Going to the dogs: Blair, Brown, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the BBC
When you read an article from the BBC, the only way to be informed and not disappointed or mystified is to understand that there is a BBC "position" on the matter at hand that you have to know.
When reading an article about the military, you have to understand: the BBC is against both the British and US armies. The US is the worst. The BBC think that warfare is really unjustifiable for post-colonial western countries; it's ok for post colonial colonial countries- they have to let off steam and should not be interrupted unless the force involved wears blue helmets or unless it looks likely that the savagery involved in the conflict will ruin the cosy western liberal's peace of mind and ability to trust the UN to solve everything.
So that's the first tranche of assumptions out of the way. We could add a few more, such as that EU members infelicitous forays abroad will be mainly ignored- they mean well, and surely they will (suitably modestly) support the longed-for EU army that would put a spoke in the wheel of the Yankee dominance.
The BBC were against the Iraq war- post-Hutton and following revision of most people's view of the Iraq war, the BBC are unlikely to claim that it was otherwise.
Just browsing through the BBC's coverage of Basra, one is overwhelmed by the negativity. Yet the British losses in Basra have been fewer than 170. In an era when our army is so small, that is a number that may be felt, but it is pretty low over four years of deployment. We never got those reports of the engagement with the people of Basra. To be fair probably the army didn't imagine they would need to engage- they hold to the line that the media (BBC) have spun that the politicians promised that the Iraqis would be doing everything for themselves in no time.
It hasn't proved that way. Yet when you have a national broadcaster pulling so against the national interest (whatever your view of the war, to see our soldiers safe and our prestige enhanced would, I think, fall into the definition of the national interest), it is hardly surprising if negativity has tended to dominate our approach- whatever sterling guys are out there doing hard work.
Actually I don't trust the BBC's search archive- I feel sure there were some articles from generals saying we were "winning" in Basra, that basically things were going ok. There is no rhyme or reason to their archive- I wonder if they have guys organising it to show off the Beeb in the best possible light- ie. the best angle to protect and advance the Beeb's interests; they seemed to be able to spare time to edit wikipedia.
But I've known for a long time that the BBC's goal was a downbeat and bedraggled retreat from Basra. This is very important to the corporation, because its views concerning such interventionism are very deep-rooted indeed.
The major reason they turned against Tony Blair and started supporting Gordon Brown was that Blair had betrayed their trans-nationalist, UN-brokered, apologetic diplomacy. Blair did it for good reasons- he understood that the Right in the UK could only be beaten permanently by being outflanked on such issues as Iraq. It was a generational opportunity to put the Conservatives in a spin; and moreover, Blair knows that Conservatives can be right from time to time, even from his perspective, and that it's essential to understand when they are and to neutralise their effectiveness.
But I digress. Can I expect the BBC to be more positive about Afghanistan? I am not holding my breath- that too was interventionism, and highly dubious from a BBC point of view. When they are it is certainly only a provisional and impermanent state. The BBC have always been able to afford being doctrinaire, and never need interrupt this luxury for too long.
Brown, moreover, is a man far more after their own heart. In addition to toeing the party line when the party was extremely Leftist, Brown had his own ideas along similar lines. In contrast, Blair was more of a weather-vane (I'm going back to their roots in the 70's and 80's now).
So I think that in addition to getting us out of Iraq, Brown will want to get us out of Afghanistan.
Now then is a good time to declare that we are winning that war- build up the pubic belief and then quietly nip off. We'll see how that works in Iraq, and then... we'll see about Afghanistan. Part of the reason for demonising Tony Blair over Iraq was so that we could nip of asap claiming it was the Yanks' responsibility.
It will be the same in Afghanistan. "Stretched but winning" will morph into "we've done enough, given enough" etc. One can see that that's the strategy because we are not spending enough money to equip our forces; they are under-equipped.
Money is a basic factor here: when the Democrats were deciding how to go about pulling down the US involvement in Iraq, their thoughts turned to withholding money. That's been the British Leftist Government's strategy all the long. Tony Blair went into Iraq because he knew it was right for Britain- but also to beat the Tories. Even the Left could see that part of the argument- they just can't see why we have to fear islamofascism. Therefore you don't raise the proportion of national income spent on the military- it's a natural starvation policy. Even better, when you draw down from action like Iraq and Afghanistan, you can claim a peace dividend and cut back even further.
Best of all, now that the Tories' possible advantage is neutralised, now that an assertive strategy is suitably discredited, they can proceed with appeasement safe in the knowledge that the assertiveness of the Right has been drained.
