In our previous post on the US reaction to the latest Falklands Islands we pondered on the fact that the UK has 10,000 service personnel in Afghanistan and this deployment has been ongoing for several years at a very high cost in blood and treasure.
And yet despite this, the State Department and Hilary Clinton could not have done more to cast this commitment aside in favour of a second rate tin pot government.
In comparison, there are no South or Central American forces there.
Beyond the UK’s issues, how does this play out in the ISAF contributing nations?
If the US has such contempt for its major ally how will it treat me if I have a dispute
With lead nations like Canada and Holland leaving Afghanistan if the US does not start treating its friends with some loyalty they might find themselves in a coalition of one.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
12 Comments
The quote from Henry Kissenger that, ‘America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests,’ rings somewhat true on this occasion. This should also apply to UK foreign policy, something Hilary Clinton should remember next time US interests are at stake.
I think the political classes will eventually start to realise how very precarious the situation is with certain politicians in the US. Hopefully they will sit-up soon enough, or they might well find that their terminal to Europe is perpetually closed.
“If the US has such contempt for its major ally how will it treat me if I have a dispute”
Well, I suppose really its just another step down the road, the missile sites that would have made Indepedant Poland and the Czech Republic strategicaly vital to the US were abandoned on Russian complaints.
The US stood silently whilst Russian bombers devestated Georgia, a quarter of Gerogian combat troops were in Afghanistan at the time.
“The quote from Henry Kissenger that, ‘America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests,’ rings somewhat true on this occasion.”
I’m not so sure it applies.
What US interest is being served here?
If the UK pulls out of Afghanistan, and believe me I’m damned well lobbying for that, it wont just be us who go, the Batlic Nations are operating under our command there, they could be integrated into the US command, but would they want to be?
Or would they just think, sod it, what are we actualy getting for this?
If we pull out, it would be politicaly impossible for the rest of Western Europe to stay in, can you imagine what the lefties would do to governments that tried to fight a war even the UK admitted was pointless? Its quite possilble Obamas “surge” would fail to cover the forces leaving.
I am not sure if anyone is interested but a Brazilian aircraft carrier becomes fully operational this month and that could spell some trouble. I have the full story on my blog (it is actually quite a short entry) here http://13thspitfire.blogspot.com/2010/03/guess-what-becomes-fully-operational.html – naturally including the ceremonial dig at the French 8) Obviously Think Defence is more than welcome to rip its full content if it deems it worthy of showing to other people.
As others have noted elsewhere, there is political rhetoric for mass consumption, in this case rhetoric which does not alienate South America, but pisses us off a bit.
And then there is ‘real-politik’ which last time took the form of the latest version of Sidewinder being rushed to the RN fleet and a few other elements of assistance.
However I, for one, am not sure that Obama would jump to our assistance if the shooting started, and thats not his fault, its the problem of the spineless gits in our Parliament.
Pull out of AF – sure, but because its the right thing to do. Paint it as a response to weak U.S. support – sure if you want to, just better get your “special relationship – Euro-skeptic” focus sorted out first !
I’m not so sure it’s a game changer, even if we assume a full military alliance between the two with a combined fleet.
If we first assume the Falklands have fallen and the UK needs to retake them, then on paper it’s a worrying threat.
A Medium Carrier supported a variety of surface vessels, against our Light Carrier, variety of surface vessels and large number of sitting duck troop carriers.
But really its not that different from the first war, they had a comparable fleet, forced into port by our submarine force.
The Oceans would be swept clear by our submarines advancing in front of the fleet and the enemy would have to run or die.
If the Falklands haven’t fallen, and are in fact reinforced to full strength, 16 Typhoons, AWACS, air defence vehicles and MANPADS, then the carrier carries two dozen extra targets to be shot down by an aircraft that has a simply overwhelming advantage in air to air combat.
But, lets for arguments sake say I’m wrong, the Falklands fall, the combined fleet avoids the submarines and sinks the British task force, they still cant force a peace on us.
Theres nothing to stop the submarine force abandoning its search for the Sao Paulo and steaming south at full speed and once in range, launching tomahawks against Itaipu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam
Now I don’t know what the effect on 20 or 30 Tomahawks on that dam would be, I’ve built nothing more complex than a brick and mortar wall, or tiled my bathroom, but guess they could vary from knocking out 20% of Brazils baseline power for a few days to knocking it permanently and destroying Buenos Ares in a biblical flood.
Brazil certainly brings “more” to the fight, but it doesn’t bring different.
There is still no effective counter to Typhoon, beyond drowning them in blood, and I’m not certain, but is 13:1 enough blood when your comparing 50 year old ground attack aircraft to the worlds second best Air Superiority Fighter?
Theres no effective counter to the anti shipping capability of the Submarine Service, and theres no effective counter the Strategic Missile capability of the Submarine Service.
