We need a bigger army

Alfred T Mahan

General Gage, who commanded the British forces during the American War of Independence, wrote in 1774:

"If force is to be used at length, it must be a considerable one, for to begin with small numbers will encourage resistance, and not terrify; and will in the end cost more blood and treasure. A large force will terrify, and engage many to join you, a middling one will encourage resistance, and gain no friends."

So it was then, in Iraq, and countless other wars in between. It's sad that our politicians never learn from history - it's always "different this time", when in reality it's always the same.

Rhoda Klapp

A generation-long commitment? To achieve precisely what? What is the prize? What is the cost. Not in money, but in ruined lives and families right here in the UK. In other people's sons?

If the real reason is how bad it will look to pull out, that's not really enough, is it? If it is to protect us from terrorists from Yorkshire funded with Saudi money, is this the best way?

C Powell

"a generation-long commitment to Afghanistan"

Why? What for? Despite the endless column inches on this topic in the last few weeks, no-one has articulated why the UK should be in Afghanistan at all, let alone what our military strategy is nor how we will know when we have achieved whatever it is we've set out to do.

This has to be the first thing to determine - not giving interesting-sounding names to operations which are declared, by politicians, to be a "success", as soon as the fact of our involvement and the deaths suffered by our troops start being politically embarrassing for those same politicians.

The only vague explanation I have heard is that we're there to deal with terrorists. Well, there are terrorists in Pakistan and Somalia and Algeria and lots of other places as well. Are we going to have troops in and long-standing commitments to those countries as well?

TrevorsDen

We have a large defence budget. Sure it could be bigger, but we (that is the MoD) waste huge sums on half baked projects and procurement mistakes.

Lets be clear we do not need many of the hi-tec projects being mooted and lets be even more frank, we cannot afford them.

Of the shelf ships and aircraft from America would save billions and give us hope of developing a suitable army.

Colin

"We need a bigger Army".

Where are the recruits going to come from? What is the incentive to join and carve out a career, if it consists mainly of a large number of combat tours in Afghanistan, broken only with periods of preparing for those tours? And, if you do manage to overcome that hurdle, the knowledge, that should you get injured, the government will fight you tooth and nail over compensation, may well persuade you otherwise.

We can't afford a couple of extra helicopters, apparently, never mind the troop levels needed to pacify Helmand.

At the height of Operation Motorman (Northern Ireland, for those at the back), we needed 22,000 troops. The phrase "Dream on" comes to mind.

C Powell

Rhoda: If it is to protect us from terrorists from Yorkshire funded with Saudi money, is this the best way?

No. Don't let the terrorists into the country (why no immediate ban on "students" from Pakistan?), deport them if they misbehave or revoke their British citizenship if they go to another country to fight against us and stop all Saudi funding of mosques, schools, "charities" etc in this country.

Is there any political party proposing this? No. Oh dear...

bill

How disappointing to read this article James!

Did it ever occur to you that maybe our role in Afghanistan is what should change? Maybe we should give up some of Helmand to the USA? Or better yet, pull out of the ill conceived war entirely?

We are, after all, a little island with an already disproportionately large army. And disproportionally large debts. What the hell has the USA's imperialism got to do with us anyway? This is not our war, nor was it ever.

Don't encourage them to throw more money at the problem. Look at the facts like you usually are good at.

To put it blunty, your article is ill conceived!!!!!

Steve.W

We need a bigger army? Not in Afghanistan according to Malalai Joya, born in Afghanistan and a member of the parliament and now in the UK to explain her thoughts.

We need a bigger BBC, a bigger NHS, a bigger DVLA, a bigger EHRC?

strapworld

Rhoda, dont worry. Obama will pull out within eighteen months. He will not want this on his CV come the next presidential election.

Never forget he is the peacemaker!!!

We will pull out at the same time. The Afghan armyy and police will be sufficiently trained to take over internal security - Dont you know!!

Mitch

It's impossible to predict what the requirement will be in 'a generation'.

Surely that's exactly the point; and the reason we never have the army we need?

Professor hindsight is always right.

Guy Aitchison

Why not sign up yourself, James? As one of the war's loudest cheer-leaders it would surely be the most consistent thing you could do. Or perhaps you're too invaluable on the home front making sure our politicians keep the whole bloody and futile misadventure going?

