Reflections of a stormy petrel

... and the British left suffers a headlong collision between its intellectualism and its multi-culturalism. Wonder which one will stagger from the collision still walking?

From:

I wish it was only the left. This is establishment stupidity at its finest. Have a look at the entry I quoted. Not that I would mind Britain running risks for a principled support of a persecuted Rushdie, but I object to being made a target - along with the rest of London - for the idiotic ignorance of the People Who Matter.

From:

I think it's a really good thing that they knighted Rushdie, and I wish they'd follow it up by saying to the Muslims objecting to this: "We're the British. You're a bunch of stinking barbarians. Why would we care what you think?"

That would offend the Terrorist States, but it would also remind them that the Power saying this was one with nuclear weapons, a mighty navy, and worldwide strategic reach. And one with a history of slapping around generations of their ancestors when they got uppity.

Unfortunately, they won't. What they're more likely to do is get all apologetic for having done something civilized, meaning that they will still suffer the effects of having offended the Terrorists, while showing weakness and thus inflaming their appetites.

And yeah, if they expected the Muslim fanatics to like them for this, they are severely deluded.

From:

I think you are a bit behind the times. The British armed forces are a joke, and their bubble has been well and truly busted by the Iranians. Thanks to continuous cutbacks, the army now has some 90,000 soldiers, the navy is reduced to a beefed-up coast guard, and even the nuclear deterrent exists mainly thanks to (expensive) American cooperation. It is part of the tragic incompetence of Britain's leadership that they have kept sending the British Army to the ends of the earth in mission after mission while they kept cutting numbers down. They are now near the top of what they can do, and it does not help that the British Defence Ministry is one of the most corrupt organizations in Europe.

As for the British Empire, most of its history was a bluff - which never got called because potential callers were so busy fighting each other. One man who called it good and hard was named George Washington.

From:

Even at its limited strength, the Royal Navy could have responded to the Iranian raid by sending the Iranian fleet to the bottom, probably without significant British losses. The lack was not in the British fleet strength, but in the incredibly cowardly Rules of Engagement the British were choosing to operate under.

But yes, the British military and naval establishments have been in decline for a long time.

From:

dirigibletrance.livejournal.com

The Special Air Service is still alive and well, and still feared by baddies the world over as the most deadly special-forces organization on the planet. (Though, of course, many would argue this, in favor of Delta Force or Mossad)

I hardly think the British military is a "joke". Yes, it's declining, but it's still one of the largest militaries in Europe, and it still has the second-largest Navy in the world.

Many of it's decisions are questionable, though. Reducing the army to just 36 brigades? The United States, and many other countries, are considering *expanding* the size of their conventional, infantry-centered ground forces. Why would the British contemplate shrinking it?

The whole SA-80 Debacle was aweful, of course. They seem to have fixed most of the problems with it, now. Still, I look at that, and suddenly all the complaints about the M-16/M-4 don't seem quite so bad.

From:

I hardly think the British military is a "joke". Yes, it's declining, but it's still one of the largest militaries in Europe, and it still has the second-largest Navy in the world.

Indeed. It is almost certainly strong enough to take down the Iranian Navy by itself, though it would need air cover from the Americans to safely operate surface and air combatants within range of Iranian naval land-based aircraft. And while the British Army is no longer up to invading and occupying Iran, the special forces could carry out raids, and of course Britain can hit Iran with SLBM's, while Iran has no missiles capable of hitting Britain.

What happened recently was a failure of British political nerve, not military might -- much as the Iranians would like to pretend that Britain trembled in fear of Iran's mighty power.

From:

patchworkmind.livejournal.com

It is part of the tragic incompetence of Britain's leadership that they have kept sending the British Army to the ends of the earth in mission after mission while they kept cutting numbers down.

And the U.S. is following suit with that.

From:

I'm as clueless as the British on this.

From:

Salman Rushdie is a well known, though to my mind overrated, British writer of Muslim Indian extraction and agnostic-leftish views. Some time in the eighties, he wrote a book called "The Satanic Verses", in which he satirized his native Muslim religion. It was the original Danish Cartoons scandal: Ayatollah Khomeini (who died shortly after) decreed his death, and Muslims across the world raged in violent demonstrations. Rushdie, in spite of being no friend of the then British government, had to accept their protection and has since lived under cover. A number of Muslim organizations have put prices on his head, adding up to dozens of millions of dollars. Anyone who does not know this - I do not mean you, Rebecca, but the supposedly competent people who select suitable candidates for state honours - is out of touch with reality. And bear in mind that these people are paid by the taxpayer to exercise their best judgement. I want my money back.

From:

Wow. I knew the muslims weren't happy about "The Satanic Verses," but I didn't know that the Ayatollah called for his death. How extreme.

From:

Wow. I knew the muslims weren't happy about "The Satanic Verses," but I didn't know that the Ayatollah called for his death. How extreme.

Britain's failure to retaliate for what was an act of war by Iran, back in 1989, is part of the reason (IMHO) that the Iranians are so bold against Britain today.

