I accept that TELIC and HERRICK lost their way with respect to the latter phases of the ops and the strategic direction/outcome. I also still think hindsight is a wonderful thing here with respect to why they happened in the first place. Let's consider what the world would be like without Op TELIC and Op HERRICK?
Op TELIC
Let's put TELIC into perspective first. We had been flying combat missions that had slowly been getting 'hotter' and 'hotter' since 1991 under the guise of Ops JURAL, BOLTON and the quick and dirty DESERT FOX. Some of these had started we'll before Mr Blair's time in power. The missions over Iraq slowly got more and kinetic as Saddam defied the UN sanctions plus got more and more bold in his actions - he gave 2x silver pistols to one of his MiG 25 drivers for coming within an ace of downing a RIVET JOINT and he put a £10k bounty on any Allied aircrew being killed (not an insignificant sum when average wages were £37 a year in Iraq at the time). It is not so well known to that most of the facilities for WMDs were completely taken down in Op DESERT FOX in late 1998. Unfortunately, as the UN weapons inspectors had been kicked out, then the loss of the WMD facilities were not properly confirmed until we had taken them during Op TELIC. At the turn of the millenium, and 9 years of failed inspections and negotiations, Saddam was still developing a remotely piloted L-29 to load up with something nasty. He was also still pursuing the purchase of longer range missiles and he was also not planning to start negotiating any time soon. Then we have the dreadful events of Sep 2001 (9/11) and varying links to Al Qaeda (AQ) that effectively sealed the fate for Op TELIC. But where would be if Op TELIC hadn't happened? Probably stronger Iraqi support for AQ as they committed more terrorist attrocities against the Allied nations, probably some form of WMD capability in AQ/Iraqi hands and destabilisation of some key Muslim/Arab states. The Arab Spring may well have ousted the Baathist Saddam and his people and led to the country being in a mess anyway - the rumblings of the Arab Spring had been gathering for years as those in poverty gazed at the ruling people's privilege. I really can't see it being 'sweetness and light' and the Middle East being any better if we hadn't committed to Op TELIC. If you want an answer to that, then look no further than the International decision not to act on Syria - the inaction may have led to more death and misery than trying to do something about it.
HERRICK
The USofA was hurting, as was most of the West, from 9/11. The Govt had to do something and try and track down the AQ people responsible. Britain lost 67 of its people out of ~3,000, so for us it was not such a big deal; but for our chosen lead in the financial sector it was pretty bad. It also affected the aviation sector that we had a big stake in plus also the insurance claims for this attack were the biggest in history. So something had to be done about Afghanistan (and the western half of Pakistan that borders it) and as others have said on here, our involvement was invited later. However, Ahmed Shah Massoud had asked the European Parliament for help in Afghanistan 6 months earlier from 9/11 stating that " the Taliban and al-Qaeda had introduced 'a very wrong perception of Islam' and that without the support of Pakistan and Osama bin Laden, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for another year. Massoud warned that his intelligence had gathered information about an imminent, large-scale attack on U.S. soil". Unfortunately, this plea for help by Massoud was ignored and the rest, as they say is history. But if 9/11 hadn't happened would Afghanistan enjoyed such unified support Internationally? However, if Op HERRICK and the Afghan ops hadn't happened then I am convinced that the world would have been a worse place than it currently is. Op HERRICK (and TELIC) are not the sole reason for the rise of ISIS. Just like I said before, inaction in Syria hasn't worked out too well either!
So, I draw the conclusion that we can adopt a Corbynesque style of pacifism and either cosy-up to your enemy or give them a stiff ignoring and hope they will go away (I used to hide behind the sofa from the Daleks and that wouldn't have done much good either!). Or we can try an effect the best outcome for the majority that wants to live their current way of life. Islamic extremism has been coming for a long time, I have witnessed the anger of young Muslim males when I was at school in North London with them in the 1970/80s. Their anger was mostly directed at the Sikhs and Hindus at that time, but there was still an undercurrent of anger that only in recent years I have realised what I was witnessing at the time. I was invited to an Islamic wedding in a North London Mosque and experienced angry and rude treatment from some of those present due to my colour and likely beliefs. The rise of anger from the Muslim community has been gathering for a long time (you could say since the Crusades!). So the current rise of the uber-extremist ISIS has also been gathering pace, as has the extreme right wing elements in the west in juxtaposition to it.
Where is this all going. I don't know. Either both sides will go extreme and one side or the other will be vanquished or hopefully the moderates will remain in the majority and vanquish the extremists. Or maybe its about time to ban people from believing in imaginary friends and adopt the views of Richard Dawkins!
LJ
