Brown's The New Poodle In Obama's War

Obama's pseudo-liberal luvvies have been sent in a spin with their idol sending 17,000 more US troops for the bloody, hopeless war in Afghanistan. That raises the vexed question of how many more UK troops will be sent to their deaths in this unwinnable war. War mongering Bush and his poodle Blair, will live with their legacy but will Brown come over all lovey-dovey for Obama's war?

Normally an announcement from the US and the UK on troops would go hand in hand. But not in this case.  

Ministers were quick to point out today that the US hasn't made a request for more troops. But that begs the question exactly who is calling the shots? 

Doesn't the UK government have the guts to decide its own foreign policy when the lives of our troops are at stake. 

But Obama's war has found a new poodle in Brown and his war-mongering ministers as the government is poised to send more troops to their deaths. What is unclear is what deals are being struck and what trade-offs are happening behind the scenes. 

The reticence reveals a rift between the gungo-ho MoD and its band of ministers and the foreign office and ministers who take a more sanguine approach. And with troops holed up in Iraq, the country doesn't have the capacity to increase troop numbers.  

Gradually it has dawned on politicians and generals that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Obamaland was supposed to see beyond the superficially muscular policies of the Bush era. But nothing changes. 

Predator drone attacks on the Pakistan border have been increasing since Obama's presidency, softening up for a spring offensive when an even larger influx of US forces is expected,  ahead of the warmer weather and national elections in August.

But we are fighting a war with no winners, only casualties, reduced to reporting deaths by numbers. 

Few politicians speak out. Instead they prefer to sit back and take the lead and the line from the US. 

It's difficult to get a true picture of the scale of fighting and even more difficult to get a rational idea of the legality and purpose of the war. 

Reporters are stuck embedded with troops and pushing the agenda set by the MoD and newsdesks back home. Reduced to reporting without rocking the boat. 

Images of well-equipped foot soldiers on urban street patrols don't tell the real story. The real war is a hard, dirty, dangerous, hopeless war, happening well out of sight of these staged publicity stunts. 

It's a war fought by the elite regiments and special forces, operating from lightly defended forward bases and easy targets to pick off. Soldiers call them them the 'invisible' enemy,  who strike and then melt into the hills. 

But the MoD, politicians and generals don't want to admit that the new Vietnam is happening now in Afghanistan. 

It took a long time for the US to come round to the harsh reality that the Vietnam war could never be won. We should heed that lesson now.

The Afghans swap allegiances to suit the circumstances. The mountainous terrain makes a mockery of any idea that an Iraq-style troop surge can succeed. As in Vietnam, tanks are useless in the terrain, so what's left is target bombing and special forces patrols and elite forces, operating from lightly defended forward bases.  

In Afghanistan, there are powerful tribal loyalties, a strong culture and centuries of tradition of non-urban guerilla warfare.  

The 'enemy' come from the north and transcend the meaningless borders between Afghanistan and the modern state of Pakistan. People with those tribal loyalties and centuries of tradition fighting invaders, don't recognise an artificial border drawn on a map.

The UN said the number of civilians killed in the conflict in Afghanistan rose last year with US, Nato and Afghan forces responsible for 39% - the highest number since the Taliban were ousted in 2001.

Behind the scenes, the Obama administration is putting intense pressure on the UK to reinforce failure and send yet more troops.

But there has been no public debate about this. Not a single mainstream politician has questioned why so many of our soldiers are being sent to their deaths, or what purpose is being served by  the war. 

While defence secretary Hutton, is pushing for the extra troops, foreign secretary Miliband  seems sceptical. 

As with Iraq, the Orange Party has made no secret of its distaste for these wars and firmly believes that a war can never be won in Afghanistan. UK troops should be pulled out now before it's too late. 

The war has alienated the very people we need on our side - the Afghan people while targeting Muslim rebels plays into the hands of Al Qaeda propaganda.

Obama wants only one thing from the UK: more of our troops. 

At the moment the UK is on the verge of what is likely to be an additional military deployment without any public debate or parliamentary approval. 

