What's your verdict?
25/01/2009
LAST week our MPs had a preview of the best war film you’ll see this year. And it’s one with no actors.
The real-life cast is Delta Company, British soldiers fighting the fanatical Taliban in Helmand Province.
And the ending? It depends on Gordon Brown, and whether he’ll reinforce troops in Afghanistan.
MPs had turned up to see Ross Kemp’s Return To Afghanistan, being shown on Sky next Sunday.
For backbenchers and ministers alike, it’s their only way of finding out what our war there is really like.
The BBC, our so-called public service broadcaster, tells us more about the war in Gaza than Afghanistan. We hear about deaths, but rarely the victories, the heroism, the hits we score against the Taliban.
Our Boys are too loyal to complain. But Kemp spent months with them, and he can say what they can’t. His message: we need MORE troops. You can’t hold territory with that tiny number, no matter how brave.
So will Brown reinforce that at this time in recession? Spend more on a war he hardly ever talks about?
It will be a defining moment for our Prime Minister. And it will also define Britain’s role in the world.
Shout
Our retreat from Basra was a humiliation, leaving the Iraqi city to the hands of the Shi’ite militias. We can’t afford to repeat this in Helmand. Britain’s reputation as a world military power is at risk.
Brown’s instinct, as ever, is to put off a decision. He can’t, because Barack Obama wants his answer.
The new president has asked for 2,000 more British troops to join the surge he’s planning for Afghanistan. It’s an agonising decision for Brown. He used to shout at Tony Blair for “wasting so much on defence.
But Brown desperately wants Obama’s blessing. The only way to get this is proving he’s a real ally.
And if he doesn’t? Then he may find that Obama won’t invite him over—or come to visit him. Obama has also told Brown that he only “hopes to come to April’s G20 summit in London i.e. he may not be there.
This would be devastating for our PM, who sees this pointless pow- wow as a meeting of the messiahs.
So it’s make-your-mind-up time. Afghan elections this year mean it’s a turning point. The warlords think the West will soon lose patience and go home. Obama’s determined to prove them wrong.
Brown knows this isn’t just about Afghanistan. It’s about Britain’s status as a world military power.
We damaged our reputation by pulling troops out of Basra. Americans had to go in and fix it. So if we fail to commit properly to Helmand, they’ll detect a theme.
And it’s not about money. Afghanistan costs under £2bn—a fraction of Brown’s £120bn annual borrowing. In John Hutton, Brown has a bold Defence Secretary utterly determined to see it through.
Anarchy
And as anyone who watches Ross Kemp’s film will see, we have the finest soldiers in the world.
So, do we reinforce them and finish the mission that 142 Britons have already given their lives for? Or do we try to fight a war on the cheap and risk letting Afghanistan slip back into anarchy?
There is no third option. Gordon Brown must make his mind up. And Britain’s status as a military power may be decided by his answer.
EVER-CUNNING Harriet Harman has a plan to shaft the Tories. Or so she thinks.
I hear she is badgering Gordon Brown with a plan to make MPs’ second jobs illegal.
David Cameron would never agree to it, she tells him. So a perfect campaigning line.
But who does she think will be in opposition after the next election?
Her mates. Including ex-ministers very interested in finding a job.
Harriet is 3-1 favourite for next Labour leader. Something tells me this is the perfect way to scupper her campaign.
FRASER NELSON is also political editor of The Spectator.
Should Gordon Brown say no to Obama on Afghanistan?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should Gordon Brown say no to Obama on Afghanistan?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should Gordon Brown say no to Obama on Afghanistan?
I say ask the Russians to come on down and join the fun, they know all about Afganistan. Though they might decide to have a few independent policy ideas.
Britain will do whatever its told to do by America as usual Oscar, you know it. Your foreign policy in these matters is not taken seriously any more by anyone, you just do what your told by the State Department. So is its sending more British combat troops (sorry your "boys") to Helmand than that's what you will do, the only question is when the phone call comes from Washington.
