimps and career yes men, and women who got to play at being important. When you look at poor old mad senile Mrs Thatcher you think... much good it did them!

The truth is that for all the might of Britain's forces, for all their expertise, even in conjunction with the very much greater might of American forces....we're losing!

Clearly the might of the rebels is greater.

Listening to that roll of names yesterday there was a strange feeling of disbelief going on in my head, that these MPs sitting quietly while Brown did his prime ministerial bit, were doing it for show, because minutes before and minutes later they were worrying their miserable greedy little heads off about their cleaning and gardening bills. Parasites.

Witterings from Witney said...

SR, an extremely well thought piece of writing!

Award yourself an oil well - on second thoughts have two.

Originally, I have to admit, I was one of the gung-ho variety, but the longer it has gone on the firmer my belief we should pull out! All this 'prevention of terrorism' crap is just that - crap. How long we been there and still the police here have to catch the bastards!

Oldrightie said...

It would appear the Italians had a better option. Bribe to keep the peace!

subrosa said...

Tris, what an excellent comment and so true.

Can't remember who said 'once a politician gets the taste of war...' but whoever said that was right.

subrosa said...

WfW, thank you. At last you're beginning to see our presence in that part of the world is far more dangerous to our future than staying out of it.

Wow, that's made my day!

subrosa said...

There is a side to the Italians which us Brits lack OR - or should I say politicians.

Anonymous said...

I think they should pull out all of the troops now. The longer we are in Afghanistan the more Pakistan will fragment and they have nuclear weapons.

But i do (and i ken its really unfair for our own troops) understand why other nations have not committed more troops or indeed any troops at all.

Maybe they just don't want terror to visit them.

The slipper slapping Taliban are only fueled by our very existence in this part of the world, when will we learn ?

The problem in that part of the world is its religion and no western power is ever going to shift the barbaric mindset of mad men in pajamas chucking sandals at apache helicopters.

As for our own Labour Gov and parliament. At the very least they could have had a 1 hour siting each week during the holidays just to keep the MP,s up to date with events but no, that would had cost some people to much trouble.

DougtheDug said...

Afghanistan is part of the US'es strategy to control access to the massive oil and gas fields in the Caspian Sea basin. Part of that strategy is not only who gets the oil and gas but who doesn't. What the US does not want is China to gain exclusive access to that resource and China's western border runs right up to the Central Asian republics. In fact Afghanistan has a border with China.

As far as the US is concerned Afghanistan is an important part of their Central Asian strategy in its role as a gateway to the Caspian and as a consequence is also part of their energy strategy. They know why they're there - oil, gas, Iran, Russia and China.

Why the UK is there is anybody's guess.

So here's a good one. The UK went into Afghanistan to keep the US happy because Blair was dazzled and bewitched by the chance to share press conferences in Washington, the shining Camelot of power, with George Bush. Just like a moth to a candle. Blair loved being a "regular guy" in jeans and shirt wandering beside his pal President George Bush in the capital of world power.

The reason we're still there is because Brown with the rest of the UK establishment hasn't got the guts to say enough's enough. Until the US gives the green light to the UK to get out we're there for the duration.

CrazyDaisy said...

SR,

NATO has lost its direction, it was devised to prevent post WW2 Europe tearing each other apart. Post Cold War, it's a relic and its "NEW" directon in Afghanistan is because the US contributes the Lion's share of dosh to the budget, not to mention troop numbers!

NATO works when we sit around talking of big exercises and training our own forces in warfare over coffee, croissants and Limoncello. I've seen it and done it, as you ken, it works in some distrorted fashion but is it really necessary? That's another debate, I see the good, the bad and the ugly side of NATO.

I personally feel Scotland, once Independent, should steer clear of this dinosaur, it's a pointless extravagance we can little afford.

It's 33 degs and 85% humid here!

CD

OutLander said...

Briiliant post, and superb comments (until now).

So if the UK were to withdraw from Afghanistan “NATO would collapse and Britain's standing as a military power would be greatly diminished.”

It all makes sense now. I knew about the pipeline motive, but hadn’t joined the dots on the very existence of NATO.

Sounds a lot like why the UK wants to keep Scotland is this Union. Remember what Jack Straw let slip on Question Time in 2006:

“A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England. Our voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN Security Council.”


The difference is that all of these institutions would survive the transition of a smaller UK. The NATO relationship is fundamentally different: Britain’s active membership is what is holding it together. The fate of NATO and the UK would therefore seem to be inextricably linked.

Which means that as long as it exists, the UK will probably continue to support NATO and its US-led foreign interventions.

It also you realise how much the UK has at stake in keeping Scotland in the Union. If the Union goes, suddenly the UK rubber stamp of US foreign policy isn’t so impressive.

Which makes Angus Robertson’s recent statement on continued military co-operation with the UK after Scottish independence so shrewd. The British Isles Alliance may continue, but now we have a say where our boys go, and why they die.

A lot would seem to depend on whether Scotland stays in NATO.

subrosa said...

Great assessment Outlander, thanks.

We need a real debate about whether Scotland should be in NATO. After the Italians behaviour (about which nothing will be done) then I would say no at present.

subrosa said...

No British MP has the guts Doug. I was hearing on radio that Helmand also is a mining area for emeralds as well as other important minerals and our lads are also involved in the fighting for these resources.

When I can, I'll do some research about that and see what I can find.

subrosa said...

Yoohoo CD, I'm glad I'm no' where you are - too hot fur me I tell ye!

Maybe we could have a debate about NATO once my own computer is up and running.

subrosa said...

Spook. you make a lot of sense there. Maybe other countries realise the damage that could be done to them if they participated in this war.

Related Posts with Thumbnails