Seized Sailors and the Decline of British Naval Power

Once Brittania ruled the waves.

The peoples of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales once possessed the greatest naval power in history, having taken dominion of the seas by their destruction of the Spanish Armada and by building and actually settling (unlike many other colonial powers) a world-girdling empire. To protect such an empire required a massive fleet of warships; to maintain such a massive fleet of warships required a world-girdling empire. One lead invariably to the other, and such unlikely places as Ascension Island (which is little more than a gigantic rock in the middle of the Atlantic, one which required visitors ascend the largest staircase on Earth-Jacob`s ladder) would be molded into a British naval base and settlement. The British were always good at commerce and at storekeeping, and the skills honed by running shops and taking inventory assisted them in running such a massive fleet, since the devil is in the details when it comes to handling provisions, mapping out routes, etc. In fact, the question arises as to which came first; were the British good at military/naval things because of their skill at handling details, or did the skill come from the necessities of maintaining their great fleet?

At any rate, by the late 19th century Britain held dominion over the waters of the Earth. Her Empire never saw the Sun set; South Africa, Sudan, Kenya, India, Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Pitcairn, British Honduras, Jamaica, British Guiana, the Falklands, Tristan Da Cunha. There was not a sea with an outlet that was not visited by British ships at some point during the year. Brittania ruled the waves, and they sang proudly of that fact.

The creation and rise of Germany would ultimately be the undoing of British hegemony on the seas. Germany was the world`s first superpower, a titan of industry, intellectual powerhouse, and rising military star. Otto Von Bismarck had wisely steered clear of competing with Britain for mastery of the seas, concentrating instead on building a land army which could, like Napoleon before him, dominate the Continent. When Kaiser Wilhelm II fired Bismarck, he started a program to build a navy to compete with the British. Britain had always had a two to one policy; they wanted to have a navy double the size of their nearest competitor, and the arms race was on!

It was a very expensive arms race, and as a result Britain and Germany both built horribly entangling alliances to constrain the other. This culminated in the Great War, and ended for the German navy at Jutland, the only place where they directly challenged the British. At war`s end Germany was defeated and Britain had absolute naval supremacy.

But the world learned by the success of Germany`s submarine program, and the beginnings of airpower suggested a new type of war coming. Hitler came on the stage and suddenly Britain`s dominion over the seas mattered little, as the Nazi Luftwaffe bombarded Britain, her submarines sunk British ships, and technological advancements displaced the utility of gunboats in general.

After the War, the United States and the Soviet Union remained as the two great powers, and the Cold War ensued. With the development of ICBM`s, atomic tipped weapons capable of flying to the other side of the globe, the need for naval bases-and ships-seemed to be at an end.

Britain was tired. The British, like much of Europe, sought a nice, long, comfortable rest, and instituted socialist programs at home to ease the burdens of life. The efforts to maintain their Empire seemed too great, and the money needed to maintain their navy was used to pay for cradle to grave security. The British began reducing her fleet.

Britain divested itself of Empire, maintaining a few relics in out-of-the-way places like the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, Pitcairn, the Falklands, St. Helena. Her Navy was revamped to utilize airpower, with aircraft carriers being the principle aim of any new shipbuilding.

Yesterday`s post about the Falkland Island War touched on this problem; Britain found it difficult to mount a battlefleet to fight such an old-fashioned war, being forced to use several ships which had been decommissioned and sold. The ``new navy`` was geared toward defense, not campaigning, and Britain was barely able to stop aggression abroad back in 1982.

Today, Britain continues to lose the waves. Trusting in the protection of the United States and the European Union, she has reduced her navy precipitously, according to the Ares Defense Blog:

There are around 110 ships in the British sea services including 80 warships, compared to around 500 in all the U.S. services, around 280 of which are combatants. Since 2000, the Royal Navy has sliced its frigate and destroyer force from 33 to just 25, its attack submarines from 12 to 10, laid up one of its three carriers and completely retired the Sea Harrier without a replacement. "This government is absolutely hellbent on the destruction of the Royal Navy," said Dr. Julian Lewis, the government's opposition defense leader.

Which brings us to the present crisis with Iran. There was a time when seizing a British ship guaranteed swift and sure retaliation. Britain could not, would not tolerate anyone messing with the Royal Navy, and they would have passed a courteous diplomatic message to Ahmadinejad dutifully posted to the shell coming from a naval gun. But the British have dismantled their fleet, and disdain what they have left, and the kidnapping of British sailors just doesn`t stir English blood as it used to.

We have witnessed this tactic from Iran in the past, and the more Britain negotiates, the more they try to be reasonable, the worse things will be. Iran has done this because they rightly believe that nobody will stop them, and they want to embarrass the Coalition. They did not want to hand George Bush a lever to pry American public opinion into motion, so they seized British sailors. They figured Britain would not resist.

They were, of course, emboldened by the despicable actions of the Democrats in Congress who have passed the Insurgents Recovery Act (the pork-laden effort to impose a time-table for withdrawal from Iraq via threat of holding funding), and now ``Britain Held Hostage`` has everyone pussyfooting around, thus illustrating the weakness of the West for all the world to see.

The point is, Britain has, despite standing with us in Iraq and Afghanistan, been pacifying herself for decades, and does not have the means to project her will. Worse, she has lost her will to project power as a result of this slow, destructive process, and is at the point of groveling to the Iranians, begging their forbearance after they committed an illegal act.

The rise of Islam in Britain should come as no surprise, and the knock-kneed response by the Brits to demands made by these unwelcome interlopers illustrates the real danger of what is happening there. The British are bending over backwards not to offend British Moslems. The U.K. has become a haven for Islam, a state in Dhimmitude, and that is a result of their decline from mastery of the seas; the Brits no longer believe they can accomplish anything of value with their power.

New Gingrich has suggested a move against Tehran the British could make; they still have the naval power to blockade Iran (since the Iranians don`t have much of a navy) and could strike Iran`s only gasoline refinery. (Iran produces vast amounts of crude oil, but has only one refinery to produce gasoline.) A blockage would cause the Iranian economy to grind to a standstill, if the Russians would not undermine British efforts.

There is the rub; it`s not at all certain that our dear northern friends would not start shipping gasoline to Iran. Still, it would be like feeding an elephant through an eyedropper, but it may be enough. It`s doubtful that the Revolutionary government would capitulate easily, although it is possible that a general uprising could occur.

It is unfortunate, but those who sign up for military service must understand that there are times they will have to be considered expendable. This is one such time. The British cannot afford to grovel to obtain the release of their people. Better, they should launch an airstrike, send in special ops (the Brits have some of the best in the business) and try to take them back. THAT would be a tremendous thing, and would probably bring Ahmidenajad`s government down! Of course, it would be very, very hard to pull off...

The point is, Britain must consider these people lost. They should have long since taken action, and their failure will mean great trouble down the road. A new assessment suggests Iran may only be two years from an atomic weapon, and this situation actually presents us with a golden opportunity; action can be taken. We cannot afford to wait, and Britain holds the key.

Of course, the Bush Administration has put the cart before the horse, trying to build a stable Iraqi democracy while Iran has been actively working with the enemy to destabilize it. Mr. Bush should have been taking steps to destabilize Iran, turn the tables on them. How could a democracy be created when the nations to the east and west keep interfering to stop it?

The situation is out of control, and time is running out.

Once Brittania ruled the waves. Once Britain was THE great power, the builders of empire, and proud of their role in history. It`s time for them to reassert themselves, to dredge up that inner reserve of strength which lies buried within them, and to deal with this menace.

History will bless them if they do.