Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

Gordon Brown has announced the final British withdrawal from Iraq will take place this coming year. As this opinion piece notes, it is a humiliating retreat, littered with failure and hubris. I know from old colleagues that morale in the Army is at a pretty low ebb. The Blair Doctrine, which was to make the UK indispensable to the US through unquestioning obedience, has failed utterly - as the article rightly notes, the US military establishment views Britain with a mixture of contempt and anxiety.

Other threads have been discussing Britain's role in Europe, and I am usually amused by the close-held beliefs sometimes expressed that the UK can somehow retain an aloof standing, relying on her ties across the Atlantic. There appears to be more stomach for becoming the 51st inconsequential state than to be a partner of equals. The nostalgia for a time when she was a power of note is palpable. But when, on this recent occasion, required to live up to that role, she has failed.

It raises questions about the stamina of our nation and the resolve of our political class. It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down.

I note that the Prime Minister has also now sold off the last interest in Aldermaston to a Californian company, so that there is no longer any direct control over the manufacture of nuclear arms. (No doubt taxpayers will be particularly pleased at the price commanded in this most robust of markets). Why then, as the article touches, is so much money being spent on renewing the Trident programme? Pure, unfounded pride? Let's be frank - if the United Nations were ever to face reform towards relevance, does anyone think the UK would retain her top seat?

What exactly do orgahs think the role of the United Kingdom in world affairs should be? Is it not time to wholeheartedly embrace a key role in the development of a European force? Aim to be a cog in an increasingly disoriented NATO? Or should it be to downsize to cope with purely national interests alone?

Give the lads some equipment that isn't falling apart

You have to wonder , with its leaking reactor buildings and the ponds full of waste from the 50s that flood every time it rains how on earth did they manage to find a buyer for Aldermaston ?
Perhaps there is a clause in the contract that leaves the taxpayer liable for all future claims .

I liked this bit

Quote:

---

It cannot be a defence of British policy that the war was unpopular at home

---

Haha! What load of crap, it matters a whole load that Blair took the UK into the most absurd British war for a long time, the man should be put on bloody trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Haha! What load of crap, it matters a whole load that Blair took the UK into the most absurd British war for a long time, the man should be put on bloody trial.

---

That is so completely true...

If you decide to go to war then you have to put the resources in place. What Blair did was and is criminal. Trying to fight a war on the cheap is not an option. Take note Afghanistan.

We arn't a world power and havn't been during my lifetime but we did used to have a certain kudos in the training and selection of our armed forces. Alas, all now chucked away.

As for our future on the world stage, well personally I think we should keep our noses out of other peoples business. We've done an excellent job at denigrating our own country and I'm sure that no one would thank us for exporting our peculiar brand of progressive government to other nations.

I feel sick, ashamed and saddened at the whole debacle.

Setting aside the political decision to go to war in the first place, Iraq was and is a hard job to "git done."

The USA has poured a noteable amount of casualties and a huge gob of treasure into that particular "hopper," and the best we can hope to effect is the CHANCE for a central government to maintain control while embodying some elements of democracy and personal freedoms after we have withdrawn the bulk of our forces. Many analysts and handicappers here in the USA and abroad would not give that chance great odds either. In that light, the UK's efforts do not pale so much

UK forces did not perform as well as they might have, but do not "write off" all of their efforts as wasted -- we do not.

Humiliating retreat? It's come several years too late IMO. At the very least the Iraqis should have been paying us to be there, not the other way around. Then there might have been the money to equip the troops.

Polaris was nuclear tipped missiles that were never used, and of such destructive power it would give any country pause for thought. This was replaced by...

Trident - nuclear tipped missiles that were never used....

Why more? I can just about understand why we need some sort of big stick to pretend to look hard. But just update Trident for god' sake. It is good enough!!!

The armed forces of the UK should have:

No independent airforce - what's the point? What's it there for? Nothing, that's what. We can't afford the numbers of planes to make a difference in any case.

The Navy would have large submarines, and surface ships mainly of small to medium size. The marines would
The army would have three parts: the "conventional" forces - probably with more emphasis on light armour drones and attack helicopters than battle tanks, special forces increased in number as far as continuing quality allows and possibly a missile defence division to in essence replace the airforce for defending the British isles.

It should be obvious that as such the armed forces looses much of its offensive might and refocuses on applying more widespread low key functions.

As such it might ensure that idiot politicians are less able to charge blindly at the next warzone.

~:smoking:

^^wot 'e writ^^:yes: (Seamus, that is)

Iraq was a boondoggle from the get go. Even so, that you guys stood beside us all this time, in the face of heavy political opposition and actual cost, is actually appreciated by me and my peers.

