Clinton 'warns' UK on defence cuts.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I like Polish sausage. Is that even Polish?

Sometimes, but not very often. Unless you buy it at an ethnic deli its almost always just some random smoked sausage.

mmmm...random smoked sausage...

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.

**Albatross**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.

Are you under the illusion that the primary barrier to nuclear technology is financial or technical?

North Korea built them, the only places further down on the totem pole are Niger and Somalia.

Well, they ARE backed by the Chinese... So not exactly.

It is me you're quoting by the way - Frazzled made a bit of an error, making it look like he posted that instead of me. His reply was sort of jumbled into my original post.

Yes, North Korea has nuclear weapons - to my knowledge they have nowhere near the range needed to strike the UK. It's all very well asking 'what if Venezuela had nukes HURRR' as Frazzled did, but without a delivery system capable of hitting the UK the point is moot.

**Orlanth**

North Korea is not backward technologically, allowing for the leaders focus communist states usually are not due to the advantages of centralised planning.

North Korea appears backward because what technology it has is very poorly distributed.

India is similar though for completely different reasons and on a different scale. India has a huge peasant population and in much of the rural areas the best transport available is the donkey, yet they also are a nuclear power and have an active space program.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:We're having a nice conversation about Cthulu, and you come along and ruin it with a personal attack. Way to go Sebster.

You think that was a personal attack? Seriously? Enough to get all moderator over it? Wow.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Well, any food can be just fine, but Polish food is fine at lower rate than all other foods.

I'm almost pure polak, and once you've eaten Czernina you will understand.

We make good trucks, not good food.

I liked Pirogis a lot when I was Poland. I tried to make them here, and it really didn't work. My girlfriend was vomiting the next day, which may or may not have been related.

**dogma**

Albatross wrote:
Yes, North Korea has nuclear weapons - to my knowledge they have nowhere near the range needed to strike the UK. It's all very well asking 'what if Venezuela had nukes HURRR' as Frazzled did, but without a delivery system capable of hitting the UK the point is moot.

Ah, ok, that makes more sense.

I'd argue that whether or not a given state has nuke is irrelevant; especially given that hostility in the international arena isn't what it used to be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
You think that was a personal attack? Seriously? Enough to get all moderator over it? Wow.

He does that. Sometimes it even leads to banning Shuma.

**reds8n**

"Olympic sized swimming pools" indeed.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.

Are you under the illusion that the primary barrier to nuclear technology is financial or technical?

North Korea built them, the only places further down on the totem pole are Niger and Somalia.

**Henners91**

Albatross wrote:Britain has done MORE than it's fair share regarding global defence (of America's interests) - we have to make cuts, it's just that simple. No-one wants to cut their defence budget, but we seem to have very little choice. I used to think it was just Republican propaganda, but it does seem like the Obama regime is either subject to a terminal case of 'foot-in-mouth syndrome', or they actually WANT to alienate their closest allies. There are wealthier countries than the UK that don't do half as much, in terms of global policing (so to speak).

Britain will still be able to defend its interests - it just won't be able to join in as many American wars of adventure for the time being. Tough.

You're being pointlessly angry, it sounds like they were just worried that the cuts would be deeper than they've turned out; we are indeed subject to obligations as members of NATO and clearly the US was worried that we were going to default on those with radical cuts... we haven't and thus the story isn't exactly relevant anymore.

Of course if we come at it from a standpoint of principles rather than political realism, we should just flog off all of the forces and "do a Sweden"; seriously, who wants to kill the Swedes, eh?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hrm just realised that your first post was a tad bit old; so perhaps your anger was justified then... but tell me, Albatross, feel any different now?

**Albatross**

No, not really. Clinton is a crappy politician - you brief against your enemies, not your friends. For someone so blatantly undiplomatic as her to be in the postion she is is mind-blowing.

**Henners91**

It's undiplomatic to raise concerns about an ally, that is undergoing a lot of radical cuts, might cut its armed forces a tad excessively and force the US Military to stretch itself too thin? Ultimately it's a matter of principle and American national interest and as much as it might hurt our feelings, who can blame them for wanting assurances that their own austerity might be challenged by their main ally weakening itself excessively? That is to say, the Yanks can hardly make cuts themselves if we're leaving holes in the line.