The best thing the British Government could do would be to stop pretending its anything other than a offshore European extension of the US now, and instead just admit it to the public, and also give its hard pressed combat soliders proper armoured vehicles, new reconisance aircraft that don't break apart in mid-air, and just pay them more money, considering what these soliders have to endure in chasing these dreams of power and glory long past.
Britain will do whatever its told to do by America as usual Oscar, you know it. Your foreign policy in these matters is not taken seriously any more by anyone, you just do what your told by the State Department. So is its sending more British combat troops (sorry your "boys") to Helmand than that's what you will do, the only question is when the phone call comes from Washington.
The best thing the British Government could do would be to stop pretending its anything other than a offshore European extension of the US now, and instead just admit it to the public, and also give its hard pressed combat soliders proper armoured vehicles, new reconisance aircraft that don't break apart in mid-air, and just pay them more money, considering what these soliders have to endure in chasing these dreams of power and glory long past.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Should Gordon Brown say no to Obama on Afghanistan?
Scrat;1118220 wrote: The US has already asked the Russians and Khazaks for the use of their rail systems, it's secure and large amounts of goods can be moved quickly. Con sidering the fact that Georgia is once again building up forces in northern Georgia (Shakeasswilly has a learning curve that is verticle) and Russia knows that they will pay a heavy price in the future for a NATO success they have little incentive to cooperate.
If the Russians do say yes I don't want to know what the cost per kilo will be.
:-3 Little harsh isn't it Galbally? Sometimes karma can be tough.
Yes, your right, it was a little harsh, but you know what I am on about. Its kinda one of those times in history when some straight talking wouldn't go astray anyway.
If the Russians do say yes I don't want to know what the cost per kilo will be.
:-3 Little harsh isn't it Galbally? Sometimes karma can be tough.
Yes, your right, it was a little harsh, but you know what I am on about. Its kinda one of those times in history when some straight talking wouldn't go astray anyway.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should Gordon Brown say no to Obama on Afghanistan?
When Obabma won the election, The British Forgien office held urgent talks and declared pubically that Obama would not have it it easy with 'Brown'. Is this what it was all about?
This is interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... onism.html
This is interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... onism.html
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should Gordon Brown say no to Obama on Afghanistan?
jimbo;1118237 wrote: fire away hoff i'm sure no one will get upser and we can have a proper debate about this subject 
I think Jimbo thats its time for people in Britain to look long and hard at what the reality of Britain's position in the world is, and what the cost of maintaining the fiction that Britain is a major power by itself is to the ordinary people of the UK.
That doesn't mean that Britain should turn its back on the US, or the EU either. I think that your press and your political class live in la-la land about Britains "role" in the world, and that costs ordinary British people's lives and a lot of your money.
Britain's role was once as the world's undisputed greatest power, based on 19th century naval power, the empire, and trade within it, and some very astute power politics. However, the order that all that was based on was shattered in the First World War. After that, the story of the 20th century Britain was the slow demise of that once huge power, and the trauma's to two terrible wars, especially WW II when Britain came so close to being overwhelmed by the Nazi's. Then the start of the long cold war, and the division of Europe into East and West,
Thankfully Britain survived and eventually the Nazi's were defeated, but I don't think the country ever really emotionally recovered, and why since 1955 Britain has been unable to take its rightful place as one of the three leading nations of Europe along with Germany and France. Some of that made sense, but some of it was just based on the trauma of WW I and WW II and basically an inability to forgive Germany for what happened, understanable, but truly self-defeating in the long run.
The world has changed, Germany is not Nazi Germany, Russia is not the Soviet Union, Britain is not a world Empire, no more than France or Spain; and the commonwealth is meaningless, and even America is no longer quite the global hegemon it once was. Europe is reunited in a way it hasn't been since the middle ages, and the East including China and India is growing in importance once again in a way not seen since 1600. But in Britain, its still 1941 in a lot of people's heads. It isn't though, its 2009, the world is changed.