It is indeed a bitter Sunday evening conspiracy post. I may add some extra links or make some edits later.
When reading an article about the military, you have to understand: the BBC is against both the British and US armies. The US is the worst. The BBC think that warfare is really unjustifiable for post-colonial western countries; it's ok for post colonial colonial countries- they have to let off steam and should not be interrupted unless the force involved wears blue helmets or unless it looks likely that the savagery involved in the conflict will ruin the cosy western liberal's peace of mind and ability to trust the UN to solve everything.
So that's the first tranche of assumptions out of the way. We could add a few more, such as that EU members infelicitous forays abroad will be mainly ignored- they mean well, and surely they will (suitably modestly) support the longed-for EU army that would put a spoke in the wheel of the Yankee dominance.
The BBC were against the Iraq war- post-Hutton and following revision of most people's view of the Iraq war, the BBC are unlikely to claim that it was otherwise.
Just browsing through the BBC's coverage of Basra, one is overwhelmed by the negativity. Yet the British losses in Basra have been fewer than 170. In an era when our army is so small, that is a number that may be felt, but it is pretty low over four years of deployment. We never got those reports of the engagement with the people of Basra. To be fair probably the army didn't imagine they would need to engage- they hold to the line that the media (BBC) have spun that the politicians promised that the Iraqis would be doing everything for themselves in no time.
It hasn't proved that way. Yet when you have a national broadcaster pulling so against the national interest (whatever your view of the war, to see our soldiers safe and our prestige enhanced would, I think, fall into the definition of the national interest), it is hardly surprising if negativity has tended to dominate our approach- whatever sterling guys are out there doing hard work.
Actually I don't trust the BBC's search archive- I feel sure there were some articles from generals saying we were "winning" in Basra, that basically things were going ok. There is no rhyme or reason to their archive- I wonder if they have guys organising it to show off the Beeb in the best possible light- ie. the best angle to protect and advance the Beeb's interests; they seemed to be able to spare time to edit wikipedia.
But I've known for a long time that the BBC's goal was a downbeat and bedraggled retreat from Basra. This is very important to the corporation, because its views concerning such interventionism are very deep-rooted indeed.
The major reason they turned against Tony Blair and started supporting Gordon Brown was that Blair had betrayed their trans-nationalist, UN-brokered, apologetic diplomacy. Blair did it for good reasons- he understood that the Right in the UK could only be beaten permanently by being outflanked on such issues as Iraq. It was a generational opportunity to put the Conservatives in a spin; and moreover, Blair knows that Conservatives can be right from time to time, even from his perspective, and that it's essential to understand when they are and to neutralise their effectiveness.
But I digress. Can I expect the BBC to be more positive about Afghanistan? I am not holding my breath- that too was interventionism, and highly dubious from a BBC point of view. When they are it is certainly only a provisional and impermanent state. The BBC have always been able to afford being doctrinaire, and never need interrupt this luxury for too long.
Brown, moreover, is a man far more after their own heart. In addition to toeing the party line when the party was extremely Leftist, Brown had his own ideas along similar lines. In contrast, Blair was more of a weather-vane (I'm going back to their roots in the 70's and 80's now).
So I think that in addition to getting us out of Iraq, Brown will want to get us out of Afghanistan.
Now then is a good time to declare that we are winning that war- build up the pubic belief and then quietly nip off. We'll see how that works in Iraq, and then... we'll see about Afghanistan. Part of the reason for demonising Tony Blair over Iraq was so that we could nip of asap claiming it was the Yanks' responsibility.
It will be the same in Afghanistan. "Stretched but winning" will morph into "we've done enough, given enough" etc. One can see that that's the strategy because we are not spending enough money to equip our forces; they are under-equipped.
Money is a basic factor here: when the Democrats were deciding how to go about pulling down the US involvement in Iraq, their thoughts turned to withholding money. That's been the British Leftist Government's strategy all the long. Tony Blair went into Iraq because he knew it was right for Britain- but also to beat the Tories. Even the Left could see that part of the argument- they just can't see why we have to fear islamofascism. Therefore you don't raise the proportion of national income spent on the military- it's a natural starvation policy. Even better, when you draw down from action like Iraq and Afghanistan, you can claim a peace dividend and cut back even further.
Best of all, now that the Tories' possible advantage is neutralised, now that an assertive strategy is suitably discredited, they can proceed with appeasement safe in the knowledge that the assertiveness of the Right has been drained.
It is indeed a bitter Sunday evening conspiracy post. I may add some extra links or make some edits later.
Labels: Afghanistan, BBC, Blair, Brown, Iraq
