We noted that Our Man in Basra, spurred to action by some less than informed commenter(s), to put it mildly, in the comments section of our post expressing outrage that the government has not greatly reinforced UK forces in Iraq. As he has so courageously by-passed his ‘handler’ and put much interesting information in a comment, I shall give you the full juicy goodness of Our Man in Basra (perhaps I should take this opportunity to rename him to Our Man in British Army), herewith:
As I notice I am being referred to, under my pseudonym “Our Man In Basra” (not I am no longer working, I should say) I thought I would throw my two-pence worth in.
Do UK troops need more equipment? Absolutely, enough personal radios, body armour, working Land Rovers – I could go on for hours. (In fairness, where I was the food was excellent). Some more helicopters would be hugely useful, but beyond fantasy as a hope.
However, more troops – abso-bloody-lutely. I cannot comment in detail for reasons that I take to be obvious, but to give generic examples of why more troops would be useful in a counter-insurgency
- More patrols, at more frequent intervals, so you can dominate the ground, throw uncertainty into your enemy, and essentially take the initiative. As all the military experts commenting above must know, having the initiative is the key to winning any kind of military confrontation. And if all your troops are tied up guarding your bases and vulnerable points, you cannot do anything to get the initiative. You cannot reduce the number of bases (much) or vulnerable points, so you need extra troops. QED.
- More (reliable) troops to guard the vital infrastructure, i.e. the electricity and oil lines. Not necessarily by sitting on them, but by frequent unpredictable patrols.
- Troops to act as dedicated QRF (Quick Reaction Forces), so that you can react rapidly to any enemy action- so that eventually he learns that any attack by him gets a very rapid response, thereby reducing the scale and effectiveness of what he can try.
- More guards for your own installations – not necessarily to boost the number on guard, but so you can rotate them more regularly, and keep them fresher/more alert.
- Crowd control. One man with a machine-gun can shoot a loot of people. But if you need to control a large angry crowd with sticks and stones, and you do not want to shoot – well then you need a lot of hard men with batons. Crowd in Iraq are in the 100s and up. That means you need a lot of troops – crowd control is labour-intensive. Unless you want to take the capital-intensive solution, and start shooting.
I am sure readers can think of plenty of other tactical uses for extra troops. At the higher level, the more troops you have, the better you can rotate them and manage their morale, thereby avoiding the kind of cynicism and depression. Soldiers thinking I hate this hole, I’ve been here 9 months, I’m exhausted and I’m not leaving for another 6 months. Who gives a shit what happens to the Iraqis? undermines the basis of counter-insurgency, hearts and minds. The British rotate our troops far more frequently than the Americans (average 4 months versus over a year), which IMHO is one reason for our relative success at hearts and minds.
The idea is not to carpet the country with troops, Boer War-style – although it may be worth noting that such an approach would actually work if we had enough troops. No, the idea is to have enough troops to do what we are doing now effectively.
To address some ‘issues’ raised by a particular commenter that goes by name Charlie who says: But if there were more soldiers, that would mean more opportunities for opportunistic attacks and therefore more casualties.
So, if there were no troops, there would be no opportunity for opportunistic attacks? True, but the point is not just to minimise casualties, or else why go there? The mission (should) come first, followed very closely by what our American cousins call “Force Protection”. And that means you need enough troops to do the job.
In this case, the job is not protecting our troops, it is protecting the poor average Iraqi from all those who seek to prey on them, from ex-Saddamites to gangsters to religious fanatics (or at least those who claim religious backing for their own grab for power).
There is an amount required to do the job. At present it might be thought that a great deal of what we are doing is being driven by a desire to minimise our troops numbers and expense, rather than to actually do what is best for Iraqis (and in the long term for us).
Of course, one way to make do with fewer troops is to use what are known as “force-multipliers”, anything that increases the effectiveness of your troop numbers. A good example is the helicopter, because it enables you to dominate larger areas of ground with fewer troops. But the UK has nowhere near the helicopter numbers of the US, because of far smaller funding. Another potential force multiplier would be reliable British Arabic translators. But to have lots of those ready to go would require more funding for Defence languages. You get the idea.
