Tuesday, June 28, 2016

The Stupid is Sometimes Astounding

Sometimes I sit in stunned, slack-jawed silence at the utter stupidity of the things I read purporting to be analysis.

Behold the stupid:

Britain’s decision to quit the European Union could send damaging shockwaves through the bedrock Anglo-American “special relationship,” raising questions about London’s willingness and ability to back U.S.-led efforts in global crises ranging from the Middle East to Ukraine.

The loss of the strongest pro-U.S. voice within the 28-nation bloc, as a result of the “Brexit” referendum, threatens to weaken Washington’s influence in European policymaking and embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin to further challenge the West, analysts and former diplomats say.

Britain is in NATO, which is the bedrock of our special relationship to deal with common national security objectives around the world. The EU only threatens to weaken NATO and undermining European defenses by building a duplicate defense capability within Europe alone that will not have the major NATO power--America (or Canada, for that matter, which has a good but small military)--as part of its organization.

Submerging Britain in a body that will dissipate and overrule Britain's desire to work with America is no way to defend our special relationship.

As for Britain being America's voice in the EU? That complaint has it 180 degrees wrong. Rather than being a conduit to help make the EU more pro-American, Britain risked the weight of Europe turning Britain away from the special relationship and toward European integration dominated by an anti-American Euro elite.

And don't bother arguing that the EU isn't really anti-American because the argument just advanced was that Britain was our best shot at influencing the EU, which apparently has nobody else of note willing to side with America.

As for being a win for Russia that emboldens Russia to challenge the West, do you mean emboldening them to challenge the West more than they are already doing?

Britain is leaving the EU that has no defensive power and which is already weakening on sanctions to punish Russia for invading Ukraine only two short years ago (and which is still occupying Ukrainian territory). What Euro-fantasy world do you have to live in to believe that weakening the EU benefits Putin's Russia?

Even if Putin himself believes that particular fantasy that weakening the EU weakens Europe to the benefit of Russia, Putin also believes NATO is an offensive military threat; that it is safe to trust China; that Assad is a fine ally to support to the death; that Trump would make a great American president; that it is important to be able to nuke Europe without the nuisance of a small missile defense system knocking down a few of his nuclear missiles; and that he looks good shirtless.

If the West is divided right now it is because the European Union elites are determined to punish Britain rather than accepting the results of the vote and moving on to make common cause where they can.

The spectacle of Remain voters threatening to break up Britain after Leave won the EU referendum is repulsive when you consider that the Remain side expected Leave voters to sit down and shut up after losing the vote as polling predicted.

And if the special relationship between America and Britain is damaged it is because our president has long downgraded that relationship while also urging the British to remain in the EU, thus poisoning relations with whoever replaces Prime Minister Cameron.

These hiccups will pass relatively quickly, I dare say.

Oh, and this is a special level of stupid:

The break-up of the United Kingdom would raise questions whether it should retain its veto in the United Nations Security Council, where it has been a mostly reliable supporter of U.S. initiatives.

Wait. What? Lay off the Meth, will ya?

Even this outcome will have no impact any more than losing an empire after World War II cast doubt on their veto. It will do no more damage than losing an empire cost France. It will do no more damage than losing an empire cost the Soviet Union, which passed along its veto to a shrunken Russia successor state!

Hell, tiny Taiwan held China's security council seat (and veto) for a couple decades as the legally recognized government of China!

Yet the loss of Scotland and Northern Island would imperil Britain's Security Council permanent member status and veto? Seriously? You want to make that argument?

Just how does Britain lose their veto when they have a veto to block any such change?

Jesus Christ, make an effort not to sound totally effing stupid, will you?

But "analysts" put these notions forward. Their analytical abilities are suspect, I say.

UPDATE: A comparison of Britain versus Russia for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.