Sep 27 2009
The Barack and Gordon show
Barack likes Sarah – enough to hold her hand
Barack likes Gordon – enough to slap him on the back and walk with him
Barack will meet with Gordon – to talk about their joint problem, the war in Afghanistan, on the eve of a request for more troops.
How tacky can you get? Why can’t our Prime Minister walk tall without needing The President’s reflected and fading glory? Why do they have to make the story the “special relationship” when the stories should be how are they going to get out of the economic mess they have created and what are they going to do about Afghanistan? If President and PM need to meet they will meet. If they don’t need to meet, so what.
We are presented with Janet and John politics. What we need are some answers to difficult questions. I asked the ones about the G20 yesterday. Today I ask about Afghanistan
How many troops does the General in charge think he needs?
What is the new mission post the election?
How long will it take to reform and train the Afghan police and military to undertake security actions?
Is there a military solution to the Taleban problem?
Can you solve the Taleban problem in just one country?
Why does the UK government think Afghanistan is a unique home for terrorist training?
15 Responses to “The Barack and Gordon show”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
The Prime minister may still be pinching himself , he still hasn’t bedded in to the real role of Prime Minister, in fact he must think it is all a bad dream.
I get the feeling that as he was Chancellor for how many years and confined to the team who supported him/ did the donkey work, he will always be a backroom pen pushing Wallah. I do not see any one of real substance or stature.
I think that the two ‘ B’ limpets cling together- the pair of them are shaky in every possible way. Obama is so wobbly, a Western black man in a western white world , sorry to say, there are troubles ahead!
I do not see any statesman like characters on the horizon here either, UK men are too NU-MAN- and have no pith or bite or personality- they are all cloned products of an easy life with no testing times with true grit!
I would have thought that President Obama’s time would be well spent talking to his opposite numbers representing Russia and China, with regard to the Iranian situation, as the UK is presumably fully on side.
If number 10 did ask for meetings several times that is demeaning and just shows how insecure the PM is. Indeed his smile when meeting the president was so …over the top…
Your points on the Afghan campaign go to the core of the matter, if our government can provide answers to those questions they could announce what our long term intentions are in Afghanistan.
The “War” was never meant to be against the Taliban, but against Al Qaeda, who were given shelter in Afghanistan. Now it’s all being projected as being one and the same thing.
Harriet Harman said recently that, as a result of NATO’s campaign, there were a lot of women in Kabul abandoning the burka… the following week I was in Birmingham and saw a few women wearing burka’s has, so is this a good reason to put our troops lives at risk?
What do we do if the perpetrators of some future terror outrage were trained in Yemen or Somalia – invade those countries?
We are being told that our involvement in Afghanistan is keeping terror from the streets of the UK, but it seems from other reports that the plotters of terror attacks are already here, part of the indigenous community.
Why not put more resources into border controls?
The US has dealt with terror threats in the earlier mentioned Yemen by targeted strikes using drones or Special Forces, could this technique not be used in Afghanistan?
I’m 100% behind our troops, the BBC midweek programme “Wounded” was heartbreaking seeing 18 year old soldiers returning home with shattered bodies, but I can’t bring myself to believe that their involvement in that region makes the UK any safer.
If the government were to force itself to answer key questions such as you’ve outlined then the way forward will be clearer.
alan jutson Reply:
September 28th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Matt
In the meantime the Afghan fit 18 year old men in France will try any means to get into the UK to escape their own war torn Country.
One is forced to ask the qusetion, If they do not think their own Country is worth fighting for, why do we.
JR: “Why can’t our Prime Minister walk tall without needing The President’s reflected and fading glory?”
Because the man who has had a couple of books written (ghost written?), (words left out) about ‘courage’ doesn’t have any.
What they say about cowardly people, when they find themselves in positions of power, they surround themselves with other weak cowardly people.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the New Labour Cabinet.
Maybe it’s me but if a smooth, successful and handsome younger man was holding my wife’s hand openly….
Well I would not regard this as a triumph and certainly not one to boast about in public.
Trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan is a lost cause. Warlords, tribalism, corruption, heroin production (which is booming), insurgency, illiteracy and the absence of the basic rule of law make democracy a pipe-dream. The post election mission should consist of realistically achievable goals which include a timetable for withdrawing troops.
I’m not even sure if the Cabinet knows or understands why our troops are in Afghanistan. The left wing and feminists in the Labour party seem to believe it is to bring the western ideas of human rights to the country, and impossible task in any Islamic country. Others seem to think we should pull out, and maybe a few give it reluctant support. Being a cynic, I feel they don’t care about the military deaths and merely hope that the public will soon start demanding the withdrawal of our troops, so saving them the problem of making the decision.
