I do, as always, have questions about the outbreak of armed conflict by the UK. That is unsurprising. I am a Quaker, but would add that I am not a pacifist: I recognise that there are occasions when war is unavoidable.
Some of those questions are:
- Why is this intervention required?
- Why is this intervention required now?
- Why is this intervention needed when no engagement is required in Gaza?
- How will the government know when this war should end?
- What will be the required evidence that the war has succeeded?
- What level of casualties will be tolerated?
- Why will those casualties be tolerated?
- Was there really no alternative to this action?
I am not convinced satisfactory answers to these questions can be supplied.
And I am troubled that we can find funding for a war, but not pay settlements. In that case, is this war really all about politics, as I fear?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
We should be treating the ability to pay for war the same way we should treat the great credit crunch bailout of 2008.
That government has the power to print money to help people out.
And that should be the end of the matter.
Except that it isn’t of course.
And so it goes…………………………….
I’m sure Sunak and most at the top of the Tory party – cut from a ‘lord it over others – still a “great power”‘ mentality – look to the so called ‘Falklands factor’ and think it may improve the Tories polling.
Middle eastern conflicts are multifaceted and multidimensional – unlike the Falklands – as Blair found out with the aftermath in Iraq.
The 1983 result was far more the fact that the SDP fatally split Labour’s vote.
“The 1983 result was far more the fact that the SDP fatally split Labour’s vote.”
That’s a myth. Opinion polls from the time show that without the SDP the Conservatives would have had an even bigger majority.
1. Useful excuse for live weapons testing (does it work, can we make it work better).
2. Poodle. UK is the USA’s poodle – & thus is “just following orders”
3. Never grown up (lost/gave away empire but never quite really got used to this) & still dislikes Yemen (ah remember the Aden days!!)
4. Insurance – threat to the insurance business
5. Makes Sunak look good in election year
6. Deflection – from Post Office rolling disaster
7. Brown people & their lives in other countries have never counted in UK political calculations.
8. Taking the above together – there was no alternative .
Cue weapons mfus partying & ordering crates of Bolly.
“UK is the USA’s poodle”
I do not think the UK is any way the USA’s poodle.
Everything else I agree with.
You are right Bay Tampa Bay, the UK is not the USA’s poodle, as a poodle is a far too refined a canine.
The UK is the USA’s lap dog – ignored when it’s of no use, brought in to add credibility when the ROW thinks the US is being crazy.
An ex colony reminding its ex-colonial masters who is boss.
One of the most deadliest double acts in history. Thank God we didn’t follow the cousins into Vietnam or the legacy would be even worse.
ROW = Rest of the World.
In reply to PSR’s post at 11:33 am on 14th January,
Rather than, or perhaps in addition to, thanking god we didn’t follow the cousins into Vietnam, we should thank Harold Wilson.
To an extent Iran has been the necessary enemy to parts of the US establishment
1-to justify defence spending 2-to argue for more aid to Israel 3 -to enable macho posturing by some politicians
The JCPOA Iran nuclear treaty was working according to the other five signatories China, EU, France, Russia ,UK, Trump pulled out mainly it , seems to me, because Obama got the deal and to please his voting base. He also imposed increased economic sanctions which has hit their economy. Biden did not reverse them. In a sense the West has been in conflict with Iran for several years and the media give the impression they are the aggressors who need to be contained.
Also atomic scientists have been murdered and cyber warfare did a lot of damage to their nuclear program. Suleimani -a hero to the Iranians for his role in the Gulf war 1980-88, was assassinated by the US at Trump’s orders. Iran is working towards the capacity for a nuclear weapon. It might be a bargaining stance but the West isn’t negotiating. The leadership deny they want a nuclear weapon but Israel is a nuclear power who often threaten Iran -with conventional strikes and some Americans talk this language too.
Going back further, it is widely believed the West knew and did not stop, components for making nerve gas which was used against Iranian forces. The Ayatollahs said it was an ‘un-Islamic’ weapon and did not retaliate in kind but brought the war to an end.
I have no doubt the regime is oppressive and not democratic. That doesn’t stop us having close relations with the other theocratic regie of Saudi Arabia, which some argue is even worse.
The Houthis started their war before Iran was involved and though they depend on supplies from Iran, which imposes a burden on the economy, Iran does not control them. Jeremy Bowen made this point recently.
The attacks on shipping are, despite Cameron’s denial, connected to the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Sadly Biden is doing too little to bring that to a halt. There are costs to the support of Israel by stopping a UN ceasefire resolution.
There are arguments to maintain freedom of shipping. It is a mess.
