Monday, 1 November 2010

Military Matters

The futility of war has claimed the life of another British soldier.  He was shot dead will defusing an IED.

The fatality occurred in the Nahr-e Saraj North district of Helmand Province and where the soldier's regiment, the 101 (City of London) Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) are deployed.

We have now lost 342 of our armed forces in this war.

Only last week it was reported Russia were onside with NATO in an effort to curtail the Afghan drugs trade.  Now Karzai is complaining the joint American and Russian raid on four laboratories in Nangahar province on Thursday was unsanctioned and violated Afghan sovereignty.  Moscow officials said they were baffled by the angry response, maintaining the operation had taken place with Kabul's knowledge.

What a complete mess.  Now the Afghan president is threatening the countries who his government asked for help.

Although our Prime Minister is reluctant to discuss Afghanistan, tomorrow he will happily outline plans for military co-operation between us and the French which will see troops from both countries deployed as a single brigade in future conflicts. The first step will be a joint exercise in Flanders which is to be followed by more training together with the aim of deploying troops 'alongside each other', in the words of one government source.

David Cameron will also make clear that Britain and France will stop short of full integration because there will be times when the interests of Paris and London diverge.  France strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq.

What does this mean for our armed forces?  One thing is sure, they will never be truly independent again.  We are now building aircraft carriers for the French to use, because we have no aircraft of our own which are suitable to use them and this new alliance with France integrates our military even further into the Military of the European Union.  It's a step too far.



John said...

Jointery with French is not the answer. Afghanistan's history in terms of military action proves it is all a waste of time trying to enforce any change. We should all set a day when we will march out, flags flying, bands playing and leave the place to sink or swim as it chooses. Once out, we should stay out, We have managed to spread AQ to other areas so there is no justification to occupy one country on misguided impression it will keep the streets of London safe. Where did the explosive printers attack originate?

subrosa said...

Well said John. For some reason I feel uncomfortable with the French idea. Now maybe that's because I seldom believe what I read these days, but there's far more to this than meets the eye I'm sure.

Money won't be far from one of the reasons.

JRB said...

Not to worry - our troops will not be in Afghanistan for much longer.
The Pentagon, no doubt, will be ordering Britain to invade Yemen to eliminate the terrorist threat. Naturally our obsequious government will comply.

As for co-operation with France – does no-one in the MOD study history?

St Lucia
San Sabastian

The list above is just a few of the battle honours won by just one Scots regiment, the Royal Scots (now Royal Regiment of Scotland) whilst fighting against – France.

Oldrightie said...

European wars are now fought in the fleshpots of our ruling EU elite's palaces and boudoirs. Ask Berlusconi! As for Afghanistan, this war seems more forgotten than in Labours' days.

Apogee said...

This is not a good idea.The "Auld Alliance" never worked. JRB's list would indicate we have , as a Nation spent a lot more time fighting them than being friends with them, apart from having to help them out in two world wars. And a press report which says they were going to offer the use of the Aircraft Carrier Charles De Gaulle until they realised it was no longer seaworthy.
Even the article indicates doubt as to how far any arrangements/ agreements could work and it would quickly fall apart. If we stopped giving our money away,for a few years, lets be honest most of the recipients would hardly miss it, and spent it at home, a lot of problems could be solved, and this is one of them.

subrosa said...

Hello John. And after Yemen they'll be deployed in Iran because the terrorist will have flown there.

Yes the history with France isn't great. In fact France's own military history isn't great. Why are we doing this? There's much more to it than meets the eye.

subrosa said...

By these unelected, unaccountable millionaires OR, yet our young will still be sent to wars.

subrosa said...

Aye I read that this morning Apogee. You couldn't make it up could you.

Most of the recipients never see the money. It is filtered by governments.

Billy said...

Dear! Dear! So Britain had to bail out the French twice - what drivel. The US had to bail out Europe twice especially in WW2 where the Germans steamrollered right over everyone right up to the English Channel and if that was not there they would have continued right up to the Shetlands.

Britain only managed to be a big power by invading other peoples lands and robbing them of their resources and most of the wars was about them stopping other countries doing the same.

Hypocritical British history!

subrosa said...

Billy, my point is that this new arrangement with France isn't going to be good for Britain in the present climate.

Let's not forget the US didn't join when initially asked but I'm sure I don't need to give you chapter and verse on the history of WW2.

Apogee said...

I'm sure Billy doesnt need a lecture on why the yanks were in the 2nd world war, and which American companies and citizens were making lots of money off both Allies and Axis powers,its mostly all in the history books now, why we have only just finished paying our share of lend-lease. The Americans work on self interest,cant blame them for that, but lets see it for what it is, sure it was a great help, but we paid for that help.

Billy said...

Subrosa - In the present climate I would rather we were allied with the French than the US - It is the US that is behind most of the "terrorism", along with the UK, in the world just now so maybe this could be a good thing and put a clamp on our involvement.

I am also very aware of WW2 history and of the US involvement in both sides but the fact is we would never have beaten the Germans on our own same as we would never have won Waterloo if the Prussians had not turned up when they did.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Indeed it's a step too far.

The last fifty steps, roughly speaking, have been steps too far.

We need to maintain complete UK democratic control of our armed forces, with no vetoes by any foreigners of any sort, no dependence on outside help for (e.g.) the supply of ammunition, and no influence by any past or future enemies.

None of this will happen; the endless succession of surrenders, give-aways, one-sided compromises, danegeld payments, and rollovers will continue, apparently for ever.

When do we rise up and slaughter them?

subrosa said...

Billy, in the present climate I would far rather we were independent and working with NATO countries rather than one individual country.

Freedom is the independence of being able to choose. We've lost that now.

subrosa said...

We won't rise up WY, much as I'd like to. Too many have now been educated at propaganda level and therefore are submissive to government decisions.

I remember back in the 50s and 60s the young rebelled about anything that took their fancy. You never see that nowadays. Did we do any good in those days? I think so. If nothing else we showed politicians that we had the capability to mass protest. Now all we see are the eco-loons who are largely ignored by sensible people.

Related Posts with Thumbnails