My point is that his implications are deliberately misleading. He is implying Iran is doing this because of the Royal Navy. That is rubbish.
He is also implying that there is something strange with the UK having only the 28th largest army in the world. That is not new. Even when Britain ran 650 million Indians they did so with less than 20,000 people.
Vietnam and Iraq show that even America struggles to invade nations, do why would the UK have an army big enough to pretend it could do that?
Britain should have a capability to defeat terrorism, win flashpoints or destroy a nation completely. I think that is the policy they are looking at.
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:
You guys in Great Britain need to tough it up and fight, a great number of people in the US are shocked by Britain weakness in this crisis.
So what's your contention? The British Navy has suffered no real cuts in funding or effectiveness? It is as strong as it has ever been?