January 26, 1788: The day the white men…

Whatever your opinion of the day, it is impossible not to stop…

Conversations with Ernie Dingo

So here we go again, 'Strayla Day'. Hype. Flag waving. White people…

Morrison: Opportunity Lost to Attack Racism or Political…

By Dr Stewart Hase Good leaders know that what they say influences people.…

America the Terrible

By Elizabeth Dangerfield America is broken because a whole lot of people are…

The Philosophy of STOP!

We’ve all had those times in our travels through life, when we’re…

The Day John Lennon Was Shot I Had…

I remember clearly that the day John Lennon was shot was a…

Seeking the Post-COVID 19 Sunshine: New Opportunities for…

By Denis Bright Progressive members of Joe Biden’s caucus are ready to implement…

Masking Up under Biden: The Perils of Tribalism,…

One crackling theme streaking through the US elections of 2020 was the…


Keeping the Empire Running: Britain’s Global Military Footprint

A few nostalgic types still believe that the Union Jack continues to flutter to sighs and reverence over outposts of the world, from the tropics to the desert. They would be right, if only to a point. Britain, it turns out, has a rather expansive global reach when it comes to bases, military installations and testing sites. While not having the obese heft and lumbering brawn of the United States, it makes a good go of it. Globally, the UK military has a presence in 145 sites in 42 countries. Such figures tally with Ian Cobain’s prickly observation in The History Thieves: that the British were the only people “perpetually at war.”

Phil Miller’s rich overview of Britain’s military footprint for Declassified UK shows it to be heavy. “The size of the global military presence is far larger than previously thought and is likely to mean that the UK has the second largest military network in the world, after the United States.” The UK military, for instance, has a presence in five countries in the Asia-Pacific: naval facilities in Singapore; garrisons in Brunei, drone testing facilities in Australia; three facilities in Nepal; a quick reaction force in Afghanistan. Cyprus remains a favourite with 17 military installations. In Africa, British personnel can be found in Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Mali. Then come the ever dubious ties to Arab monarchies.

The nature of having such bases is to be kind to your host, despite him being theocratic, barking mad, or an old fashioned despot with fetishes. Despite the often silly pronouncements by British policy makers that they take issue with authoritarians, exceptions numerous in number abound. The UK has never had a problem with authoritarians it can work with or despots it can coddle. A closer look at such relations usually reveal the same ingredients: capital, commerce, perceptions of military necessity. The approach to Oman, a state marked by absolute rule, is a case in point.

Since 1798, Britain has had a hand in ensuring the success, and the survivability, of the House of Al Said. On September 12, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced that a further £23.8 million would go to enhancing the British Joint Logistics Support Base at Duqm port, thereby tripling “the size of the existing UK base and help facilitate Royal Navy deployments to the Indian Ocean.” The Ministry of Defence also went so far as to describe a “renewal” of a “hugely valuable relationship,” despite the signing of a new Joint Defence Agreement in February 2019.

The agreement had been one of the swan song acts of the ailing Sultan Qaboos bin Said, whose passing this year was genuinely mourned in British political circles. Prime Minister Boris Johnson called him “an exceptionally wise and respected leader who will be missed enormously.” Papers of record wrote in praise of a reformer and a developer. “The longest serving Arab ruler,” observed a sycophantic column in The Guardian, “Qaboos was an absolute monarch, albeit a relatively benevolent and popular one.”

The same Sultan, it should be said, had little fondness for freedom of expression, assembly and association, encouraged the arrests and harassment of government critics and condoned sex discrimination. But he was of the “one of us” labels: trained at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, an unwavering Anglophile, installed on the throne by Britain in the 1970 palace coup during the all but forgotten Dhofar Rebellion. “Strategically,” Cobain reminds us, “the Dhofar war was one of the most important conflicts of the 20th century, as the victors could expect to control the Strait of Hormuz and the flow of oil.” The British made sure their man won.

Public mention of greater British military involvement in foreign theatres can be found, though they rarely make front page acts. The business of projecting such power, especially in the Britannic model, should be careful, considered, even gnomic. Britain, for instance, is rallying to the US-led call to contain the Yellow Peril in the Asia Pacific, a nice reminder to Beijing that old imperial misdeeds should never be a bar to repetition. The head of the British Army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, spoke in September about there being “a market for a more persistent presence from the British Army (in Asia). It’s an area that saw a much more consistent Army presence in the Eighties, but with 9/11 we naturally receded from it.” The time had come “to redress that imbalance.”

