Sometime ago you may remember that I put up a rambling and admittedly incoherent post about how the EU was bad for the UK's national defence, well this is a hopefully rather more readable take two.

     I stand by the basic and simple premise that the UK must make a choice between being able to influence world events on her own militarily and as a result diplomatically or to subsume herself to being just one more cog in the defective European machine.  The nature of the cosequences of making the wrong choice are readily observable and nearly came to pass twenty five years ago.  The Falklands war proved that the UK was willing and capable of looking after her overseas interests without European assistance, of which none was forthcoming.  The assistance she did receive however was from her one truly reliable ally, the United States.  The help the US provided certainly helped swing the war in Britains favor, but in the end only the Brits themselves could go and take back what was rightfully theirs.  A fine quote from Admiral Sandy Woodward's* book One Hundred Days bluntly warns of the dangers of excessive European integration and entanglements even before the UK became a member of the EU.

     I can not resist a review of this whole affair.  Were I Galtieri I would have observed the Malvinas** negotiations of the last few decades and found little hope of early staisfaction.  I would have also observed that, over the same long period, there had been a progressive withdrawl of , and reduction in, British overseas military capability.  In the General's boots, I would have concluded that at some time in the not so distant future, British policy on the Falklands issue would become all shadow and no substance.

     When the cuts in the Royal Navy were announced recently, the way ahead ust have seemed clear to Galtieri, and he only needed a half reasonable excuse.  Senor Davidoff's scrap dealers and our indignant reaction to them provided just such an excuse.  Galtieri attacked.  His reasoning was as impeccable as his timing was previous.  All he had to do was wait another six months, when Hermes, Invincible, Fearless and Intrepid would all have gone...

     If the Argentinian government, or others similarly minded elsewhere, are to be deterred from this kind of military adventurism, we shall need to provide not only the mark of our resolution on the spot [a flag, a ship, a platoon].  But also the obvious wherewithal to reinforce it [mobile forces, at short readiness].

     We would not again wish to repair our mistakes the hard way.  But it was the last Defence Review that was a problem.  After the needs of the strategic nuclear deterent and the defence of the home base had been met, they decided in favor of the short term, politically expedient, continental European commitment.  This was to the detriment of Britain's long term, long established, worldwide, national interest.  This was plainly evident to Galtieri, and I doubt he was alone.

     Whatever I may have thought before, the Falklands experience has given me a new insight into the capacity of non-democratic governments for immorality and dishonesty.  That capacity is apt to be too common in this turbulent world.  What, if any, should Britain's role in all be in all of this?  It is clear enough that our traditional global policy has long suited our geographic and political interests.  That is a matter of history.  And this war has once again demonstarted that it suits our professional military capability-air, land and sea.

     Our Defence budget, of course can only buy a certain amount. But I am convinced that it ought to be spent where it can influence both European and World affairs.  It must be a mistake to place it where it can affect - and in a very limited way at that - the policies of our European neighbors only.

       The nature of the EU beast is vexingly complex and multifaceted, so much so that the definitive site on the EU, Richard North's EU Referendum has spawned a second blog just for defence issues, Defnce of the Realm check out these to great blogs and their forum for deep background and discussion on pretty much any EU related topic.  As for the topic at hand the needs of Britains distant interests have not been well served by three sucessive governments, one Conservative and two Labour.  They have invested heqavily in often inferior european made hardware that is available form others cheaper, with higher performance and a willingness to let the work be done by and large inside of the UK, creating jobs and the subsequent economic growth and wealth creation that it spurs, plus more tax revenue for the government.  And  some procurement projects that are quite frankly fiasocs of the first order, namely the Cougar Comand Liason Vehicle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, both of which are well nigh unuseable in the curent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      The fact is that today the UK would be hard presed to recapture the Flakland Islands, while they posess plenty of the major vessels needed for the task the sharp decline of Destroyers and Frigates in the Royal Navy would leave the Phibs and Flattops open to attack, not mention the nightmarishly long fleet train required in such distant waters.  I have great personal respect for the drive and ingenuity of the individual British servicemember, but he has been let down continously since the early nineties by his Government and High Command in the name of European intergration, and sadly the cost has not just been wasted pounds and pence but caskets draped in the Union Jack.  The choice is clear to everyone involved, but no one has the courage to do what must be done to save the military capability of the mother democracy.  The people of the United Kingdom must speak loudly and with one voice, delivering a clear and concise message to their servants in Parliment that the UK free itself of the parsitic usurping European Union before it is too late.

Posted by: raging tachikoma at 03:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1060 words, total size 7 kb.