Well, there is at least one British military man out there who views the War on Terror as critical to the safety and future of Western civilization - and he is General Sir David Richards.
Let's look at what the General had to say from the article at The Telegraph:
And I think it is important to point out what the British General is trying to do - he's trying to lift the spirit of his countrymen to rise up like they did against Hitler, as we live in an age of political correctness and nationalism erosion and multiculturalism - if the Brits don't see the threat, if they don't give a rat's ass what happens to their culture and their history, then they might as well wave the white flag, bow down onto a prayer mat and simply convert.
Let's look at what the General had to say from the article at The Telegraph:
Sir David says "War" is the correct term for describing the conflict between the West and al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups.I can't stress how refreshing this is to hear and quite frankly, I'd like to hear it more from the Generals here in America because we certainly won't here this kind of frank and explicit talk from anyone in the Obama administration. Only an islamic sympathizer could watch the spread of violent islamic jihad and terror across this globe and not make the same statements that the British General is making - only one aspect of it, the literal franchising of al Qaeda across the globe, from northern Africa to southeast Asia to Europe and yes, to the soil of America, is evidence enough that there just has to be a stop to this spread of evil.
It might not be the stereotypical view of war, he insists, in the sense of massed armies attempting to outmanoeuvre their opponents but it needs to be viewed in the same way. But this war – unlike those of the past – could last up to 30 years.
"Make no mistake," he states with added emphasis. "The global threat from al-Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates is an enduring one and one which, if we let it, will rear its head in states particularly those that are unstable.
"The national security of the UK and our allies is, in my judgement, at stake – that is why we are engaged in a global struggle against a pernicious form of ideologically distorted form of Islamic fundamentalism.
"Our men and women in Afghanistan are fighting to prevent this from spreading. I think there are direct parallels to be made with the bravery of those who risked, and who gave, their lives in the fight against Fascism in the Second World War.
And I think it is important to point out what the British General is trying to do - he's trying to lift the spirit of his countrymen to rise up like they did against Hitler, as we live in an age of political correctness and nationalism erosion and multiculturalism - if the Brits don't see the threat, if they don't give a rat's ass what happens to their culture and their history, then they might as well wave the white flag, bow down onto a prayer mat and simply convert.
General Sir David Richards: Why we cannot defeat al-Qaeda
General Sir David Richards, the newly-installed Chief of the Defence Staff, greets me with a firm handshake and a warm smile in his large but sparsely-furnished office in the central London headquarters of the Ministry of Defence.
On the his desk over looking Whitehall are the plans which will define the future shape of Britain's armed forces as they face the trauma of what he has warned will be a "horse and tank moment".
Gen Richards, who joined the Army 39 years ago with the modest ambition of joining his brother's regiment in the Commando Brigade, is the man charged with steering the armed forces through the choppy waters of the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Of all the challenges he has faced in his lengthy career – from the barbarity of Sierra Leone to the bloody war in Afghanistan – it is the present one which could be the most dangerous.
The War on terror
Sir David says "War" is the correct term for describing the conflict between the West and al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups.
It might not be the stereotypical view of war, he insists, in the sense of massed armies attempting to outmanoeuvre their opponents but it needs to be viewed in the same way. But this war – unlike those of the past – could last up to 30 years.
"Make no mistake," he states with added emphasis. "The global threat from al-Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates is an enduring one and one which, if we let it, will rear its head in states particularly those that are unstable.
"The national security of the UK and our allies is, in my judgement, at stake – that is why we are engaged in a global struggle against a pernicious form of ideologically distorted form of Islamic fundamentalism.
"Our men and women in Afghanistan are fighting to prevent this from spreading. I think there are direct parallels to be made with the bravery of those who risked, and who gave, their lives in the fight against Fascism in the Second World War.
"At this time of Remembrance it is equally important that we reflect not only on the sacrifices of the many through out the years, near and far, but why those sacrifices are worth it."
Defeating al-Qaeda and Islamist militancy
The general subscribes to the notion that such an ideologically-driven adversary cannot be defeated in the traditional sense, and to attempt to do so could be a mistake.
"In conventional war, defeat and victory is very clear cut and is symbolised by troops marching into another nation's capital.
