baldysblog.co.uk

The other day there was a UN Conference in Dublin at which a treaty to ban the use, acquisition and storage for use by All of Cluster Bombs was agreed, the Treaty itself will be signed in December with each of the approximately 100 nations represented, then ratifying it through their own political processes.

I suppose for the people present and in agreement, this was a “Princess Diana Moment” except on cluster munitions rather than land mines and why not, the same civilian casualties long after the event apply, don’t they ? Unfortunately, the people who didn’t participate were more noticeable than those who did, the USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel being particularly prominent.

Is There a Moral Dimension ?

Well without a shadow of doubt, there is but are we even looking in the right direction for an appropriate solution ?

The whole concept of “cluster weapons” is not new, chain shot, grape shot, cannister and round shot were very familiar terms for artillery over several centuries however, their projectiles were not explosive individually, they were mainly dumb iron projectiles “expelled with both force and speed” so any damage was immediate and once a projectile had cooled down, the munition was inert.

The problem with our current “cluster weapons” is that they are poorly conceived, designed and manufactured, once exploded they should become inert dumb iron. Interestingly today, Con Coughlin a defence correspondent for the Daily Telegraph wrote an article about this and the subsequent “bulletin board” was highly active with lots of very interesting feedback on different aspects of the same issue including how these ‘failed bomblets’ could be deactivated within days and automatically.

You can argue the question of “cluster munitions” from both directions but we should not allow the debate to focus and hinge around the morally bankrupt and totally incompetent Government we currently have because that just clouds the issue and distracts the focus.

Smart Weapons

I am not a great believer in “smart weapons”, true the guidance and delivery systems have got a whole lot better from the past and are far more accurate today than in previous generations but the whole concept of “superior technology” somehow leading to fewer troops deployed “in theatre” is a political sop for civilians rather than anything practical for the military. The whole problem with the British Armed Forces is that we just don’t have enough Infantry and the relevant kit, helicopters, unmanned surveillance aircraft and so forth to sustain infantry operations against an enemy that doesn’t have either armour or air power.

In simple terms, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our forces are wrongly configured for the task to hand and broadly speaking, the same could probably be said for more ‘conventional warfare’ deployments elsewhere. The problem is that under both Labour and previous Tory Governments, there has been a total lack of strategic vision when looking at the military, they have always been seen as ‘expensive’ and ripe for further ‘cuts’ under a latest joke “Defence Review”.

This is both the real problem and an issue which harks back to the Cold War, because of a lack of manpower, if “Cold had turned to Hot”, the West would have had to go nuclear quicker than the Soviet Union. The “moral” question therefore does not hinge around nuclear weapons, land mines or cluster munitions, it hinges around the “will of any nation” to go to war and within that very concept – the means of prevailing in the subsequent struggle, once committed, ‘morality’ vs ‘survival’ takes over and can easily go beyond what is required from a military perspective..

Yes the ‘Blitz’ on London and other cities was terrible but did that justify Dresden and Cologne some years later ? Did the “Yalta Conference” and the agreements made there based upon “Total Surrender” just prolong the European war because it was a very bad call ?

The “Treaty of Versailles” set in stone the circumstances of the emergence of the Nazis and from there, WWII, the question must be: “Did Yalta do something similar ?”

We Britons…

The whole concept of “Empire” was an aberration in our long history that barely lasted 100 years and yet, it had a major and mainly negative impact on our psyche once it had passed. From this in the ’70s came our joining the “Common Market” which then foolishly, transformed into a Fascist EU which we will shortly leave, I have little doubt.

Today and finally, we are starting to rediscover ourselves and what we are about, high time too ! As part of that, we the citizens – not the politicians, need to determine both the extent and limits of our Foreign Policy objectives which, if I may suggest, should be based upon our “vital interests” and from there via taxation, funding all aspects of it properly including our Armed Forces.

If we are going to deploy British Forces in ‘policing actions’ or ‘hot war fighting’ as in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, they not only need to be properly equipped and supported for the type of operation we task them to do, but there also needs to be sufficient numbers of them so that they can provide “overwhelming force”. Failure to do so will require resorting to “area weapons” of one sort or another. If you think about Afghanistan for a moment, four or five times the number of troops deployed in our theatre of operations would negate the need for a lot of air and artillery support strikes which would improve the “hearts & minds, redevelopment” effort and ensure a faster withdrawal plus the bonus, less unexploded ordinance left behind.

Conclusion:

I personally do not believe that the using or banning of specific weapons is relevant, proper consideration of whether or not to ‘go to war’ is important and set against a public background, the declaration as to “why”. No country should go to war if it can be avoided but, if they do so, warfare should be conducted both ruthlessly and expeditiously. As currently used by countries too scared to go to war properly, cluster munitions should be banned because they are used as an “excuse” not to get involved with the victims face to face.

If I were Prime Minister, I would avoid engaging our Forces in war unless in defence of our “vital interests” but, if war was inevitable, as their PM, I would not hesitate to deploy cluster or even nuclear munitions in support of them, low risk, low collateral wars just don’t exist. Go to war only if you must but, if you must then please “go to war properly”.