UK to fight wars on its own without the United States?!! Get real!

Ben Wallace, the UK Defence Secretary, has warned in an interview in the Sunday Times that Britain must be prepared to fight wars in the future on its own without the support of the United States. What world does this minister believe he is living in? What wars exactly is he talking about? The last time Britain fought a war on its own was in 1982 - 38 years ago - although it has to be said the US supplied a lot of help behind the scenes, with shells and other munitions and satellite intelligence. The ammo was provided because those nice Belgians, fellow members of Nato, refused to supply shells which they had provided before, presumably because they didn't approve of Maggie Thatcher's escapade in the South Atlantic, liberating the British-owned islands from the Argentinian military junta's occupation. But the actual on-the-ground fighting was all done by the Brits, on their own. Now Mr Wallace seems to think that the UK will be fighting all kinds of wars in the future when we shall be once again on our own. I cannot think of a single scenario in which this belief makes any sense whatsoever. I suppose theoretically Sierra Leone could go wrong again and we might be asked to send troops to keep order and stop nasties from entering Freetown,just as we did in 2000 in Operation Palliser. But that wasn't a war and we handled that perfectly well. Despite defence cuts and mismanagement of the equipment procurement programme going back decades, the UK could still do one of those sorts of operations and certainly wouldn't need to beg the US for help. So what does Mr Wallace have in mind? Are we going to go to war with Russia, Iran, China or Libya? Without the US getting involved? What nonsense. Is Russia going to invade the UK and we are to be left to fight them on the beaches without our American allies? Don't be ridiculous. Has Mr Wallace not heard of Nato and Article 5 under which all member nations are committed to helping each other in the event of an attack by a foreign power? OK I guess he is suggesting that if there was an attack on the UK, the Americans might not bother, under Donald Trump, to fulfil their Article 5 obligations. But that's plain daft and stupid. If Latvia was invaded by Russia, would the UK be on its own rushing to help? Of course it wouldn't. It would be a huge moment for Nato as an alliance, not the UK as a single nation. So the UK Defence Secretary is talking nonsense and, by the way, he is being distinctly disrespectful to the US. Whatever Trump says or tweets there is no way that America would not come to Britain's aid if under attack and no way that the US would stay on the sidelines if any other member of the alliance came under attack. So why speculate on the potential dire future that we face here in dear old Blighty? It's a politician trying to make a point but not thinking of what he is saying. He sounded like a poor whingeing Brit overwhelmed by the responsibility of his job. What worries me is that he may be preparing the ground for seeking funds for building all those things for which we currently do rely on the US - air refuelling, surveillance and intelligence aircraft, satellites, heavyweight transport aircraft etc etc. If so, then the upcoming defence and security review will be a disaster because Wallace and co will be arguing for huge equipment contracts to fill a gap just in case the US refuses to be on our side. Instead of deciding once and for all precisely what we think the UK is good at in military terms and how we should find the money to pay for specific much-needed capabilities and to have the service personnel to match. the MoD would be trying to have everything but never enough money to pay for it. The past has seen so many appalling procurement decisions: special Chinook helicopters that can't fly in bad weather, state-of-the-art diesel-electric submarines that cost £1 billion but never came into service and were sold to Canada for a bargain price, super-advanced Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft that were scrapped before they were ready for operations, and of course the two mighty aircraft carriers which look terrific when they are moored side by side in Portsmouth but which represent a naval greatness that outmatches our status in the world. Two 65,000-tonne carriers and an army of just 78,000 soldiers and falling. Somewhat of an imbalance don't you think? So Mr Ben Wallace please don't start planning a defence review on the basis that this small nation of ours is going to become a global policeman, rushing all over the place fighting wars on our own. Get real!!