Defence debate? No thanks, we are British

Bob Dixon

We need to look after number 1. There are more plots being hatched north of Watford than in Afganistan.
We do not defend our own borders. "Students" arrive every day to "study". So the first priority is stopping all undisirables from entry. Clearly Border Agency cannot do this so our Armed Services can be charged to carry this work out.
We need to defend our selves from the air.
We need our submarines to patrol our shores.
Fighting wars elsewere is too much for a small island on the west coast of Europe.

P.Haydon

The answers to both questions hinge on foreign policy issues. If it is Britain's policy to get involved in overseas counter-insurgency wars, to fantasise that our relatively tiny but expensively equipped and trained infantry can triumph over indigenous "terrorist" forces with strong roots in the local population, then the wrong questions are being asked.

We cannot win those wars, I offer Aden, Cyprus, Kenya, and Afghanistan as examples. As a nation, we are infinitely more squeamish than when we failed to suppress EOKA and Mau Mau, we have zero chance against the groups collectively known as the taliban. The insurgent holds all the cards, and his royal flush is the certain knowledge that some day we will leave.

As to asking how military power could enhance our position in Europe, that is just a silly question. Miltary power enhanced Hitler's position in Europe, but not for long. Our standing will depend only on our economic strength, which is another way of saying we are a seven-stone weakling.

Our defence policy, in my view, should be primarily based on providing Britain with the means to mount an effect defence of its land, sea, and air space. We could never be sure of defeating any possible threat, but we could certainly be a much tougher nut to crack than we are now.

And just where are we now? We are standing in sombre crowds on the streets of Wootton Bassett, a sad sea of faces resulting directly from asing the wrong questions, and fighting the wrong wars.

TomTom

The last century closed with Western hubris about Y2K and the Central Banks flooded the economies with credit making the Westerners feel they were Masters of The Universe.

The whole edifice of Western posturing after 1999 was based on easy credit and believing everything was possible @in the New Paradigm@ of Clinton and Greenspan. It was an illusion.

Just as Britain thought it could play Imperial Power on the back of London as a financial centre recycling borrowed funds; the USA thought it could re-shape the world while Russia corroded and China was too weak.

The Kosovo Adventure was the progenitor of Iraq and Blair overreached himself by pledging the entire British Army to attack Serbian forces....it might have been a salutary disaster for Britain.

The British economy cannot sustain a major military scope not to mention the demographics. Just look at the birth rate, it is largely Muslim in inner-city areas and the recruits for the Army over coming decades will be young Muslims.

Marcher Baron

We'd better also make sure we've got enough surplus capacity to deal with another conflict in the Falklands.

strapworld

I may be on my own here. But I want our troops to be brought home. I do not believe the nonsense this Government, supported sadly by Cameron, that it is to make our streets safer. The threat is already within us and that is where we should be looking.

The depressing daily announcements of the slaughter of our troops is now becoming placed further down the news reports on radio and television and no longer front page news in newspapers. People are now not shocked because it is not them.

The Dutch may well come out. The Canadians have already said they are coming out. It is time for a brave politician to speak up and say he will bring our troops home this year!

Has Cameron the guts to do that? Will he say we, as a small country, have contributed far too much and it is now up to other Nato and EU Countries to take over.

That would set the rats running for cover.

TIME TO BRING OUR HERO'S HOME.

Kennybhoy

The very real problems alluded to by the first two posters are properly the province of the Security Services not the armed forces.

The notion that Great Britain can withdraw into isolation is ahistorical nonsense.

mat

There was a comment about SDR if I recall - Bob Ainsworth reassured us all that the new carriers are be safe and necessary, not to pre-judge any outcomes. Surely, if a SDR is imminently due it would have been worth doing before committing ourselves to 2 huge carriers and their aircraft and crews?

mitcheltj

The unspoken assumption here is that we need to have substantial armed forces if we are to carry influence on the world stage. The truth is that such influence goes with economic power, and our stock of this is diminishing fast. We are not a world power, have not been one since the second world war. We ought to face up to the truth. I am not advocating isolationism, simply that we recognise reality. Our politicians like to strut their stuff on the world stage - it's a lot easier that running the country properly, and it must be good for the ego telling other countries how to run their affairs - but the country cannot afford it. I would rather spend taxpayers money on ensuring we have enough power stations, decent infrastructure, good education and high quality health services to name a few. By all means let us play our part internationally, but proportionately. So let's cancel trident, eurofighter, useless aircraft carriers, and concentrate on ground troops and supporting equipment. Give up out seat on the UN security council, and as for the Falklands ... they should do a deal with Argentina to mutual benefit.

logdon

strapworld
February 26th, 2010 5:41pm

You're not alone.

Browns canard of keeping us safe is pure bullshit and a disgrace to the troops out there.

Feeding them that line whilst allowing any Tom, Dick and Harry Islamist to provoke and spout bile on our streets is the disgrace of the century.

Choudary would have been allowed to insult the dead and mourning relatives at Wooton Bassett had public outcry and the threat of a counter by the EDL not been forthcoming.

Labour then so rattled at the prospect of this very public display of Muslim/White violence which then would have upset the narrative acted.

This war is unwinnable. Curtailing Islamic immigration is far more practical and sooner or later after a few more outrages or even terror attack it will happen.

We should get out now.

Hysteria

so the defence of BRitain starts at the Channel and on the White Cliffs does it? We are probably not going to see another industrial war (at least, not in the near term) - instead we will defend ourselves by fighting and winning "war among the people". And yes this means increased security at home, but also overseas.

Colin

RUSI's paper A Force for Honour is a useful read. The Strategic Raider option has got to be the best way forward if the UK wants to maintain its military status and standing in the world in reduced circumstances. Here is the link http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR2.pdf

Noa Zrk

Lets try something radical and different.

Two years National service.

Or no dole cheques, no Jobseekers allowance simply a directed labour option.
We would provide an opportunity to learn the values of loyalty, patriotism self respect, work and independence.
Oh wait, that's a post-colonial, illiberal and directorial approach, better by far to use tax revenues to provide drugs, single parent benefits and fund third world mass immigration to expiate our guilt.