On March 23rd, 2010, the BBC News contained an item which stated that Britain’s defence budget would be £36 billion in deficit within the next ten years.
To replace Trident will cost at least £20 billion.
British politicians are, at present, arguing whether Britain should to buy a new nuclear missile. A TV channel has been running repeats of Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn’s Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. In one episode there is a discussion between Jim Hacker (Paul Eddington) and Sir Humphrey Appleby (Nigel Hawthorne). Hacker is proposing to scrap Trident. Sir Humphrey dissuades him with the following appeal – (I quote from memory):
“Among the nuclear missiles it (Trident) is the Savile Row suit of nuclear missiles, the Rolls Royce, the Chateau Lafitte 45.”
In other words, possession of Trident makes Britain a posh nation able to lord it over the yob nations which do not possess it.
And now, we taxpayer-citizens are told, we must pay up for an even posher version. In The Guardian of Saturday March 20th, Simon Hoggart wrote of a wine-tasting he attended to drink some Chateau Pétrus, the most expensive claret, costing £2,792 a bottle.
So I suppose our 2010 Sir Humphrey will urge the buying of the Lamborghini, the Chateau Pétrus of nuclear missiles on an even more impoverished nation than we were in the 1980’s.
Trident will last for quite a few years longer. British Prime Ministers who wish to strut the world stage as leaders of a nuclear power will, we hope, be prevented by angry taxpayers from flaunting Chateau Pétrus nuclear missiles, but they still have some time to flaunt their aging Chateau Lafitte Tridents.
Bankrupts can’t afford War
Monday, 19 April 2010
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Cost of the Afghanistan War
On March 23rd, 2010, the BBC News contained an item which stated that Britain’s defence budget would be £36 billion in deficit within the next ten years.
In October 2008, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade handed over to 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. Interviewed, he said it would be impossible to defeat the Taliban.
A victory over the Taliban, he continued, is “neither feasible nor supportable.”
In October 2008, the Rupee News stated:
“NATO forces in Afghanistan have been defeated. The British, the Germans, and the rest know it. The US, instead of admitting it, is broadening the theatre of operations. It is dangerously expanding the war into Pakistan.”
For a very long time it has been accepted without question that when the nation is at war, there must be no argument about cost; what the military requires must be provided.
That is an understandable assumption when the nation is being attacked and fighting for its existence. Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy at the end of the Second World War, but the policy of all-out war, not counting the cost, did save Britain from conquest by the Nazis.
But why should that assumption apply to wars where there is no risk of Britain being invaded?
Anyhow, such arguments are likely to sound more and more abstract, as the British people discover they have less and less money to spend on the lethal fireworks of modern combat.
Millions of people in the Middle East think the war waged by NATO in Afghanistan is thoroughly immoral. Some of us may think so too. But now we need not bother too much about whether the war is immoral. On the one hand, it is unwinnable; on the other, we cannot afford to continue with it.
Bring the troops home.
In October 2008, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade handed over to 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. Interviewed, he said it would be impossible to defeat the Taliban.
A victory over the Taliban, he continued, is “neither feasible nor supportable.”
In October 2008, the Rupee News stated:
“NATO forces in Afghanistan have been defeated. The British, the Germans, and the rest know it. The US, instead of admitting it, is broadening the theatre of operations. It is dangerously expanding the war into Pakistan.”
For a very long time it has been accepted without question that when the nation is at war, there must be no argument about cost; what the military requires must be provided.
That is an understandable assumption when the nation is being attacked and fighting for its existence. Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy at the end of the Second World War, but the policy of all-out war, not counting the cost, did save Britain from conquest by the Nazis.
But why should that assumption apply to wars where there is no risk of Britain being invaded?
Anyhow, such arguments are likely to sound more and more abstract, as the British people discover they have less and less money to spend on the lethal fireworks of modern combat.
Millions of people in the Middle East think the war waged by NATO in Afghanistan is thoroughly immoral. Some of us may think so too. But now we need not bother too much about whether the war is immoral. On the one hand, it is unwinnable; on the other, we cannot afford to continue with it.