Also, in this type of operation in particular, the distinction between “combat” and “non-combat” troops is spurious. The RMP [ed. Royal Military Police] took a lot of casualties, I do not think they would appreciate being told they are not needed to fight. They, and many other supporting troops, are in great demand to, for example, run PW camps, which I would suggest is better than giving the job to reservists, as well as all kinds of other tasks – from advising the infantry on how to effect arrests while on patrol, to helping to train the Iraqi Police Forces.
That said, more infantry would be good as it would avoid the need to use other troops, such as RMP or Artillery, to perform patrolling functions, in which the Infantry are the specialists. As another commenter, Jacob, actually correctly points out, you can always use more soldiers in any kind of fighting situation. This point was made quite simply by Field Marshal Slim, one of the greatest military minds in history. I highly recommend his book “Defeat into Victory”, I think mentioned on Samizdata before. The more you use, the fewer you lose.
Unfortunately, having said all the above, there simply are not that many soldiers left in the Army [ed. British Army], and there are still many commitments elsewhere – from Northern Ireland to the Balkans, not to mention Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, etc etc. The “Harmony Guidelines” which said that for the sake of their families soldiers should get at least 18 months at their home base between operations are already a poor joke. We might need to send more soldiers, but unless we cancel everyone’s leave, we haven’t got them.
Sorry, rather longer than I planned, but I thought it was worth saying.
Whatever your rank you have my respect. British troops in Iraq have performed admirably.
Obviously whatever our profession we could do with more resources and tools – but I’m sure you’ve realised you are far from Utopia, and still you and your colleagues have coped well.
I’m no military expert, but I would question the logic of more troops. More troops means more targets for insurgents, and maybe more casualties?
Also you’re a liberating force, not a conquering force. Don’t make plans to stay too long – we’d like to see you safely home as soon as Iraq (with the assistance of a multi national force) has the capability to provide its own security.
Syon Park: Think of the job of the troops in Iraq as that of the police. People always cry out, at least in Britian, for more policemen on the streets, as to them more police, means greater security for the population. As one of the main objectives of the UK and US troops is to provide security for the ordinary Iraqis, surely the same logic applies.
And let me say it’s lovely to see someone who actually has information commenting. The “armchair admirals” who aren’t in contact with real information aren’t helpful — this is.
With that said, though, there are a couple of points here worth noting.
First, let’s be a little careful which argument we’re having. The original point was whether reinforcing the troops in Iraq was going to be helpful, in the context of an assertion that Blair et al had been shamefully inept in not reinforcing them.
As you note, it’s vacuously true that having no troops on the ground reduces the chance of opportunistic attack to zero, but that this is in conflict with other goals. It doesn’t follow, however, that any increase in personnel would improve the ability to meet other goals.
In the case of Iraq today, attacks against Coalition forces no longer seem to be the preferred line of attack; it appears rather that attacks against the Iraqi Provisional Government, and terror attacks against the Iraqi people, have become the preferred method.
I take this to be, in fact, rather a compliment to the troops in the field; it clearly doesn’t pay to attack them. But … when the primary means of attack seem to be drive by shootings (or their analogues, small groups in civilian clothes) and car bombs, I wonder if more frequent patrols would make nearly as much difference as more and better intelligence. In this I may be simply playing to my own prejudices, as I’m a long-time intelligence guy.
Second, let’s for the moment grant that in a perfect world we’d love to have lots more well-equipped, well-rested, experienced troops on the ground. (If there was ever a military commander who really truly would say “No” to more well-equipped, well-rested, experienced troops, I don’t think I ever met him/her.) That still begs the question: could we field an appreciable number of WEWRE troops? Certainly we are having significant materiel and supply issues in the US military, and the discussion suggests that you Brits aren’t having a better time of it. Given that we can’t equip and supply the troops already in the field, would more troops make it better or worse?
Is it undesirable in the extreme that neither the US nor the UK seem to be able to field a large enough force — or even equip the force we have in the field? Damn straight! Should we be considering why that is? You bet. I would happily argue at some length that the whole force structure was allowed to shrink way too much in the 90’s, and that we should be ramping it up significantly. You can put my name right at the head of the list of those who think defense funding ought to be increased significantly, and recruitment and troop strength increases should be in the mix, along with adequate materiel support.