But, as I said, things weren't *too bad* and the concerns were unfounded, but it's not like she could've known that. I think she's done a lot of good work as Secretary of State.

Hell, I hope she runs in 2016 even though she said she won't...

**Albatross**

Henners91 wrote:It's undiplomatic to raise concerns about an ally, that is undergoing a lot of radical cuts, might cut its armed forces a tad excessively and force the US Military to stretch itself too thin?

Publically, yes. It's hamfisted. Typically so, in her case.

Ultimately it's a matter of principle and American national interest and as much as it might hurt our feelings, who can blame them for wanting assurances that their own austerity might be challenged by their main ally weakening itself excessively?

I see. And I happen to think that it's a matter of principal that as much as it might hurt their feelings, the Secretary of State for the USA should mind her own fething business and leave us to run our affairs. There was never any suggestion that the UK would fail to meet it's NATO obligations, and the fact that she would comment on it publically is insulting. How are you not getting this?

But, as I said, things weren't *too bad* and the concerns were unfounded, but it's not like she could've known that.

No, but she could have kept her mouth shut until she did, instead of insulting a principal ally. Again, HOW are you not getting this?

**Henners91**

Well, we're NATO members so it *is* her business, especially considering the fact we're America's number two. I also don't really see why it's insulting for her to comment on it publicly; surely some people agree with her?

I don't think she insulted us but clearly you're a bit more touchy on the subject than myself.

**Albatross**

Henners91 wrote:Well, we're NATO members so it *is* her business, especially considering the fact we're America's number two.

Cool, voice the concerns in private then. That would be the professional thing to do. But then both Clintons are shameless media-whores, so...

I also don't really see why it's insulting for her to comment on it publicly; surely some people agree with her?

You REALLY don't see how it could appear arrogant, coercive and presumptuous to make a statement the intent of which seems to be to embarass another sovereign nation into undertaking (or rather, not) a desired course of action. We are strategic partners of the USA, we are military allies, we are important diplomatic and trade partners - we are many things to them, but a 51st state we are not. We are our own country, with our own business to attend to. She would do well to remember that.

It's not just me - there seem to be many republicans who feel that the Obama administration has done much to potentially alienate the USA's principal ally.

I don't think she insulted us but clearly you're a bit more touchy on the subject than myself.

Well yes, unlike you I'm not naive enough to believe that we don't need substantial defence spending or a nuclear deterrent. It WOULD be nice if everyone was nice, and we could spend billions on helping the 'disadvantaged' - but not everyone is nice, and the Number 1 priority of the state should be its defence. I would have ringfenced it and found savings elsewhere.

**Ketara**

To use a comparison Henners, it would be like David Cameron calling a press conference and announcing he doesn't think Obama's health plan is a good idea.

The fact is, it would be
a)none of his business really.
b) insulting to the current US administration

It's nothing to do with touchiness, and a good deal to do with being diplomatic, especially with your nation's principal ally.

**sebster**

Ketara wrote:To use a comparison Henners, it would be like David Cameron calling a press conference and announcing he doesn't think Obama's health plan is a good idea.

The fact is, it would be
a)none of his business really.
b) insulting to the current US administration

It's nothing to do with touchiness, and a good deal to do with being diplomatic, especially with your nation's principal ally.

You're not in a mutual health treaty with each other, so it's really very different.

**Ketara**

*shrugs*
Okay. Reverse the situation, and have Cameron commenting negatively the US about THEIR defence cuts. Regardless, it's still rather undiplomatic.

**Albatross**

Ketara wrote:*shrugs*
Okay. Reverse the situation, and have Cameron commenting negatively the US about THEIR defence cuts. Regardless, it's still rather undiplomatic.

Can you imagine what Frazzled or Fateweaver would have to say about THAT??!!?

There'd be tears before bedtime, of that I have no doubt. Me? I'm just a bit annoyed at the wife of a politician's presumption.

**Frazzled**

My first response would be "wait an oilfield service company that makes valves and blowout preventers is questioning US military spending? Thats odd."

