THINK DEFENSE Blog posted what I consider some pretty inflammatory stuff about the US in regards to our concern about UK defense spending.
via THINK DEFENSE.
In the run up to any possible defence cuts in the UK, the press starts to spin that the Americans are concerned about the UK and its “reliance on US support” to defend its self. Principally the USA seems to be concerned by our reductions in the Army to 82,000.Uh wait...what?
It’s no surprise that the USA is concerned by the reductions in our Army. Given their massive superiority in the air and at sea to pretty much the rest of the world combined but their proportionality smaller land forces. The British Army has shouldered more of the burden in American lead operations than any other international force. My question is should we be worried about US reactions?
I for one am sick of the UK media constantly acting like the USA has a veto on British Government spending decisions and I am even more sick of British politicians bending over “special relationship issues”.
I know at the heart of it none of this is the USA’s fault. It is our major ally and nine times out of ten the best one to have. However the United Kingdom is a strong ally to have as well with a powerful economy and one of the most capable military’s in the world. For quite some time now we have been putting in at least as much as we get back from the “special relationship”. Why should we feel that we have to answer to anyone for domestic spending decisions?
You're pissed because we're concerned that you're about to decrease your Army to 82,000? News flash buddy. That will make the British Army nothing more than a police force. We're fighting on this side of the pond to not see the USMC fall to 150,000. At 82k the British Army would in effect not even be able to deploy a Brigade.
You vaunted air and sea power is not that impressive by any standard. You can take a look at whats going on in the Pacific and you see even what would once be considered 2nd rate forces equaling that AND having gear that is at the very least equal to if not superior to what the UK is currently and projected to field.
Once the UK was innovative and a defense leader...now its falling on the technological lead of the US.
And you say you're tired of hearing about how the "special relationship" is threatened by these cuts?
I've haven't said it out loud but the future of Europe military lies with the likes of Poland, the Scandinavian Countries and others...but definitely not with the UK. In one more generation the "special relationship" will be seen as a minor footnote in history and the UK will become a minor power with no real influence. Its importance is already on the wane and the efforts to drag the US into the Syrian conflict are telling....just like the events in Libya were. You want that fight but in the end we'll be doing the heavy lifting.
So fear not THINK DEFENSE. On this side of the Atlantic we tire of it too.
After a decade of British blood spilt in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan I think you have quite nicely summed up why the UK public is fed up being the USA's lap dog.
ReplyDeleteBe careful what you wish for Sol.
Btw - it's Think DefenCe
@Smithy
ReplyDeleteNot being funny but there is a strong argument to say that Iraq and Afganistan were both of the UK's making. Whilst lives will be lost in most battles and the Iraq invasion follow up was largely an American mess are you saying we didn't have a voice at the table? Bollocks we had our own f**king dining room called Basra, and that got trashed pretty comprehensively.
Whilst not wishing to justify or explain the situations we found ourselves in - because there will be many - one of them is we were trying to do it on the cheap. Snatch landrovers, insufficient helicopters, poor kit and body armour and INSUFFICIENT troops on the ground.
Unless you are blaming this on the Americans then the point about going the wrong direction seems entirely sensible. Whilst I don't agree with Solomon's take that we are going to fall behind Scandinavia or Poland. If we keep selling off our industrial expertise for the benefit of a city boy's bonus and cutting back of defence, then industrial capacities, like has happened with ship building will become uneconomic and disappear.
America has provided 'subsidised' protection for decades, it is time Europe trys harder to do it's fair share. UK does well in this respect, but it isn't the USA's lapdog. Although I do realise that many American's lack of geographical and political knowledge outside their own backyards makes them open to brutal and justified criticism.
@Opinion3: It's not so much of the cuts in defence spending for which I also object to, it's the "special relationship" bone that is wagged before us at every possible moment. We were sold Iraq / Afghanistan as being important as we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our US cousins. It seems that they are only Fair Weather cousins that's what gets me.
Deleteto all. you just don't get it. you (the UK) make special demands, always point to Afghanistan/Iraq and ignore all thats gone on before. you're myopic in your vision and point to low points where America "has let you down" but ignore points where we literally saved your ass.