Thank you.

None, not one, of my NCO-level contacts, active or inactive, thinks or says you Brits did poorly, or that your leaving the TO soon is any kind of retreat or defeat.

As for going forward: whatever you fellas decide will be your 'thrust' for the next 20-30 years will be OK with me. In my opinion, your strongest, most reliable 'weapon' is: Military Leadership. Guns, boats, planes... all mean nothing without regionally-insightful, long-range thinking and planning. You guys are expert at that, having been on-the-ground around the world within generational memory. You should (I think) nurture that weapon, develop it, and export it to willing importers.

-edit-
re: Aldermaston, and Jacobs Engr'ing getting the nod; you should be fine there. Just don't ask them to build any bridges. Their luck in that area has been spotty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Humiliating retreat? It's come several years too late IMO. At the very least the Iraqis should have been paying us to be there, not the other way around. Then there might have been the money to equip the troops.

---

Wut ? People should pay you for invading their country ? That sounds very 3rd Reich-ish.

:shrug:

A few months ago I would have said that Britain was a world power, but not a Superpower, now, with the recession in full swing, I can't support that statement. The cupbord is bare and part of the reason is that we have been fighting two wars on a shoestring. Even cheap wars are prohibatively expensive and all that has happened is that we have been forced to withdraw from one and are stretched in the other.

The loan culture of this government is absurd, they loan Army Camps, refuelling planes, hell before I'm thirty we'll probably have the cleaning kits for the rifles on loan as well. This has increased cost, as have any number of other hairbrained schemes.

The general consensus among my own contacts is that what is really needed is an increase in funding and a cutback on commitments.

Oh, and the boys would like their cap badges and Warriors back, please.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=105415

My thoughts on the matter for what it's worth:

a) The primary purpose of the SC is to credibly issue threat of attack in order to elicit compliance, in much the same way that a nation-states primary purpose is to credibly demonstrate an ability to defend. Therefore I don't believe membership of the Permanent/Veto-wielding Security Council should even be considered for nations that do not have the economic and military clout to rise above their peers, and that they should have a force structure that allows them to project power. It is no good have a million strong peasant army if they cannot credibly threaten military intervention on a non-contiguous nation.
b) It is desired by many that a new-look Security Council better reflect the Geographic Distribution of countries, cultures and peoples, rather than the euro-centric composition currently in vogue. However, this desire should not conflict with the above two points otherwise the Security Council will cease to be a credible body.

To that end I give you what I consider to be a reasonable framework upon which to weigh the relative merits of potential Security Council candidates:

Security Council membership should be considered on four premises by order of importance leading to a cumulative total.

(1) military power - modified dependent on: the expeditionary emphasis of armed forces (0 to 10)
(2) diplomatic influence - modified dependent on: total number of speakers (1 to 5) (*)
(3) economic power - modified dependent on: how many rankings change when contrasted with PPP (**)
(4) geographic/demographic - modified dependant HDI: ranking (1 to 5) (***)
(5) total - modified dependant on: nukes (+5) new region representative (+5)

(1) - Military Expenditure + Manpower
1 = US - (20 + 9 + 10 = 39) = [39] ($583,283,000,000)
2 = UK - (18 + 1 + 8 = 27) = [27] ($79,872,000,000)
3 = France - (16 + 3 + 6 = 25) = [25] ($74,690,470,000)
4 = China - (10 + 10 + 2 = 22) = [22] ($59,000,000,000)
5 = Japan - (12 + 2 + 4 = 18) = [18] ($48,860,000,000)
6 = Germany - (14 + 4 + 0 = 18) = [18] ($45,930,000,000)
7 = Russia - (08 + 7 + 2 = 17) = [17] ($41,050,000,000)
8 = India - (06 + 8 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($26,500,000,000)
9 = Aust - (04 + 0 + 4 = 8) = [08] ($20,727,710,000)
10 = Brasil - (02 + 5 + 0 = 7) = [07] ($25,396,731,055)
11 = Indon - (00 + 6 + 0 = 6) = [06] ($04,740,000,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._active_troops (0 to 10)

(2) - Diplomatic Influence (subjective)
1 = US - (20 + 5 = 25) = [25]
2 = China - (18 + 5 = 23) = [23]
3 = UK - (16 + 5 = 21) = [21]
4 = France - (14 + 3 = 17) = [17]
5 = Japan - (12 + 1 = 13) = [13]
6 = Russia - (10 + 2 = 12) = [12]
7 = Germany - (08 + 1 = 9) = [09]
8 = Aust - (06 + 5 = 11) = [11]
9 = India - (04 + 5 = 9) = [09]
10 = Brasil - (02 + 2 = 4) = [04]
11 = Indon - (00 + 2 = 2) = [02]
Diplomatic Influence (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ative_speakers (0 to 5)

