The War On Ignorance

Tony Blair Speaking aboard HMS Albion in Plymouth

At the early stages of his prime ministerial career, Mr Blair saw Britain's influence in the world in terms of membership of the European Union. To that effect – with enthusiastic support of his then defence minister Geoff Hoon – he was prepared to submerge the British military in the European defence identity.

.

Now, however, Tony Blair who today spoke on the subject aboared Britain's new Aircraftcarrier, HMS Albion in Plymouth - one of Britain's premier naval bases (for the time being) opened precisely the debate need. That being if Britain wants a leading presence on the world stage, it means continuing to send troops into dangerous places far away - with (and largely without) the involvement of the EU. In a interview with a local television programme, the Prime Minister declared, "There is a global terrorism that we face … I think it's right for Britain, alongside our allies, to be in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is a big decision to decide to be in that game still."

.

The crucial issue for the Eurosceptic community (for the benefit of our overseas readers - those that want to leave or part leave the EU) is that the allies with whom we are working are not the European Union. They are Nato, the United States, countries like Pakistan – with whom we share the vital task of defeating the Taliban – and Anglospheric countries like Canada and Australia.

.

In short, the best way for the UK to maintain a semi-detached relationship with the core EU countries such as France and Germany – and ward off further encroaching political integration - is to remain immersed in fighting the "war on terror", from which the EU powers have largely opted out.

.

There is not only a political divide between the European and the US-led approach, but a growing schism in military philosophies – a divide between conventional "warfighting" and counterinsurgency operations.

.

The British Army sees the wizz-bang, shoot-em-up warfighting, with its tanks, artillery and other equipment as "proper" soldiering. It hates counter-insurgency and treats it as an aberration, hence its reluctance to gear up for it and to develop appropriate and effective tactics.

It wants to get it over and done with so that it can get back to its traditional role of of fighting "real" soldiers who have the decency to use green (or sand) painted equipment and wear uniforms.

.

Perversely, it is the "soft power" European Union which offers the military the best prospect of equipping and maintaining a modern "warfighting" army, in its grandiose plans for the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF). Because the ERRF is a theoretical construct, unhampered by having to be structured and equipped to deal with a real enemy in a known theatre, military planners can indulge in their flights of fancy.The debate is not actually about whether we should fight the war on terror but whether we should continue so doing or pull out in order to pursue the more acceptable - to some - programme of European defence integration. But, because the dreaded "E-word" is never mentioned, we have a wholly distorted and unreal debate, with the real issues being avoided and the parties indulging in proxy arguments.

.

With defence expenditure at current levels, the finance exists to equip our armed forces for conventional warfighting or for counter-insurgency, but not both. Clearly, the Europhiles would prefer the former - as that takes us in the direction of the EU. Also, the hierarchies of the armed forces desperately want to keep a warfighting capability and, forced to make a choice, would dispense with their counter-insurgeny roles. (As for the Tories, they do not seem even to be in the debate as they seem largely unaware of what is going on.)

.

Whatever the merit of retaining a significant conventional warfighting role, it has to be said that the urgent need for the here and now is to improve Britain's miltary counter-insurgency capability. By happy coincidence, promoting the development of that capability is the best way of scuppering the ERRF.

.

From the Eurosceptic stance, therefore, Mr Blair is suddenly the ally - as are those who support the continuatuion of the war in Iraq. The Lib-Dims, the Conservatives and the military – each for their different reasons – are the opposition. But, with the real issues ill-defined, the real opposition is ignorance.

There is a a real world out there. The EU is not part of it and, if we wish to be part of the real world, we cannot be part of the EU.