The failure to come to grips with the Palestine-Israel question is coming home to roost,
A pre-election echo of the Falklands conflict?
I tweeted that thought last night
It won’t work, because the UK is not defending a threat to its sovereign territory in the way it was in the Falklands war. Brits love to defend ‘the little guy’, as residents of the Falklands were seen. Defending “rich bastards’ ships”, not so much.
My immediate reaction too. “They say” that Thatcher would not have won her second term without her flag waving war in the Malvinas. A war described by the Argentinian writer Jose Luis Borges as “Two bald men fighting over a comb”. I reckon Sunak thinks this a godsend to his failing government.
I distinctly remember my old International Relations lecturer (who had impeccable back channel connections) telling us that in the late 1970s the Argentine junta were threatening the Falklands and Callaghan let it be known we had a nuclear Hunter Killer submarine in the area keeping an eye on things. The threat disappeared.
Cue the early 1980s and a Tory government, the alleged party of strong defence, come to power and slash the Royal Navy. A green light to Galtieri or a knowing invitation?
That same lecturer was insistent we all read von Clausewitz and understand his statement that “war is but the continuation of politics by other means”, a statement both prophetic and terrifying in our current neoliberal drive towards Fascism. It was telling that only a week ago it was in the news that the Tories were planning to decommission the two Royal Marine assault ships at the same time as a right wing nut job has taken power in Argentina and is again making noise re the Falklands. In politics there is no such thing as coincidence
in 2019 I attended a book launch by Jack Straw who wrote a book on Iran and traces the way various people from this country have exploited Iran in the past. He said that Iran helped the west to invade Afghanistan AND offered to re-set relations. I have checked it out and it is true. A few weeks later Bush made his Axis of Evil speech and the offer died. What a waste of a chance. Policy driven by ignorance.
After the Manchester bombing, a politician made a speech saying we needed to have ‘difficult conversations with Saudi Arabia. The extremist Wahhabi ideology is funded by individuals in Arabia and the Gulf. My thought was the Tory press would lay into the politician. But it was ignored. The man concerned was Jeremy Corbyn who at least, despite his many other faults, recognised part of the problem. The banking and oil interests no doubt influenced the silence. Policy driven by vested interest.
I would say to KinSJ above that if the Suez canal is blocked, it won’t just be ‘rich bastards’ who will be hurt. Prices will rise. 1967 is a precedent. Egypt depends on revenue from the canal and the loss of that might cause them to change policy. As I understand it, Israelis are still monitoring aid into Gaza from the Egyptian entry gate and slowing it down. Obviously with Egyptian consent. But public opinion in Egypt is angry-despite President Al Sisi’s 89% vote in last month’s elections. He might feel he has to move.
Once states indulge in military operations other things come into play and forecasts go wrong. I suspect the answers by those in power given to Richard’s questions, could be invalidated in many ways by events. Von Moltke’s saying that plans do survive the first contact with the enemy, comes to mind. The original quote being “No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.” Of course, we are not dealing with formal armies here. Informed advice is available to the government. It is politicians with an eye on the headlines who worry me.
12% of world trade goes through the Suez Canal and it can flow even if it is closed
Let’s not overstate the economic impact. It is small.
It probably isn’t decisive but of the trade which comes from Asia to Europe, and the other way, it is a higher percentage. The graphic gives some idea.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61025#:~:text=In%20the%20first%20half%20of%202023%2C%20northbound%20crude%20oil%20flowing,rose%20from%20pandemic%2Dinduced%20lows.
I think it would be more productive for the UK to back South Africa’s case at the ICJ. A final judgement is a long time away but they can make a provisional ruling and would call for a ceae fire. If achieved, I suspect that the other Arab nations would then influence the Houthis to cease fire. Sadly I don’t see a mainstream British party doing that.
South Africa are employing a very impressive Irish lawyer to present their case. Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh
Agreed
Those Irish lawyers are very impressive
Agreed: the shipping cost is a small part (few percent) of the cost of most goods, even bulk low-value-density ones. The diversion around Africa will introduce delay which will adjust after a few weeks if the situation persists, though it will tie up some capital in the goods in transit for longer.
The effect on Egypt is something else and the knock-on effects of that start to look complicated…
And the ethics are something else again: thanks for setting out those questions Richard.
I agree, for Egypt this is of massive significance. Not for us though.
But then, the U.K. and US are softening Egypt up to take 2 million Palestinians- which is their solution to Gaza and for which they will get aid, for a while.
You say “Policy driven by ignorance”, but I don’t think it was so. The war against Iraq was to be the first step in changing regimes in the Middle East. Policy was driven by the neocons of the Project for a New American Century, and 9/11 flung open the Overton window for that project to commence.
I’d agree there was ignorance in that anything but a very shallow understanding of the region would tell you such a policy was a disaster waiting to happen … as indeed the first step, Iraq, turned so quickly out to to be.
I recall reading (in the LRB I think) about a group of Middle East scholars that met with Blair – sadly after the decision to go to war had already been made – and they were stunned he’d never heard of Mohammad Mosaddegh. Their advice was, of course, don’t do this!
Micahel
one difference between the US and Russia/China is that decision making is less centralised in the former.
The US has some very good intelligence analysts but IMHO their work doesn’t always reach the Oval office.
There are some very powerful lobbies such as AIPAC American Israel Political Action Committee but there are others. Continuity and consistency is easier in a more centralised state.
Robert Draper’s well researched book ‘To start a War’ showed, that Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated the information reaching George Bush to give him reasons to attack Iraq. Bush did not assemble the key people to thrash out the data, the response and implications -as Gore would have done, and Clinton and Obama did in office.
He is reported by Draper as believing ‘all people want freedom and if we give it to them they will welcome us.’
Draper says Bush watched troops entering Basra (British troops in fact) on TV and asking his aide “why aren’t they cheering?’
My view on the Iranians is that they are very irritating .
But all they are doing is interfering like the the U.S. and the West has constantly done since the end of the second world war.
Iran is punching above its weight – that is what worries me. I get the feeling it would not take much to snuff it out and there are people in the West who are itching to have a go.
If I was Iran’s lawyer, I’d be telling them to keep low profile and keep themselves to themselves.
Sovereign countries in the past have gone down in flames for a lot less than what Iran is allegedly up to.
UK has already repeated its own history first as tragedy then as farce – and maybe now as parody. Iraq a disaster, Afghanistan a disaster, now Gaza.
Each time seems worse than the last. Our BBC/ MSM propaganda machine parroting ‘the US trying to stop Gaza becoming a regional conflict’ – now actually making it a regional conflict – bombing another poor country and probably making Red Sea more dangerous
Double standards/hypocrisy making UK/US more and more internationally isolated .
30 years standing aside while Israel colluded with Hamas and others, to kill the pretend ‘two state’ solution , and now ultimately – support for collective starvation, siege/ bombing- massacre of 22000 civilians, majority women and children.
Can see why more and more people suggest disengagement or civil disobedience as the only feasible response to our broken corrupt ‘bought and sold’ politics.
Jeremy Bowen is-gently-not agreeing with the government.
Orla Guerin seems to have disappeared from the screens. She reported on the effects of Israel’s bombing in November. She was accused of anti-Israel bias on two previous occasions. It didn’t convince me.
The obvious alternative to stop Houthi attacks was to demand and enforce a ceasefire. But then we are America’s poodle and both UK and USA dance to Israel’s tune, and provide the weapons and the funds. Is Israel a proxy for us or are we Israel’s proxy??
Talking of proxies, remember that we’ve also been effectively at war with Russia for almost the past two years, if not actually since 2014 when we actively took sides with the Kiev government in the Ukrainian civil war.
UK politics has been very evident in the Ukraine war – witness Johnson’s disastrous interventions – and Sunak has just now popped up in Kiev dishing out to a reportedly massively corrupt regime another £2.5 Billion (that we supposedly can’t afford to spend on investment in Britain) helping to continue the death and destruction. For what purpose? Is it just so simple that we are America’s poodle and that our government prioritises US geopolitical interests over the quality of life of the British population? Or just that our politicians enjoy the grandstanding that war provides them?
There has long been criticism of the West for double standards but it has perhaps never been starker. Support for Ukraine in the face of Russian invasion and brutality, and rightly so in my opinion. But then support for Israel that extends back for decades during which their persecution of the Palestinians has steadily escalated. This has come to a head with Israel’s assault on Gaza and the massacres there. It may well be payback time by the ANC in South Africa for Israel’s long support for the apartheid regime (amongst other grubby regimes the Israeli governments colluded with). However, it was long overdue for Israel under its current far right government to be called out. They can no longer hide by dismissing all criticism as being anti-semitism. Their claims to be minimising civilian casualties, regularly trotted out by their spokesman are so obviously dishonest, despite their efforts to minimise reporting from Gaza. Killing journalists when they can.
We will be living with the geopolitical consequences for a long time. It will make it much hard to influence genuinely inhumane, undemocratic regimes or whatever flavour. Sudan would be just one example.
Much to agree with, Robin.
Sudan is a mess and another unreported war.
The Falklands War went well for Thatcher, had an Argentine Pilot faced with two large targets on his radar chosen the other one and launched an Exocet into HMS Hermes instead of SS Atlantic Conveyor then history could have been very different.
