Politics

10 January 2009

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

And where would Britain stand? It is a question neither Mr Brown nor Mr Cameron wish to contemplate. The Prime Minister talks about a yes-we-can ‘progressive’ alliance with Mr Obama, which he hopes to consummate at the coming G20 summit in London. He badly needs a nod, a wink or a word of praise from the Obama White House. Yet as history repeatedly shows, American presidents have little interest in notions of political fraternity and decide allies on one factor alone: what military support can be given, should it be needed.

Gordon Brown has already failed the test. Last month, Mr Obama let it be known that he would like 2,000 more British troops in Afghanistan, which he has defined as his top international priority. The Prime Minister sent just 300. Thus Mr Brown eliminated himself from the race to be the first world leader to visit the Obama White House. If things heat up in the Middle East, there will be no Tony Blair figure talking about standing shoulder-to-shoulder.

And what about the Conservatives? Mr Cameron has been quiet on Israel, and no policy is discernible from what William Hague has had to say. Last week Cameron promised to protect defence spending from the cuts he will have to make in government. But this still leaves him far from an answer to the question Mr Blair posed before leaving Number 10: is Britain to have a war-fighting or a peace-keeping military? It must decide, he said, and adjust its defence budget accordingly.

That Mr Blair raised this prospect in the first place can be seen as tacit admission of guilt. He had fought five wars on a peace-keeping budget, stretching the military to breaking point. The legacy was chaos in Basra and retrenchment in Afghanistan. This is why Britain is starting to be regarded in the Pentagon as an undependable ally, with military ambitions it is not prepared to fund. As with so much in the Labour years, it is now clear that the money was never really there.

Next week, Mr Blair will arrive in the White House to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom in a short ceremony that could serve as a requiem for an era. If Mr Blair was unwilling to fund the role he carved out for the British military during a boom, the Tories are unlikely to do so during a financial crisis. Whatever Cameron’s sympathies, they may be eclipsed by financial realpolitik. He may be left with no other strategy than to keep his head down, try to repay the debt and hope Mr Obama can deal with whatever the Middle East may throw at him.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Expat 44

January 9th, 2009 6:11am Report this comment

From Expat 44

Fraser Nelson's real contribution is hidden in the fine print at the end of his thoughtful analysis.

The British Defence Budget has actually been cut in real terms during the years of Brown's control of the national finances. And cut very seriously.

That is because the inflation in the costs of defence eqwipment has far outstripped the Government and Civil Service's claims that "more money has been allocated." It has: but nothing like the amount squandered on social spending.

That leaves the tough choice spotted by Mr Nelson - aircraft carriers or armoured rovers? Typhoon fighters or tin hats?

It is not a question for the MoD. As long as the Services have to compete for the same pot of gold there will be no solution. All the services beg for their own pet projects. What policy makers have to do is assess the threats and purchase to meet the needs.

It is a political, not a military question: what kind of armed forces does the country need?

Britain had better get the right answer - because defence spending is a long term issue and cannot be turned on and off.

A new arcraft might be ten years in gestation - and who know what war we will be involved ia decade from now?

If the first duty of a State is defence, then history will not be kind to Blair and Brown. On this issue , as on so many others, they have failed the nation.

Ask the maimed and crippled survivors of attacks on unarmoured Land Rovers in Afghanistan.

Ask the widows of the aircrew in unprotected Hercules aircraft in Iraq.

There genuinely is blood on Brown's hands.

JF

January 9th, 2009 10:40pm Report this comment

Next week, Blair will arrive in the White House to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It's NOT The White House he should be going-to! ... It's Guantanamo Bay, to a 'CELL'!

I'msoaware

January 10th, 2009 1:21am Report this comment

I agee totally that this is the first step towards awar with Iran. Lets not forget Pakistan nearby who are being provoked by America while all the other distractions are taking place. What right does any country outside Iran have to talk about their nuclear programme. Surely the most dangerous nuclear power on the planet is the US with its insane leaders hell bent on starting WW3. As for Cameron he is just another puppet for the onward march of world totalitarianism. If he is so concerned about matters domestic and abroad, then why he is he so quiet about the continued erosion of our rightful freedoms. The reason is there is a conspiracy to create a war time mindset so that it does come the sheople will comply and send their children to get slaughtered in unimaginable numbers. Just look at the history of this period at the beginning of the 20th century. As it stands our troops are in Afghanistan because America needs its oil pipeline protecting. What other natural resources are there? The Americans are doing the same as the Romans did 2k years ago. Alexander couldn't hold it,the British lost an Amry of 16k during their imperial expansion in that part of the world.

The Masked Marvel

January 11th, 2009 8:54pm Report this comment

Come now Fraser, the dear beloved President-elect Obama will never get sucked into a war to protect Israel. Contrary to the lie that Senator Biden told during the VP debate, the Democrats will not defend Israel, or even aid them. In fact, contrary to the insane ramblings of "Imsoaware", the current US President is denying help for Israel to do a bombing run on Iran's nuclear facility right now. If somebody who clowns like "Imsoaware" believe to the core of their very being is such an evil, bloodthirsty warmonger trying to start WW3 is refraining from helping Israel now, surely nobody can seriously believe that a Democrat President Obama would possibly do anything to help them.

Once Iran nukes Israel, there will be cries of "they deserved it" from Obama and the likes of "Imsoaware". Never mind that Israel hasn't fired a shot in anger against Iran in decades, and there are no Persians in the West Bank or Gaza.

If Israel gets nukes by Iran, Obama will not help, Fraser. He will join the BBC in the hand-wringing, though, if not the champagne celebration.

What's worse is that once Israel goes down, it's pretty much open season on Jews everywhere else. You're already seeing it in the streets of London and New York.

Post comment