(3) - Economic Power GDP + PPP (millions)
1 = US - (20 + 10 + 3 = 33) = [33] ($13,244,550)
2 = Japan - (18 + 8 + 2 = 28) = [28] ($4,367,459)
3 = China - (14 + 9 + 5 = 28) = [28] ($2,630,113)
4 = Germany - (16 + 6 + 1 = 23) = [23] ($2,897,032)
5 = UK - (12 + 5 + 2 = 19) = [19] ($2,373,685)
6 = France - (10 + 4 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($2,231,631)
7 = India - (04 + 7 + 5 = 12) = [16] ($886,867)
8 = Brasil - (08 + 3 + 4 = 13) = [15] ($1,067,706)
9 = Russia - (06 + 2 + 4 = 10) = [12] ($979,048)
10 = Indon - (00 + 1 + 5 = 5) = [05] ($364,239)
11 = Aust - (02 + 0 + 2 = 4) = [04] ($754,816)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_(nominal) (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_GDP_(PPP) (0 to 10)

(4) - Demographic + Geographic
1 = US - (16 + 9 + 5 = 30) = [30] (301,950,000)
2 = China - (20 + 5 + 2 = 27) = [27] (1,321,000,000)
3 = Russia - (10 + 10 + 2 = 24) = [24] (141,400,000)
4 = India - (18 + 4 + 1 = 23) = [23] (1,129,000,000)
5 = Brasil - (12 + 7 + 2 = 21) = [21] (186,500,000)
6 = Japan - (08 + 3 + 5 = 16) = [16] (127,720,000)
7 = France - (04 + 6 + 5 = 15) = [15] (64,102,140)
8 = Indon - (14 + 0 + 1 = 15) = [15] (234,950,000)
9 = Aust - (00 + 8 + 5 = 13) = [13] (20,830,000)
10 = Germany - (06 + 1 + 5 = 14) =[12] (82,310,000)
11 = UK - (02 + 2 + 5 = 9) = [09] (60,609,153)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone (table inc onshore territory) (0 to 10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...elopment_Index (1 to 5)

(5) - Total -
1 = US - (127 + 5 + 0 = 132)..........=.........[132]
2 = China - (100 + 5 + 0 = 105)......=........ [105]
3 = UK - (76 + 5 + 0 = 81).............=........[081]
4 = France - (73 + 5 + 0 = 78)........=........[078]
5 = Japan - (75 + 0 + 0 = 75).........=.........[075]
6 = India - (64 + 5 + 5 = 74)..........=.........[074]
7 = Russia - (65 + 5 + 0 = 70)........=.........[070]
8 = Germany - (62 + 0 + 0 = 62).....=.........[062]
9 = Brasil - (50 + 0 + 5 = 55)..........=.........[055]
10 = Aust - (36 + 0 + 5 = 41).........=.........[041]
11 = Indon - (28 + 0 + 5 = 33)........=.........[033]
-------------------------------------------------------
Appendix -
(*)--------------|-(**)--------------|-(***)--------------
5 - 800m - plus -|- 5 - 2 ranks up----|- 5 - 0.90 plus
4 - 600m - 800m-|- 4 - 1 rank up-----|- 4 - 0.85 to 0.90
3 - 400m - 600m-|- 3 - 0 change-----|- 3 - 0.80 to 0.85
2 - 200m - 400m-|- 2 - 1 rank down--|- 2 - 0.75 to 0.80
1 - 000m - 200m-|- 1 - 2 ranks down-|- 1 - 0.00 to 0.75
--------------------------------------------------------

nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Polaris was nuclear tipped missiles that were never used, and of such destructive power it would give any country pause for thought. This was replaced by...

Trident - nuclear tipped missiles that were never used....

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

That whole episode is brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

That whole episode is brilliant.

---

My first thought as well. Excellent show :yes:

Quote:

---

re: Aldermaston, and Jacobs Engr'ing getting the nod; you should be fine there.

---

Yeah should be fine , the government study concluded that places like Tadley had such high numbers of diseases that could be linked to radioactive waste but were not really linked to radioactive waste , They were a result of a strange localised genetic flaw that was perpetuated by inbreeding in the villages who historicly in the main had a population made up of navvies who settled once the canal was built........well apart from the massive population explosion from all corners of the country that moved there to work on the bomb factory who are dying but must by chance have that same localised genetic flaw .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Humiliating retreat? It's come several years too late IMO. At the very least the Iraqis should have been paying us to be there, not the other way around. Then there might have been the money to equip the troops.

