.Winning the war will need more
George Bush and Tony Blair intended the invasion of Iraq to result in the transformation of that country's government from a vicious and bloodthirsty tyranny to a peaceful, rich and humane liberal democracy.
Sending in the American and British armies removed the tyrant. There is little evidence, however, that any significant steps have been taken towards achieving a humane liberal democracy. Iraq has slid into a vicious and destructive civil war between ethnic, tribal and religious factions. Order and stability, the most basic and precious of all political goals, and the condition of all the others, have been destroyed.
Last week, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, articulated a truth that the Prime Minister insists he accepts: British soldiers in Iraq, like those from the US, have become a focus for violent attacks from Iraqis, making it impossible for our troops to prevent the catastrophic cascade of violence engulfing the country, never mind to construct the institutions of liberal democracy.
That is why Gen Dannatt was also correct to draw attention to the fact that British forces cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely; and to stress that they need to be given greater resources if they are able to perform any useful role in Iraq, and, even more importantly, in Afghanistan. The British operation in Afghanistan has the more immediate goal of ensuring that the country does not, once again, become a centre for the planning of murderous terrorist attacks across the globe. But achieving even that modest goal will unquestionably take more men and material than have so far been committed to it.
We are delighted that last week the Government agreed to increase the pay of soldiers involved in active duty abroad, a measure for which we had lobbied in our campaign for a Fair Deal for Our Troops. That is a good start, but it is only a start. Our troops need better medical services. They need more reliable equipment, and they need better training on how to use it.
For the foreseeable future, the Army's basic task will be to defeat hit-and-run insurgent groups in hostile terrain. Yet the priorities for the defence budget are still geared towards frustrating an attack by the Soviet Union on Western Europe. A very substantial slice goes on our nuclear deterrent; more still will go on updating it. Some £18 billion has been expended on our share of the Eurofighter: a plane that still does not work properly, and for which no military function has been found.
Labour has increased spending on health, transport and education enormously. Yet while the Prime Minister has stressed that defeating Islamic terrorism is "the greatest challenge of our age", he has kept spending on defence static in real terms, despite vastly increasing the demands on our Armed Forces.
The "peace dividend", the pot of gold politicians so love, has long since disappeared. We face a prolonged war against an implacable enemy. Mr Blair has recognised the threat. He, and his successor, now need to provide the resources our Armed Forces need to defeat it.
Telegraph
Sending in the American and British armies removed the tyrant. There is little evidence, however, that any significant steps have been taken towards achieving a humane liberal democracy. Iraq has slid into a vicious and destructive civil war between ethnic, tribal and religious factions. Order and stability, the most basic and precious of all political goals, and the condition of all the others, have been destroyed.
Last week, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, articulated a truth that the Prime Minister insists he accepts: British soldiers in Iraq, like those from the US, have become a focus for violent attacks from Iraqis, making it impossible for our troops to prevent the catastrophic cascade of violence engulfing the country, never mind to construct the institutions of liberal democracy.
That is why Gen Dannatt was also correct to draw attention to the fact that British forces cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely; and to stress that they need to be given greater resources if they are able to perform any useful role in Iraq, and, even more importantly, in Afghanistan. The British operation in Afghanistan has the more immediate goal of ensuring that the country does not, once again, become a centre for the planning of murderous terrorist attacks across the globe. But achieving even that modest goal will unquestionably take more men and material than have so far been committed to it.
We are delighted that last week the Government agreed to increase the pay of soldiers involved in active duty abroad, a measure for which we had lobbied in our campaign for a Fair Deal for Our Troops. That is a good start, but it is only a start. Our troops need better medical services. They need more reliable equipment, and they need better training on how to use it.
For the foreseeable future, the Army's basic task will be to defeat hit-and-run insurgent groups in hostile terrain. Yet the priorities for the defence budget are still geared towards frustrating an attack by the Soviet Union on Western Europe. A very substantial slice goes on our nuclear deterrent; more still will go on updating it. Some £18 billion has been expended on our share of the Eurofighter: a plane that still does not work properly, and for which no military function has been found.
Labour has increased spending on health, transport and education enormously. Yet while the Prime Minister has stressed that defeating Islamic terrorism is "the greatest challenge of our age", he has kept spending on defence static in real terms, despite vastly increasing the demands on our Armed Forces.
The "peace dividend", the pot of gold politicians so love, has long since disappeared. We face a prolonged war against an implacable enemy. Mr Blair has recognised the threat. He, and his successor, now need to provide the resources our Armed Forces need to defeat it.
Telegraph
posted by madtom at 9:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home