Bush had no real choice. He was proposing a full invasion/occupation. The War Powers Act means Congress had to give approval at some point anyway. While the executive has maintained the War Powers Act doesn’t bind its actions, all Presidents since it has been passed have noted that while also “voluntarily” adhering to it. Further, due to the budget realities the war in Iraq required specific funding, so it simply could never have happened on a President’s prerogative.
The proposed strikes on Syria could have happened under understood Presidential power to react to “events.” But it does indicate a nice nod toward the war declaring powers that are supposed to be held by the legislature in the first place.
Regardless of what the British do the French would never surrender their permanent seat. China would never allow India, Indonesia or Japan to have permanent seats.
I’m not sure any country would have a specific opposition to Brazil, but I’d assume at least one of the five would block it just on the principle of not diluting their own power.
The five standing members of the UNSC have rendered the UN a joke in any case. It’s a guarantee that the UN only works when the national self-interest of the five powers are not being infringed interfered with at all. In the modern world that basically means the UNSC will never be able to respond to anything of note in world affairs, it’s basically a League of Nations type body now.
Unfortunately (as an American) I don’t think isolationism and just relying on our saviors at the UN and other toothless international bodies is really in our long term best interests. I would like to see my country be much less interventionist than it has been, and I’d like to see us intervene where it advances our interests.
I do find it strange that there appears to be (at least in my personal experience) a lot of overlap between people who think we should have intervened early on in Rwanda and people who think we shouldn’t intervene at all in Syria. I opposed/oppose intervention in both cases as neither advances the national interest.
I’d like to see continued reductions in our military spending, I’ve talked about it elsewhere but a reduction to pre-Iraq War levels of spending and manpower would be reasonable, as would a moderate reduction in the Navy. We spend too much on defense now and have our fingers in too many pies. I think Obama has mismanaged our foreign affairs at almost every turn, but his desire to keep us from getting entangled in things, especially in the MENA region represents a return to classic American values and is generally smart.
I have mixed opinions on Libya, but I do respect that his intervention there remained true to its advertised limited nature. I like that we’ve mostly stayed out of Syria and Egypt and am glad we let France run the football in Mali without getting involved.
The EU nations are very wealthy and technologically advanced, they also do much trade with the MENA region–more than the United States. They are more directly reliant on MENA natural resources than the United States (which now imports very little of such from the region.) I think we should let the EU countries take the lead on how they wish to respond to incidents in the MENA region. If that means countries like Britain choose to continually downsize their military and lose any ability to respond to events in the MENA region–fine, that is their choice.
I’d like to see the US have a more comprehensive Africa policy in general, and one that positions us to be major trading partners with emerging African countries. We also should have always had much stronger ties to India. We should abandon any pretext of a relationship with Pakistan and develop a strategic alliance with India, as a foil to China in the Pacific. I don’t have a firm answer on Russia, but I think its intrinsic economic weakness will ultimately prove that Putin is no Stalin–he’s just a guy with a big mouth who likes to feel important, Russia is a paper tiger that will continue to wane in importance over the years. The only fear with Russia is the strange “axis” it is building with countries like Iran and some South American powers could make trouble for us in the future.
So you don’t think people have become just a little tired of being a US poodle, of accepting bullshit intelligence as the basis for killing people in faraway countries and alienating entire world religions, of being lied to and treated as if stupid.
It is not lack of self esteem, but a desire to be what we really are- a small but economically advanced democracy. Why should we not be like Scandinavian countries, or Germany, Holland, Spain, Italy, with small appropriate size militaries and an appropriate self image.
It is a pipe dream the UK could be like the Scandinavian countries. It could be more like Germany–it would not want to be like Spain or Italy.
But as the U.S. continues to stop meddling in as many world affairs (a good thing for us) the Euros are going to have to decide how to deal with situations like Mali or Syria entirely on their own. If the decision is always “no intervention” then you can afford basically to have nothing more than a token self defense force. But if you ever find it in the national interest to have an overseas deployment you have to have a larger military, and I’d be leery of predicting with certainty that such a situation would never arise.
Also I do not see how the UK is a “small” country nor would I call Germany or Italy small countries. Small relative to what? The 4-5 largest countries in the world, okay…but relative to the world as a whole those are fairly large countries you’re calling small.
We are a small regional power and national esteem doesn’t flow from the barrel of a gun. The Empire is long gone and good riddance. We should expand our efforts at developing a common european defence.
Which is why Europe as a whole needs to get it’s collective military and diplomatic act together.
Insofar as there is any western national interest in Syria it is in Assad continuing in power so his wmd’s don’t fall into the hands of the assorted bunch of crazies involved in the rebellion.
Assad’s fall will be just the prelude to Civil War Round 2, like the chaos in Libya writ large during while all sorts of shit will fall into the hands of terrorists types.
If we could bomb all his chemical factories flat and seize or destroy his wmd’s without horrendous casualties that would be different. But we can’t.
European defence isn’t going to defend the Falklands. Empire is irrelevant to the status of us being a World power.
The question can be asked, why should we be content with being a small scale power?
Being a greater power enables us to have a more independent foreign policy dictated on our terms rather than in accordance to another countries wishes, if I use the Falklands as an example, we would of had to have accepted it being invaded by the Argentinians and being consequently humiliated in the eyes of the World due to us being unable to mount an effective offense against them and taking them back.