Deletethat seems to be the European way though....you talk Suez, i say Falklands, you say Afganistan, i say WW2, Libya, Kosavo and all the other messes that you want to deal with but don't have the firepower to do so.
you're an arrogant bunch and i'm realizing that any discussion with you on this is bound to end in failure because all spoiled children you can only see it from your position.
Spoiled children? How petty.
DeleteIn the overall scheme of things its the US who are spoiled children. Dare i mention Vietnam, Greneda, Libya ( the air attacks), Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran.
Seems you have a pretty good record of f***ing things up when you dont like what people are doing.
Technology and quantity are good, but ultimately it cones down to training and quality if the people.
I would take a British soldier every time as tgey are able to consider the big picture when under fire, not just "call in an airstrike and level the village " approach
"you're an arrogant bunch and i'm realizing that any discussion with you on this is bound to end in failure because all spoiled children you can only see it from your position."
ReplyDeleteAn eloquent description of the USA if ever i heard one.
At the start one or two of your points had some relevance. The recent UK defence cuts have been scandalous but you then begin talking like your typical utterly isolated American spouting LM/US defence firm propaganda/marketing hype without ever being able to challenge what you've been spoon fed.
Don't get me wrong I've met some brilliant Americans and they're our best ally and i'll always support going to war with the US cos they've done for us but a hell of a lot of them could really do with leaving America and their comfort zone once in a while and seeing how the rest of the world works. It would really open your eyes!
I am sorry but I am more with Solomon on this, although it appears my friend too is demonstrating attitude!
ReplyDeleteAmerica is a different country with a leadership that changes from time to time. It's people don't all share the same views and they are largely split between those that support the red side and those that support the blue ...... sound familiar.
Lets take these 'letdowns'
Suez - yeah the US of A shafted us big time and we bottled it. But to some extent this is international politics, who could we actually trust not to shaft us if we show weakness?
Falklands War - recently released papers show that the State Department were being 'arses' and the Defense Department were being 'allies'. Officially speaking they were independent!!! It was Thatcher's robustness that ensured the right outcome more than anything else. Didn't show weakness.
Grenada - cheeky and certainly hypocritical response to changes on the ground. But politicians change, if Reagan had been around during Suez things would have been different. I suspect the powers that B asked the Brits what are you going to do about Grenada and we said F*** All.
Libya - they bombed we provided the bases. Team worked well
GW1 - we worked together well as team. Kuwait previously a protectorate.
Kosovo - the US demonstrated to the countries of Europe that the 'so called peace dividend' didn't mean large cuts in defence budgets and a free ride from the US. They were there in the end, very much a European problem and didn't threaten world peace or the States.
911 - Their war although technically they could have enacted the Nato treaty clauses. We rightly offered to help in Afganistan etc, it was afterall the worst terrorist attack on UK Nationals .... However should rightly point out how insulated ('naive') many American politicans and citizens had been. This is particularly true with the massive US support for the Provisional IRA. That said they were instrumental in the peace process and would hopefully have a better chance of spotting terrorists next time!!! OK we like to think we are 'good cop' and they are 'bad cop' - sometimes this method works, sometimes we f**k up. Given Helmand and Basra I think we should think twice about the lectures!!!!! If they want to lecture us then ..... they too can shut it.
GWII - Again our choice, worked well together until the peace plan was implemented - was there one? What an utter shambles. However personally I feel the Congressional system and their leadership generally learns from and remembers their mistakes far better than we do.
Libya 2 - We once again demonstrated that we lacked the capabilities to do what we needed to/wanted to do. This takes us back to the gist of the General's comments. We are too keen to cut capabilities when actually we keep evidencing that we lack sufficient to get even simple tasks done.
As for the abuse / banter .... well
'special relationship' OK understand some of what you are saying Smithy. Its not a monogamous relationship - but in my humble view we invest too little in the 'rest of the world' outside the EU and USofA.
