US and them
Sir: David Selbourne seems to suffer from tunnel vision in his analysis of failing US imperial ambitions (‘No more Pax Americana’, 14 April). He seems to believe that Islamism is its undoing and makes no mention of nationalism — a far more potent force.
American imperialism is being resisted in Latin America as well as in the Middle East, and the common thread is nationalism, not Islamism. Paranoia about Islam is as widespread throughout the West as it once was about communism, but viewing either of these phenomena as monolithic is much too simplistic. The vast majority of Muslims around the world are concerned with local problems and have no interest in coercively spreading Islam. It is only the depredations of countries like the US, UK and Israel that have given some temporary succour to a small minority of Islamic extremists. If we began to treat Muslim nations with respect instead of as economic prey (or worse), the Islamic threat would rapidly disappear. Events continue to show that such an approach is anathema to Bush and (excuse my spelling) Toady Blair.
Geoffrey McDade
Montreal, Canada
Sir: David Selbourne’s comparison of the misfortunes of George III and George Bush is historically groundless. The American rebels, representing about a third of the population of the colonies, won because they secured naval and military help from the French, Spanish and Dutch. This tipped the scales; Britain temporarily lost maritime supremacy and in 1779 was threatened with invasion. The Iraqi insurgents have no such allies.
A better historical analogy can be made between Bush’s misadventures in Iraq and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. The common ingredients include hubris, slipshod intelligence and a complete ignorance of the passion which animated those who resisted.
Lawrence James
Priorwell, Balmerino, Fife
Naval gazing
Sir: Charles Moore (The Spectator’s Notes, 14 April) has made a quite unwarranted attack on the Royal Navy. He accuses the navy of being incompetent and lacking esprit de corps, and opines that ‘something really bad is happening, and it is a problem that runs deeper than the defects of New Labour’. This is unfair, and simply adds to the woes of an already beleaguered service.
There are real problems with today’s Royal Navy, but they are all of the government’s making. In recent years the fleet has shrunk dramatically and also got a lot older — the average age of frigates and destroyers such as the Cornwall has almost doubled since Labour came to power. It is five years since the navy received a single new vessel of this type. Many of the ships the navy does still have are non-operational as the service cannot afford to maintain them properly.
The supporting industrial, maintenance and training infrastructures have similarly been run down. All this is hardly the navy’s fault. Morale is certainly fragile, and no wonder, but that is not the same as a lack of competence and esprit de corps. Until very recently, the majority of British forces in southern Afghanistan — a landlocked country — were naval (mainly Royal Marines and Fleet Air Arm).
The discrediting of the Royal Navy to which Charles Moore has contributed suits the government very well. Shame on both of them.
Jeremy Stocker
Willoughby, Warwickshire
No sex outside marriage
Sir: I fear Rod Liddle (‘The C of E must make up its mind’, 14 April) is a little behind the times. The Church of England has already ‘made up its mind’ about homosexuality — indeed, it has never changed it. As it affirmed at the last Lambeth Conference in 1998, homosexual practice, like other forms of sex outside marriage, are ‘incompatible with Scripture’. To label orthodox Church teaching ‘primitive’, ‘narrow-minded’ and the refuge of ‘bigots’ suggests that Mr Liddle has been rather more influenced by Richard Dawkins’s secular fundamentalism than he might care to acknowledge.
Mark S. Smith
Colchester, Essex
Peers were a bargain
Sir: The Duke of Buccleuch (‘Senator Duke?’, 7 April) is right to propose reform of the House of Commons. Compare the cost of an MP now with the corresponding figure in 1970, including salary, secretary, researchers, second home, travel, pension and other allowances (e.g. publicity) and consider how this increase compares with the general rise in the cost of living over that period. Any such comparison demonstrates what a bargain hereditary peers were as legislators.
Gerald Warner
Glasgow, Scotland
Bombers’ gongs
Sir: I read with great interest Montagu Curzon’s review of Patrick Bishop’s new book Bomber Boys (Books, 7 April). Unfortunately he makes the same error as most commentators do when discussing the role of Bomber Command: that its members received no campaign medal. They did and it was called the Air Crews Europe Star. Its equivalent British campaign medals were the Africa, Italy, France and Germany, Atlantic, Burma and Pacific Stars.
Christopher Arthur
Durham
Know thyself
Sir: Paul Johnson’s list of European worst characteristics (‘French arrogance, Italian corruption …’) seems quite comprehensive (And another thing, 14 April). Did his Catholic education not include, however, the practice of examination of conscience, itself dear to the Holy Father? Such an examen would surely uncover a British worst characteristic — hypocrisy.
Anthony Weaver
Bedworth, Warwickshire
Comments