baldysblog.co.uk

Because of leaked letters, a public row has erupted within NATO ranks concerning troop deployments and contributions by various countries to actual “war fighting” in Afghanistan and particularly in the South where the British, Canadians and US forces are very heavily engaged with the Taliban. The Canadians are so stretched that they have warned that unless other troop contributions are found, they will end their mission there.

Of course the principle culprits but not the only ones, in terms of dragging their feet are France and Germany who are of course, the core of the EU. The simple truth is that the “West” generally needs to wake up and shape up to the current challenges, if you want peace, you always have to prepare for war and, like it or not, better to fight in Afghanistan than on the streets of Berlin and Paris. Some people rather foolishly claim that the Treaty of Rome has been responsible for peace in Europe since 1945 which is total rubbish, the Cold War and a significant American presence in Europe is responsible for the peace, the EU is irrelevant in this respect.

A Wake Up Call

Of course the French and Germans should field not just significantly more troops but more importantly, deploy them to hot zones to actually fight the Taliban as part of their NATO commitments rather than their half hearted current demeanour. Unfortunately one of the consequences of the Cold War and the US guarantee through NATO is that European countries are too used to defence on the cheap and that really needs to change.

Britons who question the UK’s membership of the EU are accused of being “backward looking to the days of Empire” but the truth is that it is both the French and Germans who are psychologically tied to the their pasts. For them, the 1870 Franco Prussian War, 1914-1918, 1939-1945 still cast long shadows. Germans can be proud of the great democracy they have built since the end of the war but hiding behind “our constitution and parliament” is a very small fig leaf indeed and most Germans know it.

The Numbers Tell the Story

When we look at the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan under NATO/Isaf and a separate force under direct US command, we are looking at 42,000 troops from 39 countries, apparently. If we look at Iraq, there are around 132,000 US forces, 4,000 UK and various smaller contingents from other nations.

What strikes me most are these numbers and how they compare with the British ability to rapidly deploy a BEF (British Expeditionary Force) of 100,000 men in 1914 to help defend Belgium and France. Compare this with British support for France in 1939 when between September ’39 and May 1940, 394,165 troops were deployed, 237,319 on front-line duties. It is important to understand that these were primarily “British” not “Empire” troops, they came from these islands, today our army is far too small.

The Key Problem

The main cock-up over the military invasion of Iraq can be laid at Donald Rumsfield’s door, the force levels were inadequate to do the job required. These force levels were set with an eye to the ‘political fallout’ domestically in the US rather than the military requirements of the mission. It is an obvious and simple fact of life that none of us want to lose our young men and women in combat. An American, Canadian, Iraqi or Afghan mother weeps no less, feels her loss no less than a British mother but in war, there will be losses which must be borne.

For far too many years, the US has invested heavily in “smart weapons” and that is a good idea but, a bad idea has ridden into the picture along with them in the shape of imagining that these weapons systems are a substitute for boots on the ground – they aren’t and never will be and that surely, must be the main lesson of Iraq that both the US and UK need to learn. More importantly, our citizens and for that matter all citizens of “western countries”, need to redefine their thinking substantially because the game has changed and the proof is 9/11, 7/7 and Spanish commuters, we are all in the front-line now.

A Moral Dimension

There is a moral dilemma that we need to face up to, unless we have more conventional force options and, be prepared to deploy them, we will be faced with launching nuclear weapons – those “weapons of mass destruction”. Under today’s circumstances, if Iran continues its current path and acquires nuclear weapons, there will be little choice open to the West apart from “nuking” them and do we really want to do that ? This would be doubly tragic if like Saddam, they were just talking it up and had no intention of having a nuclear weapons capability.

War should always be avoided whenever possible and “whenever possible” increases substantially when a country has a robust military capability and the clear determination to use it, as necessary. As I look at the EU today, it reminds me of the plight of the Romanised Britons towards the end of the days of the Roman Empire. As Rome withdrew, the Britons were incapable of defending themselves and thus, were overrun by successive waves of invasion from the East. When nations lose the ability and will to defend themselves, they lose the right to existence, culture and even their own freedom.