Blogs and Stories
How Obama Is Losing Britain
Denying a base to terrorists: The British people know that terrorists have many other bases (including Britain itself). The 7/7 attack on London in 2005 had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Combating the drug trade: No one who lives in any British city believes that that the war on drugs is being won. Fighting for Afghan democracy and human rights: Nobody in Britain truly cares about Afghanistan, or whether its people are well or badly governed, and those who know anything about its present government have little respect for it.
The British people are losing faith not just in the Afghan war but in the underlying assumptions that led them into it, and the war in Iraq—particularly the idea that Britain is a great power because of its “special relationship” with the United States.
If there is any such relationship, the British people have seen no reward from it—only subordination and sacrifice. Only a few days ago, in a little-noticed parliamentary answer, Brown was unable to name a single benefit to Britain from joining the Iraq war and occupation.
If Obama wants a guide to the present British mood, he should study the campaign for the British computer hacker Gary McKinnon, who faces extradition to the United States for the crime of embarrassing the Pentagon. Very significantly, this has been taken up by the Daily Mail, the newspaper of mainstream Middle England. The newspaper condemned the one-sided extradition treaty which Tony Blair agreed with the Bush administration (which essentially forces Britain on demand to yield up anybody for trial in the United States), and the treaty has become a symbol of British subjection.
Another significant sign was the recent poll that, for the first time, showed majority support for scrapping Trident, Britain’s (nominally) independent nuclear deterrent. Trident never had much military significance; it was cherished by mainstream political opinion as a symbol of British power, which guaranteed Britain a place at the (largely mythical) top table of nations.
A growing number of British voters no longer care about being on any top table, and they are certainly not prepared to spend taxes to prove it or ask their soldiers to die for the sake of prestige. They have seen no evidence of special British influence over the United States, or any other country. “Little Englander” parties made important gains in Britain’s recent European elections.
The British people hated fighting George W. Bush’s wars. They still love Barack Obama, but they do not like fighting his wars, either. American voters may make the same discovery, if they too see indefinite sacrifice without reward.
Richard Heller is a British author and journalist and former chief of staff to Denis Healey, deputy leader of the British Labour Party.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Why This Murdoch Scandal Won't Disappear
Richard Heller is a British author and journalist and former chief of staff to Denis Healey, Deputy Leader of the British Labour Party.
With Dennis Healey as Defence Secretary, Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, brought the boys back from Aden and ended the East of Suez commitment. All without alienating Kennedy and Johnson.
Healey had been the beachmaster at Anzio and Wilson had many ex-servicemen in his cabinet. There is not a single one in the current cabinet.
at least the author had the decency to mention Bush...
The Brits see Obama clearer than we do here peering through the MSM's adoring lens. President Nancypants is one of the terms they use.
I don't think that anyone could disagree with the overall feeling of the British people towards the Afghanistan conflict. After all, the attack which sparked the current war did not occur on U.K. soil, and one could even argue that it was not their policies from which the attackers drew their hatred from: it was the Americans'.
However, the individual needs to ask a very important question: Is it my concern when my neighbor gets attacked? Is that my problem, my worry? And I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer to that particular question. But given the two nations' history, their common culture, and fondness for their shared way of life, I think that 9/11 was a case of "an attack on one, was an attack on all."
Does that mean that, Afghanistan was always the right response to 9/11? No, it does not.
Does engaging in this war bring about any real benefit? It would be a safe assumption to belief that there will be no near term resolution. However, a resolute commitment to finish the job, on the other hand, might.
And in that light, my personal opinion is that now is not the best time to question our commitment (or the U.K.'s), but a prudent course of action would be to unify and set out very realistic goals to accomplish: Security in certain regional areas, development & education of the populace in said areas, and help to provide alternate sources of income to the farmers and those in the rural communities.
The object is not to eradicate the Taliban, but to build up a state that can stand on it's own two feet, even if conflict rages on for the next few decades -- at the very least by then, the U.K. would be safely be able to pull out the bulk of its forces with confidence that their sacrifices were not for naught.
You talk about an attack on one being an attack all, but where was the US during the worst of the Irish torubles? In fact much of the IRA's funding for thier murderous attacks on the UK came from Irish Americans.
Terrrorism has been a constant reality in Europe since WWII: the RAF in Germany, the PLA, ETA, IRA, Combat 18. etc... The US never felt the need to get involved. In fact in WWII itself it took 3 years and Pearl Harbour for the US to declare war. So much for 'an attack on all'...
The UK did not join the Bush hunt for glory cause of 9/11, we joined in because it was accepted wisdom that mainataining the special relationship with the US was a foregin policy priority. My guess is that is rapidly changing.
I saw a bumper sticker in Texas the other day that said, "War never solved anything, except slavery, fascism, and communism." I hope the British will help us solve the Taliban, too.
Maybe we need another war so we could solve the problem of Texas once and for all. It is a much worse problem than Afghanistan, and no prisoners should be taken.
