We interrupt our commentary on the looming defense sequestration–which Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has called a potential “disaster”–to note that our most stalwart ally, Great Britain, is also hollowing out its armed forces.
The honorary colonel of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which is set to lose a battalion as part of the continuing downsizing, has written a letter to the chief of the general staff blasting the decision: “If challenged or scrutinized by, for example the media, it cannot be presented as the best or most sensible military option.” In all, five British infantry battalions are being eliminated, with the loss of 12,000 soldiers.
This is part of a bigger drawdown ordered by the Cameron government, which as the Wall Street Journal noted last year, means that “the number of personnel will fall around 10 percent, and about 40 percent of tanks will be retired and the country will lose its aircraft carriers, leaving it with no carrier-strike capability for almost 10 years, until a new carrier comes into service.”
Why should this be of concern to Americans? Because Britain is one of the few allies we can count on in a crunch. In the future, however, even if it wants to fight alongside our forces, it will have scant capability to do so. We will be increasingly on our own in the world–at the very time when our own resources are in rapid decline. This is a prescription for geopolitical disaster.
Anyone really think, given the way things are going now, that there is going to actually be another British aircraft carrier in 10 years?
When the time comes to form a multi-national coalition force our chief ally will not be able to join us. Our other allies, in turn, will step back because if Britain isn't joining (due to an insufficiently sized military) they won't join us either. After all, who but Britain has joined the U.S. with a significant commitment of forces and time? None too many. n nWith others unwilling to join the U.S., our current president, for example, who may be less than willing to take action, will simply say: n n"Well, we tried to form a coalition and couldn't. Without an internationally led coalition, the U.S. cannot act." n nIt's not pretty, but once our allies are unable to help, it will be all the more difficult for the U.S. to go it alone, if we go at all. That's why it is important that our allies have their own strong defense; the U.S. will not act without them.
Having a military requires that the young men of a nation commit to future generations, to the continuance of their culture. Does that sound like contemporary Britain, or Western Europe, or Japan to you? Does the English birth rate for the past 40 years bear that commitment out? n nNATO is often laughingly called a military alliance of 20 nations, only one of which has a military. n nThe nation with that military is also the only nation in the alliance which can be characterized as religious. n nThat is not a coincidence. n nThe only thing that will bring Britain back to vitality is a religious revival. Given the state of its elite clergy, that renaissance will have to come from missionaries sent to re-kindle the faithful and re-convert the heathen. n nDon't look for an English military, or for English manhood, until that happens.