Trump's withdrawal was to be undertaken with a firm agreement in advance and with the Taliban left in no doubt as to what the military consequences would be should they renege.
Their clumped advances of recent weeks would have provided easy targets as against the difficulty of ferreting out a solitary with a 303 hidden in a crevice on a mountaintop.
An analogy is with Nixon's withdrawal from Vietnam.
The North Vietnamese knew for sure that if they violated the Paris Peace Accord and advanced on Saigon, then they would be obliterated by air strikes.
But Watergate removed both Nixon and his pledge to South Vietnam, and in consequence it wasn't VC armed with crossbows who took Saigon but columns of armored NV tanks and vehicles that would otherwise have been sitting ducks.
Biden is due to speak. Will he too try and deflect the human catastrophe onto Trump?
Yep, this is the norm for your crowd: mock because you are unable to provide a rational counter-argument.
You seem blissfully unaware that it comes across as nothing more than a white flag surrender.
Hi idiot,
So Trump says his withdrawal was to be undertaken with a firm agreement in advance with the Taliban? Yes?
Then his statement says he withdrew billions of dollars worth of equipment and almost all the troops. Yes?
So where was the firm agreement? No one on earth has seen or heard of this firm agreement? How can he withdraw with a firm agreement and not have a firm agreement?
convoluted wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:24 pm
Good grief.
CNN actually made an immediate and perfect summation: "Biden said 'the buck stops with me' but his entire talk was fingerpointing at others" (maybe not word for word).
I thought he was entirely fair, he owned the decision to withdraw but pointed out the context surrounding it - the Afghans are hapless and there is nothing you can do for people if they aren't willing to do it for themselves. He said a third decade in Afghanistan was unpalatable and he did not want to pass this problem onto another President.
All he did was read a carefully-crafted script then turn on his heels and run.
Trump would have stood there for an hour or more and taken the most hostile of inflammatory questions.
convoluted wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:24 pm
Good grief.
CNN actually made an immediate and perfect summation: "Biden said 'the buck stops with me' but his entire talk was fingerpointing at others" (maybe not word for word).
I thought he was entirely fair, he owned the decision to withdraw but pointed out the context surrounding it - the Afghans are hapless and there is nothing you can do for people if they aren't willing to do it for themselves. He said a third decade in Afghanistan was unpalatable and he did not want to pass this problem onto another President.
All he did was read a carefully-crafted script then turn on his heels and run.
Trump would have stood there for an hour or more and taken the most hostile of inflammatory questions.
Oh get fucked!
Drump has a history of walking out if asked a question he didn't like..
convoluted wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:24 pm
Good grief.
CNN actually made an immediate and perfect summation: "Biden said 'the buck stops with me' but his entire talk was fingerpointing at others" (maybe not word for word).
I thought he was entirely fair, he owned the decision to withdraw but pointed out the context surrounding it - the Afghans are hapless and there is nothing you can do for people if they aren't willing to do it for themselves. He said a third decade in Afghanistan was unpalatable and he did not want to pass this problem onto another President.
All he did was read a carefully-crafted script then turn on his heels and run.
Trump would have stood there for an hour or more and taken the most hostile of inflammatory questions.
I'm not sure how what Trump would have done differently is really important or relevant.
Biden has made his decision and is sticking to his guns. You can certainly criticise him and his administration for the logistical handling of the withdrawal but he's not passing this Afghanistan situation onto another President or another generation of young American soldiers and in that sense the buck has stopped with him.
I thought he was entirely fair, he owned the decision to withdraw but pointed out the context surrounding it - the Afghans are hapless and there is nothing you can do for people if they aren't willing to do it for themselves. He said a third decade in Afghanistan was unpalatable and he did not want to pass this problem onto another President.
All he did was read a carefully-crafted script then turn on his heels and run.
Trump would have stood there for an hour or more and taken the most hostile of inflammatory questions.
Oh get fucked!
Drump has a history of walking out if asked a question he didn't like..