First of all you have to ask: "do we need to defeat it (Islamist militancy)?" in the sense of a clear cut victory, and I would argue that it is unnecessary and would never be achieved."
It is a bold statement and he quickly adds: "But can we contain it to the point that our lives and our children's lives are led securely? I think we can."
Education, prosperity, understanding and democracy, he argues passionately, are the weapons that would ultimately turn people away from terrorism, although he admitted that to believe that such an undertaking could be achieved "within the time frame of the Second World War would be naive in the extreme".
He also warns that while the threat from al-Qaeda is currently based in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, it is unlikely to remain so in the future.
Sub-Sarharan Africa is also potentially at risk from militant Jihadists and the challenge now, Sir David believes, is for those countries to be identified and helped.
The Afghan War
The general's relationship with Afghanistan dates from 2006 when he was the commander of the Nato force and he once said that Afghanistan and its people, "have entered my bloodstream".
He took command of the Nato force just after the British troops had moved into Helmand and the Taliban insurgency in the south began to gather pace.
Today the size of the British force in Afghanistan is over 9,000 and to date 343 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001.
"I believe the sacrifice made by British troops in Afghanistan has been worth it," he said, the smile slipping from his face. "I keep well in touch with servicemen and women and that is all our views."
Recent polling in Afghanistan also suggests that up to 90 per cent of Afghans do not want the Taliban to return but the general admits that the country is beginning to tire of Nato's failure to deliver on many of its promises.
He continued: "If I thought for one minute that the majority of the Afghan people didn't want us any more – then I and everyone else would say that it's time to go, we've failed.
"But there is no indication of that. The vast majority do not want the return of the Taliban and it must be in our strategic interest to see that whole region stabilised before we eventually go, which we will do.
"There is no dispute or disagreement (between the military and the government) about that – we are all very clear by 2014/15 we will be out of the combat role – we are equally clear that we have got to support the operation thereafter to make sure that our legacy is an enduring one."
Sir David wouldn't go so far as saying that mistakes had been made by senior commanders over the past nine years in Afghanistan but he did admit that both the UK and the USA had been sidetracked by Iraq which led to the mission being under-resourced.
"I don't we got it wrong – our understanding has been developing over five years. To begin with eyes were taken off the ball because of Iraq.
"I remember having a conversation about it with Donald Rumsfeld (the former US defence secretary), got me into a bit of trouble, for suggesting that the number of troops weren't sufficient for the task.
"Today everyone understands you need a certain amount of troops but there was a real debate about it then."
Part of the problem for both British and the US was the growing number of troop casualties without any tangible successes. Gen Richards believes this is because Nato failed to understand the nature of the conflict.
He continued: "In a way we have all been guilty of that, collectively, not just the military – we didn't really understand what was at stake – this is historically inevitable – we do now.
"A good general – and we have an outstanding general in David Petraeus (the US Commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan) – is thinking two three four moves ahead, like a chess player, and sometimes it takes a year to get the third move properly resourced. "
Princes Harry and William
Prince William has made it clear he would like to serve in Afghanistan but his wish is unlikely to be granted. "While Prince William, I know, would love to have had the opportunity to serve in Afghanistan, there is no doubt that there are risks that surface out there.
"I would advise, or I would be part of the advice, which would go to her majesty, that right now he shouldn't. He's not trained to go out there so it's actually a slightly academic issue.
Prince William's doing a fantastic job already in the air sea rescue world which has its attendant risks and which is hugely valuable.
However, with Prince Harry, who spent ten weeks serving in Helmand in 2008 and is known to be keen to return to the front line, it is a different matter.
"Harry, now he's not the immediate heir to the throne and his particular skill set – flying Apaches, is an area where there is less risk attached.
"Lets see how his training goes, his reports of Apache training are very positive but he has to pass all that and if and when we reach that stage then we'll have to take a decision based on the situation at the time and I can't prejudge that.
"He wants to go (to Afghanistan), my sense is, as a soldier, I am absolutely with him. We'll have to look again once we know if he is qualified to go. The omens are good in that respect, he is doing terribly well."
No comments:
Post a Comment