Polaris was nuclear tipped missiles that were never used, and of such destructive power it would give any country pause for thought. This was replaced by...

Trident - nuclear tipped missiles that were never used....

Why more? I can just about understand why we need some sort of big stick to pretend to look hard. But just update Trident for god' sake. It is good enough!!!

The armed forces of the UK should have:

No independent airforce - what's the point? What's it there for? Nothing, that's what. We can't afford the numbers of planes to make a difference in any case.

The Navy would have large submarines, and surface ships mainly of small to medium size. The marines would
The army would have three parts: the "conventional" forces - probably with more emphasis on light armour drones and attack helicopters than battle tanks, special forces increased in number as far as continuing quality allows and possibly a missile defence division to in essence replace the airforce for defending the British isles.

It should be obvious that as such the armed forces looses much of its offensive might and refocuses on applying more widespread low key functions.

As such it might ensure that idiot politicians are less able to charge blindly at the next warzone.

~:smoking:

---

Stick to doctoring bud as your ideas on what the military needs doesn't tie up with anything the military say they need. You might get away with the nukes part though :inquisitive:

Hey I'm not saying I'm anything approaching an expert. I would also say that the Military is hardly likely to say "you know what? We need to slim down the numbers we've got here" Noooo - like and other department it is always more, more more!!!

I would be interested with a link of what the armed forces want - and their reasons why just out of interest.

~:smoking:

You got me on the links part but as an example some of the vehicles are Mastiff and Warthog which are moving away from the lighter more manouverable vehicles back to bigger more heavily armoured.

Try looking in www.army.mod.uk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yeah should be fine , the government study concluded that places like Tadley had such high numbers of diseases that could be linked to radioactive waste but were not really linked to radioactive waste , They were a result of a strange localised genetic flaw that was perpetuated by inbreeding in the villages who historicly in the main had a population made up of navvies who settled once the canal was built........well apart from the massive population explosion from all corners of the country that moved there to work on the bomb factory who are dying but must by chance have that same localised genetic flaw .

---

Well, we gotta blame the local beer then, don't we? Since Fuller's bought out Gales and quit using local water in their recipe, maybe the brew-sippers have ceased glowing so much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

1. Gordon Brown has announced the final British withdrawal from Iraq will take place this coming year. As this opinion piece notes, it is a humiliating retreat, littered with failure and hubris. I know from old colleagues that morale in the Army is at a pretty low ebb. The Blair Doctrine, which was to make the UK indispensable to the US through unquestioning obedience, has failed utterly - as the article rightly notes, the US military establishment views Britain with a mixture of contempt and anxiety.

2. Other threads have been discussing Britain's role in Europe, and I am usually amused by the close-held beliefs sometimes expressed that the UK can somehow retain an aloof standing, relying on her ties across the Atlantic. There appears to be more stomach for becoming the 51st inconsequential state than to be a partner of equals. The nostalgia for a time when she was a power of note is palpable. But when, on this recent occasion, required to live up to that role, she has failed.

3.

It raises questions about the stamina of our nation and the resolve of our political class. It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down.

4. I note that the Prime Minister has also now sold off the last interest in Aldermaston to a Californian company, so that there is no longer any direct control over the manufacture of nuclear arms. (No doubt taxpayers will be particularly pleased at the price commanded in this most robust of markets). Why then, as the article touches, is so much money being spent on renewing the Trident programme? Pure, unfounded pride? Let's be frank - if the United Nations were ever to face reform towards relevance, does anyone think the UK would retain her top seat?

5. What exactly do orgahs think the role of the United Kingdom in world affairs should be? Is it not time to wholeheartedly embrace a key role in the development of a European force? Aim to be a cog in an increasingly disoriented NATO? Or should it be to downsize to cope with purely national interests alone?

---

i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this *edited for xmas*.

1. It can only be seen as a humiliating retreat if you work by the assumption that we really did intend to set up permanent military control in order to dominate teh oil supplies, forever!!!111ONEONE
I have seen no evidence that the US Armed forces in general hold British forces in contempt, but if they were to do so in regard do you think they hold anyone elses forces?

2. I am often amused by the many people who think Britian has no choice but to merge into a federated europe if she is to survive in the 21st century. Yes, we are insignificant compared to the US, so is everyone else, but there is no-one else who could conduct a sustained hot war at the far ends of the world.

3. Yes, since the end of industrial war we have known that military coalitions and alliances are the best way to project power for anybody but the worlds only hyperpower, and..................?

4. See my post above, who is better qualified to remain on the SC than Britain with the exception of the US and China? Yes we will slip, but not by more than two or three places in the next generation.
Utters spheres!