Yes, those related to Trump's personal embarrassment over one thing or another, gaffed that were not surprising given the inordinate amount of time he spent answering questions off script.
This was entirely different for FS. This was the abandonment of a hundred thousand or so close collaborators and their little kids.
Yep, this is the norm for your crowd: mock because you are unable to provide a rational counter-argument.
You seem blissfully unaware that it comes across as nothing more than a white flag surrender.
Hi idiot,
So Trump says his withdrawal was to be undertaken with a firm agreement in advance with the Taliban? Yes?
Then his statement says he withdrew billions of dollars worth of equipment and almost all the troops. Yes?
So where was the firm agreement? No one on earth has seen or heard of this firm agreement? How can he withdraw with a firm agreement and not have a firm agreement?
He might be making it all up I reckon
So you know the inner details of the Trump admin's plans?
Show me where the stated Trump intent was to abandon those who collaborated and leave piles of sophisticated equipment.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:11 pm
by TB63
FUN FACT: As a part of the 2020 Doha deal, Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo made an agreement with the Taliban to lift sanctions against the group and have 5,000 Taliban prisoners released in exchange for a 3-month cease-fire. Those prisoners now control Afghanistan. ...
E88Oi73XIAY-csz.jpeg (57.92 KiB) Viewed 1425 times
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:49 pm
by fishfoodie
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:33 am
by Certain Navigator
convoluted wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:24 pm
Good grief.
CNN actually made an immediate and perfect summation: "Biden said 'the buck stops with me' but his entire talk was fingerpointing at others" (maybe not word for word).
All I could think of while watching Biden was how much he reminded me of Trump: "I'm right, regardless of the consequences, and it's all everybody's fault anyway".
The Moron may have started this cowardly capitulation, but Biden has not only failed to reverse it, he's actually doubled down. He deserves all the criticism, and more, that's coming his way.
tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:06 am
TO be fair the the FCO that is now what appears to be happening - also a big airlift is underway.
The airport look like absolute mayhem though - runway choked with desperate Afgans
PM Ardern announced that the NZ govt would be sending a C130 (I think so) with perhaps some SAS in attendance to rescue Afghans who had cooperated with NZ forces over there during the last 20 years. Now to get it done.
On 5 July, Faafoi rejected doing anything more for Afghanis who worked with NZ forces, and he repeated that refusal on July 30. This plane is just the usual performative gesture (especially as this exercise is primarily to rescue Kiwis still in Afghanistan) from a government that continues to show it's long on waffle and xenophobia but short on competence and humanity.
convoluted wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:24 pm
Good grief.
CNN actually made an immediate and perfect summation: "Biden said 'the buck stops with me' but his entire talk was fingerpointing at others" (maybe not word for word).
All I could think of while watching Biden was how much he reminded me of Trump: "I'm right, regardless of the consequences, and it's all everybody's fault anyway".
The Moron may have started this cowardly capitulation, but Biden has not only failed to reverse it, he's actually doubled down. He deserves all the criticism, and more, that's coming his way.
"I stand squarely behind my decision".
"This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated", followed by some facts about the Afghanistan government and armed forces, and some information about the military support the US gave to the govt forces.
Yep, this is the norm for your crowd: mock because you are unable to provide a rational counter-argument.
You seem blissfully unaware that it comes across as nothing more than a white flag surrender.
Hi idiot,
So Trump says his withdrawal was to be undertaken with a firm agreement in advance with the Taliban? Yes?
Then his statement says he withdrew billions of dollars worth of equipment and almost all the troops. Yes?
So where was the firm agreement? No one on earth has seen or heard of this firm agreement? How can he withdraw with a firm agreement and not have a firm agreement?
He might be making it all up I reckon
So you know the inner details of the Trump admin's plans?
Show me where the stated Trump intent was to abandon those who collaborated and leave piles of sophisticated equipment.