Jeremy

"I’d point out that the Department of Health’s budget is three times bigger than the Ministry of Defence’s."

I see. So Labour would rather see our forces starved of resources on the ground in Afghanistan (with all of the consequences which that has entailed) rather than shift money from their Sacred Cow and client voting-base to Defence.

This is clearly one of those hard choices they are happy to leave to the Tories to make - and to take the political consequences for...

Once again, Dave will have to employ his communication skills and be honest with the country about the sort of tough choices we face. That is said as much in hope as in expectation...

"Expanding the size of the army is an essential step if Britain is serious about what will be a generation-long commitment to Afghanistan..."

That is asking for a lot, both ways, James. Unless, that is, you both shift the necessary resources to Defence and perhaps re-introduce conscription...? Or make service in the Armed Forces an attractive prospect for the young unemployed?

Tough choices. Hard Times.

Either that, or withdraw. Would that be another tough choice which Labour have neither the guts nor the integrity to make? Withdrawal might make it difficult to justify the body count on the ground, though. Although at least it wouldn't have been a Tory government which sent them there - underfunded and under equipped - in the first place...

Jim

What are we fighting for this week?
Give up your fantasies, we are broke, we will be fighting for our own survival soon enough.

Tankus

Its going to be the conservatives issue anyway , Gordon will under spend right up until the elections

TomTom

There are simply not enough young males to recruit. 10% British Army is today non-British.

If you want a bigger Army then increase the birth rate of males because there simply are not enough to provide a big Army without conscription and that will reduce the working population to be replaced by Poles and other imported workers

paul holdstock

perhaps we could just draft in a few thousand,
from the 'army of civil servants' labour has taken on?
after all, they must be used to close combat.

Dave

We neither need nor can afford a bigger army. Let's just stop interfering in other countries and try to sort out the growing mess in our own.

logdon

No we don't. We get the eff out of the place.

Keeping British streets safe from terror? What utter claptrap.

Up to now, most British terrorists seem to have originated from Pakistan so in reality that's the place to 'insert our military effort'.

Imagine that, folks?

Reality has nothing to do with this whilst the myths and unreality of PC and multiculturalism hold sway.

Lift that ever open drawbridge. Let them howl.

If we even treated Muslims in Britain half as badly as Christians are treated in Pakistan there would be outrage.

This moral equivalency crap is wearing thin and our population are not idiots. They know the score and opposition to this futile war is growing.

A simple summary

Karzai grows rich.
British soldiers are dying.
No end game plan.
Britain awash with Afghan refugees.

If anyone can let me know how any of that lot benefits us I'd be pleased to know.

We are not, as a nation, fit to prosecute a war anymore.

For evidence my case rests with "Battlin' Bob" who wouldn't know one end of an SA80 from the other.

And our troops know it too.

David Ossitt

Sorry I missed out 'Ugly'

Chuck Unsworth

I doubt we need a bigger army, we just need political leadership which is at least competent - unlike the deranged, mendacious and vicious incumbents. How many wars has this regime sent our troops to? And why?

Chris

In the 19th century we managed an Empire with small forces and comparatively little expense by recruiting local forces under British officers. This approach is frowned on these days but was very effective.

David Logan

We need smaller objectives and politicians who live in the real world. What is immoral is sending men to fight and die without giving them adequate resources for the job. More men should equal more helicopters, secure vehicles, training facilities, body armour etc etc. We don't live in Victorian times when equipment was essentially a rifle and a pair of boots. If we are not willing to make the financial sacrifices (and I am not sure as a country we are) they should not go. Apart from a totally overblown terrorist threat we live in the safest times we have known since the peak of the British Empire. Defence spending is not our major priority at the moment or the foreseeable future.

MGR

There is no shortage of potential recruits in Nepal.

Will Yoxall

We need a bigger Navy too! A few years down the line may see us needing to project power gloabally to secure our interests, that being the case we are going to need a certain amount of maritime power (more than we have now, but only by about 30%).

We may need a bigger Army but lets not forget that Afghanistan is not the only game in town now nor will it be in five or ten years time, we cannot become so foucussed one one thing that we ingnore other issues.

