foxhound
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 473
- Reaction score
- 0
ref:First Afghanistan, now Libya. Can Nato actually win any of its wars? | World news | The Guardian
Salaam....
First Afghanistan, now Libya. Can Nato actually win any of its wars?As its campaigns falter, the military alliance could find that in future fewer countries are willing to sign up to fight
Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 July 2011 20.00 BST
British Royal Marines under fire in Helmand. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images
The armed forces of the world's mightiest military alliance, Nato, have failed twice now to win a war. American, British, French and other foreign troops are preparing to withdraw from a combat role in Afghanistan, the first war in which Nato deployed ground forces, while the US, Britain and France again also appear to be on the point of giving up the fight in Libya, saying Gaddafi can stay there after all, provided he gives up power.
Since Iraq, a US-led war waged by a "coalition of the willing", the number of willing has gradually decreased. Now, after Afghanistan and Libya, they are likely to be fewer than ever.
Nato countries have spent billions Britain more than £14bn at the last count failing to counter an insurgency in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in Libya, they have conducted more than 6,000 strike sorties with Britain destroying more than 700 targets at a cost of well over £120m at the last count.
You cannot "drop democracy from 14,000ft", David Cameron said weeks before enthusiastically joining Nicolas Sarkozy in trying to do just that. Ironically, it was the defence chiefs who were trying to pull him back. Then the head of the navy, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, and the head of the RAF, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, realised they may be on to a good thing. The navy could show it has some uses firing cruise missiles from its submarines, seizing a rare opportunity to fire its frigates' guns, providing humanitarian relief. The RAF could for the first time show off its Eurofighter/Typhoon's ability to attack targets on the ground rather than practise dogfights with imaginary Soviet fighters. Arms companies could demonstrate how smart their weapons were.
What's more, they could point a finger at their political master, Liam Fox, for agreeing to deep cuts in last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR). We could have done better had HMS Ark Royal and her fleet of Harrier jump jets not been scrapped, navy commanders suggested. That will teach you to threaten to cut the number of Tornado jets, muttered air force commanders.
Which leaves the poor army. Though Apache helicopters, which have been attacking targets in Libya from their base on HMS Ocean, belong to the army, ground forces have played no role in the conflict. Afghanistan has delayed deep cuts in the army, though General Sir Peter Wall, chief of the general staff, recently let slip they are well on their way.
What role will the army, the navy or the RAF have in future are questions that, after Libya, will be harder than ever to answer. They are unlikely to rely, as they have in the past, on the US, which made it clear from the start it did not want to drop bombs on Libya, and resisted all British attempts to persuade it to do so.
Salaam....
First Afghanistan, now Libya. Can Nato actually win any of its wars?As its campaigns falter, the military alliance could find that in future fewer countries are willing to sign up to fight
Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 July 2011 20.00 BST
British Royal Marines under fire in Helmand. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images
The armed forces of the world's mightiest military alliance, Nato, have failed twice now to win a war. American, British, French and other foreign troops are preparing to withdraw from a combat role in Afghanistan, the first war in which Nato deployed ground forces, while the US, Britain and France again also appear to be on the point of giving up the fight in Libya, saying Gaddafi can stay there after all, provided he gives up power.
Since Iraq, a US-led war waged by a "coalition of the willing", the number of willing has gradually decreased. Now, after Afghanistan and Libya, they are likely to be fewer than ever.
Nato countries have spent billions Britain more than £14bn at the last count failing to counter an insurgency in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in Libya, they have conducted more than 6,000 strike sorties with Britain destroying more than 700 targets at a cost of well over £120m at the last count.
You cannot "drop democracy from 14,000ft", David Cameron said weeks before enthusiastically joining Nicolas Sarkozy in trying to do just that. Ironically, it was the defence chiefs who were trying to pull him back. Then the head of the navy, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, and the head of the RAF, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, realised they may be on to a good thing. The navy could show it has some uses firing cruise missiles from its submarines, seizing a rare opportunity to fire its frigates' guns, providing humanitarian relief. The RAF could for the first time show off its Eurofighter/Typhoon's ability to attack targets on the ground rather than practise dogfights with imaginary Soviet fighters. Arms companies could demonstrate how smart their weapons were.
What's more, they could point a finger at their political master, Liam Fox, for agreeing to deep cuts in last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR). We could have done better had HMS Ark Royal and her fleet of Harrier jump jets not been scrapped, navy commanders suggested. That will teach you to threaten to cut the number of Tornado jets, muttered air force commanders.
Which leaves the poor army. Though Apache helicopters, which have been attacking targets in Libya from their base on HMS Ocean, belong to the army, ground forces have played no role in the conflict. Afghanistan has delayed deep cuts in the army, though General Sir Peter Wall, chief of the general staff, recently let slip they are well on their way.
What role will the army, the navy or the RAF have in future are questions that, after Libya, will be harder than ever to answer. They are unlikely to rely, as they have in the past, on the US, which made it clear from the start it did not want to drop bombs on Libya, and resisted all British attempts to persuade it to do so.