In fact, you make this point quite eloquently: more helicopters. More and better body armor. More troops need to be available. Because of limitations in the posting software, it’s not easy for me to quote myself, but I’m quite certain that I brought this up in the previous post.
In the face of real issues with total force strength and supply, to suggest that the issue is that Blair et al are somehow willfully refusing to reinforce the troops on the ground seems, simply, wrongheaded and unproductive.
But finally now, let’s go back to the original complaint: as I say, I’m no end pleased to see someone with actual useful experience commenting on this. That doesn’t really answer my original point. As I said before, we’re seeing an awful lot of pundits and aspiring pundits who don’t have that experience, don’t have any source of information or background knowledge, don’t finally have any qualifications except for the ability to write a coherent sentence who announce that it’s “obvious” that such and such a mistake has been made.
Charlie, OMIBA has been around on the blog for a while as blogger albeit one step removed, not just as a commenter and thus greatly influencing our discourse on military matters in general…
Also, do you have an idea just how dire the situation in the British Army is? And I don’t mean just in Iraq. The words are ‘shoe-string’, ‘crisis management’, ‘stretched beyond limits’, ‘cracking at the seams’ etc and trust me, it is not rhetoric.
So please do not apply whatever knowledge of the US army you might have to the British one without getting some information first…
So, Charlie deplore the lack of people writing articles here because they do not have access to ‘real’ information (whatever that means)… and then when it is demonstrated convoncingly that, actually, these guys do have access to information other than that in the Daily Telegraph, and that guy with forst hand experience agrees with the other articles, Charlie just repeats his original point. Nice. Time to move on, dude.
Dammit, people, read what I said not what fits your particular prejudice today.
Cf. Gabriel: … do you have an idea just how dire the situation in the British Army is? And I don’t mean just in Iraq. The words are ‘shoe-string’, ‘crisis management’, ‘stretched beyond limits’, ‘cracking at the seams’ etc and trust me, it is not rhetoric.
Me: Is it undesirable in the extreme that neither the US nor the UK seem to be able to field a large enough force — or even equip the force we have in the field? Damn straight! Should we be considering why that is? You bet. I would happily argue at some length that the whole force structure was allowed to shrink way too much in the 90’s, and that we should be ramping it up significantly. You can put my name right at the head of the list of those who think defense funding ought to be increased significantly, and recruitment and troop strength increases should be in the mix, along with adequate materiel support.
Gabriel, if the problem here is that you’re using the term “reinforcement” to mean “hasn’t provided the materiel and support needed for the last 20 years”, then, well, okay — you’re not using the word in a very standard way, but what the hell? But don’t be surprised if you confuse some of the rest of us.
I think the ‘rest of us’ think ‘reinforcement’ means that the UK forces need reinforcement now in term of both manpower and material and the fact the army has been starved of funds for 20 years is just a useful point to make how we got to the situation we are in today. You will find our command of the English language is pretty good really.
The UK is one of the world’s largest economies and there is simply no excuse for sending troops into harms way and not giving them what they can reasonably expect to do the job.
Hang on – the UK and US military are the most well funded on the planet. They have the best training and equipment (think smart bombs, night vision scopes, satelite comms etc) – although not perfect, there is no military force to match them.
This all costs the taxpayer a substantial amount (a price worth paying as we need these forces). Defense cuts in the UK have gone on for 30 years or longer, not 20 years as previously stated – this may be justified as conventional military threats have reduced during this time.
So this must be a quandry for ‘the libertarians who have a gun fetish’ here, that seem so against state provision. With your low tax ideals how would you fund a credible defense force?
Further how do ‘libertarians’ provide:
Medical and rehabilitation services for injured servicemen?
Education for military personnel, to prevent ‘the substandard officer class (no Harvards)’ that was blamed for US attrocities in Vietnam?
Social services provision (wheelchairs, adapted home appliances, home helps where there is no family care etc) for Veterans of military operations of the past 90 years?
The state provides these services via taxation – no private firm is interested as there is (rightly) no profit to be had.
Kind of bursts your ‘libertarian’ bubble.
Funny one poster even lectured on people wanting more police – hardly libertarian. In the UK there are 5,000 more police since 1997 – yet the same people moan, “Where have my taxes gone? Let’s have a tax cut”
It seems the libertarianism peddled here amounts to selfishness.
