Help keep this site going.

We have learned nothing from Iraq.

Our “defence” posture is that attack is the best form of defence.  To this end we have one submarine somewhere,  armed with nuclear missiles, which we hope will give any aggressor the certainty of retaliation should we suffer a nuclear strike.  The name of this policy is mutually assured destruction, acronym MAD  which it certainly is.    It’s never been popular and has the logic of a suicide bomber who’s turned up too late at the party.

The reality is that a nuclear attack which would destroy the UK would also destroy the rest of the world for our species.  All that radiation wouldn’t be swallowed up by the hole made in the ground, rather it would be drifting around and around the world making the whole globe as uninhabitable as our bit of it.
e.g.  North America is becoming contaminated from the air by the residues of Chernobyl and from the sea by Fukushima.

The one merit of our Trident programme is that it buys us a cheap (ball park figure is £120 billion over 20yrs) ticket to the top table at the UN, the Security Council.

Aside from that,  if WWIII is ever likely to be declared, I think the popular movement here will be in favour of having russian soldiers (or whoever)  directing the traffic rather than the population being reduced to the appearance of shadows burned into the asphalt.

Beyond the nuclear deterrent our military consists of a small, expeditionary force.

We have learned nothing from Iraq. 

We attacked Iraq because it wasn’t able to defend itself.  Neither our, or the US Govt would have entertained the notion if it had been.

A brief v.modern history of Iraq:  In 1980, under the covert assistance of the US, Iraq attacked its eastern neighbour Iran.  The ensuing war lasted until 1988 when, at a stalemate, an armistice was signed.
In 1990 Iraq fell at odds with its southern neighbour, Kuwait, over its oil extraction and pricing.  On receiving the nod from the US Ambassador to Baghdad that the US would not intervene, Iraq occupied Kuwait.

Changing its position, in ’91 the US led a UN mandated force to liberate Kuwait.  On hearing the news, the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, transferred his air force to his enemy Iran rather than have it destroyed by US air supremecy.
Retreating from Kuwait the Iraqi army was annihilated from the air,  losing all its armour and much of its transport and manpower.

Following the defeat, strict sanctions were imposed on Iraq which within five years resulted in the deaths of half a million infants.   Sanctions were eased when this was revealed but the population continued to live on rations.

During the 1990’s  Iraq had no armour, no airforce, an impoverished population and the risk of invasion from a hostile neighbour the length of the east of the country.
It did have an army and the army was a big employer.  In times of hardship the small sum of a soldier’s wages sent home can make a big difference.

A lot of the menfolk went through military training.

Because of the risk from Iran there were weapons dumps, widely distributed.

So by the time the USA decided it was going to go to war with Iraq, it was obvious that the shooting wasn’t going to get started until the victors climbed out of their tanks.

And that’s how come the coalition of the willing got whipped in Iraq.  By the Home Guard./ Resistance.

We have learned nothing from Iraq.

Back to Home Page