From A BBC Tweet:Ironies of history: last time a UK PM was defeated on a war motion was 1782, when MPs voted to stop fighting American war of independence.
From A BBC Tweet:Ironies of history: last time a UK PM was defeated on a war motion was 1782, when MPs voted to stop fighting American war of independence.
davidbfpo
Just what the vote last night means to the 'Special Relationship' is unclear, although HMG must be anxious, especially if an attack goes ahead. This is a side issue here, but many SWC members will know how close that military relationship is.
My quick assessment then. For many reasons the ‘Special Relationship’ as a publicly acceptable good thing has diminished since the end of the ‘Cold War’, no doubt buttressed for many by the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The relationship is very much a Whitehall-Westminster-Cheltenham axis, it has almost no public profile. Gone are the days when tens of thousands flocked to USAF bases for air displays. Fewer Brits go on holiday to the USA, a few years ago a million a year went to Florida.
I am not persuaded today the relationship has died. Within the axis it is strong and politically few argue we are not a good ally of the USA – on many issues, except Syria today!
The USA has always taken a different view of the relationship, long before the ‘pivot’ to the Pacific. It will be interesting to see how the UK’s American friends, especially those who know the depth of the intelligence-military relationship, respond – in briefings, interviews and articles.
An injured relationship in need of care is more fitting.
davidbfpo
Could the Syrian strike be a practice run for the Iranian nuclear sites, or at least a demonstration to Tehran that they could be taken out?
The case for intervention seems strong in humanitarian terms and as a matter of realpolitik (not that rare a confluence). But the case for intervention looks weak in terms of ability to actually get it done right. Starting at the top, the president, while not at all dumb, is not some reincarnation of Bismarck. The number two (Kerry) looks like an even shakier proposition than the President. As does the NSA. The various military chiefs and intelligence chiefs may be capable enough in some narrow sense, but their record in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that they (or the institutional culture they are embedded in) cannot (or will not) do more than their "own job", which is too narrowly defined to make them the likely agents of a brilliant strategic coup here. And the broader culture is just not interested in the role of imperialist OR worldcop. Liberals who want humanitarian intervention would prefer that it be bloodless. Right wingers who want to kill them all and let Allah sort them out have no idea what they are up against in detail and what that business of killing them all may involve at home and abroad in terms of costs to THEMSELVES.
Not only does the US lack credibility about its intentions or information, it lacks credibility about its ability to get things done right. That may be harder to fix, especially if the perception is partly correct.
Of course it's possible that they have a brilliant plan outline and are working to fill in the details (not just in terms of military planning, but PR management, international partners etc) and given a little more time, will get it right; but really, who do you think HAS that great plan?(I woudlnt know about it if they did, but how many people here think Kerry, Rice, Hagel whatever actually have a brilliant strategic plan in their head and are feverishly laying the foundations for getting it right as we speak?)...and of course its possible that they dont even need the time; that they jumped in with all this red line, got-to-take-action stuff because they ALREADY had the foundations laid in secret and will soon show everyone how wrong the doubters were..well, how likely does that seem to anyone here?
Pessimism may not be that irrational.
Omarali, your pessimism is not unfounded in the least.
The simple fact the the Congress was not recalled (and it has something like 10 days left in recess) speaks volumes. Someone with the job of advising the President to request that they come back, is either failing at that task, or doesn't know a lick about what they are doing and should be fired either way.
Again, there is nothing limited about the Syrian problem and we need to look no further than to a few administrations ago, to be able to gauge how this plays out.
As a mental exercise, what does the Council think Assad's countermove will be after, say, 24 Tomahawk missile strikes against command and control facilities and a few Ba'ath Party buildings?
Last edited by jcustis; 08-30-2013 at 04:36 PM.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
I think IF the US attack is symbolic (24 tomahawks) then his response will be equally symbolic and limited.
Bookmarks