Time for a Ministry of Defense?

[jake-the-peg]

Given the lack of popular support for foreign wars is it time to change the brief of the Ministry of "Defense"?

Is it time to drop the weasel words of "safeguarding the country's overseas interests"

and instead commit troops only to the defense of the realm and internationally sanctioned peacekeeping activities?

[youngmafbog]

Unusually, I agree.

We are broke and anyway we should not be playing the worlds policeman. Let other countries do their bit.

[thetruthhurts]

Is that the same as the Ministry of Defence?

[jake-the-peg]

no that's a different color

[anotheoldgit]

It is called 'The Ministry of Defence' not 'The Ministry of Attack'

So why change it?

And by safe guarding the country's overseas interests, it is in turn safe guarding this country.

I agree that overseas aid should be cut and more selective, and utilising our troops in other countries interests should be curtailed.

[youngmafbog]

I think the problem is how you interpret "safe guarding the country's overseas interests"
With hindsight it is quite difficult to see how that was applied to Iraq and some of the other skimishes we have had.

[jake-the-peg]

Well this is the point isn't it?

It's pretty easy to make a case for Safeguarding the countries overseas interests.

And a lot of our spending revolves around it.

How, for example,is an Aircraft carrier a defensive weapon?

This is not an argument for pacifism - this is an argument for armed neutrality

[anotheoldgit]

/// How, for example,is an Aircraft carrier a defensive weapon?///

If we were attacked and the enemy had put out our airfields, but we had about 3 aircraft carriers, plus aircraft off our shores.

Don't you think they would be somewhat useful in our defence?

[modeller]

jake #This is not an argument for pacifism - this is an argument for armed neutrality #
What do you mean by 'armed' and ' neutrality ' ? Europe and Asia were at peace and all had some arms . Did it stop WWII ? Would Germany and Japan have attacked had they known that those countries were strong enough to hit back.
Keeping the peace is an expensive business but its better than war.

[ludwig]

The trouble is Jake " defense of the realm " is open to interpretation. Tony Blair is still claiming that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary acts of defence against terrorism (post 9/11) and weapons of mass destruction.

[123everton]

The M.O.D used to be called The Ministry Of War, let's hear it for the success of euphemisms.
A.O.G, the point of an aircraft carrier is to provide close cover air support for troops far away, it is entirely an instrument of foreign policy.
The emergence of the B.R.I.Cs group of nations will (inevitably) bring about a power shift in the Security Council, it is with this in mind that China has bought one of the largest (if not the largest) aircraft carrier in the world off the Russians and is fitting it out themselves now.

[Buenchico]

There are also those who would argue that 'defence of the realm' includes defence of the INTERESTS of this country.

For example, when petrol prices rise at the forecourt (because of instability in oil-producing countries) plenty of people start complaining and asking why the British Government can't do something about it. But those moaners are often the same people who complain when the UK sends in troops to try to provide stability in oil-producing countries. You can't have it both ways!

Chris.

PS: If we ever get a Ministry of 'Defense', I'll be really worried. That could only occur if the USA had taken over and imposed the American spelling ;-)

[rov1200]

It reminds me of the small kid in the playground who threatens others by saying if you don't do what I tell you I'll get my big brother onto you.

Posturing and saving the world only worked when the enemy just had spears and bows and arrows. I wonder how many of the Taliban are walking round with their legs blown off. We are the loser whatever the politicians may say.

With Blair involved in 5 wars I don't know how we have the cheek to say we are doing it protect us at home. We are now the aggressors!

[jake-the-peg]

I find it strange AOG that you are so patriotic *in principle* about Britains forces overseas yet you scream the loudest about pulling our forces out.

Seems like Hokey Kokey defense planning.

All together now - "you put you army in, you pull your army out...."

I also think that if an enemy had sufficient air superiority to wipe out all of our airfields 3 aircraft carriers wouldn't be such a challenge - don't you?

Lets be serious Aircraft carriers are not designed to hang about the North sea as some floating Isle of Wight are they?

I do take the point Ludwig, YMB - there will always be such justifications but it would help in the justification for scaling back the country's long range military capability which is simply aggressive.

[rowanwitch]

If the UN had more authority it might be better if they had more of our support on peacekeeping missions and humanitarian activity.... History shows us that neutral countries can become hiding places for evil intent.. It is not good to have a neutral country as a neighbour ...unless your people need a place to flee

[anotheoldgit]

j-t-p

I along with many others are not in anyway in support of this present conflict we now find ourselves involved with.

But we are, and until the politicians decide to pull our troops out, I will defend with all my might our brave men & women who are obliged to risk their very lives in carrying out their dangerous tasks.

/// I also think that if an enemy had sufficient air superiority to wipe out all of our airfields 3 aircraft carriers wouldn't be such a challenge - don't you? ///

We managed it during the Battle of Britain, with 660 serviceable aircraft, it was won because our aircraft could exit the battle, land refuel, re-arm and be back in the air in a very short time..

That would be the benefit of the aircraft carrier.

[modeller]

# History shows us that neutral countries can become hiding places for evil intent #..

Ireland was neutral during the war and became a haven for German spies and a refuelling base for U-Boats. There is no such thing as pure neutrality , armed or otherwise. Spain was another example.

# If the UN had more authority it might be better if they had more of our support on peacekeeping missions and humanitarian activity.#

Every year the UN gets bigger and less effective as it is impossible to get agreement from such a huge assembly. You can't even get agreement between the few major powers let alone from the assembly . Look at N Korea and Iran who will eventually cause a war. Look at Mugabe and how most of the African states applaud him . The UN is now pretty useless in its aim of preserving world peace.