We Need Troops In Afghanistan, Not Just Timetables

Mission accomplished? Hardly

I must say, I'm afraid I found Liam Fox's explanations and justifications for the combat drawdown timetable in Afghanistan on Radio 4 this morning rather unconvincing. At one point he started to remind me of various Labour defence ministers (you can pick one) in his attempts to service the argument that the Afghan National Army will somehow be ready to take over from American and British troops in five years' time, despite mounting evidence to the contrary (not least yesterday's tragic rocket attack on British soldiers by an insurgent who had infiltrated the Afghan army) and continuing military reversals (I define losing territory you have just gained from the enemy because you don't have enough men to hold it a 'reversal', don't you?).

It's not that I don't buy what he says - in most ways, he is far more believable than his Labour predecessors, who spent most of their time lying through their teeth about helicopter numbers, among many other things - it's that things just don't add up given the time frame proposed and troop levels involved.

It's been said by a lot of commentators and experts alike that the mission, the war aims, the 'liberation not occupation' philosophy, the 'protecting us at home by fighting terror abroad' ideology, even the timetable that's been announced, are all theoretically sound apart from one, vitally important factor: for all these goals to be accomplished, our troop levels in the short term need to rise substantially; our level of engagement intensify dramatically.

Under-manning has and, it seems, always will be the British problem in Afghanistan. In order to fulfil the mission we set for ourselves, two or even three divisions of soldiers (around 30,000+ combat troops plus support) should have been committed, and now should be committed, to augment the USA's 10. "But that would cost the country a fortune!" I hear you gasp. Well, war does cost a fortune and if you are not prepared to pay it, then you should pull the hell out immediately because there is no point in staying.

It was a fortune of our treasure that Gordon Brown was not willing to spend on our behalf to protect our armed forces, so I place the blame squarely at his door for subsequent losses, both the ones caused by a lack of equipment - strength in the air - and the ones caused by insufficient strength on the ground.

I'm now wondering, though, will the Coalition government try to fight this war on the cheap as well? If they do, then we will lose.

Dr Fox had better wake up to that reality - fast. And so had David Cameron and the Coalition he purports to lead.

Why We Vote

General Sir Richard Dannatt, whom the Labour party attempted to smear not that long ago just because he disagreed with them, has written a piece for tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph that resonates. In it, not only does he show us (diplomatically) what's gone so horribly wrong with defence and foreign policy management under Labour, he reminds us why nailing your colours to a particular mast is so vital when a general election comes around. This last part of his wise words is especially telling:

...what if the electorate were to decide that, with the political class discredited through their abuse of their own remuneration system, they will not vote at all, or will use that vote to punish all and sundry? What message would that send to our young people on the front line in Afghanistan risking life and limb for our security? It says: we actually quite like the idea of those votes that are cast producing no clear answer – but meanwhile, you go on risking your all so we can sit at home doing nothing and deciding nothing. Frankly, we owe it to ourselves and to our servicemen and women to do better.

Here here. It seems to me that General Dannatt also suggests a point that, while wrongly perceived these days as somehow old-fashioned, is nevertheless more significant now than it's ever been: a vote is a precious thing, and to use it when the time comes isn't just a right, it's a duty. And you must vote according to what you believe is in the best interests of your country, and not according to some kind of inherited political prejudice and certainly not because you think you're 'angry with the system'.

If you have any doubts, (and I no longer do), about the party to which you should lend your vote, then you should be aware that the party that best fits Dannatt's criteria for honest, patriotic voting is, currently, the Conservative Party. And this is no time for a hung parliament.

Right, having uttered all that well-intentioned claptrap, I would however like to add that wherever you are, in this real world, any chance that you get to kick Labour as hard as you can, take it. They deserve to be annihilated and, after all, ultimately that's what voting's really for. I admire and aspire to high-minded democratic principles and all that as much as the next knighted general. But, for our nation today, we all must vote and, if necessary, vote dirty. First to get rid of Brown, second to install a strong government. You can't do that by voting Lib Dem, Libertarian or UKIP. That's just true.

And even if, on the face of it, his standards seem unreachably high, I think that between the lines, that's precisely what Dannatt is saying.

So well said he!

Two Carriers, Four Subs and a Thousand Royal Marines

That's what would be sent by a government that had any idea about the concept of protecting the people of the country it seems to think it governs.

Going in hard would also have the happy outcome of not only rescuing two decent, hardworking, loyal, lifelong taxpayers, but would also solve the Somali pirate problem in short order (ask the Royal Navy).

But our pisspoor government is going to do nothing. Why? Who knows. It could be for any number of scary, mindless, thoughtless, couldn't-give-a-shit socialist reasons. It's possible that class is one of them (the Chandlers are from Tunbridge Wells). That's how evil this government is.

But saved Mr and Mrs Chandler must be, however. Or there will be hell to pay - and Labour better believe it.

Idiot Brown, take heed.