UK "must continue to fight wars" says Tony Blair

[Fullforce]

...and I agree with him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

Tony Blair has said his foreign policy is "controversial" but his approach of military intervention must continue.

In a major speech, he said the "war on terror" may last a generation but to retreat would be a "catastrophe".

He also admitted the army was doing more than planned and there were "real problems" with military housing.

The Tories said Mr Blair's legacy would be an "overstretched" army. The Lib Dems said his foreign policy had "severely" harmed Britain's reputation.

Speaking aboard HMS Albion in Plymouth, the prime minister said Britain and the world faced a "new and different" security challenge following 11 September 2001.

And Britain had to choose whether it wanted to be in the front line of the global fight against terrorism, or retreat to a peacekeeping role.

"My choice is for armed forces that are prepared to engage in this difficult, tough, challenging campaign, to be war fighters as well as peacekeepers," he told an audience of servicemen.

He said he wanted to keep a strong American alliance and "for us as a nation to be as willing to fight terrorism and pay the cost of that fight wherever it may be".

But he acknowledged that Britain's armed forces were under strain fighting twin campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It is true that operational commitments are at a higher level than originally planned. Service personnel are working harder and for longer than intended," he said.



And although he believed the condition of service accommodation had been "exaggerated," resentment over it was more "raw" among the military, because of what was being asked of them.

"The extraordinary job that servicemen do needs to be reflected in the quality of accommodation provided for them and their families, at home or abroad," said Mr Blair.

Mr Blair admitted public opinion was divided over Britain's military campaigns and "unnerved by the absence of victory" in its traditional form.

But he argued against political disengagement and said that Britain must be prepared to fight for its values and that defence spending would have to increase.

But shadow foreign secretary William Hague said soldiers wanted to know what Mr Blair was going to do now, about their accommodation, allowances, medical care and equipment.

British troops in Basra
Mr Blair acknowledged troops were under strain

"After a decade in power, his legacy will be an overstretched army, navy and air force. It's too late to have a 'debate'," he said.

And Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said military action in Iraq, undertaken without UN authority, had "severely damaged Britain's reputation".

"Britain has to learn that we will only be at our most effective in tackling terrorism when we operate within the rules and with allies of the same mind," he said.

Left-wing MP John McDonnell, who intends to stand for the Labour leadership once Mr Blair resigns, said Mr Blair had made "catastrophic foreign policy mistakes".

Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said Mr Blair had made the world "a more dangerous place" and was "clearly trying to foist that legacy onto his successor".

"Terrorism cannot be defeated by military means alone, but it can't be defeated without it"
-Tony Blair

[Ghostrider]

I'm not that well informed on the policies that Mr. Blair has used (or not used), but I couldn't agree more with the arguments he presented in this article.

And this as well:

"Terrorism cannot be defeated by military means alone, but it can't be defeated without it"
-Tony Blair

Keeping peace, sometimes means using force as ironic as it may sound.


-Ghost

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

For the most part I am in agreement. I believe that we should intervine where there is good reason and we should maintain a powerful military force. Most especially we must stop the savage defence cuts that have had a severe detrimental effect on British forces since the end of the Cold War.

And those chaps saying "catastrophic foreign policy mistakes" are talking dingos kidneys. He made 1 "catastrophic" mistake, and that was Iraq. Other than that I have been fully behind the military commitments of the last 10 years. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and the rest were all fully justified. Even when they didnt have UN backing.

The only one of the Critics who was talking any sense was Hauge. And I'd say that that statement is broudly true. We need more spending on defence and an expansion of the armed forces so we are prepared for any interventions we might have to make in the future.

Mind you, I'm still no fan of his policies at home, so on that frount the sooner he goes the better.

[eddie]

While I agree with what he said, I do think more money should be put into the army and RAF (the RN seems to be coping well). I'm not blaming Tony Blair for it, but you do wonder why our troops are underequipped, not just missing ammunition but medical supplies, that's a joke.

I also know that money can't be just magically found for it, but I'm pretty sure we have alot of things in this country that shouldn't be getting as much money as it's getting..... I won't name what I was going to.

[dhimmi]

I had heard from an Army officer in the mid nineties that the US Navy divided their budget up into sailing days and so when budget cuts came day it affected the sailing days but the standard of living for the reular sailors wasn't effected as much.
I would guess the UK forces are similiar and that's why the Navy doesn't seem in such dire straits as the Army troops.

[eddie]

Also, I've heard that the parachute regiments budget was cut.....God knows why, but it was, meaning they have had to cut back on actual parachute training. When a specialised unit can't even practice it's specialities that does seem like a major let down, but I only heard that, it might not be true.

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

OK, this is slightly offtopic (Related to Labour defence policy) BUT eddi is correct in saying their were cut backs for the Paras and the result he said however the Gov seems intent on upgrading/ keeping their nuclear deterant.

My problem with this: is not a highly trained, specalized, supper duper, fearson bunch of red devlils who could (if army/gov got act to together) be deployed at a moments notices any where in the world than a Nuclear weapon that the UK are not goign to use, even if you commit 100 out of 99 war type crimes, where as the Red Devils could be deployed on probaly 99 out of a 100 serious situations with out any huge civilian death/fall out ext. ext.?

The other reason why i believe the UK should not have nuclear weapons is becuase i dont trust the UK and the people who run it (i am from UK and love my country for landscape and politcal system - not some crzy anti nuke/UK loony), i dont really trust any man alive with a nuclear weapon but becuase firstly we in the UK have made too many mistakes in goign to War in the last 50 years (SUez/Iraq) and if we abuse the "right" to use convention means to for the "common good" why the bloody hell should we have the ability, let alone the right to nuclear weapons?

On top of this, after the use of a nuclear weapon, in almost ever case that could happen and has, the affect and the reason for its use will be questioned. Becuase the affect is so great, doubt about its use should make its use totaly unacceptable.

[mrmong]

jeez, underlining and random capitol letters doesnt add to a point silly.

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

POint taken Mrmong. me learning