-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
At Large
British Priorities
Prime Minister Cameron has slashed defense spending. So where is all that money going now?
British Prime Minister David Cameron has cut British defense below the minimum level for national security, despite pleadings from service chiefs, much of his own party, and large sections of the public.
Britain’s front-line Air Force is now hardly bigger than Belgium’s, with only seven squadrons of modern bombers and fighters (Belgium has six). The Falkland Islands are defended by just four aircraft. The Navy does not have a single capital ship. The air operations in Libya have had to be conducted without a single dedicated aircraft-carrier, multiplying their cost and diminishing their effectiveness.
The Army has lost one historic regiment after another, and a succession of coroner’s inquests has blamed the deaths of British servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan on skimped and inadequate equipment.
Where American troops have armored vehicles, British troops have been forced to travel in ancient Land Rovers, leaving them vulnerable to improvised roadside explosives.
Servicemen in all three services have been sacked without warning in mid-career, sometimes receiving notice of dismissal while actually in action.
There also seems to be a peculiar decadent passivity. An elderly British couple in a yacht off Somalia were kidnapped by pirates and severely mistreated while a Royal Navy auxiliary ship, the inappropriately named Wave Knight, with heavy machine-guns and a contingent of heavily-armed marines aboard, stood by, virtually alongside, and did nothing, lest the pirates’ human rights be violated (I am not making this up).
When the pirates attempted to seize a Russian ship, the oddly, but perhaps more appropriately, named Moscow University, the Russian authorities evidently decided it was time for the Moscow University to teach them a lesson: they stormed the ship, captured the pirates, and sent them home, but apparently without benefit of their boat. Given they were several miles from shore, and in shark-infested waters, it is perhaps not surprising that they and their colleagues have attacked no more Russian ships.
Meanwhile, Cameron has said Britain’s foreign aid expenditure is “ring-fenced” and will not be cut in any circumstances. International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell claims that lavish foreign aid makes the UK something called a “development superpower” and that voters should take the same pride in it as they do in their armed forces.
Britain has actually decided to increase foreign aid spending by 34 percent to about $24 billion. Mitchell claims this spending is achieving “brilliant” results and gaining the country admiration around the world.
One wonders if there is not some kind of impulse for national suicide at work in Westminster. Mitchell claims: “My ambition is that over the next four years people will come to think across our country — in all parts of it — of Britain’s fantastic development work around the poorest parts of the world with the same pride and satisfaction that they see in some of our great institutions like the armed forces and the monarchy. This is brilliant work that Britain is doing.”
This includes $600 million a year to India, which, as Tory MP Phillip Davies pointed out, is spending billions on defense and has its own space program. It has a navy with about twice as many ships as Britain, a booming economy, and probably more nuclear weapons.
This is despite the arguments of LSE economist Lord Peter Bauer, whose Dissent on Development was published in 1972, and others including a growing body of African economists, who believe foreign aid, except for emergency disaster relief (where something like an aircraft-carrier might be useful), is actually counter-productive and hinders rather than helps long-term development.
Now, however, the British Daily Mail reports that African countries which persecute homosexuals will have their aid slashed by the government in a bid by David Cameron to take his homosexual rights crusade to the Third World.
Mitchell has already cut aid to Malawi by about $40 million after two homosexual men were sentenced to prison.
A spokesman for Mitchell said: “The Government is committed to combating violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in all circumstances, in this country and abroad. We take action where we have concerns.” This could be taken as a naked declaration of cultural imperialism.
Meanwhile, Pakistan will continue to receive more than $400 million a year, but there the victims of persecution are only Christians, who don’t count. Hundreds of millions go to such dubious beacons of liberty as the Democratic Republic of Congo and the gulag-police state of Vietnam (try founding an opposition political party there, and see where it gets you!), with no suggestion that aid be tied to ordinary human rights.
While all persecution is worse than deplorable, it seems the British Conservative government considers the rights of homosexuals in Africa worth cutting aid over. Not the case with innumerable other instances of persecution, nor its own national defense.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/11/british-priorities
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
broadbanddeals | 10.11.11 @ 6:43AM
If Cameron is taking his crusade to the Third World, he should oppose Mugabe.
Booker | 10.11.11 @ 8:24AM
This unfortunate piece says more about the lack of understanding of the author than the state of UK defence. And hasn't most of this misinformation been used in previous postings? Consider the following:
1) The UK has the third largest global defence budget but the fifth largest economy. So the amount spent on defence is actually more than enough. The UK is not a colonial power and the cold war is over.
2) In order to reduce the huge budget deficit, most departments are having to cut spending. The 7.5% cut in defence is less than in most other areas. After 2015, defence spending will begin to increase again.
3) It is not the size of the defence budget that is an issue but the wasteful use of resources. The current government is trying to improve the situation, but this is not easy when the previous Labour administration let the department run out of control and left an overspend in the MoD of ~£40 billion.