5. As long as Britian has the stomach to involve itself in the sharp end of world affairs then it should do so. We should only embrace european defence provided those nations have the same foreign policy aims as ourselves, which they certainly do not. NATO is a highly successful defence alliance, exactly the thing we should remain totally committed too, as it maintains a strong military tie to the most powerful member of the anglosphere. The day Britian decides it is nothing more than a medium sized power I will move to Australia.

*edited for xmas*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this tripe.

---

Banquo's Ghost is a big boy and can certainly speak for himself. I (and, I think, the other 12 posters in the thread) took this topic not as a joke, or nonsensical, or tripe - rather, as an opportunity to discuss and decide: "Has the UK been Humiliated and Chastened, or indeed Defeated, by it's performance in Iraq?" and "Now, post-Iraq... What?".

It's obvious that your answer is "No, to all". Most of us apparently agree with you. Would you rather never ask probing questions, never challenge conventional wisdom, never hold up someone else's views that diametrically oppose our own, to see if they have any value? I think we must do that kind of soul-searching constantly, else we get stuck in a chauvinist, pat-ourselves-on-the-back, and ultimately irrelevant foreign policy and military policy.

Are you saying in this topic that it's only the UK who has been humiliated? I don't think there are any winners from this war. Even still look at Basra province and the areas. There a lot more stable than the US sector.

Britain now accepts were no longer a super power but the question still remains how the US could do so badly in this war. If you look at the worlds so called super power and its track record these past years it really is an embarrassing sight. Despite what some people will tell you the US got it's a** kicked in nam. That should of been a lesson. Now the US had to have a surge of troops to beat a couple of guys roaming round in trucks with AK's? To me we should be questioning the foothold of not just Britain but the USA on the world scene.

The fact remains that the USA as a super power will be toppled within the next 15 years. That to me seems pretty embarrassing..

And to be honest I would like to see the USA acting now to preserve there status instead of focusing on conflicts such as this. I know when push comes to shove and we need a world super power I would certainly prefer the USA compared to some one like China..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Banquo's Ghost is a big boy and can certainly speak for himself. I (and, I think, the other 12 posters in the thread) took this topic not as a joke, or nonsensical, or tripe - rather, as an opportunity to discuss and decide: "Has the UK been Humiliated and Chastened, or indeed Defeated, by it's performance in Iraq?" and "Now, post-Iraq... What?".

It's obvious that your answer is "No, to all". Most of us apparently agree with you. Would you rather never ask probing questions, never challenge conventional wisdom, never hold up someone else's views that diametrically oppose our own, to see if they have any value? I think we must do that kind of soul-searching constantly, else we get stuck in a chauvinist, pat-ourselves-on-the-back, and ultimately irrelevant foreign policy and military policy.

---

you are correct that it is good to discuss this, and in the spirit of xmas i have edited my reply.

the OP is written in a contemporary Louis style, which i took at face value as being a held view in the absence of a Louis style declaration of intent to post in a controversial style.

i have rebooted my sense of humour module accordingly.

Stop pussyfooting around, vote and ratify already. The 51st state, it is destiny.

Quote:

---

i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this

---

He is questioning the failure on a promise to an ally. A very proud and respectable thing, if only there were more people in the world with such respect for themselves and their country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Stop pussyfooting around, vote and ratify already. The 51st state, it is destiny.

---

LOL. It could go the other way: Calif. and Mass. could become the 4th and 5th provinces of the UK - a secret desire harboured by both States, I've always suspected. :)

Dissenting opinion.

Could the UK run as a third party in the US? :laugh4:

From my perspective I think the British military still has a positive image in the eyes of all I know. :bow:

But… we are easily duped by that accent. :kiss2:

Quote:

---

i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this *edited for xmas*.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So you have a British army fella saying something you don't like and you try and coubter it with another British army fella saying somethig you do like even though your choice doesn't even really touch on the subjects the first fella brings up:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So you have a British army fella saying something you don't like and you try and coubter it with another British army fella saying somethig you do like even though your choice doesn't even really touch on the subjects the first fella brings up:dizzy2:

---

:wall:

i haven't posted a link about the british army.......................

Sorry that was the Transylvanian asthmatic , Vlad the Inhaler .

LOL

"I did not inhale." :grin:

Still confused I see. :smug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this *edited for xmas*.

---

Well, I can only apologise for not living up to your standards. The article I referenced and drew from was written by Michael Portillo, a previous Secretary of State for Defence in a Conservative government, so I thought his views merited some consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

1. It can only be seen as a humiliating retreat if you work by the assumption that we really did intend to set up permanent military control in order to dominate teh oil supplies, forever!!!111ONEONE
I have seen no evidence that the US Armed forces in general hold British forces in contempt, but if they were to do so in regard do you think they hold anyone elses forces?

---

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last sentence as the syntax is a trifle convoluted, but the retreat from Basra has been widely commented on as humiliating. This is because not only were British forces chased out of the city by the militias, leaving a collapsed society behind, it took the United States and the Iraqi Army to apply the force necessary to restore some semblance of civilised behaviour. The British Army, as Mr Portillo noted, made the mistake of hubris - thinking they knew best and not applying appropriate power. This was of course, the early mistake of the occupation as a whole, but the US has recognised this and stepped up to produce some limited success. Britain ran for the airport.

Apologists for the war invariably tell me that the establishment of civil, democratic society to replace the despotic one previously in place is the aim of the occupation. By these standards (now the set position of the UK government) the British contribution has been a disaster. The US could not count on her ally to fix the small area they had been given. In my opinion, that makes for a humiliation. Your attempt to use the oil argument to discredit this view is specious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

2. I am often amused by the many people who think Britian has no choice but to merge into a federated europe if she is to survive in the 21st century. Yes, we are insignificant compared to the US, so is everyone else, but there is no-one else who could conduct a sustained hot war at the far ends of the world.

---

I was not arguing that there is no choice, but there are choices that deserves consideration. Things may change, but the US administrations of the last few years have been much less enthusiastic about the "special relationship" than some like to think. Britain was a useful partner for the Iraq invasion, primarily politically, but as noted above, blotted her copybook militarily. Most senior US politicians of the time were very dubious about supporting the UK in the Falklands War, rightly perceiving that from their strategic interest, supporting Argentina might have been the better option. The level of support in Britain's other military adventure, Northern Ireland, was notably lukewarm.

Which brings me to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

3. Yes, since the end of industrial war we have known that military coalitions and alliances are the best way to project power for anybody but the worlds only hyperpower, and..................?

---

So why is it nonsense to explore whether Britain's interest as a coalition partner might be better served in a new alliance? NATO, should it continue, must soon undergo serious reform. It was conceived as a defensive alliance for the Cold War, not an aggressive invader or peacekeeper. NATO made huge mistakes in Kosovo because of this unintentional political role clashing with its military structure, and continues to make mistakes with regard to actions such as Afghanistan and Georgia. It is quite rightly an American dominated alliance, but this does not sit well in the new realpolitik.

The United Kingdom government has very clearly decided it does not want to fund an imperial capability, but likes to volunteer her forces for such adventures. These forces are now not only woefully equipped, but tired to breaking point. You have senior staff officers publicly stating that if the men withdrawn from Iraq get deployed straight away to Afghanistan, there may well be serious consequences.

My question was, in essence, given that the government shows no sign of changing this behaviour, isn't it more sensible to cut cloth accordingly? Why should power be projected from a country like the UK? The Empire is long past, why be involved in anything short of home defence? Why the need for a nuclear deterrent when no Prime Minister will be able to press the button without permission from the President of the United States, and if that were forthcoming, one might suggest they would be doing the bombing? Renewing Trident will cost a unimaginable amount of money, yet the MoD appears to be keener on useless submarines than supplying body armour and vehicles that might withstand a Saturday night fart.

The British voter will not stand an enormous increase in military expenditure, so isn't it time to think about how Britain will defend itself on a budget of five shillings, a couple of tins of 1940's spam and a looted Persian fertility statue? That reflection may involve thinking again about the type of coalitions that can actually be supported, don't you think? (I apologise in advance for this arrant nonsense).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

4. See my post above, who is better qualified to remain on the SC than Britain with the exception of the US and China? Yes we will slip, but not by more than two or three places in the next generation.
Utters spheres!

---

Your previous post was very interesting and made a good case. I might counter by arguing that one suspects that a reform of the UN would best be served by widening representation and bringing a better regional balance, rather than using sophisticated equations to preserve the current quasi-imperial status quo, but that's a different argument. By the next generation, the lack of regional influence indicated by your equations will have rendered the UN even more pointless than it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

5. As long as Britian has the stomach to involve itself in the sharp end of world affairs then it should do so. We should only embrace european defence provided those nations have the same foreign policy aims as ourselves, which they certainly do not. NATO is a highly successful defence alliance, exactly the thing we should remain totally committed too, as it maintains a strong military tie to the most powerful member of the anglosphere. The day Britian decides it is nothing more than a medium sized power I will move to Australia.

---

Therein lies my transgression, I suppose. I dared question whether in fact, Britain not only has the stomach, but the ability or need to involve itself in that sharp end. Really, aside from the odd sense of pride that has you planning to abandon your country should it accept a certain realpolitik, what is to be gained? Why should British service men and women die for other's strategic aims?

There may well be a good answer for that; and what I was attempting by posting this thread was eliciting discussion that might reveal such answers - enabling me to reflect.

Sorry if that is nonsense. Good thing is, Australia is very pleasant this time of year. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

1. Well, I can only apologise for not living up to your standards. The article I referenced and drew from was written by Michael Portillo, a previous Secretary of State for Defence in a Conservative government, so I thought his views merited some consideration.

2. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last sentence as the syntax is a trifle convoluted, but the retreat from Basra has been widely commented on as humiliating. This is because not only were British forces chased out of the city by the militias, leaving a collapsed society behind, it took the United States and the Iraqi Army to apply the force necessary to restore some semblance of civilised behaviour. The British Army, as Mr Portillo noted, made the mistake of hubris - thinking they knew best and not applying appropriate power. This was of course, the early mistake of the occupation as a whole, but the US has recognised this and stepped up to produce some limited success. Britain ran for the airport.
Apologists for the war invariably tell me that the establishment of civil, democratic society to replace the despotic one previously in place is the aim of the occupation. By these standards (now the set position of the UK government) the British contribution has been a disaster. The US could not count on her ally to fix the small area they had been given. In my opinion, that makes for a humiliation. Your attempt to use the oil argument to discredit this view is specious.

3. I was not arguing that there is no choice, but there are choices that deserves consideration. Things may change, but the US administrations of the last few years have been much less enthusiastic about the "special relationship" than some like to think. Britain was a useful partner for the Iraq invasion, primarily politically, but as noted above, blotted her copybook militarily. Most senior US politicians of the time were very dubious about supporting the UK in the Falklands War, rightly perceiving that from their strategic interest, supporting Argentina might have been the better option. The level of support in Britain's other military adventure, Northern Ireland, was notably lukewarm.

4. So why is it nonsense to explore whether Britain's interest as a coalition partner might be better served in a new alliance? NATO, should it continue, must soon undergo serious reform. It was conceived as a defensive alliance for the Cold War, not an aggressive invader or peacekeeper. NATO made huge mistakes in Kosovo because of this unintentional political role clashing with its military structure, and continues to make mistakes with regard to actions such as Afghanistan and Georgia. It is quite rightly an American dominated alliance, but this does not sit well in the new realpolitik.
The United Kingdom government has very clearly decided it does not want to fund an imperial capability, but likes to volunteer her forces for such adventures. These forces are now not only woefully equipped, but tired to breaking point. You have senior staff officers publicly stating that if the men withdrawn from Iraq get deployed straight away to Afghanistan, there may well be serious consequences.
My question was, in essence, given that the government shows no sign of changing this behaviour, isn't it more sensible to cut cloth accordingly? Why should power be projected from a country like the UK? The Empire is long past, why be involved in anything short of home defence? Why the need for a nuclear deterrent when no Prime Minister will be able to press the button without permission from the President of the United States, and if that were forthcoming, one might suggest they would be doing the bombing? Renewing Trident will cost a unimaginable amount of money, yet the MoD appears to be keener on useless submarines than supplying body armour and vehicles that might withstand a Saturday night fart.
The British voter will not stand an enormous increase in military expenditure, so isn't it time to think about how Britain will defend itself on a budget of five shillings, a couple of tins of 1940's spam and a looted Persian fertility statue? That reflection may involve thinking again about the type of coalitions that can actually be supported, don't you think? (I apologise in advance for this arrant nonsense).

5. Your previous post was very interesting and made a good case. I might counter by arguing that one suspects that a reform of the UN would best be served by widening representation and bringing a better regional balance, rather than using sophisticated equations to preserve the current quasi-imperial status quo, but that's a different argument. By the next generation, the lack of regional influence indicated by your equations will have rendered the UN even more pointless than it is now.

6. Therein lies my transgression, I suppose. I dared question whether in fact, Britain not only has the stomach, but the ability or need to involve itself in that sharp end. Really, aside from the odd sense of pride that has you planning to abandon your country should it accept a certain realpolitik, what is to be gained? Why should British service men and women die for other's strategic aims?
There may well be a good answer for that; and what I was attempting by posting this thread was eliciting discussion that might reveal such answers - enabling me to reflect.

---

1. Your are right, it does merit more than my xmas bah humbug attitude.

2. There have been huge mistakes, but there is emerging a viable representative polity, and the contribution of the British Forces cannot be written off by the late stage intervention of iraqi and US soldiers. When the local gov't opted for a showdown with the militias in order to wrest societal control for them it was going to need more troops. Portillo's viewpoint is just one, and much as i like the old bugger i do not agree with him in this.

