Would You Buy A Used War From David Cameron?

By Steve Hynd

David Cameron promises a civilian surge from the Ministry of Silly Walks.

I wish British conservative leader David Cameron would make his blessed mind up. Does he want to kowtow to the neoconservative wing of his party and their Bushite buddies or does he want to win the election? With 71% of the British people opposed to the continuing occupation of Afghanistan, Cameron seemed to be doing the sensible thing - in both foreign policy and domestic political terms - by tacking further and faster towards the exit than his opposite number Brown. But now he'd done an about face and tried to be a Bush-like figure again in a way that comes across as deeply pseudo-serious.

On a three-day visit to Afghanistan this weekend, David Cameron said he would not commit to any timetable for pulling out British troops and said it was "pretty unlikely" troop numbers would be reduced by the Conservatives should they win next year's general election.

Appearing to suggest he might send more troops if he became prime minister, Cameron said UK forces were "spread too thinly". He also announced that if his party wins power he would set up a war cabinet in London and make Ministry of Defence service personnel wear uniforms around the office instead of suits or civilian clothes.

...meeting Afghan National Army soldiers at a military centre in Kabul, where they are being trained by British troops, Cameron said he did not want the Tory party to give the public "false hope" and was "not interested in cutting and running" from Afghanistan.

Really, David? Make them wear their uniforms in Whitehall? That'll really show those pesky Taliban!

Comments

[Grumpy Old Man]

Err ... Steve. Lest we forget, it's not Cameron's' war, it's Labour's war. They got into it by cozying up to Bush and his neocon buddies, and by being extremely economical with the truth in Parliament. All so that Tone could be president of the EU and Gordon could be PM, as agreed in the Granita. Well, Tone didn't make president and Gordon will never make a Prime Minister.
Saying that"our troops are spread too thinly" does not necessarily indicate further involvement in Afghanistan. Gordon's world-class economic theory and practice has made sure there is no money for that option. He is possibly merely indicating what any half-way competent PM would do and starting to allocate the resources available to a downsized, but achievable, task. His job wouldn't be so monumental if Labour had spent some money on the troops instead of hosing all those taxes into quixotic, pointless and ultimately futile wheezes, such as ID cards. Or the NHS computer system. Or giving back Maggie's' rebate for no discernible advantage. The Army would have had the necessary helicopter support and vehicles, and the RAF wouldn't be flying aircraft which catch fire without any aid from the enemy. David's task would also be a lot easier if the man who abolished boom and bust hadn't put the UK economy on income support. I agree with you on uniforms though. No self-respecting soldier, sailor or airman would want to be confused with an MOD civilian.
Please try to be a little more accurate and honest with your propaganda in future, you may even gain some credibility by doing so.

[Steve Hynd]

G.O.M.,

I know it's Brown's war right now - that's why the word "used", as in secondhand, is in the post title.

And seriously, if you think having proper equipment would make such a world of difference to the piss poor performace so far, then you have to explain why the wondferfully well equipped US military has done just as piss poorly. It's the mission that's crap, not the gear.

Regards, Steve

[empty]

It's the mission that's crap, not the gear.

Well said!