Bring the troops home.
Friday, 16 April 2010
Withdrawal from Afghanistan
The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.
History shows that no foreign power has ever succeeded in conquering Afghanistan.
The Americans were defeated by the North Vietnamese. NATO is being defeated in Afghanistan.
The people of Britain ought to be offered the choice: should the British troops come home? The British Government, elected by 37% of those citizens who registered to vote, does not represent the British people. The Opposition echoes Government policy.
It is a stupid policy to waste soldiers’ lives and enormous amounts of money on this war.
It has been difficult to calculate the number of Afghan civilians killed. But, by every estimate, more have been killed by NATO forces than by the Taliban and Afghan warlords. One estimate reckons between four thousand and five and a half thousand killed by Afghans, but between five and a half thousand killed and eight and a half thousand killed by NATO.
There are also the indirect deaths, including a vast number of children who have died as a result of starvation; in addition, one Afghan estimate states that 120,000 Afghan civilians have been forced out of their homes. How many children will have died through malnutrition and hypothermia, once they have no roof over their heads, or a place to store food?
If neither the British or the United States government can give a good reason for continuing the war, and if NATO forces have killed more innocent people than the Afghan forces, we should now judge the war as not only ill-conceived, not only unwinnable, but also immoral.
The Americans were defeated by the North Vietnamese. The United States Government produced face-saving lies and pretended the defeat was a kind of moral victory. A kind of mental blanket was thrown over the affair, and no one talked very much about it for many years. Luckily for the United States, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and America has been able to preen itself as top nation until now, when, in debt for trillions to China, it is starting to acknowledge its top-nationhood is passing to China.
There is another way to philosophise about defeat in war. One soundbite reason given for the First World War is the desire of Britain, France, and Czarist Russia, to prevent German dominance in Europe. After the slaughter of millions in the two world wars, which was the dominant economic power in Europe? Germany. Germany, with its exceptional economic growth rate during the 1950’s quickly overtook ‘victorious’ Britain as the major economic power in Europe, while the British economy was largely destroyed by the expense of the Second World War. After nearly a century of vast slaughter, Germany is more clearly than ever the dominant European power.
What is the point of winning wars? What is the point of war?
See next post.
History shows that no foreign power has ever succeeded in conquering Afghanistan.
The Americans were defeated by the North Vietnamese. NATO is being defeated in Afghanistan.
The people of Britain ought to be offered the choice: should the British troops come home? The British Government, elected by 37% of those citizens who registered to vote, does not represent the British people. The Opposition echoes Government policy.
It is a stupid policy to waste soldiers’ lives and enormous amounts of money on this war.
It has been difficult to calculate the number of Afghan civilians killed. But, by every estimate, more have been killed by NATO forces than by the Taliban and Afghan warlords. One estimate reckons between four thousand and five and a half thousand killed by Afghans, but between five and a half thousand killed and eight and a half thousand killed by NATO.
There are also the indirect deaths, including a vast number of children who have died as a result of starvation; in addition, one Afghan estimate states that 120,000 Afghan civilians have been forced out of their homes. How many children will have died through malnutrition and hypothermia, once they have no roof over their heads, or a place to store food?
If neither the British or the United States government can give a good reason for continuing the war, and if NATO forces have killed more innocent people than the Afghan forces, we should now judge the war as not only ill-conceived, not only unwinnable, but also immoral.
The Americans were defeated by the North Vietnamese. The United States Government produced face-saving lies and pretended the defeat was a kind of moral victory. A kind of mental blanket was thrown over the affair, and no one talked very much about it for many years. Luckily for the United States, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and America has been able to preen itself as top nation until now, when, in debt for trillions to China, it is starting to acknowledge its top-nationhood is passing to China.
There is another way to philosophise about defeat in war. One soundbite reason given for the First World War is the desire of Britain, France, and Czarist Russia, to prevent German dominance in Europe. After the slaughter of millions in the two world wars, which was the dominant economic power in Europe? Germany. Germany, with its exceptional economic growth rate during the 1950’s quickly overtook ‘victorious’ Britain as the major economic power in Europe, while the British economy was largely destroyed by the expense of the Second World War. After nearly a century of vast slaughter, Germany is more clearly than ever the dominant European power.
What is the point of winning wars? What is the point of war?
See next post.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Participation Politics & Tony Benn
The Guardian on March 17th, 2005, contained an article by Tony Benn titled Not apathy, but anger.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.”
Tony Benn is living up to what he promised. He tours the country incessantly, calling on British citizens disillusioned with government, politicians, Parliament, and the inadequacy of a system which describes itself as democracy, but is not democracy, to take to the streets in public protest.
One of the causes for which he campaigns tirelessly is the call to bring back British troops from Afghanistan. Anyone who bothers to read history will know that no foreign power has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan.
The Afghan war is unwinnable. NATO should admit defeat, and if NATO insists on continuing to fight, Britain should anyhow withdraw its troops.
The Afghan war is unwinnable.
Bring the troops home.
See next post
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.”
Tony Benn is living up to what he promised. He tours the country incessantly, calling on British citizens disillusioned with government, politicians, Parliament, and the inadequacy of a system which describes itself as democracy, but is not democracy, to take to the streets in public protest.
One of the causes for which he campaigns tirelessly is the call to bring back British troops from Afghanistan. Anyone who bothers to read history will know that no foreign power has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan.
The Afghan war is unwinnable. NATO should admit defeat, and if NATO insists on continuing to fight, Britain should anyhow withdraw its troops.
The Afghan war is unwinnable.
Bring the troops home.
See next post
Mary Robinson on government role in saving Planet Earth.
Mary Robinson was President of Ireland 1990 – 1997 , and then worked for the United Nations in New York, first as High Commissioner for Human Rights 1997 – 2002 until George W. Bush had her removed from that post because of her support for the Palestinians.
Now she has been asked by Nelson Mandela to become one of the Elders,
a group of 12 ‘wise people’ under the chairmanship of Desmond Tutu.
She was the subject of The Aida Edemariam Interview, in The Guardian of Saturday March 13th, 201, The article described her disgust with the failure of the Copenhagen Conference. Mrs Robinson regards governments as incapable of dealing with the crises which face humanity.
If not governments, who then? Mrs Robinson suggests:
”Civil society: “I mean churches, I mean business, I mean trades unions, I mean the normal environmental groups, development groups, youth groups – as never before we have to build up the pressure.”
From that article, and in general, it is difficult to see what practical projects Mrs Robinson envisages.
But leave that aside for a while. What is immediately noteworthy is that a politician of her stature has given it as her opinion that governments – and therefore, by implication, the whole political process – is irrelevant to the important issues facing this generation.
Many of us powerless individuals have been saying for some time that Prime Ministers and Presidents, Cabinets, Parliaments, and Congresses, are now more or less irrelevant.
Now, an ex-President, has said she agrees with us.
Now she has been asked by Nelson Mandela to become one of the Elders,
a group of 12 ‘wise people’ under the chairmanship of Desmond Tutu.
She was the subject of The Aida Edemariam Interview, in The Guardian of Saturday March 13th, 201, The article described her disgust with the failure of the Copenhagen Conference. Mrs Robinson regards governments as incapable of dealing with the crises which face humanity.
If not governments, who then? Mrs Robinson suggests:
”Civil society: “I mean churches, I mean business, I mean trades unions, I mean the normal environmental groups, development groups, youth groups – as never before we have to build up the pressure.”
From that article, and in general, it is difficult to see what practical projects Mrs Robinson envisages.
But leave that aside for a while. What is immediately noteworthy is that a politician of her stature has given it as her opinion that governments – and therefore, by implication, the whole political process – is irrelevant to the important issues facing this generation.
Many of us powerless individuals have been saying for some time that Prime Ministers and Presidents, Cabinets, Parliaments, and Congresses, are now more or less irrelevant.
Now, an ex-President, has said she agrees with us.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Party politics: Marine pollution
On March 3rd, 2010, The New Statesman contained an article which stated that, according to the Electoral Commission, 56 % of 17 – 25 year-olds have not bothered to register for voting.
They will, however, sign Avaaz petitions.
Avaaz is an international grouping of people who have signed up to its petitions to bring peace to Gaza, http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_time_for_peace/
to save the oceans from over-fishing, the BBC from Murdoch, to protect endangered civilians in the Congo,
to protest against Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory,
Iranian internet black-out,
and, perhaps most frequently, to urge action on climate change.
We could summarise Avaaz’s relationship to the non-electorate as follows:
British General Election ignores global poison. Young people ignore British General Election.
On February 24th, 2010, the Telegraph on line contained a post by Ed Cumming, taking a stance as typical of eighteen-year-olds for whom 2010 offered the first General Election in which they were entitled to vote. He used the post to announce he will not be bothering to vote, because none of the parties are interested in the issues which concern him.
“The thought of Brown staying in charge makes most of us want to oblige the fate prophesised (sic) for us and jump into the nearest wheelie bin to die from drugs.
…
“Yet David Cameron, slick with PR oil, is almost as unelectable. The polls appear to be noticing this, finally, but we’ve been saying it for years.”
Incompetent Brown, untrustworthy Cameron.
Bad luck, handsome David Cameron, they sussed you had air-brushed your poster
Poor Gordon Brown Charles Clarke - a man who seems to hate with passion anyone who isn’t Charles Clarke – is rounding on Gordon Brown again.
On March 3rd, I received an email from Avaaz, asking me for my signature on a petition to the British government to create a marine protection area round the Chagos islands in the Indian Ocean.
The email states “The reports are dire: in 38 years our oceans could be completely fished out; in 100 years, all coral reefs might be dead.”
In the few minutes I took to write these paragraphs, between 30 and 40 signatures were added to the Avaaz petition.
Need we say more?
Yes, because it is not only young people who condemn the petty squabblings of our pathetic politicians. It is all of us.
There is a real possibility that we human beings will render the earth uninhabitable before those who are eighteen this year reach their life expectancy term.
Somehow we need to sideline these Brownlets and Cameronlets, and bring in democracy. Then the young people, and the old people, and the middle-aged people, will take part in a new politics, and possibly even save the world.
Shall we vote? Or save the oceans?
They will, however, sign Avaaz petitions.
Avaaz is an international grouping of people who have signed up to its petitions to bring peace to Gaza, http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_time_for_peace/
to save the oceans from over-fishing, the BBC from Murdoch, to protect endangered civilians in the Congo,
to protest against Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory,
Iranian internet black-out,
and, perhaps most frequently, to urge action on climate change.
We could summarise Avaaz’s relationship to the non-electorate as follows:
British General Election ignores global poison. Young people ignore British General Election.
On February 24th, 2010, the Telegraph on line contained a post by Ed Cumming, taking a stance as typical of eighteen-year-olds for whom 2010 offered the first General Election in which they were entitled to vote. He used the post to announce he will not be bothering to vote, because none of the parties are interested in the issues which concern him.
“The thought of Brown staying in charge makes most of us want to oblige the fate prophesised (sic) for us and jump into the nearest wheelie bin to die from drugs.
…
“Yet David Cameron, slick with PR oil, is almost as unelectable. The polls appear to be noticing this, finally, but we’ve been saying it for years.”
Incompetent Brown, untrustworthy Cameron.
Bad luck, handsome David Cameron, they sussed you had air-brushed your poster
Poor Gordon Brown Charles Clarke - a man who seems to hate with passion anyone who isn’t Charles Clarke – is rounding on Gordon Brown again.
On March 3rd, I received an email from Avaaz, asking me for my signature on a petition to the British government to create a marine protection area round the Chagos islands in the Indian Ocean.
The email states “The reports are dire: in 38 years our oceans could be completely fished out; in 100 years, all coral reefs might be dead.”
In the few minutes I took to write these paragraphs, between 30 and 40 signatures were added to the Avaaz petition.
Need we say more?
Yes, because it is not only young people who condemn the petty squabblings of our pathetic politicians. It is all of us.
There is a real possibility that we human beings will render the earth uninhabitable before those who are eighteen this year reach their life expectancy term.
Somehow we need to sideline these Brownlets and Cameronlets, and bring in democracy. Then the young people, and the old people, and the middle-aged people, will take part in a new politics, and possibly even save the world.
Shall we vote? Or save the oceans?
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Reform Parliament: Corruption Education
The political process provides outstanding object lessons for youth in what can best be described as corruption education.
So let’s congratulate David Chaytor, Eliot Morley, and Jim Devine. Although all three of them are well blessed with handsome salaries, and therefore should not be eligible for legal aid when accused of fiddling expenses, this noble trio has managed to manipulate the system so that when they come to trial, their luxurious legal fees will be paid by us, the British citizen body. If the case goes to Appeal, it may apparently cost us £1 million pounds.
The first lesson in corruption education gained from observing this piece of relatively petty chicanery is the obvious one. In politics, it pays to be a bit dishonest. Think back over history, most ‘great’ leaders have been rogues and cheats for much of their time in power.
But the important lesson is a subtler one. Reform Parliament is the shout. Too many MPs have cheated on expenses making us, the taxpayers fund their duck houses and second home furnishings, and so on. So – reform Parliament. Everyone says their piece, and a few MPs are sacked. Then there’s a General Election; new MPs arrive in the House of Commons, and most of the silly things done in Parliament for the last few hundred years will continue to be done by the next Parliament.
The real lesson of this sorry episode is that the forthcoming election will be argued on trivialities. Of course Britain’s enormous debt is not triviality. But the politicians of all parties have made it very clear to us that they have no idea whatsoever as to how to diminish the debt. So if we are thinking about how to reduce Britain’s deficit we might as well vote by spinning a coin as by listening to Messrs Darling and Osborne
There are questions, serious, important, questions, which the forthcoming election
should decide:
1. Should we withdraw from Afghanistan?
2. Should we now decide not to replace Trident nuclear missile system?
3. How can we most quickly and efficiently produce electricity for all the nation’s needs without using fossil fuels?
4. How can we turn Britain into a democracy, ie stop Britain being ruled by a political party elected by a small proportion of the nation’s citizens?
Reform Parliament? We may have to scrap it and start again from scratch.
So let’s congratulate David Chaytor, Eliot Morley, and Jim Devine. Although all three of them are well blessed with handsome salaries, and therefore should not be eligible for legal aid when accused of fiddling expenses, this noble trio has managed to manipulate the system so that when they come to trial, their luxurious legal fees will be paid by us, the British citizen body. If the case goes to Appeal, it may apparently cost us £1 million pounds.
The first lesson in corruption education gained from observing this piece of relatively petty chicanery is the obvious one. In politics, it pays to be a bit dishonest. Think back over history, most ‘great’ leaders have been rogues and cheats for much of their time in power.
But the important lesson is a subtler one. Reform Parliament is the shout. Too many MPs have cheated on expenses making us, the taxpayers fund their duck houses and second home furnishings, and so on. So – reform Parliament. Everyone says their piece, and a few MPs are sacked. Then there’s a General Election; new MPs arrive in the House of Commons, and most of the silly things done in Parliament for the last few hundred years will continue to be done by the next Parliament.
The real lesson of this sorry episode is that the forthcoming election will be argued on trivialities. Of course Britain’s enormous debt is not triviality. But the politicians of all parties have made it very clear to us that they have no idea whatsoever as to how to diminish the debt. So if we are thinking about how to reduce Britain’s deficit we might as well vote by spinning a coin as by listening to Messrs Darling and Osborne
There are questions, serious, important, questions, which the forthcoming election
should decide:
1. Should we withdraw from Afghanistan?
2. Should we now decide not to replace Trident nuclear missile system?
3. How can we most quickly and efficiently produce electricity for all the nation’s needs without using fossil fuels?
4. How can we turn Britain into a democracy, ie stop Britain being ruled by a political party elected by a small proportion of the nation’s citizens?
Reform Parliament? We may have to scrap it and start again from scratch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