This is why now, you have huge public knee-jerk animosity about the EU in Britain, a debate based on evil Germans, lazy French Farmers (and their surrender monkey ways) and odd technocrats and their straight bananas; some people even believe that Europe is nothing to do with Britain and you should get out of it (as if Britain could somehow not be part of Europe whether its in the EU or not).
But there is zero intelligent debate on whether the totem "special relationship" with the US has actually been very healthy for Britain's own interests in the last few years. Most people in Britain think its Britain's most important foreign policy, most Americans have never heard of it. That blind spot more than anything else is what led Britain into an actual war in Iraq that was simply not in Britain's interests to fight. Mostly ignored as being too uncomfortable a subject to really debate honestly.
Again, I am not saying that Britain should not have a close and good relationship with America, of course it should; but it should be within the framework of an overall alliance between America and all of Europe, together, as that is a relationship of equals, with mutual respect. That is not what you have had for the last decade.
Whatever happens, everything is changing now anyway, and America herself is changing and reassessing her own role in the world, and what is truly in the interests of America, this is going to force Britain to reassess its own policies as well. The sooner the country does that and moves on, the better in my opinion.
I think Jimbo thats its time for people in Britain to look long and hard at what the reality of Britain's position in the world is, and what the cost of maintaining the fiction that Britain is a major power by itself is to the ordinary people of the UK.
That doesn't mean that Britain should turn its back on the US, or the EU either. I think that your press and your political class live in la-la land about Britains "role" in the world, and that costs ordinary British people's lives and a lot of your money.
Britain's role was once as the world's undisputed greatest power, based on 19th century naval power, the empire, and trade within it, and some very astute power politics. However, the order that all that was based on was shattered in the First World War. After that, the story of the 20th century Britain was the slow demise of that once huge power, and the trauma's to two terrible wars, especially WW II when Britain came so close to being overwhelmed by the Nazi's. Then the start of the long cold war, and the division of Europe into East and West,
Thankfully Britain survived and eventually the Nazi's were defeated, but I don't think the country ever really emotionally recovered, and why since 1955 Britain has been unable to take its rightful place as one of the three leading nations of Europe along with Germany and France. Some of that made sense, but some of it was just based on the trauma of WW I and WW II and basically an inability to forgive Germany for what happened, understanable, but truly self-defeating in the long run.
The world has changed, Germany is not Nazi Germany, Russia is not the Soviet Union, Britain is not a world Empire, no more than France or Spain; and the commonwealth is meaningless, and even America is no longer quite the global hegemon it once was. Europe is reunited in a way it hasn't been since the middle ages, and the East including China and India is growing in importance once again in a way not seen since 1600. But in Britain, its still 1941 in a lot of people's heads. It isn't though, its 2009, the world is changed.
This is why now, you have huge public knee-jerk animosity about the EU in Britain, a debate based on evil Germans, lazy French Farmers (and their surrender monkey ways) and odd technocrats and their straight bananas; some people even believe that Europe is nothing to do with Britain and you should get out of it (as if Britain could somehow not be part of Europe whether its in the EU or not).
But there is zero intelligent debate on whether the totem "special relationship" with the US has actually been very healthy for Britain's own interests in the last few years. Most people in Britain think its Britain's most important foreign policy, most Americans have never heard of it. That blind spot more than anything else is what led Britain into an actual war in Iraq that was simply not in Britain's interests to fight. Mostly ignored as being too uncomfortable a subject to really debate honestly.
Again, I am not saying that Britain should not have a close and good relationship with America, of course it should; but it should be within the framework of an overall alliance between America and all of Europe, together, as that is a relationship of equals, with mutual respect. That is not what you have had for the last decade.