Meanwhile, I stick to my personal view that no country has ever managed to control Afghanistan in the last few hundred years; even the USSR, using somewhat more brutal tactics failed. So what makes Britain and America think that they will succeed now?
We would have better spent the money that the war is costing in this country by beefing up our border controls and security services.
At least the Thatcher & Reagan double-act was based on solid and substantial principles and a real desire to bring proper change to their own countries and to the wider world.
Reagan halved the fiscal deficit in his second term and reduced the number of federal income tax rates from fourteen to three while lifting millions of poor Americans out of income tax. He fought for & obtained more federal spending cuts than any President up until then. And then there was paving the way for ending the Cold War.
Thatcher ended Union dominance , freed business from excess red tape and extended share & home ownership to millions while setting the Falklands free and ensuring that heavy industry was privatized so it paid lots in tax on high profits rather than being a drain on the public purse with subsidies for losses.
I doubt that Brown or Obama have the capacity for that kind of positive change. The UK needed a change of direction in 2007 when Brown turned up as PM and the USA needed to go on a different trajectory in 2009 when Obama was sworn in.
The only trouble was in both nations the governments where borrowing & spending too much and there was too little school choice, a lack of healthcare cost control and too much personal debt with the banks getting out of hand.
In short the US & UK needed a turn to the right so that healthcare could be more efficiently delivered, more good schools to choose from for the many not the few, a better system of financial regulation and a smaller government sector with the national debt being controlled rather than letting it rip.
All that Brown & Obama want is a bigger government sector so that more people are reliant on it for their wellbeing and so will vote for the socialist patrons in elections.
As Bill o Reilly said on Fox News a few months ago regular American voters elected Obama to be a centrist politician to fix the economy. All the exit polls show that despite electing Obama and increasing the Democratic majorities in House & Senate on election night November 2008 the US electorate remained pretty conservative. They where not voting positively for liberalism but negatively against the incompetence & sleaze of the Republicans.
Obama could end up in the same dire situation as Brown if he forgets these important political realities. Especially if the Republicans draw up concrete plans to shrink the federal government with wide ranging spending cuts. They could fight the mid-terms on a platform telling Middle America that the GOP will balance the books via less government.
When it comes to who can be the Republican Presidential candidate they should see who can motivate the base and perhaps win over conservative Democrats & Independents. 270 on the electoral college is the name of the game.
Clearly the War on Terror is not to protect British streets, that has to be a lie otherwise we would have better border controls.
Acording to the News half of our own internal security is infested with Al Queda Sympathisers.
So what is the reason, Geopolitical advantage, an oil pipeline, drugs maybe.
I doubt this war on Terror ( aledged ) is going to be to the advantage of me and my children.
But Is there anything I can do about it.
Again I have to suggest, control over our Borders and retaining our Troops at home we would not be in this postion, we are all being played for fools.
John,
The humour demonstrated so wonderfully in this linked video is the perfect way to demonstrate the nonsense of Labour’s borrowing.I’m sure William Hague and Eric Pickles,for two, might even improve on the delivery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAFYYqenW8c
Bob Hope and Bing Crosby had a pat-a-cake pat-a-cake routine that was a lot funnier. But then they know what they were doing.
There is not and has never been a ‘Special relationship’. I cannot understand why the people of Great Britain believe that there is.
The US has used its size and strength more often to manipulate Britain than to aid it. It is not a secret that one of the war aims of both FDR and Truman was to end the British Empire. Suez could have been a British victory but for US interference. Remember ther trouble the US caused for Wilson over his failure to send troops to Vietnam. The only time it was different was maybe between Thatcher & Reagan, but only because they had a great personal relationship.
The US looks at its own strategic interests first, it cares not a bit for its allies unless they are currently useful. If our interests coincide with theirs we are ‘a special friend’. If not, we can basically ‘get stuffed’.
It’s about time our governments started acting with the same har headed national self interest.
Brown reminded me of a little boy lost and hanging around to obtain the autograph of his current hero.
I must confess that I haven’t tried very hard to find it, but there seems to have been very little reporting of the economic outcomes of the G20 meeting which were supposed to be so vital. I can only assume that there is something nasty coming down the pipe about which the politicians don’t want us to know.
Who exactly is making this story? And would any other PM do any different? I think not
Some answers:
Another 40,000 according to the US.
Zapping terrorists in Waziristan ditto.
The length of a piece of string.
No.
No.
Because they aren’t prepared to defend our borders at home and throw out foreign undesirables so Afghanistan is a displacement activity that also justifies government terrorising the domestic population.