This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/isis-russia-labour-defence-barbaric-policy
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Isis or Russia? Labour needs to decide which is the bigger threat | Isis or Russia? Labour needs to decide which is the bigger threat |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| In the past 20 years there have been three strategic defence reviews. None of them have been particularly strategic. If you consider the problem that faced the first, under Labour’s defence minister George Robinson in 1998, you will get the picture. The issue then was how to maintain two combat divisions of the British army in Germany. Today we no longer have two combat divisions, and under the Army 2020 plan, nothing will be left in Germany. | In the past 20 years there have been three strategic defence reviews. None of them have been particularly strategic. If you consider the problem that faced the first, under Labour’s defence minister George Robinson in 1998, you will get the picture. The issue then was how to maintain two combat divisions of the British army in Germany. Today we no longer have two combat divisions, and under the Army 2020 plan, nothing will be left in Germany. |
| The second review, by the coalition in 2010, was retitled to add “security” on top of defence. This Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) spoke of cyber threats, drone warfare and massive spending cuts. But it too was a stop-gap. | The second review, by the coalition in 2010, was retitled to add “security” on top of defence. This Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) spoke of cyber threats, drone warfare and massive spending cuts. But it too was a stop-gap. |
| From 2010 Britain for the first time had a list of “military tasks” the government was supposed to enable – but it has armed forces not fitted to those tasks: it has an aircraft carrier plan to project force around the world but a strategic ally, the US, that no longer wants to do so. The sum of military parts, complained the defence select committee, looked below the “critical mass” you need to actually exist as a major military power. | |
| This year another defence review begins, and Labour has pledged to mirror it. But that’s where the opposition’s problems start. The Labour tradition on defence is a struggle between pacifism and Atlanticism, and neither is really an option now. | This year another defence review begins, and Labour has pledged to mirror it. But that’s where the opposition’s problems start. The Labour tradition on defence is a struggle between pacifism and Atlanticism, and neither is really an option now. |
| Keir Hardie was a pacifist. When war broke out in 1914 he opposed it, getting shouted down by Labour-supporting workers in the first days of the conflict. Arthur Henderson, his successor, quit the war cabinet after it vetoed a peace conference in 1917. Ramsay Macdonald was, like many of the interwar era, a believer in international peace treaties and low military spending. | Keir Hardie was a pacifist. When war broke out in 1914 he opposed it, getting shouted down by Labour-supporting workers in the first days of the conflict. Arthur Henderson, his successor, quit the war cabinet after it vetoed a peace conference in 1917. Ramsay Macdonald was, like many of the interwar era, a believer in international peace treaties and low military spending. |
| Then came George Lansbury – the figure closest to Jeremy Corbyn in Labour history. Lansbury was a pacifist who opposed British rearmament in the face of rising Nazi aggression. When Labour’s conference voted for sanctions on fascist Italy for invading what is now Ethiopia, Lansbury resigned on principle, equating economic sanctions to economic war. | Then came George Lansbury – the figure closest to Jeremy Corbyn in Labour history. Lansbury was a pacifist who opposed British rearmament in the face of rising Nazi aggression. When Labour’s conference voted for sanctions on fascist Italy for invading what is now Ethiopia, Lansbury resigned on principle, equating economic sanctions to economic war. |
| So it is Clement Attlee who must be credited as the first Labour leader to align himself unequivocally with the national defence strategy of the British government. Known to the public as Major Attlee for his first world war service, he was prompted by the Spanish civil war to move Labour towards rearmament; the fiasco of Conservative appeasement pushed him firmly behind the Churchill wing of the Tory party in the runup to 1939. | So it is Clement Attlee who must be credited as the first Labour leader to align himself unequivocally with the national defence strategy of the British government. Known to the public as Major Attlee for his first world war service, he was prompted by the Spanish civil war to move Labour towards rearmament; the fiasco of Conservative appeasement pushed him firmly behind the Churchill wing of the Tory party in the runup to 1939. |
| Hugh Gaitskell, in the 1950s, famously persuaded leftwing firebrand Nye Bevan to oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament; Harold Wilson refused to invade Vietnam, Michael Foot railed at Margaret Thatcher for failing to use military force sooner against Argentina over the Falklands, and then Tony Blair invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, with all the attendant ills. That is Labour’s history on defence, and it exhibits scant philosophical coherence. There is, however a pattern: a longterm commitment to disarmament and non-imperialism, punctuated by unwilling and hurried forays into war. | Hugh Gaitskell, in the 1950s, famously persuaded leftwing firebrand Nye Bevan to oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament; Harold Wilson refused to invade Vietnam, Michael Foot railed at Margaret Thatcher for failing to use military force sooner against Argentina over the Falklands, and then Tony Blair invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, with all the attendant ills. That is Labour’s history on defence, and it exhibits scant philosophical coherence. There is, however a pattern: a longterm commitment to disarmament and non-imperialism, punctuated by unwilling and hurried forays into war. |
