The G-men or the Granola Army
Daniel Korski 3:00pm
In the last stretch of political campaigns, things tend to get ugly as the real cost of
winning and losing becomes clear. This one is no different, with its suggestions of tactical voting and disagreements about tactical weapons.
The latter has become particularly viscious with a former spymaster, an ex-general and a former CT chief calling into question the securty and defence policies Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.
In their defence, the Lib Dems have positioned their biggest weapon, Paddy Ashdown, who fired a volley against Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, saying that "things had changed since he supplied intelligence to Tony Blair about Iraq and WMD". Bull's eye!
But who is right - Britain's G-men or the Granola Army? In a perfect world, it would be very sensible to review the role of Trident in a leisurely way. President Obama is trying to reduce global nuclear weapons in a bid to outflank Iran; if Britain said it was reviewing its nuclear posture, the US would probably be pleased.
In such a world it would also be sensible to review, publicly, what UK agencies have been up to in the War on Terror. Too many accusations have been brought to light to simply dismiss any and all accusations out of hand.
But this is not a perfect world. Far from it. And the Lib Dem's policies are problematic. Saying upfront that Trident has to be reviewed, sends a signal not of careful policy-making but of
weakness. To publicly prioritise the review of the security services - without a counteveiling and public commitment to their work - risks undemining their work - as the Obama administration has
found.
And while Nick Clegg can cite speeches that he has given extolling the trans-atlantic relationship, projecting the sense that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for a rebalanced US-UK link is a kind
of vote-grabbing subtelty that is missed in DC, Moscow and Tehran. I have given more than 15 interviews to foreign journalists who have asked, with dubious hope in their voices, whether the
Lib Dems would push a new government away from the US.
It is not as if the Lib Dems are a bunch of granola-eating surrender monkeys. Id rather go to war with Paddy Ashdown next to me than the entire Cabinet and many on the Tory front bench. It is just
that the Lib Dems seem willing use the dog-whistle tactics on matters of security without realising that doing so projects national weakness.
Previous
Cuffleyburgers
May 4th, 2010 3:15pm Report this commentMr Korski - surely it's hardly news that the libdems are wobbly on defence or that their policies don't stand up to scrutiny...
toco
May 4th, 2010 3:15pm Report this commentI agree we need change but Nick Clegg fails to represent change for the better.He just shows that soundbites rather than sound judgement is his peculiar talent.
Tim Carpenter LPUK
May 4th, 2010 3:50pm Report this commentProjecting national weakness is the LibDem's stock in trade, whether they intend to or not.
Stevie
May 4th, 2010 4:25pm Report this commentI just read a blog elsewhere and the author was calling for his 'Dream Ticket' of Millipeed as PM, Cable as Chancellor, Clegg as Foreign Secretary and Harperson as Home Sec. The thought makes my mind absolutely boggle with fear for this nation, we'd be like Belgium on the world scene with the economy of Iceland. Are people really that thick as to think that would be a good team to lead us?
Charles Flaccidwidger
May 4th, 2010 4:37pm Report this comment"vicisious" - does that mean extra vicious?
As for the Lib Dems, they don't seem to have really thought this through - like most of their policies I suppose.
Vulture
May 4th, 2010 4:51pm Report this commentI know Paddy Pantsdown is your hero, Daniel, but to describe him as the LIb dems 'biggest weapon' is nonsense.
He makes a lot of noise, but his shells are never lethal. This, after all, was the dolt who was bamboozled by Tony Bliar into believing that he would join the cabinet
in a new 'Progressive Coalition' in 1997.
I fear that little Miss Cleggie will also be left forlornly standing in the aisle by those nasty old parties.
IanB
May 4th, 2010 4:54pm Report this comment"vicisious" - combination of vicious and viscous perhaps? Nasty and thick.
Coeur de Lion
May 4th, 2010 4:55pm Report this commentIf we need a nuclear deterrent, then one that is invulnerable to counterforce strike is required. All the arguments have been rehearsed before at least twice and are readily available and conclude that ballistic missile submarines are the solution. LibDems should be asked "Are you thinking of aircraft delivered weapons?" (in which case let me not live near the airfield) Or, tube fired cruise missiles from attack nuclear submarines - quite possible but not as cheap as you might think. (a) Cleggie - how many nuclear submarines do we have? And (b) would they have to go round the Cape to get on target? And (c) what is their refit cycle? And (d) patrol endurance? Quick, quick, let's have an answer! The election's on Thursday! Our lives may depend on it!
Major Plonquer
May 5th, 2010 1:03am Report this commentThe LibDems approach to the nuclear deterrent shows is a good example of how they are inexperienced in government and can't evolve a 'joined-up' strategy.
For example, if the UK was to launch an all-out nuclear attack on Tehran the resulting 'nuclear winter' would cause global temperatures to drop by 2C. This would solve the Gloabl Warming problem.
Why can't Clegg see this?
stephen
May 5th, 2010 6:49am Report this commentStevie
I could not agree more.
Daniel comes to this site with considerable Lib Dem and Euro "previous" having worked for Paddy the Pants Down and on a fair number of what IMHO are Euro Quango type jobs!
logdon
May 5th, 2010 12:42pm Report this commentWould this be the Ashdown who 'solved' Bosnia?
Now descending into Wahabbi/Saudi control and their triumphalist boasting of a toehold in Europe, the place is fracturing. Yet again.
And that was Ashdown's finest moment?
It's his military methodology of soft cap loveliness which brought about the disgrace of Basra and the even worse capitulation of marines in the Shat el Arab Waterway.
If left to Lib Dems we'd have no army, Turkey would gain accession to the EU with all attendent ramifications and illegal immigrants, their spouses and every Tom Dick and Ali connected with them would be granted immunity.
If we think 'Asian' voter fraud is bad enough now imagine the shennanigans around that little scheme?
Then when things really develop into chaos, forget a politicised diversity obsessed police service, viz the quite open disparity between their treatment of cartoon demonstrators and the Countryside Alliance.
Where is the Army?
Teepee
May 6th, 2010 7:47am Report this commentHey guys, the macho stuff sounds good but there's a slight contextual problem. In a perfect world we'd be able to afford Trident. Not sure who's going to extend the line of credit. Certainly not Angela Merkel.
Back to top