So becoming a feeble small ranking power would reverse this course, right? Reducing our power projection to where it is non existent is a threat in itself, because it robs of us being able to rebuild it when necessary due to expertise being lost.
Such a strange view of the place the UK has in the world.
I don’t think anyone would vote for that.
The prosperity of national economies is guaranteed by trade. Trading takes place across the world and relies on free access via trade routes that must be protected.
If those routes are compromised by other nations along the way, unfairly restricting or taxing goods, there needs to be a resort diplomacy or ultimately force of arms to keep them free. The alternative is to starve, endure cold and generally be impoverished.
You may not like it, but the world is linked together by trade. The UK economy in particular is heavily integrated into the global trading network.
UK government policy is to maintain the viability of its trading network guaranteed by treaties and trade agreements. But this is underlined by having a navy that has global reach as an insurance policy.
The idea that the UK should retreat into isolationism is daft. It sounds like the sort of nonsense that Scottish Nationalists come out with. Voters will soon tire of politicians who sit around a Scottish sitting room trying to divide a meagre cake into ever small pieces. To think that this was the country that gave us Adam Smith.
The UK will always look out to trade the rest of the world. We are an island, it goes with the territory. I would also point out that a major part of the UK economy is financial services that it offers to corporations and governments. Control over this invisible movement of capital is important, as is intellectual property.
To protect this we need the equivalent of a navy on the Internet.
We are entering the era of the cyber army and smaller countries that understand how this new world works will punch above their weight.
I would hope the UK would always be able to do this.
As per the Falklands. You get back to us when Argentina presents any kind of military threat other than suffocating us with the hot air of their bluster.
I’m not sure if it’s just part of the British natural character to be self-deprecating, but as an outsider I don’t think it’s so simple as “we’re a great power” or “we’re nothing but a small country in the northern Atlantic.”
The United States is obviously (still) the world’s lone superpower. China is rapidly ascending, but still lack much force projection capability outside of their Pacific sphere of influence. Russia has built political alliances around the world now, many of them apparently directed at limiting or curtailing U.S. influence in certain regions–but Russia does not have the force projection capabilities it did as the Soviet Union.
The United Kingdom is not as large obviously as Russia, China, or the U.S. However, it has the fourth-highest military budget in the world. While degraded in recent years, I would also argue that since it has clear technological sophistication over the Chinese, and since it spends much more per soldier than Russia or China the U.K.'s military is more powerful than it might seem at first glance. For example while it’s come up a lot in recent years that it’s questionable if the British could defend the Falklands if they were attacked again, I’d argue the British aside from the United States probably have the most credible ability to project force around the world. Not nearly as much force as the United States can, obviously–but the UK has the know-how and arguably the equipment it would need to deploy troops almost anywhere.
The UK is not a superpower, but it’s certainly a “great power”, a term that to me would encompass the United States, Russia, China, the UK, and France and of those five I think the UK has the best ability to project force to any degree far away from its shores excluding the United States.
I do think it’s worth noting that the UK should not be involved in the Falklands in order to avoid “humiliation.” International relations has no room for such emotion-laden thinking. The reason the British would have to defend the Falklands is one of self-determination, those people have been there for generations and they choose to remain British. The Argentinians only real claim to the islands is that they are “the closest physical country to them” a claim that if it was an international norm would result in a host of problems (oh, I guess Iceland is part of Canada now, or South Korea part of China!) As long as those people choose to be British there is an imperative as a sovereign state to protect those people from foreign invaders, otherwise you aren’t really a state at all–but a failed state.
Interesting then how Germany has done so well with a total ban on armed forces for a decade, followed my sixty years with a minimal set of armed forces. Same for other large European countries ( except France).
Germany’s major trading partners are all in the EU, which it dominates with it’s trade and position. For the rest, it relies on the US like pretty much the rest of Europe to maintain trade routes and project power across the globe to secure vital resources. The UK would be doing the same thing if they got rid of their navy and took a back seat. They would become more dependent on the US to maintain our mutual interests…and, at a certain point, the US isn’t going to be able to maintain our current dominance. When that happens and if the UK gets rid of what naval power it still has, then I guess you guys will be on your own. Maybe the EU will step up…but I doubt it.
The Falkands are considered impregnable now. Meanwhile the Argentine military is weaker than ever and obsolete. The UK has 21st century technology.
What the UK has is no business yapping around the heels of the US Big Dog. We cannot afford to make these symbolic contributions to the USA’s various wars of choice.
I’m quite comfortable with a scaled back military unable to tag along on invasions or attacks on middle east countries.
I would maybe more comfortable if I could trust either govts assessments of situations.
I think there’s a lot to be said for the fact that a major reason why there is such relative* peace in the world today is because of the military presence of the US and its allies. As much as we criticize the US for its adventurism, as world powers go, given its sheer might, it’s remarkably restrained.
Without NATO (which has as its backbone the combined might of the US, UK and France, along with a major contribution from Germany), I could see Russia being a lot more aggressive and disrespectful of human rights, for example.
The idea that Britain should disarm to a self-defence force or hand over its diplomatic muscle to the EU is about as ill-informed as those Tories/UKIPers who think withdrawing from the ECHR is a good idea.
*relative, as in it’s still a damned violent world, but I could envision it being a lot worse quite easily.
Oh, and I would say that claims that the vote last week on Syria is a watershed for how military action is decided in the UK are overblown. It’s a landmark in terms of how important the consent of the Commons can be, but a determined government can and should, in future, make a quick decision and get approval later.
