Stating the Obvious

John Quiggin notes that more of the British military's top brass is speaking out about the ill consequences of the Bush/Blair Iraq invasion. This time, it's Brigadier Ed Butler noting that Iraq has prevented Britain, the US, and our NATO allies from working effectively in Afghanistan. Rather than succeed at one mission, we're now very much at risk of failing at two missions.

Comments

To avoid failing at two missions, we - the US or Israel - must bomb Iran.

Posted by otto | October 18, 2006 10:43 AM

Sounds like things are swell when military staff starts to argue with the government in public.

A careful reading shows that is not quite the fact. But that is the way the press wants to print it.

NATO has the resources. If they don't want to commit more to Afghanistan then so be it. The US also has more resources. If they are not in Afghanistan or Iraq it is because of decision not shortage.

No one really knows exactly what to do in such a struggle.

About all history tells us is that war should not be conducted half-heartedly. Which is why Bush and Blair should not publicly even hint of withdrawal unless they have absolutely decided to do it. And apparently they have not.

Posted by K | October 18, 2006 1:26 PM

Stating the Obviously is exactly right. It is thoroughly pathetic that Great Britain - which formerly was known as a great power - cannot simultaneously support 5,000 troops in Afghanistan and 7,000 troops in Iraq. Their military has clearly become thoroughly pathetic, when a mere 12,000 troops in operations cannot be maintained.

Moreover, it is stating the obvious to say that the rest of NATO (outside the US) is similarly as pathetic militarily. If there are not enough NATO troops in Afghanistan, then where are FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY, SPAIN, ETC??? Those countries don't have troops in Iraq. Why is it that those countries have not and cannot spare more troops to aid the effort in Afghanistan?

It is becoming clearer and clearer to me - stating the obvious, as Matthew said - that NATO is completely useless, and that our protection of Europe for the last 60 years has made Europe weak and dependent. Time to end NATO and set Europe free to defend themselves.

Posted by Al | October 18, 2006 2:23 PM

Any time the words "Afghanistan" and "succeed" appear in the same paragraph, I wonder about the sanity of the writer.

_____________________________________________________
"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive." -- Sherlock Holmes, upon first meeting Dr. John Watson.

Posted by James Killus | October 18, 2006 5:04 PM

Part of the whole reason they're aren't more European troops in Afghanistan is because we didn't want them there. When the rest of NATO invoked Article V (an attack on one is an attack on all), the US kind of just shrugged its shoulders. It heard about the issues Clark and Clinton had in the Balkans - an air war to save NATO - and decided it didn't want to have to debate a lot. Maybe some debating with other countries would have made catching bin Laden at Tora Bora look like, you know, a good idea. This is not to say Europe's low military spending is a total non-factor, but it's not clear that Bush would want the extra troops even if Europe offered them because then Europe would have to call more of the shots.

Also, the reason Britain had a large ground army was that it could get recruits from its colonies. It was troops from colonial India who did much of the fighting in Iraq. Between 1-3 million (depending on the source) Indian soldiers died in WWII. Without those colonies, Britain had a much smaller pool to pull troops from.

Posted by Reality Man | October 18, 2006 10:06 PM

Their military has clearly become thoroughly pathetic

Ooh, big man Al.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 19, 2006 2:49 AM

Reality Man: Between 1-3 million (depending on the source) Indian soldiers died in WWII. Without those colonies, Britain had a much smaller pool to pull troops from.

Clearly, "Depending on the source" in this context means "whether I pull the numbers out of my own bottom, or out of someone else's bottom".

British, Empire and Commonwealth forces together suffered around 400,000 dead. Of these, 87,000 were Indian, according to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. India didn't even provide a million troops - total Indians serving in the war was under 400,000. (All volunteers.)

Posted by ajay | October 19, 2006 8:06 AM