National security letdown?

Trumpeter Lanfried

'Strong, balanced, flexible and deployable ...' Good old Gordon. Never use one adjective when four are to hand.

David Lindsay

Here's a National Security Strategy for you: how about we stop invading countries for no strategic reason, and thereby stop provoking terrorist attacks on this a country which most of the Islamic world had otherwise forgotten existed?

Tiberius

That's the best one I've heard in a while, David!

David Lindsay

Well, have they attacked France? Or New Zealand? Or, well, make your own list? The 7/7 bombers made it absolutely clear that their reason was Iraq. There have been attacks in Spain (guess why?) and on an essentially Australian target in Bali (guess why?). It is also notable that Bush withdrew the American troops from Saudi Arabia immediately after 9/11 and there has been no subsequent attack on American soil. However, we remain hand-in-glove with Saudi Arabia, as also with Pakistan, with the Islamist government in Turkey, and with the separatists in Kosovo and Chechnya. Islamic western parts of China will be next, what with the likes of Cameron and Bernard Kouchner coming out for Tibetan secessionism, the beginning of China's planned dismemberment. In Afghanistan, we merrily deal with the Taliban but call them "tribal elders" instead, even though they are exactly the same individuals. And in Iraq, our action has actually created a Wahhabi terrorist problem where none previously existed.

Old Soldier

Did you ascertain whether this is new money or is it coming from the existing budget?

Tiberius

David; the Islamist agenda goes back decades and one of it's characteristics is that it does not recognize states. You are either a Muslim or a target (although it does not concern itself with Muslims who are collateral damage). The USS Cole and the US embassy in Kenya were attacked years before Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded. The former was a training camp for the terrorists and the latter in breach of a series of UN resolutions designed to keep the peace. After Saddam expelled the weapons inspectors in 1998, there were still weapons stockpiles unaccounted for (and still are, although Mossad may have an idea of their fate). Individual attacks on the West may be influenced by these invasions, but they have not been caused by them. And, as in many conflicts, tactics may involve communication with the enemy. But the only strategy with the Islamists is to defeat them. For my part, I believe the only principled decision Blair took as PM was to invade Iraq. The subsequent dog's breakfast that followed was down to Bush jumping the wrong way in the argument between Rumsfeld and Powell over how to deal with post-invasion Iraq. Debaathification without troop numbers to keep security was a disaster, but the success of the surge has since restored some order.

Nicholas

Not surprised the document is crap. This government can't do strategy, won't do strategy, don't know how. Their responses are essentially tactical and often knee-jerk. It is not surprising when one considers the lightweight quality of the cabinet. I think they might struggle on a parish council.

Also, their sad dependency on spin constrains the breadth and depth of strategic options. They won't face reality even to the extent of relaxing their obsession with expunging unpalatable words - so how on earth can they tackle in any credible way the strategic imperatives in this age of risk.

John Morrissey

Extensive documentation by Spanish intelligence, published widely,was that the Madrid baombings had been in the works since 1993.There appear to be a number of reasons for the US and Britain being the earliest, primary targets as stated by Osama, Abdul Rahim and Zawahiri: first we two are seen thruout the Moslem world as the epitomes of Western values, and it is Western values that they are attacking.Secondly,we have given Moslems (and others) more freedom than any other host nation.So David are you ready to give up and turn over 1000 years of heritage to the worlds most ignorant savages?

David Lindsay

Well, you are the ones in favour of an economic system that cannot function without limitless immigration. I'm not. The 7/7 bombers said that it was about Iraq. But you won't listen. Spain used to be part of the Caliphate, of course; but even so, the Madrid bombers made it perfectly clear that they had acted because of Iraq. Spain pulled out of Iraq and hasn't had another attack since. But you won't listen. The US pulled out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11, and declared itself in favour of the Palestinian State that everyone knows will happen eventually. There hasn't been another attack in the US since. But you won't listen. And so one could go on. But you won't listen. Instead, you ally yourselves to exactly the people against whom you claim to be fighting: in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Chechnya, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia, effectively in Iraq (where you removed the bulwark against them), and soon enough in western China as well. And then where? Why do you do it? Why else than that you want for yourselves the privileged dhimmitude of Moorish Spain. And to hell with the rest of us.