Standing Up To Terrorism

[Vortex_Generator]

Way to go, guys!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm

[Cambridge Crash]

The BBC TV news did a good job of conflating Bush's resolve to fight terror against the force protection concerns of those at Mildenhall. At my reckoning, if all the USAF personnel went to london, they would then comprise a 'significant' element of the population, ie 14/10000 of the population. The likelihood of being involved in a terrorist incident would be....infantisimal.

This restriction sounds like typical 'arse covering'; a number of Embassies and High Commissions have issued 'Travel Advisories' for the UK, from a duty of care perspective. Both Australia and New Zealand MsFA were criticised for not publishing more scary material about Bali, when it was known there was an incipient threat.

'Where there is risk there is fear' appears to be the dictum.

CC

[Specaircrew]

Similar advice was given to British Military personnel (well it was here anyway) on the day of the bombings and the restriction was lifted 24 hours later, quite sensible really as the capital was gridlocked!

Perhaps the press have latched on to a similar warning issued to US miltary personnel and not bothered to check whether it has been recinded?

[Pontius Navigator]

Hi Spec, the advice we were given was 'Don't go outside' then the resident office population was allowed off home early. Dugh!

Those that stayed went to the canteen for a holding brew but no, the canteen staff had been sent home.

I do love connected thinking and rationale decisions.

[Krystal n chips]

Sorry guys, but you are all wrong here. Surely the directive is to show a positive commitment to global warming by the US hence a reduction in the traffic volumes on the M25 :E

[ExGrunt]

I write this having travelled to work on the Underground.

The key issue is that these orders were reportedly issued on Friday, the day after the bombing.

I used to work with 3rd AF at Mildenhall, which then had responsibility for co-ordinating all US Mil counter terrorist policy in Europe. They should know better.

It is a staggeringly inept act, which has handed a totally unnecessary propaganda coup to the terrorists. It is one thing to have temporary restrictions as events unfold. It is totally different to implement a deliberate policy once the dust has settled. The threat today is no different to that extant last Wednesday.

I am very proud that ordinary people came up with the response 'We are not afraid' - That is how we will defeat terrorism. But I feel betrayed that our allies are cowering in fear inside their bases.

EG

[gravity victim]

The British Foreign Ofiice will advise us to avoid visiting countrires where there has been a past terrorist incident at the drop of a hat - just look at their website. Little places like poor Bali have seen their tourist industry virtually destroyed by these sweeping, generalised, cover-your-backside warnings (which also affect travel insurance.) I was once advised to cancel a business trip to Chile because of one (non-violent) demo outside the British Embassy over Pinochet. There was no problem when I got there, needless to say, and some sadness and bafflement there that HMS Sutherland,due to visit Valparaiso, had been told to turn tail and cancel its stay.

Yet I don't recall New York (or for that matter Madrid) getting on that extensive FO list at any time after their major terrorist attacks - political considerations came first. I think that the US military could at least reciprocate as they are sending out the wrong message. Ironic too, that the US Air Force is by far the world'smost prolific dispenser of high explosive to civilians - but that's another argument.

[kippermate]

I heard on the radio that the advice to US Mil personnel not to go to London has been rescinded.

Don't know why. It's a dump!

:ok:

kipper

[pr00ne]

kippermate,

"When a man is tired of London he is tired of life, for there is in London all that life can afford."

Dr Samuel Johnson.

London is a brilliant City, the most diverse and entertaining in the world, and I said that before last Thursday, now it is brilliant for a whole host of far more important reasons.

[SASless]

In our politically correct world anymore...."force protection" has taken such hold of decision making that combat actions suffer from those concerns.

It was a boneheaded decision...made by some boneheaded Colonel looking for General probably. I am sure the only reasoning was done in the name of "force protection"....if we do not expose the troopies to anything....then they will not be injured or killed.

I recall living on a beach....with barbed wire entanglements between our compound and the water....not to keep bad guys out....but to keep us in and away from the water. The CO had decided a single drowning was reason enough to ban swimming.

At the time....we (the Army alone) were losing 400 dead a week in combat operations.....but losing one guy to drowning negated any positive aspects a day on the beach could have for the 20,000 troops in the Division fighting in the jungle.

[Muppet Show]

Is this is a classic example of the OODA loop? (Allegedly) it's the US decison making tool in event of a crisis:

Observe
Overreact
Destroy
Apologise

Cynical, moi?:E

MS

[Onan the Clumsy]

I recall living on a beach....with barbed wire entanglements between our compound and the water Sounds like Whitby :p

[Vortex_Generator]

One US serviceman summed up the US military attitude quite well. He said "If someone in our army sh1ts himself we all have to wear diapers".