Posted in Foreign affairs, Middle East, Political writing, Thoughts, UK Politics, War, tagged article, Britain, conservativehome, Gordon Brown, Iraq invasion, Iraq war, my work, opinions, Tony Blair on June 15, 2011 |
Leave a Comment »
This was my first ever online article, which I wrote for ConservativeHome. I articulated an argument against withdrawing from Iraq. I’m still very pleased with it. It was an interesting use of the American War of Independence, to justify and provide validation to my argument.
As the Prime Minister got to his feet to address the House, he opened his mouth and ushered the lines “if we are to fall, let us fall like men”. The Prime Minister was not Gordon Brown; he was Lord North speaking about the war of American independence. Under the pressure to deliver a victory and to protect British integrity and respectability aboard, Lord North would face an onslaught from critics who opposed the American war and his handling of the conflict. Sound similar to Iraq?
Comparing both conflicts we can see two striking similarities in how the operation has unfolded. Both underestimated the insurgency and failed to secure the hearts and minds of the neutral population, who did not support the rebel army. Secondly, more damaging to our nation, the military scheme mirrors Cornwallis’ strategy in the Southern States and is operating under the same principles. The tactics were destined to fail from the start. Now in Basra; the British have occupied the airport and barricaded themselves in resulting in a never ending siege. Haunting memories of Yorktown?
But it seems the British government has no strategy of winning or even preventing a humiliating defeat and Gordon Brown is happy to just wait. Why else would Britain have a part-time Secretary of State for Defence?
The left cabal of Labour think Iraq was a war crime and appeasement was the best solution for dealing with Saddam, anyone believing otherwise is an imperialist or war criminal in their Neanderthal socialist minds. Nevertheless the British armed forces are masquerading as liberators and a monolithic heroic force of good, yet the government refuses to acknowledge or support the coalition in Iraq. No wonder the Iraqi forces called the United States instead of the British to assist the native population.
The lack of strategy, or decisive leadership, has left a huge vacuum in Basra. When the British decided to withdraw from the last base in Basra, the militias unified themselves and repositioned after the main security force vacated. The frightened and indigent population were not best pleased to see Sadr and his Mehdi army patrolling the streets – nor was Prime Minister Mouri Maliki. After the infamous and bloody “Battle for Basra”, the Iraqi army had to vanguard against a vicious and terrorising, titanic amount of violence; which Britain was blamed for ignoring and giving the militias a chance to collect and strengthen in the South.
Recent events depict a level of resentment because the Iraqi army had to send additional troops to replace the British presence. British generals did inform their presence could be called upon if needed, but the Iraqi army would rather call in the United States or do it themselves. As I said previously, the Iraqis must feel insulted and you cannot fault them for any decisions with exclude the British. Adding insult to injury, Gordon Brown’s marvellous vox populi plans for withdrawing all British troops by the end of the year confronted an embarrassing outcome when President Bush objected.
Tragically, the heroic liberation for Britain has ended in an Earth shattering worst case scenario; British soldiers are not wanted by the Iraqis, but the coalition command have objected to withdrawing. But we can correct the damage and rebuild the trust, we allowed the militias in and we must drive them out. It is an endeavour which Britain cannot leave to the Iraqis. We will face an even bigger problem if Israel does indeed use military force to deal with the Iranian nuclear programme. Iraq would become the centre of the conflict.
And we elegantly come to the end game. General Clinton refused to send additional forces to Cornwallis; believing instead the rebels would march on New York. Washington did not and the British were outnumbered resulting in the thirteen colonies becoming an independent nation from the Empire.
Britain was deeply humiliated and we are in danger of suffering the same fate in Iraq. If we are driven from the south, or leaving before the mission is completed, Southern Iraq will become a haven for extremists and radicals. This cannot be the legacy of British involvement in Iraq, but each day moves closer to the reality of the potential prospect.
Her Majesty’s Opposition most stress the following in Iraq; soldiers cannot leave until Basra has been liberated from extremists, surrendering to the airport showed weakness and Al Qaeda cannot use Southern Iraq as a safe haven. Failure would damage Britain, Iraq and the safety of the innocent citizens in the Middle East.
