pumpkinstrokemarrow

Various translations of the word 'fit', for example, occupy an entire closely printed column. I learn that the Swedes have different words for the brother of your mother and the brother of your father - although they also have 'onkel' for the less literate. Or when they want to talk about onkel sam. The dictionary includes thegn which translates to thane. What one would have expected given where the Saxons are supposed to have come from. It also includes thane which translates to tan, said to be something to do with anglo saxons. And the other meaning of thane as in Macbeth. Baron translates to baron or friherre.

One could go on, but instead of that attention wandered to the defence review mentioned on October 28th. Rather better document than I was expecting. A bit pompous at times but I guess it is hard to talk about this sort of thing without. And while one may not agree with a lot of it, the stall is set out in a sensible way. A way which does facilitate debate.

One is reminded, for example, that we as a country need the military (to avoid the newspeak defence) to deal with some local contingencies and the world as a collective needs the military to deal with more global contingencies - such as a failed state massacring a section of their own population. Or a rogue state harbouring or otherwise supporting terrorists. The tricky bit is deciding how much and what. All things considered, is 5% of GDP about where we should be - that is to say a bit less than where we are now?

One aspect of this is that it does not seem to be a very good idea (or fair) to leave it all to the US. And given that very few other countries want to step up to this particular plate, perhaps we had better stay at the plate - punching above our weight and above the level we can comfortably afford - until the likes of India and China start contributing. Our contribution to the world. Maybe.

Another is that while we might want to play, we can only play in a way which we can afford. The review recognises that one cannot run a healthy military without the support of a healthy economy - any more than one can run a healthy NHS (although one wonders how long will it be before that is pushed off balance sheet, into the welcoming arms of US insurance and health care corporations). But maybe there can be some sharing. We do the motor boats to do pirates and leave the French to do the aircraft carriers to do rogue states. I should note that, I am, as a result of reading the review, rather less anti aircraft carriers than I was, despite them looking so big and vulnerable. Maybe there are circumstances when one needs such things and for one reason or another the US does not want to play, or at least does not want to play in quite the way that we would want.

Or, more far fetched, we allow suitable countries to act on our joint behalf. Rather in the way that the Swiss used to supply mercenaries and the Nepalese still do. Perhaps, given our weakness at making things, we, as a country, should go into the military for hire business. NATO pays us to run a couple of carriers. EC pays us to run an air defence capability. Would this be a better role for our once glorious country than selling space in stately homes and rounds of golf on golf courses? There would have to be a shiny new OffMilt to keep an eye on the sort of ventures we got into. We would have morals.

Another is the difficulty of drawing boundaries around things. Where does the work of the police stop and the military start? Maybe it does not matter too much provided that the civilians remain firmly in charge.

The good news is that we are disbanding the army of the Rhine. In fact all three services are being shrunk by around 5,000 non-civilians each, rather more than a tenth of the present total. The bad news is that it has been decided that half a dozen or so nuclear attack submarines are good value for money and that half a dozen or so nuclear deterrent submarines are good value for money. Review not convincing in that rather expensive department.

I also wondered about how secure the deterrent is. Presumably, once one of our ever so secret and silent submarines fires a missile, everybody knows where it is and can whack it. So very much a one shot thing. And second, how long will it be before someone learns out how to shoot down the missiles fired by a submarine? Can it be done already? Neither point going to weaken my view that we should get rid of the things.

Amused at the end of the review, given the recent bonfire of New Labour quangos, to read about the creation by our new regime of a whole lot of new military flavoured agencies, directorship-generals, director-generals and co-ordinators. My quangos good, your quangos bad. Certainly full up with your pensioners, place men and women. Move them over (or preferably out) to give my lot a go.