The lessons and legacies of the Bush and Blair partnership are set to repeat themselves with Brown firmly embroiling the country in Obama's war.

Read More...

Bush and Brown, The Mutual Admiration Society

It was the mutual admiration society today, as Bush and Brown fawned over each other. If any two men ever needed each other and deserved each other, it is these two. Both are facing disasters in public opinion polls and both are frantically searching for their legacies. 

So what do you do if your policies are a mess at home and public opinion of you is at its worst since records began? Bring on the troops and tap into national pride where you think you are on politically safe ground.

Thatcher's flagging political career was saved by the Falklands and Brown wants to try and pull it off with Afghanistan. But Thatcher knew she had public opinion on her side.

Brown has to do something to appease his new pal Bush. It's clear the UK has a timetable for pulling the troops out of Iraq, possibly with an announcement before September's Labour Party conference. He'll want it also before the next General Election so that may be sooner than we think. And the US is losing its taste for Bush and war.

Brown has to do something to show he is still right behind the US. After all, there are all those warships, troops and aircraft and huge military contracts with the US. So send more troops to Afghanistan and try to regain the political agenda. 

The war in Afghanistan was a lost cause before it started. Afghans have been fighting foreigners and each other for centuries. From the British in Victorian times, then the Soviets and now the US and the UK again. And what are we really doing there? Waging war on the invisible Taliban and at the same time protecting the poppy fields which produce most of the UK's heroin.

With some weird logic, Brown is reported as saying: "We have resolved that it is in the British national interest to confront the Taleban in Afghanistan or Afghanistan would come to us."

'We' have resolved have we? He's even using the Thatcher 'Royal We'. And the Afghans? What, come all the way from Afghanistan to the UK? Doesn't he know it's a land-locked country and they haven't got a navy or an airforce! So how do they get here? On foot? We'd see them coming a mile off. It's '45 minutes to destruction' all over again.

The number of UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan since 2001 reached 102 last week.

Playing politics with people's civil liberties is one thing - playing politics with people's lives in this country and abroad is shameful.

Read More...

Death By Numbers in Afghanistan

A milestone has been reached in the 'number of serviceman killed in Afghanistan'. Duly reported by the BBC and the newspapers of record. Reduced to a tally of the dead. Death by numbers. 

Why do we just accept it? Our servicemen continue to die, along with hundreds of civilians in far off lands. We care about the dead, but does anyone care about the wars anymore?

For nearly half a century after Suez, any idea of UK interventionism was not an option. Until recently. Liberal interventionism came back with New Labour and Blair. But only if the US said it was OK. And only if Blair "knew it was right". 

Taking a nation to war is bad enough when the State is threatened directly. The only justification for war must be if the UK is directly under threat by a foreign state. It hasn't been since 1939. 

Pull all operational troops out of Afghanistan. Nobody seems to know why we are there. Fighting Tommy Tailban. But who are they? Fundamental Islamists, sure - but also mainly Afghans. 

The British were there in Victorian times fighting somebody or other. Then the Soviets tried and beat a hasty retreat. Now it's us (again) and the US. What are we doing there? Well, certainly protecting the poppy fields from destruction. After all, more than 90 percent of the UK heroin comes from these fields. Protect the poppy with pride!

And pull all operational troops out of Iraq. See what happens? The tribal groups will realign and eventually federate. Look at the Kurds. They seem to be peacefully getting on with it. Baghdad is a problem. And here the solution is for a UN agreed creation of an independent city state. With a UN peace-keeping force.

We don't have an Empire anymore! Heroin from the poppy fields of Afghanistan is a really bad thing. No general worth his pips would try to fight two wars on two fronts. We just don't have the money to wage any wars let alone two at once. 

Think of the money we'd save. Billions of pounds. We're a tiny island off northern Europe for goodness sake, not a world superpower. We could use some of the cash to help pay off our increasing national debt (and maybe use some for schools and hospitals and staff) and to treat our servicemen with the dignity they deserve. 

