Category Archives: NATO

Foreign Affairs, Government, Islamic State, Military, NATO, Politics, United States

Downing Street insists there has been no US air strike request…

AIR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISLAMIC STATE

Britain joining air strikes against jihadists has not been requested and is not currently under discussion, Downing Street has insisted, despite reports that Barack Obama is hoping to win agreement to bring allies into the air campaign by next week’s NATO summit.

The United States has launched scores of bombing attacks on Islamic State (IS) militants in northern Iraq in a bid to assist Kurdish and Iraqi forces in their fightback against the terrorists.

Reports in The Times said the Pentagon had been exploring whether western allies such as Britain and Australia, and allied Gulf states, would assist in a broader campaign in Syria against the group, which was formerly known as ISIL.

Britain joining air strikes against jihadists has not been requested and is not currently under discussion, Downing Street has insisted.

Britain joining air strikes against jihadists has not been requested and is not currently under discussion, Downing Street has insisted.

But a spokesperson for No 10, said: ‘There’s been no request for us to deliver air strikes and this is not something under discussion at the moment.

Our focus remains on supporting the Iraq government and Kurdish forces so that they can counter the threat posed by ISIL, for example with the visit of our security envoy to Iraq this week and the provision of supplies to Kurdish forces.’

The report suggested US president Barack Obama asked the Pentagon to carry out a ‘scoping exercise’ with allies to discover their approach to joining a campaign.

NATO members are due to gather at Celtic Manor, south Wales, on September 4 and 5, for a summit.

The Commons rejected British bombing in Syria in a historic vote almost exactly a year ago when Prime Minister David Cameron sought approval for military strikes in response to chemical attacks.

And The Times reported scepticism about whether domestic politics would allow Britain to become involved.

An unnamed Conservative minister told the Times: ‘David Cameron is simply not going to want to get involved this close to the election, even though it’s the right thing to do. The risks are too big.’

A Whitehall source also questioned the idea, saying: ‘The idea that we could somehow do military action in Syria without a parliamentary vote when there has already been a parliamentary vote disallowing it, it’s just not going to happen.’

Any action in Syria would go ahead without the permission of the Assad regime, raising the risks involved.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, National Security, NATO, Politics, Society, United States

Being prepared for war is essential, but war is not cheap…

ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE STUDY

A study released by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) shows that Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the UK Treasury more than £29 billion. In the report, the think tank argues that the wars were “strategic blunders, spreading terrorism, drumming up resistance and increasing the opium trade”.

The conclusions, though, are controversial. For instance, the authors of the study assert that various terrorist groups would not be infiltrating Syria or threatening Britain had Saddam Hussein stayed in power. Yet, Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant and despot, who clearly acted as a state sponsor of terror. Tens of thousands of lives were lost, thousands more were gassed in ethnic style cleansing in northern Iraq, and Saddam Hussein would certainly have had vast stockpiles of nerve and chemical agents at his disposal left over from his 8-years war with Iran. Many of these stockpiles still remain unaccounted for. Had Hussein not been toppled he doubtless would have continued to persecute his own population. The tyrant’s bloody wars against the Kurds in the north and Arab populations of the south should never be forgotten.

Putting aside the arguments about Britain’s role in the ‘War on Terror’, one uncontroversial fact emerges from the report which is indisputable: war is not cheap. The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) has witnessed massive cuts to our Armed Forces budget. Army numbers have been drastically cut back, aircraft have been withdrawn, tank battalions diminished, and even our last aircraft carrier decommissioned. Further cuts are imminent. Many of these cuts are being justified by the theory that we would never have to engage in the variety of long-term overseas military adventures that typified our activities and engagements during the Cold War era.

Since 2001, however, we have actually been involved in two such operations at a significant cost. And within the last few days, President Barack Obama announced that he would like America to act more as part of an international coalition rather than taking unilateral action. This implies, at least, a continued British role in Western security.

The UK has to be prepared for all eventualities, and adequate contingencies should be in place. As relations with Russia continue to worsen, for example, it might prove necessary for the UK to play a part in the wider campaign of checking Vladimir Putin’s belligerence. Only last month, Britain sent four Typhoon fighter jets to the Baltics as part of a NATO deployment, a sign that the West is unwilling to allow Europe to disintegrate at the hands of the Russian president. Nobody wants a conflict, but the potential for a tough offence remains the best defence.

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, NATO, Politics, United States

Afghanistan must not be allowed to slip back into its old ways…

AFGHANISTAN

Intro: As British troops prepare to exit Afghanistan after more than 12 years of bitter fighting, a bilateral agreement between Afghanistan and the West will be needed to prevent the Taliban becoming a major political force again. That would ensure our sacrifices have not been made in vain

Task Force Helmand, the military campaign to bring stability to the south of Afghanistan, ended this week with US Marines assuming responsibility for the province. Whilst it may be argued that the British mission has not been an overwhelming success, some of what has been done has led to tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Afghans – particularly in education, health care and security. Some 350,000 Afghans have been trained by western forces in a policy designed to allow them to take full control of their own security.

Related:

The conflict in Afghanistan has lasted more than 12 years – a bitter war that has resulted in the loss of 448 British lives, with thousands more that have suffered serious injury. It will be with a collective sigh of relief that Britain’s military engagement in southern Afghanistan is now finally drawing to a close. Following a two minutes silence for the fallen this week, it was fitting that the presiding padre overseeing the religious ceremony paid tribute to our ‘bravest and best’ that had ‘borne the cost of freedom for others.’

Despite areas of progress that have been made much of the country is still threatened by the Taliban-led insurgency. With this is mind, there will be many who will question just how much has actually been achieved in Helmand province and elsewhere. The amount of treasure plundered, in terms of human sacrifice and the enormous amounts of money expended, has been a high price to pay. The words used in 2006 by John Reid, the then defence secretary, that British troops would be able to complete their mission ‘without a single shot being fired’ have turned out to be complete balderdash when compared now to the actuality of events on the ground over the past 12 years. However, the intensity and ferocity of the fighting, often with ill-equipped and under-manned British troops in a desperate battle for survival, has led the British commander of UK forces, Brigadier James Woodham, to conclude that we ‘have given the Afghans a chance.’

That, no-doubt is the case, but Afghanistan still has a long way to go before it reaches anything approaching long-term stability. This weekend, the country will hold its third presidential elections since western forces overthrew the Taliban led government in 2001. Hamid Karzai, the country’s unpredictable and impulsive president, is ineligible to run, but the outcome of the election could provide an opportunity for Western governments to agree terms with Kabul in maintaining their support for Afghanistan’s fledgling security forces, once all NATO combat operations conclude at the end of this year. Mr Karzai has refused to sign a bilateral security agreement with Washington – the objective of which would be for the US and its allies to remain in a supporting role beyond 2014, as well as providing financial assistance – which, undoubtedly, will be needed if Afghanistan is not to slip back into its old ways. If the Taliban were to re-establish itself as a major political force the country could quickly become a safe haven again for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

Standard