Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Rearmament or Appeasement?

General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, has warned in a leaked memo that military capabilities are stretched to the breaking point. Due to the commitment of all available troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no reserves left for emergencies.

The conclusion drawn by the entire liberal establishment in Britain is that the troops should be brought home. On the BBC, a retired Major General was telling anyone who would listen that the army is stretched so thin it might break apart.

Yet nobody is making the obvious point that British armed forces are at historically low levels of manpower. Just as the Crimean War in the 1850′s shocked a nation still basking in the glory of Nelson’s and Wellington’s victories, so the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a shock to the system. The disturbance could also have certain salutary effects, however, if only politicians were willing to respond correctly to the challenges the wars present.

The fact is that the number of British troops now committed to these two wars is smaller than that of Wellington’s forces at Waterloo. Now, numbers aren’t everything, but it is noticeable that the low level of manpower is precisely one of General Dannatt’s main complaints.

Unless countries like Britain can find new ways to recruit many more soldiers, the time will come when the jihadi enemy will only need to threaten to get what it wants. In the horrific scenes at the Red Mosque in Islamabad, there is a clear image of what awaits our allies if the West beats a premature retreat from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

The choice that General Dannatt presents is clear enough, though he does not spell it out. It is the choice between rearmament and appeasement.

Introducing Commentary Complete

2 Responses to “Rearmament or Appeasement?”

  1. Dost says:

    The election of Al Franken by the voters of Minnesota does not speak well of the voters of Minnesota. He’s an unfunny comedian and an unserious politician. I suspect that he’ll be an embarrassment on Minnesota for some time to come. It also says something about Norm Coleman’s campaign.

  2. Dost says:

    “And Dawn Johnsen, named to head the Office of Legal Counsel, was a deputy in that same office from 1993 to 1996 and acting head of that office from 1997 to 1998.”

    Dawn Johnsen is leaving Miami Vice to work at Justice?

  3. Peter Shalen says:

    Harry Reid’s statement about Norm Coleman is outrageous, not only for the reason that Ms. Rubin points out, but because the normal post-election process in Minnesota is not over yet. Reid would profit from reading this excellent summary by John Hinderaker:

    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022474.php

    I noticed that at the site to which Ms. Rubin links, the commenters (on both sides) seemed to be under the impression that Coleman is appealing to the courts. He is not. The upcoming contest stage is part of the process prescribed by Minnesota election law.

  4. wdriver says:

    “Obama has allowed himself to be surrounded by some seriously flawed people.”

    Isn’t this the story of Obama’s political career?