And why doesn't some one ask what are all our troops doing stationed in Germany (don't they know the Cold War has ended). And in southern Cyprus (since when have the friendly Turkish EU wannabes been a threat?).

It is time for a reality check. Realise that we can't afford billion of pounds fighting wars in foreign countries. Wake up to the fact that Muslims really don't like western Christians invading their country. Liberal interventionism shouldn't be on the whim of a UK prime minister because he thinks he's right. There's a place for liberal interventionism but only with full UN approval and only then if the UK parliament and people agree. 

The problem is Brown is simply carrying on with Blair's New Labour policy. They've dug themselves into a hole and can't get out. You'd have to do something with all the troops, the sailors and the aircrew and vast army of MoD staff. And there's the huge defence, catering and supply contracts. Pulling out will cost a lot of very rich and powerful people an awful lot of money. 

This isn't anti-war. This is just common sense. 

Meanwhile you can now make up our own news report. "Another British serviceman has been killed in____ This brings the total number of UK troops killed since 2001 to ____. 

Death by numbers.

Read More...

Don't Mention The War!

Does anyone care about the war in Afghanistan? Has it all been brushed under the carpet by the MoD war-time propaganda machine? Or is it that we just accept it while our servicemen continue to die, along with hundreds of civilians, in far off lands. 

In 1956,  Eden, the UK prime minister, took this country to war on a lie. The US said stop it. Eden paid the price and resigned in disgrace. The British Empire ended after Suez. And for nearly half a century, any idea of UK 'interventionism' died with it. Liberal interventionism came back with New Labour and Blair. But only if the US said it was OK. And only if Blair "knew it was right". 

Wars are never pleasant. People get killed. Taking a nation to war is bad enough when the State is threatened directly. The only justification for war must be if the UK is directly under threat by a foreign state. It hasn't been since 1939. 

Pull all operational troops out of Iraq. See what happens? The tribal groups will realign and eventually federate. Look at the Kurds. They seem to be very peacefully getting on with it. Baghdad is a problem. And here the solution is for a UN agreed creation of an independent city state. With a UN peace-keeping force.

And then there's Afghanistan. Strange because nobody seems to know why we are there and exactly what we are doing. Fighting Tommy Tailban? But who are they? Fundamental Islamists, sure but also many Afghans. It's their country not ours. Us British were there years ago fighting somebody or other (they even made it into a film - Carry On Up The Khyber). Then the Soviets tried - and beat a hasty retreat. And now it's us again and the US. 

What are we doing there? Well, certainly protecting the poppy fields from destruction. After all, more than 90 percent of the UK heroin comes from these fields. Protect the poppy with pride!

Just pull out of here too. We don't have an Empire anymore! Heroin from the poppy fields of Afghanistan is a really bad thing. No general worth his pips would try to fight two wars on two fronts. We just don't have the money to wage any wars let alone two at once. 

Think of the money we'd save. Billions of pounds. We're a tiny island off northern Europe for goodness sake not a world superpower. We could use some of the cash to help pay off our increasing national debt (and maybe use some for schools and hospitals and staff). 

And come to think of it why doesn't someone ask what are all our troops doing stationed in Germany (don't they know the Cold War has ended). And in southern Cyprus - since when have the friendly Turkish EU wannabes been a threat?

It is time for a reality check. Realise that we can't afford billion of pounds fighting wars in foreign countries. Wake up to the fact that Muslims really don't like western Christians invading their country. Liberal interventionism shouldn't be on the whim of a UK prime minister because he thinks he's right. There's a place for liberal interventionism but only with full UN approval and only then if the UK Parliament and people agree. 

The problem is Brown is simply carrying on with a New Labour policy. They've dug themselves into a hole and can't get out. You'd have to do something with all the troops, the sailors and the airmen and vast army of MoD staff. And there's the huge defence, catering and supply contracts.  Pulling out will cost a lot of very rich and powerful people an awful lot of money. 

This isn't anti-war. This is just common sense. 

Read More...