Friday, March 29, 2002

Logical Security

Jim Bennett, high priest of the Anglosphere cult, comes out with an interesting comment on American perfidy during the Falklands War. In Iain Murray's words:

Jim Bennett comments that this was all driven in Haig and Kirkpatrick's minds by cold-war thinking, which necessitated broad but shallow alliances, including Argentina just as much as Britain. As he puts it, the end of the cold war has led to a need for narrower but deeper associations.

Well almost my point. The fact was (or at least strongly pervading opinion was) that Cold War Britain, America and Argentina were all threatened by worldwide Soviet subversion. Now there is no common threat, so should there be a common alliance at all?

The logic of Jim Bennett's analysis would fundamentally undermine the idea which he so passionately espouses. Was it right to make alliances and undertake foreign commitments on the basis of national security? If it was then, should it be the case now? If we make an alliance on the basis of national security with the Americans against the Islamic world (let's be honest here chaps, it's not just Osama) do we increase or decrease our national security.

If we decrease our national security, as the government has admitted for the last few months, isn't it time to reconsider?

Of course, to some British civilian deaths are nothing if it is in the cause of the great English speaking union of peoples. Allow me to dissent.


Post a Comment

Blog Archive