UK troops getting sucked into another conflict

[joninliverton]

When will our stupid government learn to keep their noses out of affairs that don't concern us.

"The government is to deploy about 330 military personnel to Mali and West Africa to support French forces."

How ridiculous is that and don't the Tory government have such small memories. During the Falklands conflict, France supported Argentina by supplying them Excorcet missiles that sunk British ships. It makes me want to burn down the Houses of Parliament.

 

[rrhill]

Jon's invisible black lines read: ""The government is to deploy about 330 military personnel to Mali and West Africa to support French forces."

How ridiculous is that and don't the Tory government have such small memories. During the Falklands conflict, France supported Argentina by supplying them Excorcet missiles that sunk British ships. It makes me want to burn down the Houses of Parliament."

There is a large group of Al-Queda in Northern Mali active. Fighters from this group recently took hundreds of workers hostage at an Algerian gas plant.

"(...)Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament in London that Britain would increase its help to Algeria's intelligence and security forces and might do more for France in Mali, though he ruled out sending many of its stretched armed forces to Africa.
Noting a shift in the source of threats to British interests from Afghanistan to Africa, he also noted Sellal's rundown of a multinational group of gunmen from across north and west Africa and said the region was becoming "a magnet for jihadists".
Alongside a "strong security response", however, he called for efforts to address long-standing grievances, such as poverty and political exclusion, which foster support for violence. Some militants in Algeria want autonomy for the south and complain of domination by an unchanging establishment in Algiers.
read the complete article: http://www.reuters.nl/article/2013/01/21/us-sahara-crisis-idUSBRE90F1JJ20130121

 

[tampa24]

It is indeed a slippery slope when a country sends in a small group of forces. If it goes well, then the government is lauded for its courageous and "heroic" decision. If it goes poorly, as is often the case, then the government is reviled for its hasty and poorly thought out misadventure.

We offered to help out the French (after helping save their asses in W.W. II) by sending some military "advisors" to Vietnam. Then we sent a "few" troops to support the French. Since France was going bankrupt trying to fight war in French Indo-China...before long, they bailed completely and it was up to us to fight the whole war. We all know how that turned out.

In the case of Mali though I'm glad the French went in to stop the Islamists from taking over the whole country and imposing Sharia law everywhere they went. If I were British however I would still feel some trepidation at being drawn into yet another conflict.

 

[rrhill]

"The region was becoming "a magnet for jihadists".

Should we risk another Al-Qaeda hotbed?

 

[tampa24]

"The region was becoming "a magnet for jihadists".

Should we risk another Al-Qaeda hotbed?

NO.

 

[joninliverton]

"The region was becoming "a magnet for jihadists".

Should we risk another Al-Qaeda hotbed?

Then send some Dutch troops too then !

 

[another1]

"The region was becoming "a magnet for jihadists".

Should we risk another Al-Qaeda hotbed?

NO.

Then send some Dutch troops too then !

so what the plan? chase jihadists across north africa? doesn't each african nation have a role in this? the boots on the ground in africa should be african. the support should be international. it's too bad that instead of fighting to jihadist in the north, the army overthrew the government. so what is the plan?

 

[rrhill]

I would be in favor for sending Dutch troops. They served and died in Iraq and Afghanistan too...

 

[rrhill]

The plan is to prevent the region of becoming a a magnet for jihadists.

And I honour all those man and woman that have the guts to go there and make a change for the safety of our western civilization.

The real world came to me after reading Tolkien's novel "the Hobbit", and the trilogy "the Lord of the Rings". Till then I felt safe like a hobbit, in my small country, eating cake, not taking serious the forces of evil. And believe me there is evil, I am fifty and seen it.

Planned evil to fly air planes into the twin towers, attacks on ships and embassy's. London and Madrid transportation hubs. Attacks happen all over the world. We should stop free havens for jihadists or face the consequences. It's choosing between worse or bad. The world is not as nice as you hope to think Jon. If someone ever told you that life is fair...; that was a lie.

 

[rrhill]

By the way, France did not invite Dutch troops yet. The minister states that Holland does support the France military action in Mali. Spain will be sending 100 troops parliament decided.

There won't be US boots on the ground.

 

[another1]

Afghanistan be a safe haven for the jihadists because the west left without the hope of a national government.
what is the plan for Mali?