Whatever happens, everything is changing now anyway, and America herself is changing and reassessing her own role in the world, and what is truly in the interests of America, this is going to force Britain to reassess its own policies as well. The sooner the country does that and moves on, the better in my opinion.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Should Gordon Brown say no to Obama on Afghanistan?
oscar;1118239 wrote: When Obabma won the election, The British Forgien office held urgent talks and declared pubically that Obama would not have it it easy with 'Brown'. Is this what it was all about?
This is interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... onism.html
I think what its signalling Oscar is that the Americans (rightly in my view) expect the Europeans to stop whining like adolescents, and look after themselves from here on in, and they include Britain in Europe. The post war era is over, and America owes us nothing. NATO is still vitally important, but America is not going to underwrite everyone else's security anymore. The US has over-extended itself economically and militarily, a period of retraction and consolidation of US power is now inevitable.
In terms of trade, I doubt that the Americans have any great desire to undermine global trade, as that would be self-defeating; however, it would be unrealistic to not expect American politicians to not do something to redress the enormous economic imbalances that globalization has caused to the American economy. Some of that is going to mean an economic retrenchment back to the continental USA, its inevitable if the US is going to pay its debts.
Thats going to simply mean that for EU member states, the global importance of the EU as a fully integrated economic region, (and its ongoing political integration) is becoming more important, not less. Britain has access to the world's largest single market, the EU, and has the power to influence everything that happens in the EU to its own advantage because its one of the major member states, yet you would sometimes wonder whether British people even realize that Britain is actually in the thing. The prevailing mood seems to be that Britain wants out, wants out to where exactly is a question that is rarely posed.
Some people talk about the Commonwealth, as if barter trade with Uganda and Sri Lanka is going to replace Britain's EU membership in economic, political, security, and cultural importance, its absolutely nonsensical.
For us in Europe (including Britain) the most important issues, are rescuing our economies, maintaining European peace, doing something meaningful about the climate, gaining energy independence, maintaining a strong alliance with the US and help keep global politics stable, try to avoid any more conflict with the Russians (which essentially means to stop expanding eastwards, and determine mutually agreed zones of influence between the EU and Russia), and try especially to stabilize the dangerous regions around the mediterranian, including the area around North Africa, and the Levant (i.e the Holy Land). That is in all our interests, but we cannot do these things as little European nation states, we just lack the ability, we can only achieve this things together.
This is interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... onism.html
I think what its signalling Oscar is that the Americans (rightly in my view) expect the Europeans to stop whining like adolescents, and look after themselves from here on in, and they include Britain in Europe. The post war era is over, and America owes us nothing. NATO is still vitally important, but America is not going to underwrite everyone else's security anymore. The US has over-extended itself economically and militarily, a period of retraction and consolidation of US power is now inevitable.
In terms of trade, I doubt that the Americans have any great desire to undermine global trade, as that would be self-defeating; however, it would be unrealistic to not expect American politicians to not do something to redress the enormous economic imbalances that globalization has caused to the American economy. Some of that is going to mean an economic retrenchment back to the continental USA, its inevitable if the US is going to pay its debts.
Thats going to simply mean that for EU member states, the global importance of the EU as a fully integrated economic region, (and its ongoing political integration) is becoming more important, not less. Britain has access to the world's largest single market, the EU, and has the power to influence everything that happens in the EU to its own advantage because its one of the major member states, yet you would sometimes wonder whether British people even realize that Britain is actually in the thing. The prevailing mood seems to be that Britain wants out, wants out to where exactly is a question that is rarely posed.
Some people talk about the Commonwealth, as if barter trade with Uganda and Sri Lanka is going to replace Britain's EU membership in economic, political, security, and cultural importance, its absolutely nonsensical.
