The British have basically been defeated in the South

NRO ^ | 8/10/07 | Victor Davis Hanson

[bnelson44]

We've come a long way from the 2003 British lectures about American obtrusive ray-bans and Kevlar losing what British soft hats and smiles had won.

That quote about defeat from "a senior U.S. official" about the British withdrawal from southern Iraq is probably accurate, but it belongs to a larger, more disturbing context:

(1) the popular British anger at the U.S. (whether evidenced by the "poodle" slur or the latest Pew poll finding that a bare majority of British subjects approves of the U.S.);

(2) a growing acknowledgement of British weakness and appeasement, as exemplified not just by the escape from Iraq, but everything from the coddling of radical Islamists in London to the humiliation of the British navy by Iran.

So there is a logic there: the more the U.S. seeks to be a partner with Britain in harm's way where it is ill-equipped, uncomfortable and thus bound to be humiliated, the more it resents America for doing so.

The unspoken truth is that just as there is no real military alliance called NATO, so too there is no Anglo-American "alliance". Both of course can serve as valuable psychological props, and continue in name through tradition and ennui, but neither amounts to anything militarily or even much politically anymore. We should accept that "getting the Brits or Europeans on board" at best means a few platitudes at the U.N .

The irony?

Continued Anglo-European distance from the U.S. transpires at exactly the time that the world is getting more dangerous for an unarmed Europe from rising Chinese and Russian nationalism, Iranian theocracy, and Islamic extremism-while U.S .public support for basing troops in the U.K. and Europe is at an all-time low.

To read contemporary journalism is to learn of Russian anger at Eastern Europe and EU morality lectures, Chinese frustration with EU tariffs, al Qaeda's hatred of a soft, 'decadent' European lifestyle, and missile proximity to Tehran-and a growing American weariness with all of the above.

For Britain and Europe, it is a classic case of "be careful of what you wish for...

[1066AD]

They effectively got beaten in the 1920s in Iraq as well IIRC.

[madvlad]

The decline of Britian and Europe continue unabated.

How does China pose a conventional military threat to England?

MV

[Rummyfan]

To read contemporary journalism is to learn of Russian anger at Eastern Europe and EU morality lectures, Chinese frustration with EU tariffs, al Qaeda's hatred of a soft, 'decadent' European lifestyle, and missile proximity to Tehran-and a growing American weariness with all of the above.

When Tehran has nuclear missiles capable of reaching Berlin / Paris / London / Madrid et al, and starts blackmailing the Euros over islamic issues, the Europeans will reconsider their theories of 'soft power'. Of course it will then be too late!

[agere_contra]

That quote about defeat from "a senior U.S. official" about the British withdrawal from southern Iraq is probably accurate

VDH is reduced to quoting anonymous sources now? I wouldn't have believed it.

[pabianice]

Europe Surrenders

Holland recently announced it is getting out of the Maritime Patrol Aircraft business to spend more money on social programs. Meanwhile, across the English Channel, London announced significant military cuts. The London Telegraph reports that a confidential MOD White Paper announced substantial cuts in British ships, armored vehicles, and aircraft. The British MOD said the changes were being made to “better prepare Britain for combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.” While supporters are reported to say these changes will permit the use of a more swiftly deployable force to fight on a number of fronts at the same time while enjoying the latest technology, opponents countered that the move is budget crisis-driven "a smokescreen" to hide quite risky cuts in the military. Two major defense programs -- the Nimrod MRA4 surveillance aircraft and the Ground-based Air Defence radar system (GBAD) -- are being cut immediately, reported the Telegram. The Nimrod upgrade program alone has already cost $ 764 million toward the $ 5 billion program. Canceling the MRA4 now is expected to save $ 892 million this year and $ 3.57 billion overall, leaving England with neither a modern Royal Navy MPA aircraft nor an RAF strategic bomber. The white paper also lists other savings: buying just 55 of the 143 Eurofighters with which it will replace its F3 Tornado, Harrier, and Jaguar ground attack aircraft; scrapping England’s 60 Challenger 2 tanks, plus unnamed older tank models; and decommissioning older Royal Navy ships, not yet named.

The Nav Log

[rogue yam]

VDH is reduced to quoting anonymous sources now? I wouldn't have believed it.

VDH is referring to a widely-distributed news story of about a week ago. Did you miss it? I'll help you look for it if you like.

[agere_contra]

No thanks, I remember the story quite well. FReepers were all over the fact that it was unsourced and looked like a MSM plant.

[SolidWood]

"a senior U.S. official"

An anonymous "senior official" in quotes? Why can't we hear his name? Is it because either: he never said it, he lied or isn't supposed to say it.

[RobbyS]

The decline of the British military is like that of the French. Both are increasingly ineffective because neither country is willing to support a competent standing military. The Navy is being cut back to the size of a coast guard. Ironically, Europe has adopted the stance of Thomas Jefferson toward
things military: no standing army, a reliance on militias, a coast guard instead of a deep sea navy.

[bnelson44]

It is from:

As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates

“The British have basically been defeated in the south,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said recently in Baghdad. They are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as “surrounded like cowboys and Indians” by militia fighters. An airport base outside the city, where a regional U.S. Embassy office and Britain’s remaining 5,500 troops are barricaded behind building-high sandbags, has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401_pf.html

[RobbyS]

It would be politique for a member of the administration to speak the truth until the British have fled the scene.

[RobbyS]

This is what Clinton is proposing for our forces. She would leave a temporary and useless force behind as a show of resolve until she could figure a way out to disguise our total defeat.

[EEDUDE]

“Both are increasingly ineffective because neither country is willing to support a competent standing military.”

That’s fine with me, but I hope they don’t come asking for our military to come bail them out next time the SHTF.

I’m really tired of seeing the US trying to be the world’s policeman over the objections of the UN and the anti-American populations of the countries we are asked to save.

[Bladerunnuh]

Don't shoot!

[Bladerunnuh]

No kill I!

(The Horta from Star Trek was also British)

[bill1952]

Good post.

no standing army, a reliance on militias

How does one rely on "Militias" if the population is so unarmed that it does not even have pointed knives and the bobbies are armed with sticks?

[Vision]

finding that a bare majority of British subjects approves of the U.S

Funny.

[Verginius Rufus]

I thought the headline was a delayed one from October 1781...

[RobbyS]

Well,this is really a reversion to the pre-1914 situation, except that there is no empire. Hence no Royal navy and no colonial army. And remember that if in 1940 Hitler could have landed a couple of divisions in England, the Wehrmacht would have made short work of British resistance. Thinking further of course, the same would have been true in 1588. The Tudors effectively disarmed the English nobility and, hence, the people. The Spanish Infantry would have made hash of the England bands.