'saved our ass' although not always intentional this is partly a result of the Suez shafting. A dependency was created intentionally and we have repeatedly failed to assert to ourselves that we need to invest in capabilities and show leadership to break free. OK we weren't ever going to carry out 'black' F117 development but lacking ELINT and tankers is pathetic and our fault. A poor showing in Basra and Helmand has certainly reinforced this view on both sides.
The last few posts and Solomon's last paragraph I'm above that sort of stuff. :-) as Colky says there were some relevant points initially.
sorry gents, i won't back down and i won't apologize. i read too many european and asian blogs, i've traveled all over the world and then someone comes to my blog and states that i don't understand the world?
ReplyDeletethe real problem with the UK is that it wants to be considered a major power. it isn't. it wants to be considered one of the great shapers of world event's. it hasn't for a long time.
and yet the UK wants to slash its armed forces even more and expect that no one is going to notice and state the obvious?
the obvious is quite simple yet the UK doesn't want to accept it. THE UK IS IRRELEVANT. ECONOMICALLY YOU'RE NOT A GREAT POWER, MILITARILY YOU'RE NOT A GREAT POWER, there is not one area where you can point to the UK and state that they're a great power. and yet the UK still has the audacity to act as if it is.
thats the truth that the UK can't handle.
Solomon I largely agree with your comments and assessment but I don't think anyone has posted along the lines 'we are a great power .... theme'.
ReplyDeleteWhat has been said is we are a great ally and you guys can be ruddy rude!
i wasn't referring to your comments but rather to those on THINK DEFENSE. oh and when it comes to be rude, don't confuse saying something in a politically correct fashion with stating something plainly.
DeleteSol, last comment on this. Very few people in the UK believe we are a GREAT power, those that do are generally laughed at. What most people do believe is that we can use what influence, assets and knowledge we have to GREAT effect - not as a super power but as part of the broader world community. This is not arrogance, but putting behind our empire days and building a future.
ReplyDelete100 years ago Great Britain was #1 in the world, in a 100 years time it will be someone new, that's life. Treat people as you want to be treated.
Btw - Opinion3, completely agree, we spend far too much time worrying about Europe and the US.
don't quote the golden rule and claim victim hood when you come to my blog talking shit. i'd rather you go into a corner and choke on your own filth. i swear to god you son of a bitches piss me the fuck off.
DeleteFor fucks sake Sol, sit down, have an ice cream or something.
ReplyDeleteThe post was from a contributing author and designed to promote discussion and debate.
Personally I think the US acts in its own interests, like every other country in fact.
The only reason you did or did not bail or not bail anyone out of anything or nothing is because of self interest.
Not sure why anyone would think differently.
Surely it is better to concentrate on what we have in common and how each our self interests can compliment each other.
I mean, it is in our interests to let you have Simon Cowell and Piers Morgan, seems only fair after all
Sol
ReplyDeleteThe reason those sorts get so shitty is because they have pinned their hopes on supporting coalition operations.
We dont need Carriers they cried, the coalition will provide fast air
We dont need amphibious shipping they chanted, the coalition will provide door kicking
We dont need logistics they bellowed, the coalition will provide support
The problem is, a coalition without the US cannot provide anything of the sort.
Libya would have fizzled after a few days without US tankering, AWACS and munitions, indeed it did.
France had to buy in US tankering to operate in Mali, an area it considers its own backgarden.
They are of course right when they say that the UK was the biggest contributor to recent US operations, but being correct is no counter to being irrelevant. And thats what we are. We may offer 10x the troop commitment of Georgia, but we make 20x the demands, and the US no longer considers our support worth the cost of acquiring it.
The angry squawking has nothing to do with facts, and a lot to do with feelings. For a long time, they have in imperious and knowing tones told the armchair admirals that they knew best, if we provided an armoured brigade, the US would let us put a 2* in the command tent and we could "influence" the war effort. The US has piped up and said "no we wont".
Those three words have shredded the UKs military planning for, two decades. Because It'll take us that long to regenerate the capabilities they demanded you provide, and there is no one else on the planet who can provide them.