 

[another1]

a few becomes a lot that becomes too many!

i am sure all the skill of the united states will be available.
no boots on the ground. not this time!

 

[cumrag27]

Though this happened before I was born...

It is indeed a slippery slope when a country sends in a small group of forces. If it goes well, then the government is lauded for its courageous and "heroic" decision. If it goes poorly, as is often the case, then the government is reviled for its hasty and poorly thought out misadventure.

We offered to help out the French (after helping save their asses in W.W. II) by sending some military "advisors" to Vietnam. Then we sent a "few" troops to support the French. Since France was going bankrupt trying to fight war in French Indo-China...before long, they bailed completely and it was up to us to fight the whole war. We all know how that turned out.

In the case of Mali though I'm glad the French went in to stop the Islamists from taking over the whole country and imposing Sharia law everywhere they went. If I were British however I would still feel some trepidation at being drawn into yet another conflict.

Dear Tampa,

You may be a student of history, but your understanding of the inner workings leading ultimately to France's capitulation to the Germans in WWII was not due to lack of courage or willingness to fight for their country. Rather, it was because their government had already been taken over by "moles" acting on Germany's behalf long before the actual invasion of France started. Then, when the critical moment came to respond, the government was essentially in disarray and incapable of responding to the attack. Remember that even today, France is littered generously with battlegrounds and trench warfare reminders that still exist today. Entire villages in France were destroyed including all the non-military women, children, and the elderly as retribution for the slightest thing the German military objected to. These reminders were still fresh on the minds of the French people at the time of the German WWII assault. Whereas, the US was essentially scar-free as far as physical reminders of either World Wars before Pearl Harbor. How many atrocities were committed against non-military American Citizens during WWII on our soil? On the other hand, a lot of French citizens lost family and everything they had in WWI only to suffer loosing it once again through double dealing individuals acting only in their self-interest and not on France's behalf. Ever heard of this same theme in modern history???. Sounds familiar, don't it!

Anyway, in all fairness and objectivity to the Free French heroes of WWII (who sabotaged their way through France having allegiance ONLY to General Charles De Gaulle. These heroic people spilled their blood and treasure right along side the other allies in WWII with honor and dignity as well! No one single group deserves all this glory as if the war was won singlehandedly by anybody. Alied troups used the on-the-ground-intelligence gothering troup movements and destroying bridges and commnications needed by the German Army. I have to ask you about your unkind assertion..."after helping save their asses in W.W. II" What do you mean "save their asses"? The Free French were a part of our allied forces as a consequence of seeing their entire government compromised by "conservative businessmen-types" who, after enduring a world wide Depression in the 30's like the rest of us, looked at the recent miraculous upsurge of the German economy following the economically devestating "Treaty of Versailles". Their own greed wanted some of the same action the German economy was getting.

The Versailles Treaty President Wilson and other allies put together, had as its priimary intention of discouraging the German Economy becoming fully militarized ever again, following the senseless butchery on both sides during WWI. With impressive increases in manufacturing that was highly publicized by the Nazi Regime's, this fact encouraged otherwise prudent businessmen to look to the German's capitalization of business manufacturing capacity during Hitler's reign as the pathway to better times.

It seems like "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" and when the French economy was lagging behind Germany's, all that French businessmen could see (being on the winning side of WWI) was that France was not keeping up with the progress Germany was making. Despite all the horrible death camps, suffering of Jews, homosexuals, and others that the Nazi's targeted as enemies of the Reich, it seems that those conservative businessmen only worried about their pocketbooks and little else. Long before the border of France was attacked, these businessmen succeeded in turning their heads away while establishing a puppet-government that gave lipservice to the French, but essentially favoring the Germans. This was not supported by the French people at large, however. Nor was this supported by General Charles DeGaulle.

Petain'a Brief History:

At the outbreak of World War I, Philippe Petain was quickly promoted to Brigadier General and given command of the 6th division. In 1916, he was ordered to stop the massive German attack on the city of Verdun. Petain reorganized the front lines and transport systems and was able to inspire his troops, turning a near-hopeless situation into a successful defence. He became a popular hero and replaced General Nivelle as commander-in-chief of the French army. Petain then successfully re-established discipline after a series of mutinies by explaining his intentions to the soldiers personally and improving their living conditions.