You;re pretty close to describing the capabilities of the QE class (barring the amhpib assault craft, but that type of operation requires a very specialist vessel that a carrier air wing would help protect). The QE class are more akin to the US Wasp class of carriers (technically Helicopter Landing Docks) than the (much larger) Nimitz/Ford nuclear class
Nah, the only comparison to America class LHDs iscwe didn't order theb F35C or enough F35Bs
esn’t this demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the decision to build new aircraft carriers when a more modern fighting force would have flexible vessels capable of accommodating VTOL fighters, helicopter transports, amphibious assault vessels etc? I have no expertise in this but I’ve previously been told by people who know a bit more than me that carriers are now just about projection of power rather than successful military actions. Which in our case is a projection of power we no longer have.
1. It literally has those abilities.
2. Kabul is outside the range of most VTOL aircraft and helicopters from the Indian Ocean
3. ..and even if it wasn't Pakistan is kinda in the way of and any maritime airlift
4. The UK has more than enough strategic airlift to get people out.
5. Whilst the carrier is a mobile asset it travels at about 30mph and is in the Pacific.
My favourite comment I've seen under the increasingly hysterical 'why aren't we sending the carrier group' posts is 'because it doesn't have wheels mate'.
The correlation between leaving Afghan and rebuilding the RN doesn't seem to have clicked.
"This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated", followed by some facts about the Afghanistan government and armed forces, and some information about the military support the US gave to the govt forces.
Sounds fair to me.
I can't remember whether I linked the article or not, but there was an analysis in the Grauniad that highlighted that the higher up intel got, the more it was sanitised so that the impression received at the highest levels was that the Afghan Army was ready to stand up to the Taliban when it patently wasn't.
Interestingly I was doing some reading (well, Wiki) yesterday on the original Taliban insurgency, which was heavily funded by Pakistan and Saudi, and which used that money to bribe local leaders to secure areas, rather than through its military prowess , which was no better or worse than the other ex-mujahadeen groups. Presumably that was a big factor in their lightning campaign this time, and you'd hope that somebody, somewhere in the west is taking a long term strategic view on dealing with the Talib-sponsoring States particularly in the case of Saudi, as we move away from oil dependency. Probably not though.
You;re pretty close to describing the capabilities of the QE class (barring the amhpib assault craft, but that type of operation requires a very specialist vessel that a carrier air wing would help protect). The QE class are more akin to the US Wasp class of carriers (technically Helicopter Landing Docks) than the (much larger) Nimitz/Ford nuclear class
Nah, the only comparison to America class LHDs iscwe didn't order theb F35C or enough F35Bs
The America class can only handle around 6 F35s
Wasp class is a bit more aligned towards heli operations, but that's because the US has the Nimitz/Ford class for serious Air operations. In terms of role they're expected to fulfil they're quite close, although the QE class will support a true Amphib operation instead of managing it itself.
"This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated", followed by some facts about the Afghanistan government and armed forces, and some information about the military support the US gave to the govt forces.
Sounds fair to me.
I can't remember whether I linked the article or not, but there was an analysis in the Grauniad that highlighted that the higher up intel got, the more it was sanitised so that the impression received at the highest levels was that the Afghan Army was ready to stand up to the Taliban when it patently wasn't.
Interestingly I was doing some reading (well, Wiki) yesterday on the original Taliban insurgency, which was heavily funded by Pakistan and Saudi, and which used that money to bribe local leaders to secure areas, rather than through its military prowess , which was no better or worse than the other ex-mujahadeen groups. Presumably that was a big factor in their lightning campaign this time, and you'd hope that somebody, somewhere in the west is taking a long term strategic view on dealing with the Talib-sponsoring States particularly in the case of Saudi, as we move away from oil dependency. Probably not though.
One of the few genuinely decent Vice documentaries, but also touches on this point:
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:24 am
by Margin__Walker
Though back to a documentary I watched a few weeks ago about a USMC platoon on deployment in Helmand in the 2010 surge. There's a section below at the end where they are asked to assess how successful they've been (from 1.50.00). Starting with the hugely positive take by a Major, to the platoon commander (in this case an NCO) towing the line. Then finishing with the USN Corpsman deployed with them who actually nails it. Says even then 'we lost'.
WHAT? You mean other than the stone age ideological, rag tag equipped lot that have just kicked your arse? Failure of intelligence has more than one meaning here.
"This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated", followed by some facts about the Afghanistan government and armed forces, and some information about the military support the US gave to the govt forces.
Sounds fair to me.
I can't remember whether I linked the article or not, but there was an analysis in the Grauniad that highlighted that the higher up intel got, the more it was sanitised so that the impression received at the highest levels was that the Afghan Army was ready to stand up to the Taliban when it patently wasn't.
Interestingly I was doing some reading (well, Wiki) yesterday on the original Taliban insurgency, which was heavily funded by Pakistan and Saudi, and which used that money to bribe local leaders to secure areas, rather than through its military prowess , which was no better or worse than the other ex-mujahadeen groups. Presumably that was a big factor in their lightning campaign this time, and you'd hope that somebody, somewhere in the west is taking a long term strategic view on dealing with the Talib-sponsoring States particularly in the case of Saudi, as we move away from oil dependency. Probably not though.
1st paragraph is also what happened in Vietnam.
And yes, until oil becomes valueless and the Saudis go back to eating sand, the West will continue to allow them to commit any human rights atrocity they like. I suppose there is an outside chance that the Saudis overplayed their own hands and the idealogical dogs they released decide their masters are just as much an affront to their extreme beliefs as the West is and bite their former masters' heads off.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:15 am
by Thor Sedan
Man.....watching the blame game go on in the States right now is crazy.
Biden saying it's on him but really it is the former guys fault. trump saying it is all on Biden - but from a position where he would have had just as monumental f**k up had he got himself a second term.
The right falling over themselves to blame Biden, the left blaming Biden but packing in trump as well. 'Independent' sources going after the US's foreign policy for the last 20 years in the Middle East. Bush being celebrated as the US's cuddly 'Grandpa' - even though he is responsible for millions of homeless, mutilated, tortured and dead. Obama turning off social media - cause he doesn't have any answers.
It is strangely satisfying and terrifying watching the US fall in on itself. They haven't had any semblance of competent leadership for 5 years now. Some might say since the Clinton term ended (and that guy was a sax pest). trump is going to get another bite in 2024 cause the Democrats are the weakest political party to ever hold the house and senate.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:06 am
by Paddington Bear
Not sure Clinton is where I'd look for effective US military intervention.
Truth be told the Americans are very, very poor at the global policeman role. They lose against any kind of organised resistance and don't have the stomach for the fight. They make no real attempt to understand what makes the local population tick, just various degrees of evangelising about whatever is popular in the US at the time. No real application of the fact that these wars involve very tough choices.
To be as uncontested in their global power as they have been since the Cold War ended and to have lost so comprehensively two wars and managed to lose total control of the wider Middle East situation is an astonishing failure.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:02 pm
by FalseBayFC
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:06 am
Not sure Clinton is where I'd look for effective US military intervention.
Truth be told the Americans are very, very poor at the global policeman role. They lose against any kind of organised resistance and don't have the stomach for the fight. They make no real attempt to understand what makes the local population tick, just various degrees of evangelising about whatever is popular in the US at the time. No real application of the fact that these wars involve very tough choices.
To be as uncontested in their global power as they have been since the Cold War ended and to have lost so comprehensively two wars and managed to lose total control of the wider Middle East situation is an astonishing failure.
So the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nato should not be included in the blame for this clusterfuck? Seems like now that the coalition partners seem very unwilling to show accountability here.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:06 am
Not sure Clinton is where I'd look for effective US military intervention.
Truth be told the Americans are very, very poor at the global policeman role. They lose against any kind of organised resistance and don't have the stomach for the fight. They make no real attempt to understand what makes the local population tick, just various degrees of evangelising about whatever is popular in the US at the time. No real application of the fact that these wars involve very tough choices.
To be as uncontested in their global power as they have been since the Cold War ended and to have lost so comprehensively two wars and managed to lose total control of the wider Middle East situation is an astonishing failure.
