Warmongering? Fight climate change instead!
I've just been reading a fantastic blog by George Monbiot - on the strange things going between the UK government and defence industry. Or maybe they're not strange at all... maybe it's the same old malarkey.
"On Friday, the National Audit Office published a report which appeared to congratulate the [British Ministry of Defence] for going only 11% over budget on thirty acquisitions, such as attack submarines, destroyers, Eurofighter aircraft and anti-tank weapons. This overspending – a mere £3bn or so – is a heroic improvement on the ministry’s usual efforts. The story was spoilt a little when we discovered that it would have looked much worse were it not for some creative manouevres by the 1st armoured accounts division, confounding the enemy by shifting money between different parts of the budget."
"But what the audit report failed to answer, or even to ask, was why we need attack submarines, destroyers, Eurofighter aircraft and anti-tank weapons in the first place. Are the Russians coming? Is Angela Merkel preparing to mobilise a few Panzer divisions? It is preposterous to suggest that we face the threat of invasion, now or in the foreseeable future."British writer George Monbiot: Defence Against What? »
This is all very interesting - the article appars to focus on conventional weaponary, and Monbiot argues that the British military-industrial complex has effectively shot itself in the foot - in terms of going on another 'adventure' any time soon. But, as you may recall, the British government and military establishment are busily building some new Weapons of Mass Descruction - last week, weapons inspectors went to visit Aldermaston to check out the situation.
A few weeks ago, there was an article in the UK newspaper The Guardian, about how by scrapping its £76bn plan for new nuclear weapons, the British government could spend the cash on tackling climate change instead. Interestingly, the Guardian mentions the figure of £76bn as having been mentioned by "scientists, industry bodies and others" as being a suitable amount of spondulicks to "almost guarantee emission reductions from 150m tonnes of carbon a year today to the necessary level of around 60m tonnes by 2030". Coincidence?
Read on: The Guardian: Could scrapping Trident save the planet? »
Back to Monbiot - he quotes the British government's 'Defence Vision':
“'We face new challenges and unpredictable new conditions. Our strategy must evolve to reflect these new realities. For the future this means [among other positions] … holding fast, in the face of change, to our underpinning military traditions'”
Emphasis is mine. Same old traditions... same old warmongering.
Where I come from (Ireland) there's not much going in terms of warmongering (apart from US military using our civilian airports). How about your country? What's going where you live?
Comments
You make many good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armements”
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
The Pentagon is a giant,incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be - Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can’t. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.
Posted by: Ken Larson | December 1, 2006 3:10 AM
Of coure we need an defense otherwise anyone can march into britain here and kill us all, then u wouldnt be worrying bout climate change would u. and what u mean what do we use it for have u heard of the irak war or afganistan?
Posted by: bob | December 2, 2006 10:33 PM