The UK Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir Nick Carter, prefers to be more enigmatic about the “future of Global Britain.” To deal with an “ever more complex and dynamic strategic context,” he suggests the “Integrated Operating Concept.” Britain had to “compete below the threshold of war in order to deter war, and to prevent one’s adversaries from achieving their objectives in fait accompli strategies.”

Gone are the old thuggeries of imperial snatch and grab; evident are matters of flexibility in terms of competition. “Competing involves a campaign posture that includes continuous operating on our terms and in places of our choosing.” This entails a thought process involving “several dimensions to escalate and deescalate up and down multiple ladders – as if it were a spider’s web.” The general attempts to illustrate this gibberish with the following example: “One might actively constrain in the cyber domain to protect critical national infrastructure in the maritime Domain.”

In 2017, there were already more than just murmurings from Johnson, then Foreign Secretary, and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, that a greater British presence in the Asia-Pacific was warranted. Fallon was keen to stress the reasons for deeper involvement, listing them to a group of Australian journalists. “The tensions have been rising in the region, not just from the tests by North Korea but also escalating tension in the South China Sea with the building program that’s gone there on the islands and the need to keep those routes open.”

With such chatter about the China threat you could be forgiven for believing that British presence in the Asia-Pacific was minimal. But that would ignore, for instance, the naval logistics base at Singapore’s Sembawang Wharf, permanently staffed by eight British military personnel with an eye on the busy Malacca Strait. A more substantial presence can also be found in the Sultanate of Brunei, comprising an infantry battalion of Gurkhas and an Army Air Corps Flight of Bell 212 helicopters. The MOD is particularly keen on the surroundings, as they offer “tropical climate and terrain … well suited to jungle training”.

Over the next four years, the UK military can expect to get an extra £16.5 billion – a 10% increase in funding and a fond salute to militarists. “I have decided that the era of cutting our defence budget must end, and ends now,” declared Johnson. “Our plans will safeguard hundreds of thousands of jobs in the defence industry, protecting livelihoods across the UK and keeping the British people safe.”

The prime minister was hoping to make that announcement accompanied by the “Integrated Defence and Security Review” long championed by his now departed chief special adviser, Dominic Cummings. Cummings might have been ejected from the gladiatorial arena of Downing Street politics, but the ideas in the Review are unlikely to buck old imperial trends. At the very least, there will be a promise of more military bases to reflect a posture General Carter describes rather obscurely as “engaged and forward deployed.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button


Login hereRegister here
  1. Karen Kyle

    So the Brits are warlike creatures eh? So are the Germans and the French and the Russians who have their own expansion plans. So are many in the Middle East and Japan. As well as the US and most particularly China.

    China did all it’s expansion internally gradually spreading out until all the territory belonging to Chinese minorities belonged to China and the people were considered Han Chinese despite their various ethnicities and languages.

    The same applies in the ME with the Arab dominated Islamization and Arabization of the entire ME and North Africa.

    Of course the West should never have been fiddling around in the ME just to keep the lights on. It is just poor form to suggest that three generations of Westerners were fed clothed, housed and educated, because Britain and the US kept all the lights on.

    China is just beginning it’s external expansion. So far Tukestan, Tibet, and Outer Mongolia. Nepal and Buhtan next.,
    Then India along the border, which the Chinese have been pinching by way of salami slicing for years. About a thousand kilometers so far I believe, although don’t quote me, I am not sure.

    All the great Asian Rivers rise in Tibetand China controls and has taken ownership of all the water by building multiple Dams and interupting the flow. This results in environmental damage and it deprives millions in SE Asia of a livelihood. The Mekong river is very low. A combination of China’s water theiving and drought.
    And of course we must
    not forget the South China Sea and Tiawan.

    As for rulein theME, the best the former colonial powere could do was to restore the traditional Monarchies which were swiftly overturned in favour of Dictators. This happened because the whole area had for years been ruled by a caliphate with foreign slaves imported to man the military and the public service and locally born Christians and Jews also took administrative jobs. Christians and Jews had their own education systems which were much better than Arab education.

    That is why government in the ME is a mess. There is little tradition of government even on a local level and no developed Institutions.
    Arab peoples for the most part have, tribe, family and religion and not much else. God known what will happen to them when the Oil runs out. Unless they learn fast the situation will get worse.

  2. Socrates.

    Ahhh, looks like the Zio Lobby has turned up…

  3. Karen Kyle

    Nothing to do with Zionism. Everything to do with concrete facts and plainly observable results courtesy of Francis Fukuyama the Japanese American Political Scientist and public intellectual of international repute.

    In the Origins of Political Order he traces the development of the state in China, India, the Middle East and Europe.

    No state has ever risen within a society whose social organization is Tribal.It can’t happen. It never has happened. Tribal societies just don’t have the tools or the developmental history.

    This gave rise to a fragile Islamic society forced to use Turkish slave labour to maintain a permanent army. The Turkish slaves were well treated, well educated and well trained. They could not marry and have families, Upon retirement they could retire to small estates and use the income to support themselves. They had no property rights. They could not leave their small estates to anyone. They could not go home. When suitable Turks became scarce they took Christian boys from the Eastern European countries they had conquered. The same conditions applied. If a family had four sons, they would take all of them.

    Arab armies were really, really good at conquering. And that is because of the promise of loot which was a great incentive. Without that incentive they could not maintain a standing army. They quarrelled among themselves often violently, or they would simply withdraw and go home. It was a problem throughout quite a large section of Islamic society. So non Arabs and slaves did the work and Arabs looked after the politics and led the army. It worked sort of, for a while, but the last three hundred years were tough and a collapse was inevitable given severe economic problems to add to their woes. The problems persist to this day.

    Professor Bernard Lewis the famed Orientalist devoted his academic career to the study of the ME. His book “What Went Wrong” is very illuminating.

  4. leefe


    And, of course, none of those things has ever applied to the British Empire or the spread of western “civilisation” …

    (in case you don’t realise, that is sarcasm; very, very heavy sarcasm)

  5. Karen Kyle

    Thanks for the sarcasm. A good book to read is Yuval Harari’s “Sapien”

    It presents a potted history of the rise and fall of civilizations and empires from Suma until the present day. It puts empires into perspective which is lacking in today’s discourse, especially from the Left.

    Homo Sapien is a predatory and often violently murderous primate. And mostly homo sapien has no excuse or apologies to offer. Except in the West. What marks the West out as different is the recognition and horror of the mistakes and atrocities committed in the past, and the ofen less than sucessful attempts to give up such behaviour.

    Christianity may well have played a central role in this respect. We have been told for two thousand years that we are in a “fallen state” that we are sinners and we are therefore guilty.

    Not guilty of anything in particular, just guilty. A characteristic that Marxists have been quick to exploit to the hilt with their unremitting critisicm and hatred of everything Western. Do they realise they are using the same emotional blackmail as the church?

    The self hatred of the Left is as stupid and dangerous as the idiot patriotism of the far right.

    One of the purposes of religion is to try to curb and control the darker side of homo sapien. That, and the development of the Law including the secular Rule of Law has worked
    fairly well but we still have a way to go and many problems to solve.

  6. DrakeN

    @ Karen Kyle: “One of the purposes of religion is to try to curb and control the darker side of homo sapien.”

    The purpose of religions has always been the control by the few of the many for the advancement of power, priviledge and wealth.
    In other words, the advancement of the ‘dog eat dog’ instinct which prevails in so many humans.
    You really do need to bone up on your knowledge of human history.

  7. Karen Kyle

    Whatever. Not an argument. A marxist serving ideological stance. I wonder where Marx got the idea of Revolution from. Any ideas?

  8. Karen Kyle

    Thay might be a consequence of developed religion not a especially a specific aim, especially not at first. It is called corruption, and like all human institutions the church can be corrupted. Although it is capable of reforming itself and has done so a couple of times over the centuries.

    The trouble is your answer re power and control is the usual Marxist trope, without thought and without reading history.

    The newest religion on the block Marxism isn’t about the murderous control of the many by the few is it? Just in case you missed it, that was sarcasm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: