Mothballing the Fleet (Fred Thompson on Iran)

National Review Online ^ | March 28, 2007 5:15 PM | By Fred Thompson

[DBCJR]

Tony Blair’s getting angrier every day. But if past Iranian hostage takings are an indication, he may be upset for a while. The American-embassy hostages were held for 444 days, and the Israeli soldiers kidnapped last year by Iran’s Hezbollah puppets still aren’t free.

Blair is threatening to escalate to a “different phase,” but Iran’s leadership knows something that most Americans don’t. Two months ago, Britain’s government announced plans to mothball almost half its naval fleet due to defense-budget cuts. Much of its existing navy is already so degraded; it would take over a year to get into action. According to the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, senior naval officers say that the cuts “will turn Britain’s once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defense force.”

In fact, the British naval forces have been so neglected; the U.K. probably couldn’t pull off the Falkland Islands mission today. The world’s fifth-largest economy now supports an army that ranks 28th in size.

What are they thinking?

Continued below

[Hostage]

Who is we?

You've got no backup other than a harping mouth.

[capitalist229]

It has also recently passed a vote in the Commons to upgrade the Nukes.

Wrong. That was only a vote to begin a study of upgrading the nukes by 2021, it was not a vote for design or construction. Even then, Blair was fought at every turn by half of his own party as well as the Liberal party. If not for David Cameron and the conservatives the study would have been indefinitely postponed.

The UK is consumed by its struggle to support the national health service. A precursor of our own future under Medicare.

BUMP

[Hostage]

What facts? It's both of you that got you heads in your arses. How about post #12?

[Craigswatch]

Satellite photos, where did you get them from the Iranian Propaganda mill?
Go back to sleep. Nuke Iran!

[Tallguy]

Exactly. Britain is cutting it's "legacy force" in order to preserve its shipbuilding budget -- which includes 2 full-size conventional aircraft carriers. Plus they are clearing the decks to re-equip their naval airforce with F-35 Lightning II's (to fly off those same carriers).

We've done the same thing time & again. You accept some short-term risk to buy some long-term security.

[Jack_Macca]

Same thing.

That's the way Britain works. If it was just a vote on a study, then there would be no study would there?

That is why it was headline news for weeks leading up to the vote.

[ItsForTheChildren]

we had a glimpse of Fred Thompson in action when he caved in to John Glenn during the Senate hearings

Could you provide a reference for this, please?

[DKNY]

Who is we?

You've got no backup other than a harping mouth.

Me and the other harpies of course... just another nasty comment from what has now become the typical FR poster.

If Thompson is your candidate, I suggest you do some research, try Chinagate/Asiagate, and let's not forget his support of McCain Feingold.

[AFreeBird]

I didn't see anything in the article (a transcript really) that implied that Iran did this to Britain because of a weakened Royal Navy.

He was speculating on what Blair could do with a navy that is considering cutting its fleet in half to 22 ships. I believe he was also commenting on the fact that while the EU is cutting its defenses, the enemies of civilization are strengthening their military capabilities and that that is not a good thing.

So while you are saying that the conservative Telegraph is trying to scare the people into supporting a strong navy/military, perhaps Fred is trying to do the same to other western nations that seem hell bent on suicide.

Lets face it, the EU is a hand wringing, pantywaist of an organization that would rather let itself be overthrown from within or without because they can't stand the idea of growing a spine and saying: ENOUGH! And then to back it up with serious action.

Appeasement didn't work in 1939, and it isn't going to work today. Especially with the mad man running Iran, and his quest for the bomb.

So I guess what I get from the article about Fred is; that he subscribes to the philosophy of:

[GBA]

You are probably right about the psychology being used to get the public behind upgrading the fleet. We do much the same with our F-15 fly offs with other countries when we lose every encounter. It gets the public behind buying the F-22.

Since you recognize the psychology, you should also see that FDT is doing the same thing and he is essentially right. There is a trend, even in the face of a determined enemy and an even more determined China, for NATO allies to cut back and get even more complacent about what we will all face.

If there is a bottom line, it is that Iran has once again taken hostages and once again it gets a Jimmy Carter-esque response. What is required is a Thatcher or Reagan-esque response. Do you think Britain could do that at the moment as it sacrifices short term security? Apparently, Iran doesn't.

[BobS]

You have a point. We are in Iraq and Afghan for our own survival. If England, Germany, and Spain choose to not defend themselves, that is their choice. We are not babysitters. For 60 years? There are 2 bases in Germany we should maintain contracts for. And 2 in Italy. Rota in Spain around Cadiz is for the Navy.

Close about 28 bases in Europe to fund what are our real interests in survival. Pull out of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. Stop subsidizing idiots.

[Jack_Macca]

I agree with you on everything except one thing. The EU is not a military organisation, nor is it a unitary body.