So the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nato should not be included in the blame for this clusterfuck? Seems like now that the coalition partners seem very unwilling to show accountability here.
No - they could have had no strategic impact. See also Australia’s much more effective tactics in Vietnam that did sod all to change the overall outcome
Truth be told the Americans are very, very poor at the global policeman role. They lose against any kind of organised resistance and don't have the stomach for the fight. They make no real attempt to understand what makes the local population tick, just various degrees of evangelising about whatever is popular in the US at the time. No real application of the fact that these wars involve very tough choices.
To be as uncontested in their global power as they have been since the Cold War ended and to have lost so comprehensively two wars and managed to lose total control of the wider Middle East situation is an astonishing failure.
Yet the rest of the world keep insisting they stand up to Isis/China/Russia and act as our World Policeman. One day the US will tell the rest of us to fuck off and deal with XYZ aggressor ourselves......enjoy.
Truth be told the Americans are very, very poor at the global policeman role. They lose against any kind of organised resistance and don't have the stomach for the fight. They make no real attempt to understand what makes the local population tick, just various degrees of evangelising about whatever is popular in the US at the time. No real application of the fact that these wars involve very tough choices.
To be as uncontested in their global power as they have been since the Cold War ended and to have lost so comprehensively two wars and managed to lose total control of the wider Middle East situation is an astonishing failure.
Yet the rest of the world keep insisting they stand up to Isis/China/Russia and act as our World Policeman. One day the US will tell the rest of us to fuck off and deal with XYZ aggressor ourselves......enjoy.
Well that's what Trump did, and they ended up looking like colossal arses, so I suspect when they review their global strategic outlook "acting like toddlers again" will be pretty far down the list of options.
It is strangely satisfying and terrifying watching the US fall in on itself. They haven't had any semblance of competent leadership for 5 years now. Some might say since the Clinton term ended (and that guy was a sax pest). trump is going to get another bite in 2024 cause the Democrats are the weakest political party to ever hold the house and senate.
Truth be told the Americans are very, very poor at the global policeman role. They lose against any kind of organised resistance and don't have the stomach for the fight. They make no real attempt to understand what makes the local population tick, just various degrees of evangelising about whatever is popular in the US at the time. No real application of the fact that these wars involve very tough choices.
To be as uncontested in their global power as they have been since the Cold War ended and to have lost so comprehensively two wars and managed to lose total control of the wider Middle East situation is an astonishing failure.
Yet the rest of the world keep insisting they stand up to Isis/China/Russia and act as our World Policeman. One day the US will tell the rest of us to fuck off and deal with XYZ aggressor ourselves......enjoy.
Indeed. God knows the US has its faults but if the world has to have a dominant power I'd prefer the US to the other likely candidates.
Truth be told the Americans are very, very poor at the global policeman role. They lose against any kind of organised resistance and don't have the stomach for the fight. They make no real attempt to understand what makes the local population tick, just various degrees of evangelising about whatever is popular in the US at the time. No real application of the fact that these wars involve very tough choices.
To be as uncontested in their global power as they have been since the Cold War ended and to have lost so comprehensively two wars and managed to lose total control of the wider Middle East situation is an astonishing failure.
Yet the rest of the world keep insisting they stand up to Isis/China/Russia and act as our World Policeman. One day the US will tell the rest of us to fuck off and deal with XYZ aggressor ourselves......enjoy.
Well that's what Trump did, and they ended up looking like colossal arses, so I suspect when they review their global strategic outlook "acting like toddlers again" will be pretty far down the list of options.
Yeah it's not something that they have a lot of choice in - we found exactly the same when we were a superpower.
American hegemony remains very much in Britain's interest, as does being a very close ally. I think we just need to be realistic about what the Americans can and will achieve, and ensure that we have the ability to retain some freedom of action. Having a properly funded and deployable navy with strong connections out of region (Japan/Aus etc) seems the best way of doing that to me.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:56 pm
by Biffer
Part of the problem is USA being the sole sup0erpower for the last few decades. As China increases it's influence, they'll all of a sudden find people having a go at them as well and get caught in similar positions. They're currently doing some dals with the Taliban; I'm certain that some of those will come back to bite them in the arse later.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:14 pm
by Calculon
It will be interesting to see how China handles the Taliban.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:44 pmAmerican hegemony remains very much in Britain's interest, as does being a very close ally.
