Why?
Take Australian deployments for example. Since Vietnam, not once have we sent over a balanced force consisting of all the unit types needed in a conflict zone (except perhaps East Timor, but in that case the aircraft were still based in Australia just outside Darwin).
We usually send over a couple of ships, or a medical team, or a battalion or two of infantry plus APCs and a small artillery unit, or some other mix of troops and equipment. All the additional needs are met by other countries - US supplying fighter cover for example, while our units fill in deficiencies in their OOB.
As long as other countries have a reasonable number of the necessary supporting units, and are willing to operate as a combined command, there's no reason I can see for the British reducing committment to the European theatre and redirecting to the arguably less warlike middle east.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudorem
|