This article grossly misrepresents the findings of the referenced opinion survey. The raw results are available here (http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/ST-toplines_JULY0 9.pdf) and show that rather than nearly 60% of respondents wanting an early exit from Afghanistan, 59% believe either that troop levels should remain the same or that further British or NATO forces should be sent. So, the exact opposite of that stated in the article.
Furthermore, rather than 'fading British belief' the survey includes the results of a previous survey in March of this year; comparison suggests that recent losses have actually reduced outright opposition to the UK deployment with the number of respondents who think that UK should withdraw all troops whatever other countries do, declining from 26% to 21%.
This is not to say that the survey is entirely positive regarding public support for the war. One question shows that the proportion of respondents who think that the Afghanistan strategy is not a 'worthwhile objective' has increased from 15 to 22%. But this is the one exception.To conclude that 'Obama is losing Britain' based on these figures is just not tenable.
I'm confused, the BBC Newshour reported that there has actually been an INCREASE in support for the war in Afghanistan. I was shocked so I listened to the entire report.
Additionally, the article that Richard Heller referenced showed that 72% thought the war was worthwhile, 60% were mad that Britain was fighting the war "on the cheap" and was under supplying their troops. The amount of people wanting us to WITHDRAW has DECREASED by 5% (21% now vs. 26% in March).
Am I wrong or is Richard Heller reporting the OPPOSITE stats?
"According to the survey, 60 percent of those questioned believed Brown was fighting the war "on the cheap", following criticism that the government was not doing enough to supply frontline troops with helicopters and armoured vehicles.
Twenty-four percent of those polled described the campaign as a worthwhile objective for which it was worth risking British lives, while 48 percent said it was a worthwhile objective but not worth risking British lives for.
Twenty-one percent said Britain should withdraw its forces right away, no matter what other countries might do, down from 26 percent who felt that way in the last poll in March."
Its simply amazing that despite all his rhetoric Obama has reached out his hand to every nutcake and dictator in the world, but in 6 months managed to diminish, if not even destroy, the special relationship that has existed between the U.S. and G.B. since at least WWII. Simply incredibly amazing!!!
Hey, if you leave right now, you can be in Britain in 24 hours to continue your "special relationship". They would be happy to take you, we will be happy to see you go :)
So, I guess reading anything but a headline puts too much of a strain on you.
The final paragraph of this article:
"The British people hated fighting George W. Bush's wars. They still love Barack Obama, but they do not like fighting his wars, either. American voters may make the same discovery, if they too see indefinite sacrifice without reward"
This is an that inaccurately quotes a poll stating that in the wake of 14 military deaths in Afghanistan, British support for their nations part in it dipped. Unless you're suggesting that President Obama personally killed those 14 soldiers (and you might be, you seem like the type to believe the Commander and Chief of the United States is a secret Muslim spy born in Indonesia/Kenya/Atlantis) I really don't see how you can assign any blame whatsoever to President Obama here.
This user is no longer registered.
Circa 2012:
Just about three years ago I set out on Obama's Afghanistan road,
Seekin' my fame and glory, lookin' to turn the mullah's hemorrhoid into a pot of gold.
Well, things got bad, and things got worse, I guess you will know the tune.
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
Flew in on a big plane, I hope I'll be in one piece flyin out when I go.
I was just passin' through, must now be yet another 2 tours or more.
Running out of time and patience, looks like they took more of my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
The Hope and Change man in the White House said yet again I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost his connection, he ran out of words to say.
I came into Kabul, a one year stand, looks like the plans fell through again
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
Mmmm...
If I only had a woman, for evry Obama tour Ive done.
And evry time Ive had to fight while chickenhawk Obama sat back home power drunk.
You know, Id like to catch the next plane back to where Im from.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
- CCR Soldier Boy
Hey TomFeral,
when did Obama EVER say he was planning on leaving Afghanistan any time soon? What part of "I'm going to take the war to Afghanistan, where it belongs" did you not understand when he was running for President? I think all the anti-war people had wax in their ears during the election. Or you guys simply decided to ignore his pro-Afgan war comments!
...And could it be that you volunteered to go into the "military" and fight in Curious George's wars because you couldn't find a "real" job as a result of the shifting of resources from the American treasury to the bank accounts of George Bush's administration.and their benefactors.
I nominate this for the stupidest post of the month.
We're in for a long fight against al-Qa'ida and its allies, and I'd rather that fight took place in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, if necessary) than on my doorstep in London. They may be based in many countries, but only as a criminal organisation: a very different situation to being allowed to operate openly as they did under the Taliban.
Richard Heller's former association with Denis Healey hardly inspires confidence in his political judgement. A quick google reveals that "He contributed dialogue to the motion picture Cycle Sluts Versus The Zombie Ghouls." Enough said.
Yes, it is true that terrorists meet in safe houses all over the world to plan attacks, and that is very hard to control. It is mainly a police and intelligence problem.
But allowing them to control whole COUNTRIES or regions of countries is far more dangerous, and should be avoided whenever possible, including in Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen. Control of a country magnifies their power greatly, and gives them a virtually endless number of places to plan, train and arm for attacks on the West--and is even more difficult to control and contain.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.