| Let’s be frank about why. Labour’s political soul is infused with two types of pacifism: that of the progressive middle classes and that of workers who have experienced total war. Plus it draws on a long tradition of anti-colonialism and hostility to expeditionary wars. Though both those traditions were effectively suppressed under Blair, they enjoy wide currency among Labour supporters, even among some who work in the defence industries. | Let’s be frank about why. Labour’s political soul is infused with two types of pacifism: that of the progressive middle classes and that of workers who have experienced total war. Plus it draws on a long tradition of anti-colonialism and hostility to expeditionary wars. Though both those traditions were effectively suppressed under Blair, they enjoy wide currency among Labour supporters, even among some who work in the defence industries. |
| The solution was for the leadership to obsess about interventionist warfare, while the unions and the wider membership obsessed about defending shipyards. Labour’s decision to do its own SDSR is an admission that this is no longer possible. | The solution was for the leadership to obsess about interventionist warfare, while the unions and the wider membership obsessed about defending shipyards. Labour’s decision to do its own SDSR is an admission that this is no longer possible. |
| But a Labour defence review will present a big challenge. The party would do itself a major favour by making the first question: do we agree with defending the security of Britain using armed force, surveillance, special forces, destroyers, drones and bombs – ie, by killing people and putting our own service people in danger? For many of the 150,000 new joiners, the answer might be no. If the answer is yes, the next question is: do you want to be able to impose humanitarian outcomes in a world on fire with barbaric conflicts? Do you want the capability to bomb Syria, or to put British troops in to defend the millions of civilians running away from Assad, Isis and al-Qaida? Even if you only want to bring Assad to the Hague, do you want the satellites, spies and surveillance planes that can collect the evidence? | But a Labour defence review will present a big challenge. The party would do itself a major favour by making the first question: do we agree with defending the security of Britain using armed force, surveillance, special forces, destroyers, drones and bombs – ie, by killing people and putting our own service people in danger? For many of the 150,000 new joiners, the answer might be no. If the answer is yes, the next question is: do you want to be able to impose humanitarian outcomes in a world on fire with barbaric conflicts? Do you want the capability to bomb Syria, or to put British troops in to defend the millions of civilians running away from Assad, Isis and al-Qaida? Even if you only want to bring Assad to the Hague, do you want the satellites, spies and surveillance planes that can collect the evidence? |
| On both sides of politics there is doubt about whether Britain really wants to do these things. They are only possible as part of an alliance with the US, and they are only legal when approved by the UN or justified by overwhelming humanitarian need. Since the US is disengaging from global strategy, and the UN security council is paralysed, there’s a logical case for reshaping Britain’s military around these facts. Wars to rebuild chaotic nations have failed repeatedly; there is no appetite for them among the population, and the capability to make such interventions successfully would involve tens of billions of pounds we haven’t got. | On both sides of politics there is doubt about whether Britain really wants to do these things. They are only possible as part of an alliance with the US, and they are only legal when approved by the UN or justified by overwhelming humanitarian need. Since the US is disengaging from global strategy, and the UN security council is paralysed, there’s a logical case for reshaping Britain’s military around these facts. Wars to rebuild chaotic nations have failed repeatedly; there is no appetite for them among the population, and the capability to make such interventions successfully would involve tens of billions of pounds we haven’t got. |
| But unfortunately this is no longer the only problem. There is an Islamic State stretching from Mosul to Raqqa whose forces would, if they had the chance, bring the jihad to the streets of Britain. And there is now Russia. It has dismembered Ukraine, rearmed its conventional forces and is engaged in expeditionary warfare to support Assad. It has a TV propaganda channel and a social media presence whose ideological influence on the European left is arguably bigger than the pro-Moscow communist parties had in the 50s. It has more friends in the London hedge fund fraternity than the KGB ever had spies in the British civil service. | But unfortunately this is no longer the only problem. There is an Islamic State stretching from Mosul to Raqqa whose forces would, if they had the chance, bring the jihad to the streets of Britain. And there is now Russia. It has dismembered Ukraine, rearmed its conventional forces and is engaged in expeditionary warfare to support Assad. It has a TV propaganda channel and a social media presence whose ideological influence on the European left is arguably bigger than the pro-Moscow communist parties had in the 50s. It has more friends in the London hedge fund fraternity than the KGB ever had spies in the British civil service. |
| So a Labour SDSR presents the opportunity for the party to specify which of these two emerging threats it thinks is most urgent and most important, and what it intends to do about them. Labour’s decision to do its own review could, if done right, bring fresh thinking to the British defence debate. | So a Labour SDSR presents the opportunity for the party to specify which of these two emerging threats it thinks is most urgent and most important, and what it intends to do about them. Labour’s decision to do its own review could, if done right, bring fresh thinking to the British defence debate. |
| But the biggest issue will remain Trident. Nye Bevan in 1957 abandoned unilateralism in favour of a nuclear Britain that would pursue multilateral disarment, be diplomatically independent of the US and hostile to expeditionary warfare. That’s the tradition Bevan bequeathed to the non-pacifist, non-Stalinist British left. What’s striking is how weak it has become. | But the biggest issue will remain Trident. Nye Bevan in 1957 abandoned unilateralism in favour of a nuclear Britain that would pursue multilateral disarment, be diplomatically independent of the US and hostile to expeditionary warfare. That’s the tradition Bevan bequeathed to the non-pacifist, non-Stalinist British left. What’s striking is how weak it has become. |
| • Paul Mason is economics editor of Channel 4 News. @paulmasonnews | • Paul Mason is economics editor of Channel 4 News. @paulmasonnews |