baldysblog.co.uk

There was an interesting article written by a former soldier in the Independent calling on the public to have a vote on going to war or not: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/crispin-black-voters-must-decide-when-we-go-to-war-1830423.html

However it is nonsense because if Parliament is in thrall to the Executive, which given the rise of the “Career Politician” it is, we need to look at the Separation of Powers and a strengthening of the role of the MP and Parliamentary Committees as a check on the Executive and, other sanctions the electorate can directly impose on sitting MPs if they fail in their duties not, specific decisions.

The Majority Reaction

Most people who wrote in rejected the idea outright, in at least this key area of Defence and Security, that is why we vote these people into power, it is their job and they either get it right or, get it wrong and pay the penalty. Another point raised in this article was the lack of senior politicians in the House with Military Service experience. I would dismiss this too, it is not important whether or not politicians have served in the military, it is important that they understand history and especially British History and in its appropriate context. Politicians need to have empathy not sympathy, their engagement should be more intellectual than emotional.

Our troops in this generation as in previous ones, have shown us their courage and valour plus their skills, still getting the job done despite the lack of the proper equipment to do that job. But if War is Diplomacy by other means then the politicians need to do their jobs as well as our Forces, War is too important to be left to the Generals. Politicians should hesitate to send troops to war but be ruthless in pursuit of the objective whilst always balancing the cost against gaining that victory, there is not point in Pyrrhic ones.

The Chilcot Inquiry

I would not trust the general public, myself included with our opinions being swayed emotively by the Media in one way or another, to blindly decide whether we go to war or not.

The one thing Chilcot seems to promise is a continuing expose of the Iraq War and how we got there which so far and we can trust former Civil Servants little more than Politicians, the smell of post rationalization and self-justification, already fills the air like the drifting cannon smoke of a 19th Century Battlefield, but we might get a different perspective.

When he finally gives evidence, if Tony Blair admits being steamrollered into the War but argues the case for supporting the USA, he will do both Countries a major service. Whilst in having common roots, there is an affinity between the Anglosphere Nations, the idea of a “Special Relationship” between the UK and the USA is codswallop and a foolish notion to hold on to.

All Nations follow a path of self interest, it is why their Governments have been elected, the UK would do better to remember this when dealing with the EU and also the US, bugger a generous view, “What is in it for us ?” should be the attitude which whilst ‘mercenary’ is also understandable to others whether Friend or Foe.

What Is Democracy ?

To give the public a vote in some kind of Referendum (?) as to whether or not we go to war is total nuts history and no, it is not “Democracy” at all. The whole concept of democracy is built upon the experiences of the Athenians who allowed too much ‘democracy’ so that the State became both paralysed and eventually was over-run by the Spartans.

The whole principle behind what we today call democracy rests upon us as individuals surrendering our personal ‘rights’ for a defined period of time to a group of elected people who will provide governance for that period “in the best interests” of us all. That is intimately connected with the whole concept of the rule of law, we surrender our personal rights to seek revenge in return for a system of Justice.

The Public Already Have a Voice

The reality is that in the normal run of things, both the public and MPs do have a ‘voice’ in the run up to a war situation, they rarely happen overnight and any Government that pressed ahead in the face of fierce opposition from the public and their MPs would likely fall. The problem with the current discussion over Iraq is that it ia all hindsight and overlooks the fact that Blair’s previous military interventions in Sierra Leon and Kosovo had been reasonably successful. It therefore follows, opposition to the Iraq Invasion at that time was far more muted then than would be the case today.

It is said that Generals always start from a position of “fighting the last war” and have to learn new lessons, in this case, the public are no different. Imagine the strength of the opposition to David Cameron in a few years time wanting to join with the US in invading say North Korea, a far more likely holder of WMD. The reality is that it would be a very difficult “ask” which could only be dealt with by making public very positive proof of a clear and present danger to the UK and its interests and that may prove to be the most important change when looking ahead to future decisions over going to war.

Blair has cocked up and in doing so has made it very difficult for any successor to take this Country to war under the same circumstances and regardless of the Government in power at the time, we the electorate no longer trust our politicians.