As far as "unilateral" action by the UK alone is concerned like Corbyn I can conceive of no circumstances under which that might be necessary. The oft-parroted cry that "something must be done" (by Britain) as another conflagration occurs in a faraway country of which we know nothing is dangerous tub-thumping. In a post-Imperial world our duty to "do something" on our own is extremely limited. The Falklands is about the only territory that it is both under threat and Britain's responsibility. However if Argentina did invade again there must be doubt as to whether on our own we have the capability to take them back. Should we nevertheless launch a death or glory mission ? I would say not. 
Where I differ from Corbyn is that I can quite envisage British troops being involved in (as I say) properly authorised allied actions. Also the troops are available and used for civil actions to deal with emergencies like floods or terrorist attacks - quite rightly.
Jeremy Corbyn has a better understanding of Britain's role in the modern world than many. There are those who see us of being capable of gun boat diplomacy as if Victoria was still on the throne. He knows we cannot be a policeman on our own - and he is right. 
No comments:
Post a Comment