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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

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.

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...

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).

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.

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.