Dominic – don’t forget the sub force has been cut as much as the surface fleet, and they can’t be in more than one place at once. Also because our SSN’s don’t have VLS tubes for Tomahawks, you have to decide on your balance of land attack missiles versus anti-ship weapons (SpearFish torpedo’s) BEFORE you leave the UK.
Also, ‘Strategic Missiles’ is generally a euphemism for the nuclear deterrent, and I presume you don’t mean you want to nuke the dam ? :-)
I think I’ve said or hinted at it before if we lose the islands we have lost them basically end of story we have no current recovery means. There are options to reinforce the islands but they have their own issues that I have made my feelings known on in other comments thing would have to be though about carefully. Thinking is not something this current bunch of decision makers are renowned for and would no doubt find a way to make a mess of it.
Personally in regards to ISAF I would welcome the opportunity to leave Afghanistan and it would be a political point scorer both at home and abroad and I would support any proposal to do so. Politically I would also create an official document stating our position backed up with as much factual evidence as possible. Evidence both legal and otherwise from varying sources unbiased as possible that is irrefutable by Argentina and its supporters. I would then send copies of such a report to everyone concerned and say that is the end of it as far as we are concerned that is our position and why we take that position. I would have all the masses of Diplomats all talking away worldwide pushing our point and building support at home so there would be the will to act. If our case is truly as sound and as just as we know it is we should be on a better standing that Argentina especially with all things considered. If not let’s start playing some games in regards to other territorial grey areas that might make people think. Militarily I would reinforce the islands both by deploying assets there as well as improving Port Stanley Airport for us as an additional airfield and I would redirect intelligence assets toward Argentina. Militarily I have doubts about what could actually be done but I’ll leave others to largely make up their own minds on what they think is possible.
My point about ISAF was the implied quid quo pro benefit that nations get by being in Afghanistan, I am not saying nations are going to bail out because of the US stance on the Falklands but think twice when it comes to renewal or even the next one.
Interesting comments re the Falklands, strategically they are much more valuable than Afghanistan. The potential hydrocarbons (second largest ever reserves if estimates are to be believed), massive fisheries potential, strategic control of the South Atlantic and Drake Passage and if climate change makes the Antarctic more accessible, then yet more untold mineral wealth.
I am surprised the EU nations haven’t said anything in support, especially those with their own ‘colonial’ outposts.
As we all agree, we need to recognise our allies but wake up to the fact that when push comes to shove, we can only rely on ourselves
Jed
We still have 7 actives plus Astute on sea trials. I dont know much about the decomissioning of Trafalger and the older swiftsures so couldnt say if they could be pressed into service, even if they cant, we could deploy 8 pretty respectable submarines against an enemy with no real ASW capability.
Armament isnt a huge problem, we only have about 60 missiles anyway, unless the US has given us new ones to replace the ones we fired in Iraq, so 7 or 8 each and the rest for shipping.
(I’m under the impression that Astute can carry about 35 in total and the rest probably a fair bit less)
Re: Strategic
I meant it as a range and effect thing, rather than a hint at nuclear.
Rather than destroying a tank, a tactical effect, we’d be destroying their ability to make tanks, a strategic one.
Dont get me wrong, I think its very unlikely our politicians would order a strike against that dam, they’d be throwing the geopolitical map out of the window if they did, but its possible, and for Brazil (collapse of electricity production), and Argentina(loss of Capital), I think its too big a risk.
Euan
I Agree with withdrawing from ISAF, it holds no value for us anymore.
I Disagree with drawing up a case for why the Falklands are ours, theres only one law in International Law, “I’m bigger than you and can smash your face into a wall until you do as I say”. No reasoned appeal will matter unless theres violence ready to enforce it.
The US has already said it wont get involved, so who else will?
I agree the Islands should be reinforced, but I’d stick an airfield on all of the overseas territories, and have thought that an idea for quite a while anyway
Eaun – Do we really want to get involved in justifying our stance on the Falkland Islands ?
a quote I think is apt.
“I was wondering why when Hilary Clinton suggested there was some question over the Falklands Islands (that we should talk to Argentina over them) why we did not stand up for ourselves. We seem to lack the courage to spell out our own interest.
I would have said strongly and clearly.
“The Falkland Islands sovereign issue is not in question, there is no debate or ambiguity. As long as the people of the islands wish to remain British then we will defend there right to do so.”
Maybe followed by a mournful
“It saddens me that the United States does not recognise the right of sovereignty and it would appear their stance questions our legal right to be there. In light of this we will start to withdraw troops from Afghanistan to rest them, they may be needed to secure real British interest in the future and we need them ready to do so”
Watch the US slap down the South American “pact Malvinas” then.
Maybe some little hints that British Submarine commanders have been practising engagements involving aircraft carriers dropped into Brazilian press circles… just to stir things up.
@Fiale: That’s exactly what i have in mind. I think it’s high time to for the U.K. to start standing up for itself and and it’s interests. It’s time for the British Government to scratch those itching balls and stop pussyfooting. “Special Relationship”? I think it is more of “It’s Complicated”.