Posts
The British Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace tells the Sunday Times that the prospect of U.S. isolationism keeps him “awake at night” and that Great Britain must prepare to fight wars without Washington.
He mentions the US pulling out of Syria and possibly leaving Iraq as if these were bad things. We should leave Iraq and Afghanistan even if the US stays.
Surely the UK should fight no more wars unless our country is threatened, which is scarcely probable. The only threat of invasion we face comes from refugees and migrants and the only likely threat of war comes from domestic terrorists.
He mentions the US pulling out of Syria and possibly leaving Iraq as if these were bad things. We should leave Iraq and Afghanistan even if the US stays.
Surely the UK should fight no more wars unless our country is threatened, which is scarcely probable. The only threat of invasion we face comes from refugees and migrants and the only likely threat of war comes from domestic terrorists.
For the time being we must make nice to the US and EU to get good trade deals, but after we have done so, let us instead go back to free trade with the world, friendship with all countries, certain pariahs aside, and splendid isolation. This policy served us very well in the past and would again. No more sending young men to die in liberal wars for values, please.
'sending young men to die in liberal wars'
ReplyDelete‘What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?’
Madeleine Albright’s complaint to Colin Powell
The British Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace tells the Sunday Times that the prospect of U.S. isolationism keeps him “awake at night” and that Great Britain must prepare to fight wars without Washington.
ReplyDeleteThis is something that really depresses me. This clinging to fantasies of Britain as a Great Power once again, sending its young men out to fight Johnny Foreigner. It's pathetic 19th century jingoism. But so many Britons seem to eat this stuff up.
Britain's only really dangerous enemies are in Whitehall.
and that Great Britain must prepare to fight wars without Washington.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I have mixed feelings about nationalism. It all too easily slides into militarism and jingoism.
That's also why it might be a good thing for the UK to break up. British nationalism is very hard to separate from dreams of Empire and Glory. English nationalism might be healthier.
Nationalism was but is no longer a threat to peace in Europe. All European countries are under the same threat from mass migration.
DeleteI think nationalism is wrong if it means overthrowing the lawful authority placed over a country by Almighty God. It's an idea of the baleful French revolution. But if it means patriotism and putting the nation first then it is impossible to quarrel with this. What is obvious is that internationalism has gone very much too far. Internationalism was adopted by conservatives when Marxism, itself internationalist, was the threat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI remember reading Roger Scruton on nationalism and thinking I could drive a coach and horses through his argument because nationalism was essentially liberal and revolutionary. I have softened my view since. If nationalism in a nation state means the nation should come first as opposed to the nonsense that people beleive in these days then let's have more of it. So many nationalists, like the SNP and Welsh nationalists are not nationalists but globalists and internationalists.
DeleteNationalism was but is no longer a threat to peace in Europe.
DeleteIt's essentially British nationalism that keeps getting Britain involved in stupid foreign wars. It's the dream of Britain as a Great Power.
And it's essentially British nationalism that leads Britain into foolish and unnecessary confrontations with Russia (and has done for two hundred years).
And whatever the motivations of the elites the reason the US becomes involved in so many foreign wars is that American voters, inspired by American nationalism, want wars.
So unfortunately I think nationalism still is an enormous threat to peace.
Oddly it seems to be British and American nationalism that is most toxic.
What is obvious is that internationalism has gone very much too far.
Agreed. I have no idea what the answer is, but I suspect things would be better if the larger nation states were broken up. Norwegian nationalism is not a threat to anyone because there aren't enough Norwegians to be a threat. A Norway with 70 million people might be a major threat.
If nationalism in a nation state means the nation should come first as opposed to the nonsense that people beleive in these days then let's have more of it.
DeleteThat sort of nationalism I have no problem ith.
I think nationalism can be a problem for artificial countries like the UK and the US. Chinese nationalism is no problem for anyone because they have such a strong sense of cultural identity. The UK and the US have had to rely on imperialism in order to have a sense of national identity.
The UK is not an artificial country but a very clever trinity whereby three countries are one country. Baldwin spoke of the British race, though three races were involved. The Irish of course always made thinks problematic and still do. The countries of the New World are artificial but even the USA was basically an ethnic state in 1783 - in Canada there were basically two ethnicities, the British predominate, until recently.
DeleteI don't know about the British warmongers, but in the United States, the neoconservatives sprung from a group of Trotskyites who came to the New World to escape the fascist persecution.
