WWWD? Posted by: Dale Franks
on Sunday, April 01, 2007
What would Churchill do? That's the question, among others, that the editors of Investor's Business Dailyare asking vis a vis the kidnapping of 15 British Sailors by the Iranians.
Britain's response to Iran suggests the British lion now keeps its teeth in a jar. Would Winston Churchill have responded to the kidnapping of British sailors by running to the League of Nations?
Of course, what Churchill would do is largely irrelevant. Winston Churchill lived in a different time, when far far different conditions obtained. As such, asking "What Would Winnie Do?" is pointless. Winston Churchill presided over an empire that spanned the globe, and whose navy was the largest and most powerful in the world. Winnie undoubtedly would—and could—have credibly threatened the Iranians with a significant level of destruction. Not that he would've had to do so, since he effectively ran Iran, and most of the rest of the Mideast, as his own, personal dog kennel.
That situation obviously does not obtain today. The British Empire is long dead. Indeed, even the "Commonwealth" exists now as merely a notional idea. Great Britain, the world's fifth-largest economy, now supports an armed forces establishment 28th in size. Britain's fleet is a shadow of what it once was, and if Mr. Blair's government has its way, it will soon be a shadow of what it is now. The British fleet only consists of 44 ships of all types, and under Mr. Blair, the current proposal is to cut that strength by half. Even now, it is doubtful that Great Britain could pull off even a Falklands War-style operation today. In the near future, it will be undoubtedly impossible.
The Britons—more slowly, but equally surely—have made the "European Tradeoff". That is to say that they have rejected national defense spending in lieu of creating a social democracy, with expanded domestic spending on social welfare rather than national defense. The "Grand Fleet" as Admiral Lord Jellicoe would've understood it, has long been consigned to the scrapyard.
The Britons have signed on to the fundamental idea behind the European Union, which is that all international problems can be resolved by diplomatic dialogue, rather than force of arms.
In European terms, this may be true, but only because a) in the aftermath of WWII, the Germans, in their hideous shame, were keen to rejoin the human race on almost any terms, including rapprochement with the French in a subordinate political position, and b) the United States was willing to provide the military power that the rest of Europe lacked in facing the Soviet threat in the post-WWII world. As a result, the Europeans were able to create a new order in Europe, based solely on diplomacy.
Unfortunately, the post-war European experience has convinced the Europeans that the EU paradigm is applicable to the rest of the world. That's unfortunate, because the rest of the world hasn't shared that European experience, so the assumptions that the Europeans bring to the table are sadly naïve.
Winnie would've undoubtedly recognized this. With an anemic fleet steeped in the EU's current ideology, it's doubtful that even he could find a way to force the modern Iranian state to bend to his will.
There is an old saying that, if the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. As it stands now, the only tool in Britain's toolbox is diplomacy. Winnie simply had a larger selection of tools. And that makes comparisons with current Great Britain...questionable at best.
Dale, Ever wonder why the Brits made it so darn easy for the Iranian navy to capture the Queen’s sailors?
And can you imagine a profound strategic reason for engineering (allowing) an abduction where they did?
There’s a tactical rationale that I think answers both questions very neatly, and it’s one I think you can get behind. It’s all about resolving the new Iraqi nation’s sea-rights in the disputed northern parts of the Arabian Gulf.
If the Brits succeed in focusing their case against Iran at the UN on territoriality, GPS coordinates, sea-lanes, and the other essentials of real Iraqi sovereignty, then they can permanently cement Iraq’s claims to those waters in International Law.
And there’s an added bonus. If the debate is framed in terms that confirm the importance of national boundaries and traditional "Westphalian" international order we may score a big hit against transnational hooliganism at its very heart, the U.N.
This raises an important issue I’d wish you and others would address. Has our assumption of the role of Europe’s military provider and the world’s police force encouraged dependency and slothfulness on the part of our allies?
Aside from Britain no coalition partner participated in the initial 2003 war with a proportional contribution. The number of UK military men/women was proportional to ours given the difference in populations of the USA & UK (i.e. the per capita manpower was about equal.) The other nations contributed a far small per capita military force than our two great nations. The contributions of Poland and Australia should still be respected, of course, but some nations, especially in Eastern Europe, were clearly contributing a token amount (against the wishes of their population) to insure our military protection in future wars.
Would it not be better if we refused contributions from continental Europe in wars like Iraq and withdrew from NATO? Isn’t it time they become militarily independent? Hasn’t the military dependency encouraged slothful and bloated social spending while allowing them to pass the buck to Uncle Sam on military matters? Wouldn’t it be best to pull the plug long before Russia becomes a problem again so that Europe can prepare herself (or not as she desires)? And wouldn’t absence make the heart fonder instead of the broad resentment towards America in Europe?
I’m not completely versed in these matters but a debate on our total global posture is long overdue. I’d like to read more on this matter on this venue (as I respect it) and others if anyone has any links.
I have just about finished Manchester’s second volume of Churchill’s bio. It covers his life during the thirties. Trust me (or read the 600 plus pages I just did), Churchill was damn near helpless during that period. He was forced to watch depression-damaged GB (and France and the US) succumb to the same pacifist philosophy that it suffers from today, all while the axis powers simultaneously rearmed, took over massive amounts of territory, plotted world conquest, and started WWII while the western alliance atrophied.
He could do nothing about it.
Only after Germany overran Poland did his nation call on him. He was 65 years old, and still more than up for the task.
Then, when the war was won, the Brits discarded him again. But that’s another story.
Has our assumption of the role of Europe’s military provider and the world’s police force encouraged dependency and slothfulness on the part of our allies?
I believe so, yes. That’s one of the (many) reasons I opposed our interventions in the former Yugoslavia. It was a regional problem that demanded a regional solution rather than the intervention of the world’s sole superpower. If the Europeans didn’t have the ability to deal with the situation, then they had the money to get the ability.
"Churchill had huevos, something that is forbidden in British politics today."
He also had, as Dale points out, a military capable of backing up what his "huevos" said. Great Britain doesn’t have the muscle, and the Iranians knowit.
He also had, as Dale points out, a military capable of backing up what his "huevos" said. Great Britain doesn’t have the muscle, and the Iranians knowit.
The lack of juevos is the reason the Brits don’t have a capable military.
