7 2 mins 11 yrs

More awkwardness for our Military cutting Coalition Government;

Britain would not be able to patrol a no-fly zone over Libya without switching resources from Afghanistan, military experts warned yesterday. A leading defence think-tank said it was difficult to see how the UK could contribute enough aircraft to stop Gaddafi attacking rebel forces and civilians from the air without hampering the fight against the Taliban. The comments by analysts at the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies were certain to prove embarrassing for David Cameron, who has called for an international no-fly zone to ground the Libyan air force.

So, even as the US and UK contemplate such no fly zone action, those who will be tasked to carry it out contemplate doing so knowing that there is not adequate resource. Heard that one before? If the UK cuts back on the maintenance of our. Armed Forces, it can also forget about these kind of actions.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

7 thoughts on “NO FLY ZONE WITH NO PLANES?

  1. As son as we heard about the ring-fencing of the International Develoment (ha, the very idea is a great laugh), I could foresee trouble on the horizon.

    The prime purpose of Government is to protect our shores and our own citizens, and everything afterwards flows from that premise.

    They have promised to give away £7,6 billion, which will increase to over £9 billion; even at todays inflated prices, you could buy an awful lot of military hardware, plus the people to use it.

    Cash to India, goodies for Afghanistan, help for the bloody starving….the list goes on. And why? Because we have to show we are leaders in the world, even if the money we give away is borrowed money!

  2. George Will in the NY Post makes the case against the No Fly Zone for Libya. Who are we protecting, would it even be effective, and what comes next. I’m with him.

  3. Mahons –

    George Will in the NY Post makes the case against the No Fly Zone for Libya. Who are we protecting, would it even be effective, and what comes next. I’m with him.

    Well I’m with him too, partly because I suspect these questions aren’t being asked. Cameron came out for a no-fly zone because of politics. He’s now the Big Man and, as we saw with Blair, Big Men need show how big their Big Swinging Dicks are.

    Cameron has no idea what a no-fly zone would entail, even if we could enforce it, what the short and long-term effects would be, what it would cost, what the Arab world would think (even though it would be a peaceable move, it would still be yet another deployment of Western military hardware on “their” patch) or what the ezit strategy would be.

    But that’s ok, because Cameron has set in train a shrivelling of military to the point where we wouldn’t be able to adequately protect ourselves against a serious aggressor. He’s come in for justified criticism for it. Therefore, he must demonstrate now he really does have Big Balls.

  4. And the final, but stil quite beautiful touch is Cameron’s suggestion that all Libyan receipts from its oil industry should be confiscated and passed to the UN, – to provide for a ‘food for oil’ progamme such as the one used in the Iraq ‘food for oil’ scam.

    Has our muppet-in-chief completely forgotten just how big a scam the Iraq programme turned out to be, with various UN officials being accuseed of all sorts of malfeasance.

    Meanwhile dear Hilary is backing away from the US taking any sort of lead role in any such activity, by stating that it should be led by a NATO entity rather than a US one, – isn’t the US a part of NATO?

    It seems knowledge of recent history is not a requirement for government office.

Comments are closed.