You couldn't make it up dept. no.66: sure, they love him in Peshawar

[fpb]

The context is scary. The situation is potentially deadly, and will inevitably grow worse. But what seems to have led up to it is simply too hysterical for words:
From The Guardian:

The committee that recommended Salman Rushdie for a knighthood did not discuss any possible political ramifications and never imagined that the award would provoke the furious response that it has done in parts of the Muslim world, the Guardian has learnt.

It also emerged yesterday that the writers' organisation that led the lobbying for the author of Midnight's Children and The Satanic Verses to be knighted had originally hoped that the honour would lead to better relations between Britain and Asia...

One of my first pieces when I started this blog four years ago was about the ludicrous incompetence of the British ruling class. It was not welcomed then - http://fpb.livejournal.com/4790.html. I rest my case now.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

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.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

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.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

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.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

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.

[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.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

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.

[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.