British Forces Can Stand Alone No Longer

[kskiska]

IT RAN to 28 pages - 64 if the supporting essays were included - of dense civil service double-speak. Long on words, short on detail, yesterday’s long-awaited defence white paper (Delivering Security in a Changing World) appeared intent on shedding as little light as possible on the nuts and bolts of defence planning, other than to reveal that for Britain’s armed forces, medium-sized is the new big.

But tucked away alongside the aspirations for a brave new world of rapid-reaction forces and hi-tech military solutions was one startling admission - Britain can no longer stand on its own two feet militarily. There will be no more Falklands, no more Suez: if Britain wants to take on another state, it will only do so if it has the United States by its side.

On this, at least, the white paper pulled no punches. "The most demanding expeditionary operations, involving intervention against state adversaries, can only plausibly be conducted if US forces are engaged, either leading a coalition or in NATO," it said.

The best the UK could hope for, it concluded, was that by going along with the Americans, the country might be able to have a say in how the operations were conducted.

more…
http://www.news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1359522003

[grytpype]

1. How humiliating.

Britain is now a satellite of the US. They are our Poland.

[JaySherman]

3. The 51st state.

My Brit friends and I joke about this. Puerto Rico is the 52nd, Iraq is the 53rd.

[impeach the gop]

2. Poodle boy has fiends in low places

n/t

[tinnypriv]

4. Surrending our sovereignty

Wankers.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Couldn't put it better myself.

So in the space of 100 years, we've gone from the original superpower to a land that can't invade a rock with a penguin on it?

Rule Britannia my arse. :grr:

[T_i_B]

10. We can still bomb Iraq though

:eyes:

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Yeah, but...

...They don't fight back. Those penguins can be nasty when cornered...

Seriously, if we're no longer in a state to fight another Falklands, how the hell do we defend our country is, say, the French invade(Again)? Use Nukes?

[T_i_B]

22. What do we do when the French invade?

No worries, Make them eat our food and they shall run away anyway!

We shall fight them with pork pies,
We shall fight them with buttered scones,
We shall fight them with growing confidence and growing strength with Pie & Mash
and we shall never surrender.:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

25. LOL...

That's why haven't, for the last 937 years... They bristle at our gristle...

[AP]

5. This is supposed to make Brits think that the EU is their destiny.

And it will probably work.

[tinnypriv]

6. Forget it

Despite The Mirror's best efforts, Britain does not support the Euro, and likely never will, and it is the cornerstone of the EU.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. Maybe the EU will forget the UK.

[tinnypriv]

8. Or maybe the EU will forget the population of Europe

Who knows? The commission could go rule one of the pacific islands. I'm sure the US wouldn't mind.

[Spentastic]

11. Ha ha ha ha a ha ha

AP, you severely underestimate the damage that Blair and his crew are doing to the chances of the U.K ever playing a full part in the E.U.

Blair's Iraqi fun wasn't exactly a popular move within the E.U. The U.K is effectively isolated and the contract mularkey is hardly going to go down well on the European mainland.

Blair's refusal to engage in a serious conversation about the constitution has left Labour looking weak on the issue.

We should be using the Euro by now. We are not and never will be.

This report is an excuse for Blair to forge closer ties with U.S not the E.U. Why does Blair constantly rule out a Euro army?

[J. Hill]

14. European Army

A few months ago, France, Germany and Belgium formed a military alliance. Why wouldn't the UK want to be more closely aligned with that organization than the US?

[Kellanved]

16. They are

Britain jumped on board of that one.

And apparently has the Bush Administration stopped it's intereference shortly thereafter (remember the creation of such a force was initiated by Clinton and sabotaged by Bush).

[J. Hill]

17. Now I'm confused

If the UK is part of a European military arrangement, how can they seek closer ties to the US military. Eventually, the US and the EU are going to come into conflict. What would the UK do?

[T_i_B]

18. Dunno if this article clarifies things

But it certainly might help

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1105350,00.html

[Kellanved]

20. No, I don't see such a conflict

The idea of the EU military is to have a rapid reaction force. Main objective being peacekeeping in Europe (i.e. Balkans) and former colonies without consulting the NATO and thus the US (which is in the US's best interests, as the desire not to be the world police is very well known).

I'm not yet sure what to make of the UK's position.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1105350,00.html


Edit: @TIB : seems we've posted the same article - lol :hi: .

[J. Hill]

23. Maybe I'm too pessimistic

But I see a time in the not too distant future when US and European interests will put them into opposition. It might be over increasingly scarce resources such as oil or it might be on ideological grounds if the US becomes any more conservative. In either case, armed conflict is not out of the question. That would place a different kind of demand on the EU military arrangement. I wonder if the UK has considered that in its planning?

[amber dog democrat]

12. It will happen to us some day

Empires have life cycles - I'd be very leery about operations that require US forces.
Can the US be trusted?

[Gin]

13. just wait until the EU gets its own military force and gives the US a run

for its money....thats what the chickenhawks are afraid of.

They want to conquer the rest of the world before the EU gets too powerfull.

[ze_dscherman]

19. US military spending

is more than the rest of the world put together.

No way the EU is going to beat the U.S. on the military ground. Trying to do this would start an arms race that would bleed both economies into insignificance.

No, the EU will probably set up some limited military force, big enough for small-scale intervention and selfe defence. Then it will lean back and see the mighty mighty U.S. crumble under it's own military weight.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. True, but remember...

...Most of the US military spending is in hugely bloated contracts - when the US Army buys a Hummer, they also pay for a directors new Jag. US forces are pretty much streched to the max at the mo - hence the talk of the draft - and they're only fighting under-armed, untrained militia...

[Bridget Burke]

15. Kipling knew it....

He wrote "Recessional" for Queen Victoria's Jubilee "the peak of the British empire". A commentator quoted it during the ceremonial handing over of Hong Kong to China. Here's a bit...

"Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet.
Lest we forget - lest we forget!"

www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/151.html

[0007]

26. Very good, thank you Sir.

:bounce:

[The White Rose]

27. The PNAC mob are into long range planning.

It's short to mid-term planning they suck at. IMO the current war in Iraq is an inept part of a long term testing of the US military. They are trying to establish what's necessary for the US to fight two major theater wars at the same time (as described in their 1998 report), but I think that, ultimately, the two wars in question are intended to be against the EU and China. Such a war would only be feasible if the threat of nuclear retaliation is neutralised, hence global missile defense. Of course, these guys are completely out of their trees, but since when has insane ambition been an impediment to dreams of conquest?