To expect the EU to agree on a foreign policy is to fail to realise that it is a trade bloc of totally separate countries.

So many FReepers think it is similar to the USA as a political organisation. It is not even a modern day Confederacy.

It is more like an economic NATO.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Round em all up and shoot em!!

[GBA]

The latest Iranian hostage taking really is America's fault, just like complacent attitudes most of the NATO allies have are America's fault.

We project so much power and do so much to keep the peace that there isn't much of a need for other countries to spend on their own defenses. They don't feel threatened by anyone and go so far as to say that we are a threat by being the only super power!

Unfortunately, just like New Orleans realized how decayed and inadequate their hurricane defenses were, perhaps the Europeans will also have their morning after mourning.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

To expect the EU to agree on a foreign policy is to fail to realise that it is a trade bloc of totally separate countries.

Then each country should be providing their own defense, correct?

Well, they're not. Their defense budgets are not going up, they're going down.

If Britain is depending on the EU and UN for its diplomatic/military support, they're finished as a nation.

[Brandie]

I am very glad to see Fred Thompson speaking out about this. Thank you Fred Thompson.

[SampleMan]

A totally misleading expert.

Not at all. Grab a copy of defense weekly or go to the library and grab Janes weekly.

The Royal Navy is not only taking a huge hit right now, and stalling all officer promotions for two years, it has no immediate replacements. The aircraft carriers and aircraft of which you speak are respectively still on the drawing boards and still yet to be produced.

Best case scenario puts one underway in 10 years, and given French involvement, I'll put my money on one carrier of 35,000 tons in 15 years.

[kabar]

Sorry, Jack. But the UK is cutting back its defense spending.

From Royal Navy to coastal defence force

"Our status in the world, as well as the security of these islands, depends chiefly on sea power. For the better part of 500 years, England and then Britain inflicted crushing defeats on larger, wealthier and more populous nations because it controlled the main. For much of that period, indeed, foreign vessels had to dip their colours when passing our ships, in acknowledgement of our sovereignty of the seas."

"That chapter is to be closed. Of our 44 warships, at least 13, and possibly as many as 19, are to be taken out of active service. At present, we have a Navy with global reach. Our ships are present in the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the South Atlantic and the Gulf, as well as closer to home. The Government's scheme would reduce the Fleet to little more than a coastal defence role. How have we come to this pass?

Defence spending is lowest since the 1930s

"Britain spends less of its wealth on defence than Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey despite the constant demands placed on its Armed Forces, official figures show."

"According to the Conservatives, defence spending as a proportion of the UK's gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930, before the UK recognised the rising threat of Nazi Germany."

"Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, will be challenged in the Commons today over reports of further cutbacks in the programme for new Type 45 destroyers and growing doubts on whether the Government will fulfil its promise to build two new aircraft carriers."

"Julian Lewis, a Conservative defence spokesman, said last night that the Royal Navy was "bloodied, battered and on the ropes", with a "palpable feeling of betrayal" at the top as a result of a catalogue of cuts."

U.K. Royal Navy Faces Drastic Cuts

Since the end of the Cold War in 1990, the core Royal Navy has declined in size by at least a half (excluding the Royal Marines). Based on the trends of the last few years, supported by rumours of cuts to come, the Royal Navy is just 10-15 years away from losing its last ship or submarine.

In 1990, the RN had 55,800 personnel, 49 Escorts (Destroyers & Frigates), 29 Fleet Subs (not SSBNs] and 41 MCMVs. In 2006 it had 32,000 personnel, 25 Escorts (Destroyers & Frigates) 10 Fleet Subs (not SSBNs] and 16 MCMVs.

Like most of Europe, governments are being forced to choose between guns and butter and they are choosing butter, i.e., to fund their generous social welfare systems in a time of aging, declining populations. The UK has gone from a policy of no more East of Suez, to one of no more beyond the English channel. It is sad to see the demise of the Royal Navy.

[kabar]

"Between £15bn and £20bn would be spent on new submarines to carry the Trident missiles. The fleet would take 17 years to develop and build, and would then last until about 2050. "

[Paperdoll]

As far as Bosnia and Serbia go, we should never have gone there and done that; perhaps anymore than we should have gone into Iraq. But crying over spilt milk doesn't replenish the glass. Hopefully, the glass isn't too broken to restore, and there just might be another cow over the next hill. In other words, we've been ao scattered over the entire world that we think we are responsible for all of it. Not true. If keeping our bases open in foreign countries for strategic purposes isn't working, then I am for closing them. So it would hurt the individual local economies, the taxpayer's expense of keeping them open would be saved and the personel would serve best by defending our own shores. Equip the Embassies to keep an eye on things there. I wonder what things would have been like if Pat Buchanan had won the WH. I think not in straits as bad as we now find ourselves.