Monday, July 13, 2009

[support out troops] get out of this political mire


It's not often this blog quotes The Mail:

The steep rise in casualties in Afghanistan is being matched by increasingly bitter recriminations between the Government and the British Army.

Soldiers accuse ministers of failing to give the troops on the ground the support they need. Ministers charge the Army with dangerously politicising its role.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, has especially angered Labour by complaining privately to a group of Tory MPs about under-resourcing of the campaign.

Senior officers are impenitent about speaking out, because they regard the stakes as so high - the lives of their men. One told me yesterday: 'I regard the losses of the past fortnight as a wake-up call to the Government.

'If we are going to fight this war as it needs to be fought, we need a properly-resourced army.

'We also need the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to explain to the British people, as they have never convincingly tried to do, why we are in Afghanistan and what we are trying to do there.'

There is a tendency amongst patriots and pro-armed forces bloggers to see any opposition to Afghanistan as a bunch of conchy lefties whining about the brave boys and girls defending our country. While the opposition might include such people, you'd hardly lump the British Army itself under that heading would you, boys?

This blog is 100% behind our troops and the number of posts on how shoddily the armed forces have been treated shows the mindset of your humble correspondent. But I'm sure as hell not going to support a war we should never have been in, for purely political purposes which have zero to do with defending our nation, completely ill-equipped, defending peope who don't give a damn about this country and which the British Army itself is outspoken against.

You can support Gordo, Mandy and the Afghan quagmire if you like.

This blog, however, supports the Armed Forces.

Interesting American perspective here on how the government over there is planning to ban cigarette smoking for the military to make them healthier.

[By the way, I tried to rejoin the army last October and got as far as papers being prepared by recruiting but then the brass rang back and said I was too old. If I'd been a doctor they would probably have taken me. Oh well.]
.

11 comments:

  1. There was a case for invading Afghanistan. I doubt that there can be much of a case for hanging around indefinitely.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wrote on my own blog albeit succinctly what I think and that is that it is right to criticise and demand to a certain extent but since we don't remember to appreciate their efforts and successes then I see no difference to the government's apparent lack of concern. They succeeded in their missions last week, which of and in themselves were a huge task - did any one single paper carry this?: No. That angers me as much as the apparent lack of equipment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Money that could have been better spent on Veteran's services!" That was from the link you had, James. It's so true! The gov't needs to stop wasting our money with these redundant studies. Now, regarding your boys working with ours, you may not agree why they're there. However, we appreciate the support!

    ReplyDelete
  4. For me there is also the concern about who our soldiers are fighting for in Afghanistan. In 2001 the Taliban were de[soed. In 2009 the Afghan government seems to be little better. Why are our soldiers dying?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am sure you know I could go on about this one for ages.

    Pro armed forces and their support always and we know who has let them down...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Matt - With respect. Our boys are not there to 'support' Americans. If anything the Americans came back to lend support to us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alison, Sorry, but you are wrong.

    We may have our own army which we control but we would not be in there if our wonderful leaders, Blair and Gordo, had not wanted to support the US, aka George Bush. Pure and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lord T - sorry but you are wrong. We made a decision to enter the war based on British defence interests. Our troops are not there supporting America.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They are there under Nato - I forgot to finish my point.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think what we've got here is not actually a dispute. Alison is saying [correct me if I'm wrong] that we are a sovereign nation and Lord T is saying [correct me if I'm wrong] that we seem to follow America into everything.

    Both seem valid to me but Matt's comment was a bit provocative to a Brit [unknowingly, as an American] because we Brits are a bit sensitive on this issue.

    Matt was very polite but he can't help being American because ... well ... he is American. Matt, don't worry about it - it's in our heads.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh I wasn't meaning to be rude to Matt at all James. I can see it was a well meaning comment so I tried to preface my remark 'with respect'. No it wasn't a dispute but I don't see that I am "wrong" in pointing that out. I realise Iraq is contentious as we did as a nation decide to support America, as it were - and stand against the "international community". But Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish. It's not America's war, it's Nato's. There are several partners who are participating although the UK and US are definitely the ones doing all the heavylifting. UK in particular.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.