Running away from the problem is not an option, dithering and weakness is counter-productive. But if we do end up failing in Iraq, I pray we do not, it is significant we remember Lord North’s words to Parliament.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Foreign affairs, History, Political writing, Thoughts, UK Politics, tagged America, anti-EU, article, Britain, EU, Europe, European Union, free trade, NAFTA, old work, unpublished on May 17, 2011 |
Leave a Comment »
This is an old article I wrote, think it was for college, back in 2008. Reading back, it is quite interesting; so I’ve decided to host it. My memory is unable to calculate the reason for me writing this; some reason I advocated membership of NAFTA.
I was very naive at the time and made some ridiculously historical analogies to advocate my point. It is somewhat humourous – if I am being honest with myself.
Either way, it is worth reading and commenting on my past thoughts;
There is a problem in Europe. The pro-European government of the United Kingdom supports integration and the new EU Reform Treaty constitution in disguise but the British public reject the notion. We in the United Kingdom do not mind the concept of free movement in Europe or the idea of an internal market, but we passionately reject a political union and federalisation of Europe.
The European Union is very Soviet in nature. Reforms and directives tend to be based on creating social democracies and morphing the EU into a socialist institution, which is incompatible with the UK economy and the present political structure. The European Commission is unelected and is odiously similar to the Soviet Union Supreme Council; no member of the Commission is accountable to member states. Why has this Napoleonic system become acceptable to many European nations? The answer lies in the decline of the European empires after the Second World War.
France, Germany and Spain declined to regional powers within the world but Britain managed to “punch above her weight” and maintained herself as a major power in the world. The influence of the English language, culture and partnership with Commonwealth nations have prevented a decline of power and influence – which other Europeans partners faced. This is why many eurosceptics believe the EU needs Britain more than we need them.
Here are the changes Britain needs in her membership: the ability to control political decisions and maintain a free trade agreement at the same time. Britain can join the European Free Trade Association, a trade block of those who rejected or were denied EU membership. The EFTA also has a free trade agreement with the EU called the European Economic Area. By doing this Britain can withdraw from the European Parliament, Court and all European Union treaties become void on our exit. Of course 50% of our trade is with Europe and we have to ensure the protection of free trade; the EU could not reject an agreement with Britain. Unlike Carthage and Rome, the European Union will not sow the fields with salt after the rebellion against European rule.
After renegotiating European membership, or cancelling it, we can seek new opportunities within the world and build new trade agreements. Of course, the Commonwealth is a wise investment, but there is a Holy Grail cultivating within a distant land. In 2001; officials representing NAFTA travelled to the United Kingdom in order to evaluate and audit the entire British economy. The panel conclude it was the number one priority to gain British membership; we are indispensable to them. Unlike the European Union; there is no President, Parliament or Court to undermine sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Significantly, Canada and the United States are former colonies and the economy, justice system, laws and even political ideology in these respected nations are similar or equal to Britain. Common sense prevails and highlights an overwhelming case for seeking cooperation and membership of NAFTA.
Britain might be a European nation, but her sense of pride and passion is located in a distant heart. Tragically, the European Union does not represent the United Kingdom or the philosophy we breathe as citizens. The common shared values with North America cannot be broken or altered, no matter how vigorously the European Union tries. Our destiny lies with North America and the story of Britannia will take on a new chapter in the future.
Read Full Post »
I am deeply honoured to have been given an opportunity to contribute to THE IDEALOGUE. My article is in relation to the Tea Party movement; a commentary of the movement and whether it bares any analogy to the original Boston Tea Party;
…At first, I was inspired by the tea party and what -I thought- it stood for. I honestly believed it was a movement to restore America to its founding principles; principles that were inspiring during the enlightenment period and helped to educate the world in a new form of government. Sadly, it was not the case. The activists and politicians, who were subsequently elected, simply used historical events to appeal to voters and had no true idea of what the Boston Tea party actually stood for. Another case of those rewriting history for political purposes and the means to gain power.
THE IDEALOGUE is an expanding outlet, that I highly recommend to my readers. Again, a huge thank you to the editing team.
Read Full Post »