In 1934, Philippe Petain was appointed minister of war, and then secretary of state in the following year. In 1939, he was appointed as French ambassador to Spain. In May 1940, with France under attack from Germany, Petain was appointed vice premier. In June he asked for an armistice, upon which he was appointed chief of state, enjoying almost absolute powers. The armistice gave the Germans control over the north and west of France, including Paris, but left the remainder as a separate regime under Petain, with its capital at Vichy. Officially neutral, in practice the regime collaborated closely with Germany.

In December 1940, Philippe Petain dismissed his vice-premier, Pierre Laval, for his policy of close Franco-German collaboration. However, Laval’s successors were unacceptable to the Germans and Laval was restored. In November 1942, in response to allied landings in North Africa, the Germans invaded the unoccupied zone of France. Vichy France remained nominally in existence but Petain was nothing more than a figurehead. In the summer of 1944, after the allied landings in France, Pétain was taken to Germany. He returned to France after liberation, was brought to trial and condemned to death. This was immediately commuted to solitary confinement for life by De Gaulle. Petain was imprisoned on the Île d’Yeu off the Atlantic coast, where he died on July 23, 1951.

As a WWI era French Hero, this already old man Gen Petain was unfortunately put in the leadership position of France. It essentially resulted in gutting the strength of the French Government from within - Like the "coup d'état" that it was! This went into effect but without being so blatant as to be honest publicly with the French citizens. All that the citizens saw was the most important WWI French General once again serving the so called "better interest of the French people".

In contrast Gen. Charles DeGaulle wrote a book about the defense of France with the 'Marginot Line" which was a strategic barrier guarding against invading armies from the East. DeGaulle wrote of how to use it for France's safety, but the French military dismissed his book. Instead, the Germans simply took this book to heart and used it to work against the French, defeating the necessary safeguards they were counting on.

I think saying that we, the "US" "Saved their asses" is a bit too simplistic a view to coming from the likes of you. My father fought in France shortly after D-Day and I don't think he would have ever stated the US singlehandedly saved the French. What about the English, the Canadians, and our other allies? When the French helped support the American Revolutionaries during our War of Independence, do you think it would have been proper for the French to claim they saved our asses against the English during our Revolutionary War? I think not! That would be an over-simplification as well!

Being half-French and my mother ond my half-brother(both French) lived through the Nazi Occupation of France, I feel they paid dearly a very human price suffering through the war as they did. But they were lucky enough to live through it all! Countless others were not so lucky!


Sincerely Proud to be Half-French,


Stimpy

 

[another1]

in my most dismissive terms, i called it helping the british and the french (and the dutch) restore order.
but for the dutch new york would be a hunting ground, (the pilgrims would still be in holland) and i might not be here!
there is a place deep in my heart for the dutch. for another time.
after troops are on the ground, how will you know if you have reached the purpose in being in a war in africa?

send troops first, then decide the goal.

france is like a homeland for my thoughts and england is england. the queen and all that!

 

[joninliverton]

Saw the BBC news tonight and the French President visited Timbuktu today. As he was leave a comment was made that the French troops would be leaving soon too AFTER the British trained the African contingent to defend Mali.

 

[tampa24]

Dear Stimpy,

I will need to choose my words carefully and give myself more time to respond to your post. I'm a WW II history buff myself. Three months ago I was in Normandy visiting the American cemetery on Omaha Beach. I chose my words very carefully when I said that we "helped" save their asses rather than "we saved" their asses. I'm well aware that it was done with the help of the French Resistance, some Free French forces, the British and the Canadians. Yes. I get it that it's a crass oversimplification. Yet it's essentially true.

I promise to follow up on some of your many other points later on.

 

[peterh6308]

As leaders of the free world US, England, France etc. it is our reponsibility and duty to respond to other nations who do not have the military or government to protect themselves from terrorists. These countries rely on the "big guys" to help! We all on this forum are fortunate to live in nations where our borders are not daily crossed by militant groups ready to take over. I never served in the military, but I whole heartedly support our worldwide forces in reacting to these conflicts. These small nations have zero chance if it were not for the "big guys". As civilians living in freedom, we must step out of our fortunate lives and imagine what some these countries must live through and then maybe we can all give some support for our governments and military while they take action to help our fellow humans.