3. I am just sensitive to the ill-informed zeitgeist that moves us ever closer to europe (and further away from the anglosphere) when it comes to foreign policy. I agree with americas position far more often than the EU's, and if we are going to be a small cog i would rather it was inside a machine whose direction i agree with.

4. I agree with those staff officers, i am a member of UKNDA, and loath the decision of New Labour to cut defence spending at a time we are at war. I think we should spend far more than we do.
I am fine with SSBN's and a strong navy, even if that means a less interventionist military structure.

5. I included new regional representation, but i accept you may not agree with my methodology.

6. Essentially yes, i believe in an interventionist Britian because there are few other nations capable of playing a role which i believe necessary.

:)

Quote:

---

i am a member of UKNDA

---

OK leaving aside that the pattern of cuts predated new labour by a few decades, look at what you support..Owen Guthrie Churchill Boyce Craig and Muxy....nuttier than a crate of almonds and madder than a sack of ferrets:dizzy2:

i am well aware of the damage done by john nott, but that was at least in response to a desire for a post cold war dividend, labour has slashed by the same percentage after making a peactime defence review and then fighting several wars.

they do a necessary job that i feel deserves my support, after all no-one else is doing it.

What a fun thread and on top of it all with the election of Obama and the departure of Mr bush the citizens of the UK will have one less activity to employ in terms of their international role. Lecturing Americans.

It must be an additional bitter pill for the UK blow hards (know any BQ?) unless of course new labour plans on putting up one of the many ethnic faces of the former colonial empire as the new leader?

Must be very humbling be one upped by the americans and carrying this "humiliation" of the iraq deployment. :wiseguy:

Quote:

---

Must be very humbling be one upped by the americans and carrying this "humiliation" of the iraq deployment.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I suppose it must be humbling for Brtiain for partaking in the farce , but then again America seems rather intent with humiliating itself for a few more years over there .

Its true that it will take many many years for the UK to gain the respect of other nations after playing the role of the stupidly obedient servant to republican interests for so long. I never expected any sort of morality from Bliar but the way he didnt even care about the safety of the troops shocked even me.

The 51st state argument is a good one. The UK is chronically plagued by politicians who don't have the balls to fight for a leading position in the EU and thus prefer and promote the safety of being an unofficial second class state to the US. It could be that, having recently lost an empire, the british people prefer to sit at the back of the bus, so to speak, that to fight for the driver's seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

It must be an additional bitter pill for the UK blow hards (know any BQ?) unless of course new labour plans on putting up one of the many ethnic faces of the former colonial empire as the new leader?

Must be very humbling be one upped by the americans and carrying this "humiliation" of the iraq deployment. :wiseguy:

---

Look, old fruit, if you're going to have a bash, at least get the initials right. :wink3:

My original post was to draw attention to my concern that the UK has made some significant errors in her prosecution of the role given in Iraq. My view is that these errors stem from a post-colonial mindset compounded by political hubris which continues to colour British politics across the board.

I deliberately avoided commenting on the US role because we have addressed that many times. You will not be surprised to know that my views, despite the current "successes" of the "surge", have not changed as to the illegality and ultimate failure of the objectives proposed for the Iraq invasion. (Whichever version of these is in current fashion).

Further, I feel sure that the activity described by you as "lecturing Americans" (known over here as "discussion") will have just as much attraction once the new president is in place. We may however, need to employ words of more than one syllable this time round. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Its true that it will take many many years for the UK to gain the respect of other nations after playing the role of the stupidly obedient servant to republican interests for so long. I never expected any sort of morality from Bliar but the way he didnt even care about the safety of the troops shocked even me.

The 51st state argument is a good one. The UK is chronically plagued by politicians who don't have the balls to fight for a leading position in the EU and thus prefer and promote the safety of being an unofficial second class state to the US. It could be that, having recently lost an empire, the british people prefer to sit at the back of the bus, so to speak, that to fight for the driver's seat.

---

If the 'respect' of which you talk was lost for invading iraq then i am not interested in Britain having that respect.

Or maybe they are both the same, only Europe comes without the safeguards of a workable constitution.

This self-flagellation on the part of the British folk is rather unhealthy.

Regarding US military opinion of HM's Armed Forces:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-flag.htm#yvComment

I think Great Britain should always be at the forefront of world politics, afterall, we have the most highly developed sense of humour, that has to count for something. It should certainly keep us with the top dogs at the UN. :laugh4: :clown: