Friday, January 05, 2007

Labour's 'ship of fools' scuttling British Fleet.

It was reported that at the Battle of Jutland, Rear Admiral David Beatty, unable to hide his disappointment at the result of the battle, repeated in a weary voice, “There is something wrong with our ships,” then opening his eyes he added, “And something wrong with our system.” Having thus unburdened himself he fell asleep.

Now reverse the order. The Blair Government having tired of governing has fallen to sleep and is tanking the effective part of the British Navy. They are spent out on weapon systems they will never use and scrapping the parts they will need in the Twenty First Century. Beatty would not be impressed.

Opinion from The Telegraph:
' From Royal Navy to coastal defence force'


Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 05/01/2007 The Telegraph


Our status in the world, as well as the security of these islands, depends chiefly on sea power. For the better part of 500 years, England and then Britain inflicted crushing defeats on larger, wealthier and more populous nations because it controlled the main. For much of that period, indeed, foreign vessels had to dip their colours when passing our ships, in acknowledgement of our sovereignty of the seas.

That chapter is to be closed. Of our 44 warships, at least 13, and possibly as many as 19, are to be taken out of active service. At present, we have a Navy with global reach. Our ships are present in the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the South Atlantic and the Gulf, as well as closer to home. The Government's scheme would reduce the Fleet to little more than a coastal defence role. How have we come to this pass?

There are three principal reasons. First, and most obviously, lack of money. The Government is a great believer in interventions overseas: Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq. Nothing wrong with that, but such deployments are expensive. As we remarked in October, if you want to practise gunboat diplomacy, it helps to have some gunboats. All the Armed Services, not just the Royal Navy, are overstretched.


Second, these reduced funds are often spent unwisely. As we have pointed out many times, the outstanding example of such misallocation is the £20 billion so far gobbled up by the otiose Euro-fighter. When you add a similar sum for the Trident replacement, you have consumed most of the budget. Yet neither project is much use against our current enemies. Our foes these days tend to be distant and sparse: teenage African militias, Ba'athist insurgents, Taliban bombers. Yet we are fighting them with alliances, systems and matériel designed to defend West Germany from a massed attack by Soviet T72s.

Which brings us to the third problem: the Euro-centric nature of our defence. During the second half of the 20th century, Britain's strategic thinking was focused, unusually, on the defence of western Europe.

The end of the Cold War should have released Britain to pursue its more usual vocation as an island nation with interests in every continent. But, as so often, our top brass is gearing up for the last war.

Instead of tailoring our procurement and alliances to suit our needs, we took what we happened already to have — Nato — and pressed it into roles for which it was not designed. The truth is that, as our horizons widen, the Royal Navy should be assuming a pre-eminence it has not enjoyed for 50 years.

We should be building more ships than ever, including unmanned vessels. Instead, we choose to engage in the madness of mothballing the few we have left.


15 comments:

  1. Falklanders had better hope that Argentina doesn't catch on to this...

    Don't bother me with the unintended consequences, you say?

    .........oh, BUGGER!

    ReplyDelete
  2. My cut and paste contribution:
    ---
    William J. Fallon has overseen the Navy show and tell excercises we conduct here in the Pacific for the benefit of the Chicom Spies, er "Sailors."
    ---

    Just learned from Frank Gafney today that one of Harriet Miers responsibilities has been to keep the JAG in check.
    No wonder our Warriors now triple check before firing a shot.
    ...if they are lucky enough to still be alive.
    ...then it's filling out reams of paperwork and hoping you don't join the Pendleton Scapegoats.

    ---
    Gafney gives Negroponte a D -

    ReplyDelete
  3. FWIW,
    (Nancy, the 66 year old bubbling grandmother cheerleader, is a monument to plastic surgery, pop psych free love, socialism/totalitarianism, and Bay Area Summer of Love)
    ---
    Anointiata Delenda Est said...
    Phoar!!!

    That Nancy Pelosi. Just seen her on Fox. Don'cha just love her? That pearl necklace, that hint of cleavage, to regions delightful, must be great. Legs, she knows how to use them. Come hither eyes, drop dead gorgeous hair. And her mind, her mind. Does it for me; always. Love her.

    Er..

    That Nancy Pelosi, don'cha just hate her? So cool, so sophisticated, so WHITE. She doesn't like Bush. What's wrong with Condi, the thinking man's crumpet, PHOARR!!!, that's what I want to know? OK, so she's out of favour with Bush, but doesn't that do it for you too. And Condi's eyes, those eyes; the love, the love. Phoarr!!!, I melt. Love her.

    (With apologies to Private Eye).

    Hey, it's a quiet night.

