WHILE I am full of praise and admiration for the soldiers on the ground I don't think that the British Army's top brass can afford to start criticising the U.S. military on Iraq. Of course, I am referring to General Sir Michael Jackson who launched a scathing attack on the U.S.*s poor post-Iraq war plan for pacifying and rebuilding the country. Case in point is that senior members of the U.S. military are saying that the British army has failed in Basra; attacks on coalition troops in the area have increased substantially and what was meant to have been a relatively peaceful city, whose population was anti-Saddam has become a hotbed for militants. While British troops have done exceptionally well they were not equipped to fight this sort of war. While the Ministry of Defence should take the lion's share of the blame, the generals should not escape criticism. What does not help either, is that the British army was very vocal about how they had long experience in counter-terrorist operations from Malaya to Northern Ireland and were far superior at it than the Americans. Obviously, their long experience has not paid much of a dividend in Iraq.
The British army, unlike almost every other nation which has deployed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, appears to be always short of equipment, despite the fact that Britain spends a small fortune on defence every year. If you take the Australian army they have troops deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and East Timor and they have done exceptionally well. The Australian army is far smaller than Britain's, doesn't have anything like the resources but is able to maintain three large deployments and also they always seem to have the necessary equipment for the job.
When the British army is finally pulled out of Iraq and can concentrate on one Brigade sized deployment to Afghanistan I think there needs to be a long period of reflection to analyse how the Defence budget is spent and what equipment is needed. If the Treasury is not prepared to provide the necessary funds then perhaps the British army should be scaled back with more money being spent on equipment and training. If equipment doesn't work then it needs to be replaced at once. It is a great shame that the British army should find itself in this position but now the generals should start planning for the future and if money is not forthcoming then they should say so at the time. British troops were not equipped to fight the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or to a lesser extent the Falklands. There has always been a dire shortage of helicopters and armoured vehicles. Even their rifles have been proved to be poor and in fact were during the first Gulf war.
So, generals, plan for the future and concentrate on the matters in hand before more criticism. Iraq has been a disaster but Britain must also share some of the blame.
No comments
To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and logged in
Currently there are no comments.