**reds8n**

Albatross wrote:Well yes, unlike you I'm not naive enough to believe that we don't need substantial defence spending or a nuclear deterrent.

But you are naive enough to think that Clinton said this without prior approval from the MOD/Downing Street however right ?

So she could say her piece, Britain could "stand firm" and tell the American to "mind her own business".. sideline Liam "leaky and loathed" Fox totally -- where was he .. what was he doing ? ... and then, amazingly enough !, we don't make cuts quite that bad entirely due to "personal intervention from the Prime Minister David Cameron" -- as reported by every news outlet, whilst poor old sidelined Liam Fox -- still reeling from having his Neocon thinktank charity statuts slapped down in court and inabality to appoint a suitable PA, is left with egg on his face and answering accusations and whispers about his suitability for the role and his drinking habits.

And then Clinton flies home, safe in the knowledge that the two expensive ships will still be built, which involves several American firms.

So she secures American jobs and gets to pretend that America is THE BOSS OF US.
David cameron looks good -- he stood up to the Americans and "saved" the British armed forces.
And Liam Fox is left looking even more useless and redundant and much less of any sort of threat or rival to David Cameron.

Chin chin, trebles all around.

Say what you like about David Cameron's team but they are fething slick as anything when they need to be.

**Albatross**

/entire wardrobe of clothes fashioned out of tinfoil

Seriously, is rabid paranoia a *prerequisite* of being red?

**reds8n**

No paranoia at all. Just an understanding of how politics and spin doctoring works.

Clinton and several USA top brass met and were briefed by several MOD personnel quite recently.

Cameron sidelined Fox -- cf the appointment of Col. Jim Morris especially -- and it's an open secret he was put into Defence to fail. Fox wanted the FO, but didn't stand a hope in hell of getting it, not since he ran against Cameron in the leadership contest. Everyone knows they don't get on.

Cameron is noted -- you yourself pointed it out -- as being the one who stepped in to sort things out/save the day.

And the stories about Fox's lifestyle ran in... The Mail on Sunday... which is so tory supporting it looks like it's short of air at times its so blue.

If what Clinton did was such a terrible breach of ettiquette and stomped all over diplomacy where was all the official complaints and nosie then ? Nowhere, as it didn't matter and was entirely useful for the stories being spun.

**Henners91**

I'd still maintain that it IS their business and the intent clearly wasn't to embarrass us but say say "I have a bad feeling about this".

**Albatross**

reds8n wrote:No paranoia at all. Just an understanding of how politics and spin doctoring works.

Sure.

Clinton and several USA top brass met and were briefed by several MOD personnel quite recently.

Shocking, considering she's secretary of state for our principal ally....

If that was the case, why brief against UK gov't as if she didn't know what the outcome of the review would be?

Cameron sidelined Fox -- cf the appointment of Col. Jim Morris especially -- and it's an open secret he was put into Defence to fail. Fox wanted the FO, but didn't stand a hope in hell of getting it, not since he ran against Cameron in the leadership contest. Everyone knows they don't get on.

'Everyone knows'....

Hardly convincing, red.

Cameron is noted -- you yourself pointed it out -- as being the one who stepped in to sort things out/save the day.

...by leaning towards the amount of cuts Fox thought acceptable, as opposed to the 20% the Chancellor allegedly wanted? I thought they didn't get on?

And the stories about Fox's lifestyle ran in... The Mail on Sunday... which is so tory supporting it looks like it's short of air at times its so blue.

Right, so that makes them immune from reporting the news? Not every newspaper is like the Mirror, you know....

It's worth pointing out that I hate the Daily Mail.

If what Clinton did was such a terrible breach of ettiquette and stomped all over diplomacy where was all the official complaints and nosie then ? Nowhere, as it didn't matter and was entirely useful for the stories being spun.

...Or a huge diplomatic row is not exactly what the country needs at the moment, perhaps? Nevertheless, I didn't say that so you can stop mischaracterising me right there. Poor form. I PERSONALLY found it offensive, and thought it was undiplomatic, in addition to being a tad insulting. That's a far fething cry from saying it 'stomped all over diplomacy' and you know it.