ReplyDeleteI agree, of course, but too much can be made of this theory. Sidney Hook, Irving Kristol and Elliot E. Cohen (not to be confused with neo-con Elliot A. Cohen) were Trotskyites when young, before and during the Second World War. Most neo-cons were not on the left but are certainly not conservatives. They want the USA to be a country based on universal values not on its own interests. They are Wilsonian liberals as, in foreign policy, was George W. Bush - and in many ways Ronald Reagan.
Delete'On BBC Newsnight last night, former Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt — Johnson’s defeated leadership rival — backed up the weekend warning from Defense Secretary Ben Wallace that Britain needs to prepare for a world without U.S. security protections. “I think it was very courageous of Ben Wallace to say that,” Hunt said. “It’s something that keeps me awake as well, because American commitment to leadership of the alliance of democracies is weaker than it’s been in some time … Ben Wallace is courageous and right.” Hunt insisted Britain has “got to have a better military” if it is going to be taken seriously on the international stage.'
ReplyDeleteI hope Boris does not feel the need to meddle in the world but he wanted to achieve regime change in Syria, like Hillary Clinton and David Cameron, so I have little hope.
With Britain about to embark on a sweeping review of foreign policy, defence and security, Wallace has concerns that recent events in the Middle East mean the UK needs to reconfigure its armed forces.
DeleteWallace says the defence review must give British forces the ability to defend themselves and detect threats that are currently more often the preserve of US spy planes.
“We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. We need to diversify our assets.”
Wallace dismisses concerns that the armed forces will end the review much smaller but makes clear they will have to change to “reflect the 21st century”.
That could mean the army replacing infantry soldiers with “1,000 hackers” or training more specialists with skills once seen as the preserve of the special forces.
He hopes the review will mean post-Brexit Britain is more proactive in advancing its interests using aid and diplomacy as well as the military: “President Putin [of Russia], with an economy half the size of ours, is proactive. The French are proactive in a way we want to be again. I know Boris does.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ben-wallace-interview-we-cant-rely-on-us-pmwcgv398?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=e178d9ef97-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_12_02_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-e178d9ef97-190433189
Hunt insisted Britain has “got to have a better military” if it is going to be taken seriously on the international stage.'
DeleteThis gets back to my point about the desirability of breaking up larger nation states. At least the Danes know they're never going to be taken seriously on the international stage so they don't bother anyone. When was the last time Denmark started a war?
Large nation states are always tempted by imperial delusions.
The Danes conquered us - though I think it was more the Swedes, actually. Sweden of course was one of the Great Powers until the Battle of Poltava when her place was taken by Russia. But I do not want England to be Denmark.
Delete'When was the last time Denmark started a war?'
DeleteIn a power struggle with the German Confederation about the affiliation of the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg on the southern border with Germany. the Danish king declared himself a constitutional monarch, paving the way for the present democratic constitution.
This move led to the war with the Germans (1848-1851) which Denmark won. But tensions continued and Denmark was defeated by Germany in a renewed conflict in 1864. As a result, Denmark had to cede all three duchies.
The northern, predominantly Danish part of Schleswig, returned under Danish rule in 1920 as a result of a plebiscite following Germany’s defeat in World War I. Denmark remained neutral in World War I. A small German minority still lives in the region.
https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/history
" ... if India should go ... England, from having been the arbiter, would sink into the inglorious playground of the world. Wondering pilgrims would come to see us just as they climb the Acropolis or inspect the Nile... A congested population would lead a sordid existence with no outlet for its overflow, no markets for its manufactures ... swallowed up in a whirlpool of American cosmopolitanism ... our aspirations defined only by a narrow and selfish materialism ... England would become a sort of glorified Belgium."
ReplyDelete- Lord Curzon , Birmingham, December, 1907 ...
"In the seventies we tried being Belgium and we didn't like it."
Julie Burchill, sometime in the 1980s
“Putin’s a killer,” Bill O’Reilly said to Trump in a February interview. “There are a lot of killers,” Trump whatabouted. “We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent?”
ReplyDeleteHere, the media dismisses as “whataboutism” Trump’s perfectly logical and correct answer – the one that Trump highlighted himself last week when he ordered the killing of the Iranian general Soleimaini.
https://off-guardian.org/2020/01/11/what-about-whataboutism/