Crystal Bullet

I think we should be asking more frequently how the soldiers want their homeland to be run. "Homes fit for heroes" as the slogan once went. If not when the war is over, we may have unintentionally created a large contingent of battle hardened Afghanistan veterans alienated from UK politics. If we increase the numbers being exposed to this conflict, are we properly accounting for this eventuality? I don't think encouraging parades through UK towns by itself is sufficient to address the longer term re-integration efforts it will require future governments to resolve.

Mike

The reality is that the country is broke and cant afford any Army, never mind a small one. Therefore, time to forget all the "art-n-minds" and "nation-building" BS - questionable objectives even if we had the money. If Alky Ada really exists, then lets get some highly trained assasins to kill the leaders - bugger their "Human Rights". And lets declare this very publicly as the objective. Also, time to clean up the enemy within - arguably more of a threat that those in Afghanistan.

bill

There is only one thing i wish was bigger and it isn't the army

Rhoda Klapp

Not much variation here. Strange that CoffeHousers, who are normally assumed to be Green Inkers, CDOFs and rabid right-wingers, do not in general support the war (they do support the services). I find it hard to believe that the country as a whole is split (56/44 was it?) pro-war. And even harder to believe that there is a left/right split with the right against the war.

On the subject of the Army, let me assert that no achievable size of army would be enough to secure Helmand. We'd probably need a million under arms to sustain an adequate force. That's why we need to get away from the more boots, more helos theme and on to a sensible discussion of our options.

Nicholas

"What will the wise prince do when he must undertake wars and fight battles? First of all. he will consider how much strength he has or can obtain, how many men are available and how much money. For, unless he is well supplied with these two basic elements, it is folly to wage war, for they are necessary to have above all else, especially money."

Christine de Pizan in 'Le Livre des Fais d'Armes et de Chevalerie' (The Book of the Deeds of Arms and Chivalry) 1410

Crystal Bullet

@Rhoda Klapp - I think a “left/right split with the right against the war” should be assumed. Here is a list of 10 points on which the right-wing could argue for the UK’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan:

1. The Afghanistan war aims are expressed in vague, ideological terms. Such values resonate with the left-wing but it brings to mind the peril of pursuing public not private welfare to the right.

2. The right-wing supported the Iraq invasion but observed strong anti-corporate oil slogans. The current lack of a vocal anti-war movement suggests the corporate interest, the right-wing’s allies, are not served well by the Afghanistan campaign. The contrary assumption is that refugee support groups and other left-wing NGOs are the main beneficiaries.

3. Labour governments are often poor economic managers. One characteristic of poor management is to agree to open ended commitments (such as state industries) without adequate provisioning. The right-wing does not suspend criticism of the UK’s commitment to Afghanistan and limit criticism to just management issues because of government track record.

4. The political reason to stay the course in Afghanistan is weak. There exist good and bad economic and political reasons to fight any war. Regardless of those, Britain served a duty by leading the coalition after 9/11 but does collapse of a Republican Party call time on that service?

5. The Iraq war demonstrators have assumed a resigned if not “told you so” attitude about war. The right-wing who supported the invasion of Iraq is not logically compelled to support the continuance of military efforts in Afghanistan. Ideological and economic arguments in support of them were far from identical.

6. American sub-prime debt caused a collapse of the British banking system. It was a sharp lesson in economic realities. Although the casual links with the cost of foreign wars is not easily quantifiable, any potential damage to London’s status as a financial centre is now less if the UK were to seek a strategic military distance from America.

7. Right-wingers understand the value of money and that wars can enrich or impoverish a country.

8. Afghanistan is sacrificing more soldiers’ lives than Iraq and more demands on them likely.

9. The growing cost of the Afghanistan war assists politicians who advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament (effectively to oppose a trident upgrade). They seek to balance the defense budget under a patriotic pretext of providing more conventional arms for Afghanistan. It is a greater threat to UK security than terrorism can ever be. In conjunction with point 6 on “strategic military distance” it provides a route to bow out to the Americans and withdraw completely.

10. Pragmatists are aware the prospect of any economic return from even the most successful campaign in Afghanistan is limited. It is the nebulous gains in world security that will accrue to America by default. Right wing pragmatists ask if Britain can afford the deal because America may not economically reciprocate in kind when their economic recovery starts under Obama.