Also, there was the usual 'Downing St. sources were said to be furious, etc.' type noise in the redtops.

**dogma**

Diplomacy isn't necessarily about being nice to people, or even following proper etiquette. Indeed, the standards of etiquette that exist in the diplomatic community are often assumed to be, at least in part, designed to be ignored. This allows individual diplomats to express strong distaste in a way that is more meaningful than simply saying so. Talleyrand, on of the most skilled diplomats in history, was infamous for this.

I actually think this was a pretty savvy move by Clinton, as it allows the US to point to protesting an event that may or may not have significant negative implications for NATO.

**sebster**

Ketara wrote:*shrugs*
Okay. Reverse the situation, and have Cameron commenting negatively the US about THEIR defence cuts. Regardless, it's still rather undiplomatic.

That wouldn't be undiplomatic as much as incoherent. The US spends a significantly greater % of GDP on defence. For any NATO member to complain about US cuts would be non-sensical.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:There'd be tears before bedtime, of that I have no doubt. Me? I'm just a bit annoyed at the wife of a politician's presumption.

When you say 'politician's wife' you mean Secretary of State Clinton, yeah? I think it's fair to assume she was acting in her role as Secretary of State, and not so much out of being the wife of a former President.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Diplomacy isn't necessarily about being nice to people, or even following proper etiquette. Indeed, the standards of etiquette that exist in the diplomatic community are often assumed to be, at least in part, designed to be ignored. This allows individual diplomats to express strong distaste in a way that is more meaningful than simply saying so. Talleyrand, on of the most skilled diplomats in history, was infamous for this.

I actually think this was a pretty savvy move by Clinton, as it allows the US to point to protesting an event that may or may not have significant negative implications for NATO.

There seems to be this idea in the thread that Clinton was trying to influence the cuts by making her public statement... but this late in the process that just isn't possible. You don't commit to long term spending cuts on Monday and announce them on Tuesday.

**reds8n**

why brief against UK gov't as if she didn't know what the outcome of the review would be?

She wasn't actually breifing against the UK Govt.

That's precisely the point I'm making. What she did was provide and get a nice little pr boost for those concerned.

'Everyone knows'.... Hardly convincing, red.

Have a dig around, it's common knowledge, same as the rancour between Blair and Brown was, even in the early days. Given the fact that they come from opposing ends of the Con. spectrum it's hardly surprising is it, especially if you factor in the leadership contest as well.

But here's a quote from this weekend..

Defence Secretary Liam Fox last night faced astonishing claims by senior Tory sources concerning his drinking habits – and a suggestion that he could be sacked for alleged disloyalty to David Cameron.

The Mail on Sunday has been told that Dr Fox’s conduct has been discussed at a senior level of the Government – and in some quarters of the Ministry of Defence – where there is said to be a concern about his ‘partying’ lifestyle.

The claims came after Mr Cameron was forced to intervene in a bitter feud between Dr Fox and Chancellor George Osborne, and reduced proposed defence cuts by £1 billion.

But Dr Fox’s provocative tactics in the battle – which saw the leak of a private letter from him to Mr Cameron attacking the ‘draconian’ cuts – have led some to question his judgment and his Cabinet future. An insider said: ‘Liam can be a bit embarrassing at times.

‘Some people are saying you cannot go on having a Defence Secretary who is not in full control of his department, or at times, it seems, himself. If you drew up a list of Ministers likely to be moved at the first major Cabinet reshuffle, Liam has put himself firmly in pole position.’

The most shocking aspect of the claims against Dr Fox concerns his drinking. He enjoys the occasional social drink and one source said: ‘When Liam has a drink he tends to get very carried away and becomes very chatty, a bit more chatty than is sensible for a Defence Secretary. It is a job which requires great discretion at all times.’

The claims were dismissed by friends of Dr Fox last night as a ‘baseless smear’.

One said: ‘Whoever is putting this kind of thing around should be ashamed and doesn’t know what they are talking about. Liam’s integrity is beyond doubt. He commands wide respect in the Ministry and in the Tory Party.’

The row comes as tension builds between Dr Fox and Mr Cameron over plans to slash the £37 billion defence budget, and a series of snubs by the Prime Minister.

