Gordon Brown is in apologetic mode once again. This time it concerns delays in sending out condolence letters to three families who’ve lost relatives in Afghanistan.
These letters, which are treated as almost obligatory, are in fact discretionary. The Prime Minister is under no obligation to send them, and he is also getting into all sorts of trouble for doing so.
This seems grossly unfair under the circumstances and the failures – where they have occurred – have merely given the media and relatives the opportunity to berate him further
He is now in a situation where he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. What’s more, not only is he being criticised for his failings on this score but also on his supposed failings on the supply of appropriate equipment.
The Prime Minister is not a military man. Decisions about what to take, what to use and the circumstances under which it is used are military - not political.
One of the inescapable facts about being on active service in the army is that there is a good chance that you may be killed and injured. Arguments about whether helicopters and other equipment would have saved lives are conjecture. In some instances losses may have been avoidable and, in others, it wouldn’t have made any difference at all.
It is also perfectly possible that the Taliban will bring down a Chinook or Merlin helicopter and that the loss of life will be greater than any single event to date. Are we then going to question the Prime Minister on the use of helicopters?
The loss of life is tragic and some might say unnecessary – depending on your position on the engagement of British soldiers in Afghanistan – but while we remain there, it will be inevitable. Arguing the toss about the choice of equipment and the hypothetical advantages and disadvantages it offers is somewhat spurious.
The Russians lost 333 helicopters - through crashes and enemy action - in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, which works out at 33 a year or two a month. In each instance at least one person, more often than not a crew member, was killed.
Since 2001, NATO forces have lost 59 helicopters – 10 to enemy action. In short, whilst it might be reassuring to have helicopters, Ridgebacks and Mastiffs, it doesn’t alter the essential point that the Taliban will be targeting British and other NATO soldiers and losses will continue.
There is a hideous symmetry in all this, no matter what we throw at this problem, it will always be matched by an appropriate response. In other words, Mastiffs, Ridgebacks and helicopters offer the prospect of greater protection but in reality, they will be met with whatever deadly force is required to deal with them.
This is what happens in any war, even an asymmetrical one like this. Whatever Gordon Brown does or doesn’t do, the only safe place for British troops is Britain.
If the British government or Prime Minister needs to apologise for anything, it should be our continued willingness to sacrifice our youth in the futile meddling of other people’s affairs.
In 1962, Dean Acheson, the US lawyer and statesman, said: “Great Britain has lost an empire but had not yet found a role.”
These days, we’ve found a role, but it is merely as an adjunct to US foreign policy.
Ed Hart is a finalist in stv.tv's The Write Factor competition. The views expressed are not necessarily those of STV plc. If you would like to read more from this writer, use our comment system below.
Last updated: 03 December 2009, 16:46
The links provided allow you to bookmark this page into your favourite social media website. For users with JavaScript disabled copy and paste the URL from the address bar into your chosen social bookmarking site.