I'm curious - what do you consider to be the benefits of being a close ally to the US? What benefits do we get out of this relationship that, say, Ireland (military neutral, not in NATO) do not also enjoy? I'm not trying to lay a trap here, I'm in good faith wondering what real benefits are derived from UK foreign policy so closely aligning with the Americans.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:44 pmAmerican hegemony remains very much in Britain's interest, as does being a very close ally.
I'm curious - what do you consider to be the benefits of being a close ally to the US? What benefits do we get out of this relationship that, say, Ireland (military neutral, not in NATO) do not also enjoy? I'm not trying to lay a trap here, I'm in good faith wondering what real benefits are derived from UK foreign policy so closely aligning with the Americans.
UK has security and international interests in excess of those of Ireland and so neutrality is not a viable option. 'I wouldn't have started from here' doesn't change the fact that we are here.
Neutral Ireland is and was of course protected to various degrees by non neutral UK and US and more recently NATO.
For some clarity on what I mean - being a close ally of the US doesn't necessarily mean we need to be bound into all US interventions. What it does mean is being highly connected to US intelligence and military leadership, having units that are deployable alongside and inside US formations, Five Eyes etc.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:44 pmAmerican hegemony remains very much in Britain's interest, as does being a very close ally.
I'm curious - what do you consider to be the benefits of being a close ally to the US? What benefits do we get out of this relationship that, say, Ireland (military neutral, not in NATO) do not also enjoy? I'm not trying to lay a trap here, I'm in good faith wondering what real benefits are derived from UK foreign policy so closely aligning with the Americans.
UK has security and international interests in excess of those of Ireland and so neutrality is not a viable option. 'I wouldn't have started from here' doesn't change the fact that we are here.
Neutral Ireland is and was of course protected to various degrees by non neutral UK and US and more recently NATO.
For some clarity on what I mean - being a close ally of the US doesn't necessarily mean we need to be bound into all US interventions. What it does mean is being highly connected to US intelligence and military leadership, having units that are deployable alongside and inside US formations, Five Eyes etc.
Also the fact that then US and UK have free market and widespread export economies and part of the military presences are - historically, perhaps more than now - intended to support this approach to life. In some cases good to e.g. protect shipping in pirate-infested waters, in some cases bad e.g. trying to take the Suez canal. The US and UK are not unique in this regard, but their interests do quite frequently align although they're not always in lockstep. The US isn't so dependent upon Suez canal so - lo and behold and pretty hypocritically as the US controls the Panama Canal - they pushed back against UK/French/Israeli landgrab, and the UK quite wisely, and against US pressure, stayed the hell away from Vietnam.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:44 pmAmerican hegemony remains very much in Britain's interest, as does being a very close ally.
I'm curious - what do you consider to be the benefits of being a close ally to the US? What benefits do we get out of this relationship that, say, Ireland (military neutral, not in NATO) do not also enjoy? I'm not trying to lay a trap here, I'm in good faith wondering what real benefits are derived from UK foreign policy so closely aligning with the Americans.
The Irony of this is Ireland benefits from the American hegemony about as much as anyone - the diplomatic and political alliances that allow it to be sovereign and wealthy are all ultimately based on American hard power.
I'm curious - what do you consider to be the benefits of being a close ally to the US? What benefits do we get out of this relationship that, say, Ireland (military neutral, not in NATO) do not also enjoy? I'm not trying to lay a trap here, I'm in good faith wondering what real benefits are derived from UK foreign policy so closely aligning with the Americans.
UK has security and international interests in excess of those of Ireland and so neutrality is not a viable option. 'I wouldn't have started from here' doesn't change the fact that we are here.
Neutral Ireland is and was of course protected to various degrees by non neutral UK and US and more recently NATO.
For some clarity on what I mean - being a close ally of the US doesn't necessarily mean we need to be bound into all US interventions. What it does mean is being highly connected to US intelligence and military leadership, having units that are deployable alongside and inside US formations, Five Eyes etc.
Also the fact that then US and UK have free market and widespread export economies and part of the military presences are - historically, perhaps more than now - intended to support this approach to life. In some cases good to e.g. protect shipping in pirate-infested waters, in some cases bad e.g. trying to take the Suez canal. The US and UK are not unique in this regard, but their interests do quite frequently align although they're not always in lockstep. The US isn't so dependent upon Suez canal so - lo and behold and pretty hypocritically as the US controls the Panama Canal - they pushed back against UK/French/Israeli landgrab, and the UK quite wisely, and against US pressure, stayed the hell away from Vietnam.
Not sure taking control of Suez was as much the bad idea as misleading the Americans about our intentions was.
Also given it’s been referenced in a few places as a comparison to this week - Suez was an overwhelming military success.
UK has security and international interests in excess of those of Ireland and so neutrality is not a viable option. 'I wouldn't have started from here' doesn't change the fact that we are here.
Neutral Ireland is and was of course protected to various degrees by non neutral UK and US and more recently NATO.
For some clarity on what I mean - being a close ally of the US doesn't necessarily mean we need to be bound into all US interventions. What it does mean is being highly connected to US intelligence and military leadership, having units that are deployable alongside and inside US formations, Five Eyes etc.
Also the fact that then US and UK have free market and widespread export economies and part of the military presences are - historically, perhaps more than now - intended to support this approach to life. In some cases good to e.g. protect shipping in pirate-infested waters, in some cases bad e.g. trying to take the Suez canal. The US and UK are not unique in this regard, but their interests do quite frequently align although they're not always in lockstep. The US isn't so dependent upon Suez canal so - lo and behold and pretty hypocritically as the US controls the Panama Canal - they pushed back against UK/French/Israeli landgrab, and the UK quite wisely, and against US pressure, stayed the hell away from Vietnam.
Not sure taking control of Suez was as much the bad idea as misleading the Americans about our intentions was.
Also given it’s been referenced in a few places as a comparison to this week - Suez was an overwhelming military success.
Thanks for the replies lads. If you had to do a top 5/10 of the US's biggest allies, how would you rank such a list? I read a book "Taming American power" recently and I've developed a fascination in who gets the most out of their relationship with the US, who has the most leverage, the most unequivocal support etc. Here are some links regarding that question -
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:44 pmAmerican hegemony remains very much in Britain's interest, as does being a very close ally.
I'm curious - what do you consider to be the benefits of being a close ally to the US? What benefits do we get out of this relationship that, say, Ireland (military neutral, not in NATO) do not also enjoy? I'm not trying to lay a trap here, I'm in good faith wondering what real benefits are derived from UK foreign policy so closely aligning with the Americans.
The Irony of this is Ireland benefits from the American hegemony about as much as anyone - the diplomatic and political alliances that allow it to be sovereign and wealthy are all ultimately based on American hard power.
Indeed. Would I be right in saying that the entire western project is essentially dependent on US military might?
You;re pretty close to describing the capabilities of the QE class (barring the amhpib assault craft, but that type of operation requires a very specialist vessel that a carrier air wing would help protect). The QE class are more akin to the US Wasp class of carriers (technically Helicopter Landing Docks) than the (much larger) Nimitz/Ford nuclear class
Nah, the only comparison to America class LHDs iscwe didn't order theb F35C or enough F35Bs
The America class can only handle around 6 F35s
Wasp class is a bit more aligned towards heli operations, but that's because the US has the Nimitz/Ford class for serious Air operations. In terms of role they're expected to fulfil they're quite close, although the QE class will support a true Amphib operation instead of managing it itself.
Before the fire on the Bonhomme Richard, they were planning on a 50:50 split on Heli Vs F35 based roles. They are also looking at smaller CVs again, not that I expect it to go anywhere.
