I am inclined to agree but can we go it alone ?
IMO We are in more danger from our home grown terrorists that are deeply entrenched now in our country and will eventually overrun us,
I agree with all of that, except for the American codes for the launch of our missiles. I believe in an emergency we donât have the time to wait for America to transmit certain codes to us before we can respond to a nuclear attack, especially with doddering Biden in charge.
The rest, yes, we should pull out of the âspecial relationshipâ which, in my opinion, is only special insofar as we do whatever the Yanks tell us to do. Even back in 1982, there was no offer of military help when we decided that we must defend our people in the Falklands.
However, in such a case we must also make the enormous decision to stop trying to act as the worldâs policeman. We are no longer in any position to do so, other than at the bidding and on the coat tails of America. We should accept that we are no longer a strong military power and concentrate solely on our own defence and perhaps that of our own overseas responsibilities, which these days comprise only a few small islands.
Sometimes your friends donât turn out to be what you thought they were.
But, surely, thatâs because you expected too much of them.
As our military has continued to be decreased, over the years, we have come to expect that the USA would police the world and rush to our aid whenever needed.
But, why should they do that?
They have enough problems of their own.
That was clear from the outset and had always been part of Washingtonâs and the Pentagonâs scenarios because that number of heavy equipment could never have been transferred back to the States.
The arsenal is in fact much larger.
Weâre talking about 600 armoured combat vehicles Type M1117, about 8,500 Humvees, 150 âMaxxProâ, 100,000 militarily enhanced Toyota Hilux und Ford Ranger, plus 68 combat helis MD 500 âDefenderâ, 16 âBlackhawkâ, four C-130 âHerculesâ. Apart from those the Taliban also own more than 100 Russian helis (Mi-17 und Mi-24) as well as 1,000 armoured personnel and combat vehicles and tanks of Soviet origin. They also found several US high-tech âScan-Eagleâ drones and face-recognition systems which they are now using to detect activists seeking shelter in save houses.
The lesson to be learnt from all this clearly is for the West to stop trying to bring freedom by military intervention to other countries which despise western values and political systems. It has never worked neither in Asia nor in Africa. Foreigners are the actual problem in these countries, not the solution. As Biden said, in the end the majority of people in those countries will always be loyal to their own people, beliefs, and governments as 300,000 Afghan soldiers have demonstrated. Such a policy will imply, however, that the West should not revert back to its old ways when the next crisis in other countries comes but should rather rely on diplomatic channels exclusively but energetically.
The big three : USA; China and Russia are always vying for positions and control and world dominance I was tempted to throw in the ECU there but their army seems tame these days?
And the fights are not just about winning the hearts and minds of peoples - itâs about commodity control ; oil ; minerals ; gas etc etc - I donât think it is even about being a super-power although if it dropped into their laps it might. and the surrounding little people - well for a start UK ; OZ ; Canada [large country but no clout] ; Europe ; Indonesia [large military but what are they doing with it?] ; Japan; North Korea [well we all think we know who they will side with ?] Taiwan [fighting for its independence] etc etc
I am in no way suggesting that we should take over and try to do things ourselves.
We need to get our necks in and concentrate on protecting ourselves.
As for the equipment and supplies left in Afghanistan, they should have been blown up, not handed to the Taliban.
Do not forget that the USA trained and Armed both the Taliban and Al Quaeda when they were fighting the Russians.
NATO needs to be forced to look after itself, which means the UK withdrawing assets home and forcing the Germans and the rest paying for their own defence.
First IMHO the perceived âspecial relationshipâ with the USA isnât as special as some suggest & itâs more misguided media terminology than anything with a basis in fact.
We will always be bound by a common language and shared interests while at the same time be seperated by colloquialisms and differences, just as we are with Kiwis and Aussies.
Nothing is likely to change that to any great degree.
But I pretty much agree that weâve been âdropped in itâ although in fairness it was always going to end in a similar fashion ever since Bush & Blair took us into Afghanistan.
Every leader that has followed those two has inherited a problem of their making, and it was a problem because it was never even remotely likely that it was a war that could be won.
Hopefully now that this too has ended in failure we wonât see any more attempts to impose Western values on countries that really do not want them.
Yes indeed. NATO minus USA, of course, as they will always want to involve themselves in the rest of the world!
The rest of NATO should keep itself to itself and, as you quite rightly say, those EU countries who are in it only for a free ride should be ejected if they refuse to pay their way instead of cowering behind us and the minority who do pay their whack.
In practice, of course, that would probably result in OUR pulling out of NATO, as most of the EU members wouldnât pay up. America would probably also leave them to it as well, but for the fact that they want, above all, to keep Russia under control.
So I suggest that we pull out and leave America and the EU to remain united in NATO. America would be happy because it would feel in control of Europe; the EU countries would be happy because they would be protected by America without having to pay for it!
We would just keep to ourselves and concentrate in protecting our country alone.
Not sure if it was also misguided Churchill terminology when he used the term first during the war saying that it was his âdeepest conviction that unless Britain and the United States are joined in a special relationship⊠another destructive war will come to passâ and later included Canada before he was then quoted by the NY Times Herald for the first time.
Itâs an interesting one, isnât it?
If youâre wanting to use historical quotes of âspecial relationshipâ you can go back far earlier than that, to the 19th Century at least according to Wiki which given our history with the USA dates back centuries is hardly surprising.
Was he misguided because he (Churchill) popularised it following his first using it in 1944 (and bearing in mind too that his mother was American) or was he doing no more that maintaining support from allies at a time when it was sorely needed - and in turn the phrase was then siezed-upon?
We might never know but the fact remains that it is our history and commonalities which bind us, more-so than with other so-called superpowers.
We have far, far more in common with the USA than with China or Russia and despite (or maybe because of) historical colonialism we do with India & Pakistan or Indonesia - or even other European countries as Brexit has made evident.
As such what âspecial relationshipâ there might be is, as I said, unlikely to change a great deal no matter who leads either country.
Itâs never been as close as some imagine, IMHO.
There are many disparities between us, just as there is also much which binds us.
I am appalled to think the Americans left all that ordnance to the Taliban .
I suppose they thought they were leaving it to Afghan army .
One wonders at the standard of leadership in the American army .
I think this is more a global issue. The worldâs population has grown enormously and we already have more people than we can support. Itâs considered ânormalâ for individual countryâs to attempt to support their own as a first priority. There comes a breaking point at which they can no longer help other countries. We are already seeing various countries pulling up the drawbridge, though birth control hasnât yet been introduced. Now consider the situation on a global scaleâŠand individual countries run into an overspill situation. What are their choices?
On the other hand the USA will be globally condemned for their actions - and rightly so.