First, Mr Cameron took over the public announcement about defence cuts to be unveiled on Tuesday. Then he asked Foreign Secretary William Hague to make a Commons announcement tomorrow about Britain’s strategic defence and foreign policy aims – leaving Dr Fox on the sidelines again.

To add insult to injury, Mr Cameron recruited his own military adviser, Colonel Jim Morris, a battle-hardened Royal Marine honoured for leading 45 Commando during a bloody six-month tour of duty of Afghanistan in 2008.

One of Dr Fox’s junior Defence Ministers said: ‘Liam has taken Morris’s appointment very badly.’

Well-placed observers have also questioned Dr Fox’s standing with defence chiefs.

‘They like Liam but they do not take him very seriously,’ said one.

‘He would much rather have been Foreign Secretary than Defence Secretary because he knew it could be a poisoned chalice. He is more interested in hanging out with friends in the US talking about bombing Iran than the nuts and bolts of the MoD, such as whether Army homes are properly maintained.’

Another senior MP said: ‘Liam’s reputation for going out partying and clubbing does not win him friends in the MoD. His decision to take on Cameron and Osborne in a media war is high-risk. If you go public against No 10 and 11 they will screw you in the end. Liam and Cameron have never really got on and Osborne derides him intellectually.’
Dr Fox stood against Mr Cameron in the 2005 Tory leadership contest but came third.

The article here :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100056795/david-cameron-is-confident-liam-fox-will-overplay-his-hand-say-tory-sources/

gives a fairly succinct summary of the bad blood atwixt them.

The blood ties and bloodbath of the Miliband rivalry have made us forget the equally bitter race for the Tory leadership that gripped the Right in 2005. When the pink-cheeked posh boy beat David Davis, the “man of the people” went off in a huff. No such theatrics for the other defeated candidate: Liam Fox chose to fight from within the fold, setting himself up to the Right of the soggy-Tory Cameroonians. Everyone was struck by how vicious his close allies could be about the new leader – behind Cameron’s back, of course

The PM, according to a well-placed source, has Dr Fox in his sights. He is convinced that his waiting game will soon pay off and that a Fox slip-up, either personal or political, is imminent.

Whether spectacular or quietly humiliating, the implosion of “the Churchill of the Coalition” would be much relished in No 10: an appropriate reward for five years’ patience.

...by leaning towards the amount of cuts Fox thought acceptable, as opposed to the 20% the Chancellor allegedly wanted? I thought they didn't get on?

err... Osbournbe wanted a 10% cut in the defense budget, Fox argued for 4%.. Cameron decided upon 7%. They don't get on.

Also, there was the usual 'Downing St. sources were said to be furious, etc.' type noise in the redtops

precisely : no one in Govt. actually cared, and it was spun as a chance for Cameron to not bow down to the USA and steering his own path etc etc etc.

**Orlanth**

reds8n wrote:

'Everyone knows'.... Hardly convincing, red.

Have a dig around, it's common knowledge, same as the rancour between Blair and Brown was, even in the early days. Given the fact that they come from opposing ends of the Con. spectrum it's hardly surprising is it, especially if you factor in the leadership contest as well.

I take this at face value. Sometimes you just cannot give your proofs online, but if you know enough credible sources you can be sure what you say is true. I get the feeling Red knows some middle-senior civil servants.

**Albatross**

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:There'd be tears before bedtime, of that I have no doubt. Me? I'm just a bit annoyed at the wife of a politician's presumption.

When you say 'politician's wife' you mean Secretary of State Clinton, yeah? I think it's fair to assume she was acting in her role as Secretary of State, and not so much out of being the wife of a former President.

Did you seriously miss the intended slight in what I said? Let me spell it out: I DO NOT TAKE HILARY CLINTON EVEN REMOTELY SERIOUSLY.

@red - They might NOT get on - I still think your conspiracy theory is a far cry from what actually took place. This whole thing was just another example of her 'mis-speaking', nothing more. And how is making potentially insulting comments about the UK government NOT briefing against the UK government?

**Kilkrazy**

An interesting perspective on the cuts from The Register.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/20/comment/