From:

patchworkmind.livejournal.com

America's lackluster record at dealing with the Iranians certainly didn't help.

From:

America's lackluster record at dealing with the Iranians certainly didn't help.

Once again, I blame Jimmy Carter. He could have given the Iranians a bloody nose in 1979: among other things, the war probably would have destroyed the Tomcats and the surface combatants. Instead, he left them with the lesson that if you grab Westerners, you'll get what you want.

I'm not too happy about Reagan and the Iranian end of Iran-Contra, either.

From:

Ronald Reagan did much worse than that. In 1983, the US, Britain, France and Italy agreed to send a fairly large peacekeeping force to Beirut - Italy provided more than 2000 men, the US and France about a thousand each, and Britain a token force of a hundred or so. I was in the Italian army at the time and I nearly volunteered for Lebanon (purely for the rich combat pay), till an older soldier explained to me that they would never take me. That is why I remember this well.

Well, at the time there was a new political movement being set up in Lebanon, called Hezbollah (most Lebanese Shias were then represented by something called Amahl), and they decided to get themselves some useful publicity by taking a great big bite out of the Americans. They sent a truck loaded with explosive, and something like 179 Marines, IIRC, were murdered.

The Americans fled without even telling their allies, leaving Italians, French and Britons to make their own arrangements. If you want to know why no European can take the burnished, heroic image of Reagan the Cold Warrior seriously, that headlong flight from Lebanon, leaving allies in the lurch, is a good place to start. It was also disastrous because it taught all sorts of Arabs, from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, that Americans have ships of iron but hearts of straw. The result of that lesson was an appalling series of abductions and murders of American agents, the Achille Lauro affair, Saddam Hussein's convinction that he would be allowed to get away with the invasion of Kuwait, etc.

From:

Reagan's whole Lebanon policy was foolish. First of all, he prevented Israel from crushing the PLO when their leadership was besieged in Beruit, supposedly to prevent civilian casualties. Secondly, he failed to take out, or let the PLO, eliminate this PLO cadre when they were being withdraw by ship (an ideal moment for a capture or drowning of these criminals). Then, as you said, he cut and ran rather than punishing the Terrorist States for the 1983 Embassy Bombing, and left our European allies in the lurch.

He did, right after that, succeed in liberating Grenada. But this victory, in our own hemisphere, at the expense of the Old World, sent a dangerous signal to our enemies.

Fortunately, the strengths of other aspects of our foreign policy prevailed, in the end.

From:

Actually, liberating Granada - even assuming that "liberating" is the right word; I accept it, but a lot of people will be thinking of "invading" - actually diminished Reagan's European reputation further. Coming as it did after the Lebanon debacle, it left the impression of America restoring her pride at the expense of an insignificant enemy after having their tails chased away from a serious conflict; and Margaret Thatcher, America's closest ally, was seriously offended (and let it be known) that the US would take it on themselves to invade a Commonwealth country with strong ties to the UK (this country is full of West Indians, who were at the time one of Mrs.Thatcher's most serious political concerns) without so much as informing Britain first. The relationship was quickly repaired, but, in the eye of British and European public opinion, the reputation of "Ronnie Ray-gun" as irresponsible isolationist, bully, and coward, was as good as established.

From:

but, in the eye of British and European public opinion, the reputation of "Ronnie Ray-gun" as irresponsible isolationist, bully, and coward, was as good as established.

Western European public opinion. The liberation of Grenada greatly enhanced Reagan's reputation in Eastern Europe, where "liberation" was exactly what the people were hoping for.

From:

What did they do?

From:

He refers to the order to kill a British citizen (Rushdie) on British soil. Mind you, Vladimir Putin did the same last year, killed his man, AND got away with it (the Litvinenko case).

From:

Well, we in America have tried the "always retaliate" strategy and it's not perfect.

From:

Beats the "Let'em walk all over you and kill anyone they please" all hollow, though. Besides, I think you overrate the amount of retaliation America has been willing to inflict on terrorists. Running like a maniac without even informing your supporters and allies (Reagan, Beirut, 1983; Clinton, Mogadiscio, 1997) is cheaper and does not seem to harm your warrior reputation in the long run.

From:

Doomsday devices help one's reputation.

From:

What did they do?

Ordered the death of a British citizen (Salman Rushdie), on British soil, for exercising his right of free speech. Britain didn't even expel the Iranian Embassy, let alone put a price on the head of the man (Khomeini) who gave the order.

I'm not just criticizing Britain here: America also didn't do anything against Iran, even after the bombing of the Riverdale Press.

From:

A number of Muslim organizations have put prices on his head, adding up to dozens of millions of dollars.

Incidentally, is anything being done to treat those Muslim organizations as criminal conspiracies and begin rounding up their memberships? In Britain? In America (where there was a bombing back in the 1980's on this issue)?

Not expecting us to, really, just wishing that we would be a bit more offended, or frightened, at the obvious threat of Muslim censorship of our own media.

From: