Military Review

First Afghanistan, now Libya. Can the NATO troops win at least one of their own war? (, Britain)

First Afghanistan, now Libya. Can the NATO troops win at least one of their own war? (, Britain)The armed forces of the most powerful alliance in the world, NATO, have already failed to win the war twice. American, British, French and other foreign troops are preparing to leave the struggle in Afghanistan - the first war where NATO launched ground forces, and now the United States, Great Britain and France seem to have reached the point when they are ready to surrender the battle for Libya, saying that Gaddafi stay in the country if you give up power.

Since the days of Iraq in the wars led by the United States, in which the “coalition of the willing” is involved, the number of those willing is gradually reduced. Now, after Afghanistan and Libya, the number of applicants will be even smaller.

NATO countries have spent billions - Britain has spent more than 14 trillion pounds, however, having been defeated in the fight against the insurgency in Afghanistan.

“You cannot impose democracy from 5 kilometers,” said David Cameron several weeks before joining Sarkozy enthusiastically to try to do just that. Ironically, that he was dissuaded from this step by none other than the Minister of Defense. Then the head of the Navy, Sir Mark Stanhope, as well as the head of the Royal Air Force Stephen Dalton realized that for them it could be an opportunity to show that their departments can be used for different needs - launching missiles from submarines, shooting frigate guns (which is very rare opportunity), or deliver humanitarian aid. For the first time, the Royal Air Force was given the opportunity to attack targets on the ground, instead of practicing air battles with imaginary Soviet fighters. And military companies were given the opportunity to demonstrate how clever their weapon.

Moreover, this was a response to Liam Fox for his agreement on last year’s deep cuts in the budget for strategic defense. Thus, the military makes it clear that it would be much more reasonable not to send military ships to the dump fleet and fighter harrier.

Which of course should weaken the army. Although the Apache helicopters (attacking ground targets in Libya) belong to the army, the ground forces did not play any role in the conflict. Afghanistan is still delaying deep cuts in the army, although the Chief of General Staff Peter Wall blurted out that they are actively preparing for a reduction.

What will be the role of the army, navy and air force in the future, after Libya, now it has become even more difficult to answer. They are unlikely to be able to rely on America, as it was in the past, which from the very beginning made it clear that it did not want to bomb Libya, and resisted all attempts by Britain to persuade it.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. jamert
    jamert 2 August 2011 13: 28 New
    But how could it be otherwise? If in the British Air Force there were already 200 fighters from Kotiz 2/3 - obsolete Tornadoes, and in the Ground Forces -330 tanks, then what kind of victory could be discussed. There’s nothing to fight. Yes, and no one - the average age in Europe is approaching 45. And young people are solid fag ... sirs, punks and drug addicts.
  2. merkawa
    merkawa 2 August 2011 14: 41 New
    The same British have a short memory, and the rest have not played women of easy virtue for a long time wink Yes, and their taxpayer money burned his thigh for a long time fellow
  3. datur
    datur 2 August 2011 21: 29 New
    Papuans beat all NATO high-tech-full fly away !!!!