4) The Belgian armed forces are no more than 1/5 the size of the British, and you can double that when it comes to operational effectiveness. The number of squadrons tells us very little. There could be 5 or 20+ aircraft in a squadron. How do the equipment and training compare? What about the state of readiness? All this needs to be taken into account.
5) The Royal Navy has four capital ships. Two 19,000 ton state-of -the-art assault ships and two 21,000 ton helicopter carriers. There are 6 new £1+ billion destroyers and 7 new £1+ billion SSNs (probably the the most effective operated by any navy) under construction. Controversially, the UK is also spending ~£8 billion on two new 65, 000 ton aircraft carriers (the most powerful outside the USN) and will follow these with new classes of frigate and naval auxiliary. If the previous government had not committed the country to the expensive (total cost with new aircraft will be £15 - £20 billion) and questionable carrier programmme, the rest of the navy would be considerably larger than it currently is.
6) The Falklands are adequately defended. The armed forces of Argentina are in a state of ruin and are in no position to take military action against anyone. The islands have a garrison of 1,000+ (compared with 50 in 1982) and could be reinforced by air within hours if necessary. Destroyers/frigates and SSNs regularly patrol the area, and the 4 brand new RAF Typhoon fighters based there (could be doubled to 8 within hours) have more firepower than the entire Argentinian Air Force.
7) The Wave Knight v. Moscow University is taken totally out of context and is a complete red herring. The Chandlers (the retired couple) escaped with their lives. If the yacht had been stormed there is a high probability that they would have been killed. The Russian incident was completely different as the crew of the captured container ship had managed to barricade themselves in a secure section of the ship and were in radio contact with the Moscow University. Rather different to an elderly couple on board a tiny yacht. And the swashbuckling Russians have a reputation for bungling rescue missions - remember the catastrophic Beslan siege? The captain of the Wave Knight made the right decision in the circumstances. And I'm pleased to report that the Chandlers have made an excellent recovery from their ordeal. They have bought another yacht and plan to put to sea again in the near future. True bulldog spirit!
The message here is:
Report things as they are, not as you would wish them to be. Better luck next time!
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.11.11 @ 8:45AM
How's that, Booker? Right below.
Did I report things "The way they are"?
Of course I did.
If you're Ancestors were here, today, they'd kick all of your asses. You're all a DISGRACE to your Forefathers. You've become a Country of "Cigarettes". If you get my drift?
Jack in Wi.| 10.11.11 @ 8:53AM
Mr Booker: Fine comments. we could slash the american war budget 50% and still spend more then the rest of the world combined. It is time we spent our money for defense of this country and not the world. The vast ammount of debt we have accumulated has come from foolish and stupid war spending, especially in the last 20 years. Bring the troops home now and close up all those foreign bases. Let the world defend itself. We are broke.
Kevin Dunn| 10.11.11 @ 11:52AM
Assault ships are NOT Capital ships. There are NO dedicated aircraft-carriers capable of operating fixed wing aircraft in the RN. The 65,000 ton carriers will not by ready for years, if ever, and have neither air-groups or escorts.
The fact that helicopters can touch down on improvised flight-decks on container ships, does not an aircraft-carrier make.
Brtitain has proved it can barely do anything against the fifth-rate, flea-bitten Gaddfhi.How can it do anything thousands of miles away?
The Falkiands and their one, two, three, four planes are pathetically vulnerable. A single bomb cratering the Port Stanlety runway, and that is that. There would be no way its garrison could be reinforced. Look at the map and try to work out how 1,000 men can defend hundreds of miles of beaches and coves on two large and many small islands and a large hinterland. (Incidentally last time there was a garrison of about 100, not 50, but that is by the way).
So Britain's armed forces are bigger than Belgiums's! One would hope so, too. Big Deal!
You say:"Report things as they are, not as you would wish them to be.": I believe this is the Freudian phenomenon known as projection. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain waving off the army to be massacred in Norway with commnets such as "Hitler has missed the bus!" and "This is the best-equipped army Britain has ever sent abroad.
Go away. You bore me with your silly attempts to defend the indefensible. I think Dr Colebatch is trying to awaken Britons to the parlous situation thair leaders have ledthem into.
Booker | 10.11.11 @ 9:34PM
Mr Colebatch's article is up to his usual standard. Most of it is taken from scaremongering tabloids, e.g. the Daily Mail, and he can't even be bothered to check the accuracy of basic information. Some food for thought:
1) Most navies do regard assault ships as principal surface ships. There are no battleships any more, and most navies do not have aircraft carriers. You are playing with semantics, as there is no precise or universal definition of the term "capital ship" in the same way that "frigate" can mean a 2,000 ton OPV or a 6,000+ ton ship with the capabilities of a destroyer.
2) The UK is not a global power and the RN does not need aircraft carriers. The reason they have no air groups is because the disastrous F-35 programme has failed to deliver. With a bit of luck, both carriers can be sold on completion and neither ships nor aircraft will be needed.
3) Does 6 + 13 = 0 (6 destroyers + 13 frigates)? And the ignorant and self-serving top brass and greedy arms industry are just as culpable as the politicians for cuts to the fleet on the promise of "jam tomorrow" aircraft carriers.
4) If the Falklands are so vunerable, when can we expect Argentina's belated attempt to retake them? They couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and the Falklands are safe.
My advice would be to confine yourself to commenting on topics with which you have more than just a passing acquaintance. And learn how to spell Gaddafi.
Actorprof| 10.11.11 @ 12:10PM
I read your post with interest. I went to JANE'S DEFENCE and the ROYAL NAVY websites.
Where did you get your facts? Not meant to be snarky, just curious.
Booker | 10.11.11 @ 9:57PM
There are lots of sources - all of this information is in the public domain and easily accessible. If you're interested, there is a website called "Save the Royal Navy" (Google this). It is updated daily with news and views, but beware! This site is very biased and views the world through a porthole. The RAF (and sometimes the British Army) are given a hard time and you rarely find comments which contradict the "official" (i.e. Nelson would be spinning in his grave) line. Rather unbalanced, but despite this there is some interesting content.
Negro X| 10.12.11 @ 2:16AM
He made them up, first they have caital ships, then suddendly the don't need them. Booker is just another ignorant leftist buffoon.
Booker | 10.15.11 @ 6:49PM
Go and read the post again, this time slowly. Then have a good long think about who doesn't understand what they are talking about. Have I made it any clearer for you? And take some spelling lessons.
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.11.11 @ 8:39AM
I think it's nice that our Effeminate Friends, in what's left of the United Kingdom, can find time to concentrate on protecting the FREAKS in their Country. Don't you?
And, all that "ADORATION" they're getting, from around the world, for giving your money away.
I have a question: Who gives MILLIONS to countries who have MORE OF EVERYTHING, than they do? England, who hasn't got a Pot to Piss in, is giving INDIA, money? Then again, they are getting lots of Adoration.
I, for one, think it's great. Cheerio. I mean....Why not. It's not like you could be spending your TIME and your RECOURCES, on more important things.
Besides, it's not like England has something better to do, these days. After all, it's not like they are IMPLODING, Financially, or, that, people are RIOTING in the street, or, that, Millions of Muslims are living inside of their Country, or, that, there are groups of them, plotting Terrorists Attacks, every day. And, it's not like they have a Population Problem, whereby, they are not having enough children to sustain their own Native Populace, and Culture.
No. Everything's fine.
Let's protect Homosexuals and Lesbians.
GOD Save the Queen!
Elton John.
Con Chef (NB) | 10.11.11 @ 9:07AM
It seems the Britons have FINALLY become SLAVES to their nanny state welfare government. And because of this, they sure as hell no longer "Rule the Waves."
I'm pained for the British military. Besides the Kiwis, Aussies, Danes, Germans & Poles, there is NO ONE ELSE who's had our back they way the Brits have. What're they supposed to do now? Win all wars with the SAS/SBS, a gutted Para Regiment & gutted Gurkha Regiments, no Ark Royal or her Harrier compliment? The Occupy Wall Street neo Marxists could take the Falklands back with paintball guns, for G*d's sake. And they'd better PRAY the IRA doesn't get "frisky" again.
Occam's Tool| 10.11.11 @ 7:16PM
Con Chef--The Kiwis haven't had our backs since 'Nam, sir. Nuclear Policy of New Zealand under Reagan to review. Otherwise, completely concur.
POST American| 10.11.11 @ 9:50AM
"We ARE using MASSIVE third
world immigration to DESTROY
British culture beyond repair, once
and for all ---FOREVER."
-TONY BLAIR
Fmr PM/ Future EU President?
/ Cultural EUGENIST/ Globalist
(Daily Mail interview
cited by ALAN WATT)
--'British' priorities, since the 'CON' serving Maggie Thatcher, a CON-firmed Globalist, opened the doors----decades ago.
SO--------------Keep a goin' Britain!
---------------Chips n' shots n' USURERS
---------------------Just keep a goin'...
Lee Ghume| 10.11.11 @ 9:52AM
The saddest tale out of Old Blighty is the decline of their brewing industry. Global beer factory conglomerates are buying centuries old breweries and brands,then watering down the beverage. Guinness is owned by Diageo and is now a dark coloured punch with less body, a far cry from the bottle conditioned beverage I drank in the seventies. Recently Bass Ale has been ruined by InBev,the recent purchaser of that other global beer marketer: Anheuser Busch. The original pale ale is now tasteless swill. What do the British have to defend anymore?
Con Chef (NB) | 10.11.11 @ 11:02AM
Keep praying they leave Scotch & Irish whiskey alone!
Occam's Tool| 10.11.11 @ 7:18PM
Con:
10 words: UK will be Dar-es-Islam by 2030. Stock up.
############################
Sorry, my friend.
Moe Blotz| 10.12.11 @ 2:44AM
The Scots spell the word whisky, or in Gaelic uisge: the water of life.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.11.11 @ 11:17AM
The British are toast!
In my "future history novel" we send a hundred thousand rifles to England (with ammo), and distribute them to the retired military, retired police, and shop owners.
They in turn shoot the poop out of the Islamists every time they go on a rampage.
www.americaalonesaidno.com
(enjoy the reviews)
You can also get the book at amazon.com
nathan| 10.11.11 @ 12:07PM
Cameron would have eliminated funding for the carriers but he discovered that contract termination fees were so high that he concluded that it was cheaper to at least build the first one. But don't count on the second one being built which means operationally one will be available about half the time. The Harrier has been retired giving them limited capability.
There is no need for the US to defend Europe any more. We should give two years notice that we're leaving and that Europe will be on their own. If Europe increases its collective defense budget to deal with whatever "threats" it perceives, fine. If it doesn't, that's fine too. But we have no business committing this country to the absolute defense of Latvia or Poland or any other European country.
If Andrew Mitchell wants to be "development" super power, be our guest but not with us defending them. The days where we defend countries like Great Britain so they can go off and indulge in such nonsense should come to end.
CalMark| 10.11.11 @ 3:51PM
We are in Europe--Germany in particular--as a de facto Army of occupation. We are there to remind them who lost the war, and why.
This ensures that German tendencies to line up, shout slogans, and unquestioningly follow orders doesn't (yet again) lead to wars of conquest, rape, and pillage.
Don't argue: it went on for almost a century before we parked U.S. forces in Germany permanently. Care to gamble it won't happen again?
Occam's Tool| 10.11.11 @ 7:19PM
Yes, Cal. But we could use a little German Militarism dedicated against the latest Beast From The East now.
CalMark| 10.11.11 @ 8:44PM
The problem with German belligerence is that it always sides with authoritarianism.
Given their "sensitivity" to "Muslim culture," and the firestorm that the truth about Muslim immigration caused last year in Germany, your proposition scares me.
Bottom line: if we let 'em loose, they might decide to team up with the Jihadists rather than with us.
Bob K.| 10.11.11 @ 9:15PM
Germany's birth rate is so low (along with that of other European countries) that by the Century's end there will be no more Germany to speak of. Asia Times columnist "Spengler" (David Goldman) has essays and columns and statistics about that in his web site there.
Smirking Weasel| 10.11.11 @ 3:32PM
The author contends that Tony Blair's stupid twin has 'slashed defense spending'. Yet, in his second paragraph he fully contradicts the concept by mentioning '...the operation in Libya'. If there is one pound(or dollar or euro or name your favorite fraudulent money) for stupid and waste ful undertakings such as this then the military budget is more bloated than Elvis in the final days and should be promptly halved.
Booker | 10.11.11 @ 10:06PM
In agreement. The defence budget should be spent on national defence, not on pretending to be a colonial power. Most of the ex-colonial powers know this, but for the British old habits die hard.
Kevin Dunn| 10.12.11 @ 6:53AM
Theproblem is not Brtain pretending to be a colonial power - though it is acting like one in trying to dictate to other countries their policies on homos.
The problem is that it is rapidly becoming unable to defend even itself, whgether from foreign invasion, or from being swamped by hoardes of unassimilable migrants.
Booker | 10.15.11 @ 6:44PM
Wake up to the 21st century. There is 0% chance of any military invasion of the UK. The biggest threat is economic collapse, not war. One of the quickest routes to national suicide is spending hundreds of billions every year that you can't afford on forces that are surplus to requirement. Remember the Soviet Union? You obviously have a short memory.
POST American| 10.12.11 @ 6:03AM
---The good, and ever put upon,
people of Britain MUST face the deadly
reality of capstone Masonry, its creepy
and sinister roots in USURY, and creepier
still agenda for EUGENICS and totalitarian
CON-troll.
They are facing destruction otherwise.
'Benny violence' they call it.
NO more time to mince words.
----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012-----------
Solo| 10.12.11 @ 11:15AM
The Brits have bigger problems than their dwindling Military capability.
You can actually be arrested and charged for making an "insensitive comment" about or to a member of a protected minority group.
Pity! Just think....over a 1000 years of glorious history...all sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness.
The Labour Party has done to England what Goering's Luffwaffe could not.
"Never has so much been owed by so many to so few".
With my apologies to Prime Minister Churchill.