For us in Europe (including Britain) the most important issues, are rescuing our economies, maintaining European peace, doing something meaningful about the climate, gaining energy independence, maintaining a strong alliance with the US and help keep global politics stable, try to avoid any more conflict with the Russians (which essentially means to stop expanding eastwards, and determine mutually agreed zones of influence between the EU and Russia), and try especially to stabilize the dangerous regions around the mediterranian, including the area around North Africa, and the Levant (i.e the Holy Land). That is in all our interests, but we cannot do these things as little European nation states, we just lack the ability, we can only achieve this things together.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Should Gordon Brown say no to Obama on Afghanistan?
posted by oscar
Shout
Our retreat from Basra was a humiliation, leaving the Iraqi city to the hands of the Shi’ite militias. We can’t afford to repeat this in Helmand. Britain’s reputation as a world military power is at risk.
Bollocks our reputation went down the toilet when we went in in the first place
posted by galbally
I think Jimbo thats its time for people in Britain to look long and hard at what the reality of Britain's position in the world is, and what the cost of maintaining the fiction that Britain is a major power by itself is to the ordinary people of the UK.
It's not a fiction that the majority of the british people actually buy in to and haven't for a long time.
posted by galbally
Thankfully Britain survived and eventually the Nazi's were defeated, but I don't think the country ever really emotionally recovered, and why since 1955 Britain has been unable to take its rightful place as one of the three leading nations of Europe along with Germany and France. Some of that made sense, but some of it was just based on the trauma of WW I and WW II and basically an inability to forgive Germany for what happened, understanable, but truly self-defeating in the long run.
More so, I think from a desire to hang on to the illusion of being a world power in our own right. We ended up with the humiliation of having to almost beg our way in to the eec. The referendum at the time was in favour mainly because most of the wartime generation still around at the time had no illusions about it.
As to whether he should say no? Our moral credibility is at an all time low-maybe if Afghanistan had been the main target without the sideshow of iraq it would have worked. Now I just don't know. Certainly unless he rest of nato get involved we should just pull out. seems like we do all these things and get little thanks. The uk had been involved in fighting islamic insurgents for decades, bet you most americans don't even know there are british troops there in the first place or are aware we were in aden, oman, malaysia (ok that was against the communists). India, Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and many more.
To paraphrase henry kissinger-the taliban don't need to win in afghanistan all they need to do is not lose.
Shout
Our retreat from Basra was a humiliation, leaving the Iraqi city to the hands of the Shi’ite militias. We can’t afford to repeat this in Helmand. Britain’s reputation as a world military power is at risk.
Bollocks our reputation went down the toilet when we went in in the first place
posted by galbally
I think Jimbo thats its time for people in Britain to look long and hard at what the reality of Britain's position in the world is, and what the cost of maintaining the fiction that Britain is a major power by itself is to the ordinary people of the UK.
It's not a fiction that the majority of the british people actually buy in to and haven't for a long time.
posted by galbally
Thankfully Britain survived and eventually the Nazi's were defeated, but I don't think the country ever really emotionally recovered, and why since 1955 Britain has been unable to take its rightful place as one of the three leading nations of Europe along with Germany and France. Some of that made sense, but some of it was just based on the trauma of WW I and WW II and basically an inability to forgive Germany for what happened, understanable, but truly self-defeating in the long run.
More so, I think from a desire to hang on to the illusion of being a world power in our own right. We ended up with the humiliation of having to almost beg our way in to the eec. The referendum at the time was in favour mainly because most of the wartime generation still around at the time had no illusions about it.
As to whether he should say no? Our moral credibility is at an all time low-maybe if Afghanistan had been the main target without the sideshow of iraq it would have worked. Now I just don't know. Certainly unless he rest of nato get involved we should just pull out. seems like we do all these things and get little thanks. The uk had been involved in fighting islamic insurgents for decades, bet you most americans don't even know there are british troops there in the first place or are aware we were in aden, oman, malaysia (ok that was against the communists). India, Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and many more.
To paraphrase henry kissinger-the taliban don't need to win in afghanistan all they need to do is not lose.