Britain cedes control of military policy to the US.........incredible

[Pert_UK]

"Long ago, Britain informally surrendered much of its determination of foreign policy to the United States. We have sent our soldiers to die for that country in two recent wars, and our politicians to lie for it. But now the British government is going much further. It is ceding control to the US over two of the principal instruments of national self-determination: judicial authority and military policy...

Two weeks ago, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told the Royal United Services Institute that he intends to restructure the British armed forces. As "it is highly unlikely that the United Kingdom would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the United States", the armed forces must now be "structured and equipped" to meet the demands of the wars fought by our ally. Our military, in other words, will become functionally subordinate to that of another nation...

In April, the Daily Telegraph pointed out that a few hundred men under the command of the EU had been deployed in Macedonia. This, it feared, could represent the beginning of a European army. Blair, it demanded, "must logically reject the plans for both political and military union"...But when Hoon raises the white flag and hands over not a distant possibility of cooperation, but our entire armed forces to another country, the patriots are silent. Why is it that the right has chosen to blind itself to what is happening? And what does it take to persuade it that the greatest threat to national sovereignty in Britain is not the European Union, but the United States?"

Full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,993465,00.html

Frightening stuff.

P.

[Maple]

1. What the hell

does Bush HAVE on these guys anyway?

Photos of a mass inter-party orgy?

They all seem to have gone crazy at once, and are giving away the entire country.

What kind of mandate do they think they have?

[Pert_UK]

2. Reminds me of an old Spitting Image sketch when Maggie was in power.....

A satire comedy show using puppets. The sketch was a take off of the Remington adverts with Victor Kiam (sp?).

Ronald Reagan:
"Britain. I liked it so much, I bought the country."

Maggie Thatcher (emerging from between his legs):
"And I liked him so much, I gave him 50% off!"

Genius.

I could understand Blair's relationship with Clinton (at least they were on the same lines politically), but Tony seems to have failed to notice the change in President.

Blair's getting worse and worse, so maybe it's just a coincidence that his views coincide with Bush's.

P.

[jpgray]

3. Will Blair pull a Thatcher

and pull out o trouble by the skin of his teeth, or will he go down?

[fabius]

6. The goods on Tony

Here's one possibility. Most things make sense when explained in sufficient detail.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=188&row=1

[leanings]

4. Complete misread

As "it is highly unlikely that the United Kingdom would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the United States", the armed forces must now be "structured and equipped" to meet the demands of the wars fought by our ally. Our military, in other words, will become functionally subordinate to that of another nation...

The secretary didn't say the US would not be engaged in military ops without the UK. I'd say the notion that the UK won't be involved in military ops without the US is pretty sound.

What's being talked about here is interoperability. The better two armies operate together, the more effective they become, not to mention fewer friendly fire incidents take place. There's nothing in the comment to suggest that UK forces would become subordinate to anyone. Overblown alarmist claptrap, and obvious at that.

[Maple]

9. Tell that to

Monty.

The US doesn't go under anyone elses command ever. Not even in the UN deployments. And you can't have two leaders. Soooooo

And assuming that the US and UK will always see eye to eye on everything is a pretty large assumption.

Tony is, in fact, taking them into the EU...who have a completely different upcoming military.

[Pert_UK]

10. Not with you....

Nobody was claiming that the US wouldn't be involved in military action without the UK, but the implication certainly is that the UK wouldn't be involved in major military conflict without the backing of the US.

Although this may be a fair assumption in practice, it's not something that should be trivialised or overlooked.

Britain has been opposed to the creation of a Euro Army, and yet seems to be drifting into a de facto US/UK permanent collaboration without any formal announcement or real debate.

This is another example of the skewed World Map, where mentally the British government see the US as about 25 miles off the West Coast of Ireland, whilst those gibberish-mumbling foreigners of France and the rest of Europe are pictured thousands of miles away.

I agree that we need to do as much as possible to stop the US military blowing up UK troops whenever they're within 500 miles of each other, but that's very different from openly deciding that the UK won't ever be fighting without our US friends tagging along.

Basically, that makes us totally and utterly impotent without US help, and puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the US President's whim....which is not good at the moment.

P.

[iangb]

14. "Interoperabilty" already exists..

...under NATO arrangements. All communications and vital infrastructure are compatible.

What is being planned is a restructure that would make the UK armed forces unable to undertake major operations as an independent force. that is what the 'functionally subordinate' comment refers to......the UK would HAVE to have the US in the field on any major conflict.

Not even Australia has considered such a move.....we've adopted Nato standards so that our forces can operate with the US (and UK etc.), but retain the capacity to operate independently

[lcordero]

5. The Brits are better served outsourcing their military policy to---

Switzerland.

:evilgrin:

[inthecorneroverhere]

7. nuestra idioma

Quizás habrá una época en que la gente mirará sobre inglés de una manera de idioma de dictadura y manera de conquistadores. Quiero que no seré como alemán en 1945-1950.

[Tinoire]

8. Too late

They're on a roll now and everything happening now was pre-scripted.

Peace

[annagull]

12. Conquistadores

Is the only bit I can pick out, but the image of the imperialists says alot.

[Capt_Nemo]

11. bump

[sweetheart]

13. commonwealth as an empire

Lets reconsider the british empire for a second and assume that perhaps its a lot more powerful and influential in its appearant decline than in its heydey.... For the past 50 years, the emprire (including america, though she disregards this heritage) has fought in wars as a unified block.

America is sooo married to britain militarily, that a separation at this point would be very very difficult, as secrets and operations are joined at ALL levels of command, and miliary manufacturing in a globalized world.

This issue came to a head over a year ago when america was selling israel those jet fighers with british cockpit displays.... and that the british laws say that the nation's manufacturing components cannot be used against civilian populations (israel was bombinb civilians as ususal... ). The british public expected their law to be enforced for no components going to israel... instead, the rebuke was from washington, as questioning the supply chain integration leads to questioning the military cooperation.

The wife (britain+commonwealth) is more powerful with her husband in terms of multilateral spirit and international cooperation.. and he is useful to her when she needs a rattle snake put down in the kids playground. It makes sense this marriage... unfortunately it casts all of america in the light of big stupid gun-toting patriarch with no feminine values... but that's pretty much the fact on the ground anyways.