    ADE

    ReplyDelete
  4. If that cash was going army it wouldn't be a bad move. Blue water navies are pretty irrelevant in the age of terror, as are air force fast movers. But with Blair at the helm its more likely to be diverted to really like, y'know, important stuff. Welfare instead of warfare and so on, because the socialists just know that terror is caused by poverty, lack of opportunity and latent rascism from the capitalist west.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jane Harmon:
    First Woman NOT in Charge of National Security.
    - Kate O'Brien
    ---
    There have been a number of anomalies in this war, as a brilliant American tactical victory in removing Saddam has not translated into quick strategic success. But one of the most worrisome developments is the narrowing of the recent debate to the single issue of surging troops, as if the problem all along has just been one of manpower.

    It hasn’t. The dilemma involves the need to fight an asymmetrical war of counter-insurgency that hinges on what troops do, rather than how many are engaged. We have gone from a conventional victory over Saddam Hussein to an asymmetrical struggle against jihadist insurgents to what is more or less third-party policing of random violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

    Our past errors were not so much dissolving a scattered Iraqi military or even de-Baathification, but rather giving an appearance of impotence, whether in allowing the looting to continue or pulling back from Fallujah or giving a reprieve to the Sadr militias.

    So, yes, send more troops to Iraq — but only if they are going to be allowed to hunt down and kill vicious and sectarians in a manner that they have not been allowed to previously.

    This surge should be not viewed in terms of manpower alone. Rather it should be planned as the corrective to past misguided laxity, in which no quarter will now be given to die-hard jihadists as we pursue victory, not better policing. We owe that assurance to the thousands more of young Americans who now will be sent into harm’s way.

    — Victor Davis Hanson

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peacekeeper sums up our problems/sins in one tasty bite!

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's late, one last paste with our generous host's permission.
    ...from my BC Rant:
    ---
    Belmont Club said:
    "The mismatch between the ambitions of the Manila elite and their unwillingness to attain it through effort is at the heart of the current and stormy relationship between America and the Government of the Philippines"
    ---
    Doug said...

    The Mismatch between the warm and fuzzy goals of the Bush Administration, and the necessities of WARFARE is at the heart of our present dilemma/quagmire in Iraq:
    ---
    VDH:

    There have been a number of anomalies in this war, as a brilliant American tactical victory in removing Saddam has not translated into quick strategic success. But one of the most worrisome developments is the narrowing of the recent debate to the single issue of surging troops, as if the problem all along has just been one of manpower.

    It hasn’t. The dilemma involves the need to fight an asymmetrical war of counter-insurgency that hinges on what troops do, rather than how many are engaged. We have gone from a conventional victory over Saddam Hussein to an asymmetrical struggle against jihadist insurgents to what is more or less third-party policing of random violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

    Our past errors were not so much dissolving a scattered Iraqi military or even de-Baathification, but rather giving an appearance of impotence, whether in allowing the looting to continue or pulling back from Fallujah or giving a reprieve to the Sadr militias.

    So, yes, send more troops to Iraq — but only if they are going to be allowed to hunt down and kill vicious and sectarians in a manner that they have not been allowed to previously.

    This surge should be not viewed in terms of manpower alone.
    Rather it should be planned as the corrective to past misguided laxity, in which no quarter will now be given to die-hard jihadists as we pursue victory, not better policing. We owe that assurance to the thousands more of young Americans who now will be sent into harm’s way.

    — Victor Davis Hanson

    ---

    Also said before:
    Frank Gafney informs that HARRIET MIERS has been the one responsible for keeping JAG in check in their pursuit of the American Warrior.
    ...the result is obvious:
    Warriors writing extensive reports on every bullet fired.
    ...and the Pendleton Scapegoats.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doug, as a platinum member you have no comment limits.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re: Krauthammer,

    The Bush Administartion has been tone deaf in understanding the power of diplomacy, propaganda and manipulating world opinion. Clever diplomacy wins wrs and saves lives. There is a difference between horse shoes and chess.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As the National Guard is driven to retreat from the Mexican border.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Millions to Abbas

    “State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that ‘non-lethal military assistance’ was designed to ‘build up those responsible security forces to help provide security in Gaza, in the West Bank, help stop terror attacks,’ and help regulate checkpoints to open more passages for Palestinians to travel.”

    How many years and how many hundreds of millions has the US poured down this “security forces” rat hole, without ever once glimpsing the possibility that one man’s security forces could be another’s mafia?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Allen,

    Sean is the same official who was worried about the Saudis toturing the freed Guantanamo prisoners. Of course the Saudis have been releasing them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. whit,

    If a leader has no patriotism, he should at least have some sense of personal pride. This attack was a blatant slap in the face. Unless answered forcefully, more will come.

    The Guardsmen cannot be faulted, even if armed, which I doubt, they probably were prevented from defending themselves and their position by the same sort of insane RoE that prevail in Iraq.

    Less than two years to go.

    ReplyDelete
  14. H/T to doug

    U.S. ships hunt for al Qaeda off Somalia

    Perhaps navies aren't as irrelevant as fellow peacekeeper had mentioned?

    Of course, regarding Iraq, it is landlocked, so one questions the relevance of the navy here. The Horn of Africa, however, is another matter altogether.

    ReplyDelete