To follow up on my previous post on British defense cuts, it is worth noting that the Cameron government is planning to cut the British army from 101,000 soldiers to 82,000–the lowest level in a century. At the Kings of War blog, Rob Dover of Kings’ College, London, notes that this will radically change Britain’s strategic capabilities. He writes:
The cuts to the army mean we could only be involved in Afghanistan OR Iraq. That’s not mid-sized military power stuff. That’s a serious diminution of the ability to project power and influence in both absolute terms (kinetic) [and also] in soft-power terms. Why would the U.S. (aside from intelligence liaison) be interested in the British view?
While it may mean we will be less interested in the British view in the future it will also mean we will be able to count on less support from the British too. This is a sad day for Britain, America–and the entire West. The British army, guardians of freedom for centuries, is now being reduced to next-to-nothing–and by a Conservative government to boot.
One hundred years ago, Great Britain had spent several centuries ruling an empire on which the sun never set. They ruled it, for the most part, far better than those who came before them and far better than those who came after them. Those under their power had far more security, rights and opportunities than their counterparts in most of the rest of the world. Now they are a thoroughly decadent society represented perfectly by Prince Charles, a pompous buffoon.
if they ruled it so well, vermeer, how did they manage to become bankrupt in the process?
The bankruptcy followed upon engagement in two immense all-consuming wars on the Continent within 20 years of each other ( a reversal of traditional poilcy of naval predominance and land war in Europe by proxy) and a total fiscal and political subservience to the US in the second of the two wars. The price the UK paid for the appeasement and pacifism that followed the disillusionment after First World War plus Churchill's "no treating with the enemy" stance after Britain repelled the German thrat of invasion in 1940-41 was the end of Empire. The "Finest Hour", tho' indeed "sublime" was very costly.
About 100 years ago, the socialist Labor Party became one of the two major parties of Great Britain. Socialism kills, not only the efficient and productive allocation of resources, but the spirit of the citizen. Both are poison but It is the latter more than the former, which is the more important poison.
Two wars with Germany.
almost; they were bankrupt in the middle of the first one
So, Germany then.
kinda hard to see how Germany could have bankrupted Britain in such a short period of time, thelaine, given that the Empire still held India, South Africa, Hong Kong etc. n n nhas to be much more to it than that.
Maybe so, Mike, but it was total war and required every resource. It bankrupted every European nation. I think your original comment was really non-responsive to jay. Even if Britain's empire would have gone bankrupt without Germany's help, the point was that the empire spread a great culture, which is now dying. The argument that the empire was a failure because it was not profitable is not really much of a rebuttal.
My comment was quite responsive, What it wasn't was a refutation of every part of the comment. I don't disagree with every part of it, and didn't wish to go that way. n nI would say that mostly Britain did do better than the regimes they overturned and did generally did leave many of the places that they left in such state that the successors indeed did worse. n nBut the comment, all in all, wasn't unreasonable, merely a little too positive. n n n
That was vague. What part of the comment did did you refute?
They can't afford an army, they're spending too much money supporting the internal enemy vermin that they continue to import to hasten their demise. Eventually the internal enemy "army" will be large enough to finish the job.
There is a lot of corruption in the defense industry and it cost every year $billions to the US citizen. Not different from healthcare.
"Guardians of freedom for centuries." Interesting way of characterizing empire.