Having talked to a retired Marine who served in amongst other places, Oman and looking at what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan I dont see this ending well.
The way WW2 ended with Germany and Japan becoming good ‘World Citizens’ was unique and we need to remember that.
I weep.
We have spent a few days looking at banking/National Debt issues – and I have enjoyed it…. but it feels almost obscene that we talk of those issues as war rages.
What alternative is there if they are firing at ships in the area? Feels like Iran is behind much of this..seriously what alternative is there, especially after so many warnings were given.
For heaven’s sake ask intelligent questions if you are going to turn up here
The ongoing drone and missile attacks by the Houthis against shipping in the Red Sea ought to offer many lessons. However, unfortunately, we have almost no detailed information about the attacks and defensive efforts which makes lessons and conclusions difficult.
This is the wrong war for us to be fighting.
To summarize, as best we can glean, the Houthis are using very low end aerial drones and cruise/ballistic missiles to target commercial and naval vessels. It appears that some four dozen or so drones and missiles have been fired at various targets with a couple of hits reported on commercial vessels. The US Navy claims one or two dozen shoot downs.
That’s all the information we have. Will that stop us from applying some analysis and drawing some conclusions? Of course not! Let’s see what we can learn.
You cannot win a defensive war/battle. Only offense wins wars. The attacker only needs an occasional success whereas the defense needs to be 100% successful and, long term, that’s impossible. This is even more true when the disparity between the attacker and defender is so great. Despite dozens of failures, a single Houthi hit on a US warship makes their entire effort an overwhelming success.
By opting for a purely defensive posture, The so called “allies” are putting themselves (and us)in a no-win position where failure is assured. It’s only a matter of when, not if this strategy becomes a tragedy.
Military Cost Curve. All indications are that we are using Standard and Sea Viper missiles to shoot down very low end drones and missiles. That puts us on the wrong side of the cost curve. Depending on the specific variant, Standard missiles cost $4M-$5M each. Low end attacking drones and missiles cost on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Who is [paying for all this?
While it is perfectly valid to say that we’re spending $5M Standards to protect $3B warships, that kind of economic exchange rate can’t be sustained. We’re winning the battle and losing the economic war.
There are some vague hints that a CIWS may have engaged a target(s). While that would be much more economical, it would also be very disturbing news: that a low end attacking weapon could close to CIWS range against Aegis. Note, this is far from verified.
Ill-equipped Ships. Our ships are simply not suited for fighting a very low end war. They’re equipped for high end combat (and not well, either, but that’s a separate topic) and lack effective, low end weapons.
Targeting. The Houthi attacks are, presumably, directed towards specific targets although some of the descriptions of attacks strongly suggest that some portion are being nearly blind fired toward general areas. This is a level with many Hamas rocket attacks into Israel Regardless, one of the often overlooked aspects of combat is counter-targeting. The enemy can’t target what they can’t detect. It is vital to understand how the enemy conducts their detection and targeting and then deny them that process. There is no indication that the americans or their allies are applying any counter-targeting effort.
Drone Effectiveness. Despite the desire of the Western military world to jump on the unmanned fadwagon, the reality, as evidenced by these attacks, demonstrates that drones are, essentially, totally ineffective against a prepared and capable defender. This should come as no surprise as military expets have repeatedly documented and discussed the lack of effectiveness of drones in combat situations .
It is clear that the US and its allies are approaching this situation unwisely by opting to adopt a defensive, appeasement stance. It is delusional to believe that they can maintain a 100% success rate no matter how unsophisticated the attacking weapons are. They must either leave the area to avoid the inevitable defensive failure or shift to an offensive posture and eliminate the threat.
It is also clear that the uS ane European warships are ill-equipped to deal with low end threats in an economical but effective manner. We need lower end vessels such as frigates, corvettes, or patrol vessels
Perhaps the major lesson from these attacks is that drones are not the all-powerful, invincible threat that so many make them out to be. This mini-conflict is the perfect counter to the perceived (but incorrect) success of drones in Ukraine. This is a warning to us not to make drones a major element of our force structure.
One thing never mentioned is why does our navy need to be involved at all. Israel has a large navy and air force. It’s looks like we have to pretend to have an empire every few years. BAE must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of replacing the £30,000 Paveway bombs.
The foundations for this disaster were seeded by British Foreign Policy. We are now the ‘Pen Holders’ for Palestine at the UN.
Surely UK could take some initiative:
How about sending a Hospital Ship to Gaza rather than warship to the Gulf, and organise a Berlin Air Lift style operation to Gaza.