“The UK is one of the world’s largest economies and there is simply no excuse for sending troops into harms way and not giving them what they can reasonably expect to do the job. …”
Absolutely.
That a unit could run out of ammo in the middle of an ambush – this is an unthinkable scandal.
How many troops does the UK have in Iraq ? 12,000 was the number cited in the press. Is the Great Britain (upon whose empire the sun used never to set not so long ago) unable to field another 10,000 (well equipped, others don’t count) when needed ?
How many British helicopters are deployed in Iraq ? A couple of dozen ? (this is a wild guess). Can’t Britain deploy another couple of dozen ?
Is the absence of enforcements due to lack of will or lack of means ? I don’t know which is worse.
Hard questions.
Excuse or no, it’s not rational to do so. Our misfortune is we don’t have a rational government, but one that believes its own propaganda.
War may always be the continuation of politics by other means, but that usually implies substantive goals. I fear troop deployments for Mr Blair may be a means for variously looking tough and decisive and making gestures about international solidarity. That would certainly explain why so many of them, spreading so thin.
Charlie, as it happens I absolutely agree with you that better intelligence should be the first priority. I think we will both agree that good intelligence is the key to counter-insurgency (along with, and feeding off of, hearts-and-minds). That just reinforces the point that the whole effort, including military/wider intelligence is under-resourced. And as I’m sure you know that is the result of similar long-term underfunding by both our nations in that part of the world, that takes time to set straight. You can’t build up intelligence pictures or understanding overnight. My point was simply that there would be definite benefits, for all the reasons I cited, of increased troop numbers. Increased patrols, with intelligence direction, can reduce the number of drive-by and car-bomb attacks. They also ensure that the enemy is limited to such (relatively) small-scale attacks. And, of course, patrolling is a valuable way of gathering a lot of basic intelligence. I think I agree with your basic view, it’s just that we could do with a lot more troops. If we had them.
To Syon Park- the UK spends more on Housing Benefit than we do on Defence and Law and Order combined. You could double UK Defence and Law enforcement spending, balance the budget and still cut taxes 80%. Just bin everything else the government does. I regard that as an entirely consistent position for a “minarchist” or “night-watchman” libertarian. I think Charlie might agree.
As one of the beforementioned armchair experts, and going only by the bits and snatches of actual information that get past the media —
I wonder if the troop scarcity may have had what will in the long run be a beneficial effect.
Thought experiment: there are plenty of troops, all well equipped. The result is complete suppression of the terrorists and bombers, peaceful law and order. Baghdad resembles London on a Sunday morning…
In that condition, the Coalition would own Iraq. It would be the force that keeps the peace. It would, in fact, be the Government.
But someday the Coalition will have to leave. Now, I don’t know how it is in Britain, but here in the U.S., if you abandon a car in public there will be a period varying by neighborhood in which nothing happens — after which bits start disappearing: wheels, radio, etc. until nothing is left but a hulk too big to move by hand. If the Coalition owns Iraq, then leaves, won’t something very analogous happen?
And that isn’t the goal. The goal is an Iraq that is a country, not a snake pit — a place where Iraqis themselves recognize the country exists, that they are part of it, and that all citizens are responsible.
The troop shortage has forced Americans, at least, to concentrate on building up the IP and other Iraqi institutions to the point where they can provide their own security, Iraqi security. To argue that the result is or ever will be complete or perfect is not only fatuous, it misses the point: if the attitude of the Iraqis is, “Well, the foreign bastards can’t do this, so we’ll have to do it ourselves” the goal has been met.
An elegant sufficiency of troops would encourage the natural tendency of the military to think in terms of taking and holding ground. The insufficiency makes them think more in terms of getting help — and the tactics they use in getting help are an integral part of the long-term strategy.
And in that connection I wonder if the British are really doing as wonderful a job as is commonly reported. The word I hear out of the British-held areas is that they do a wonderful job of keeping the lid on and keeping the area secure. On the other hand, one of the Iraqi bloggers recently reported about an IP action, after which the bystanders said admiringly, “They looked just like the Americans!” Are the British doing a good job of building the IP and other Iraqi security forces so that when they leave it will remain stable? Are the American forces doing that? (I don’t take for granted that my impression is correct; American troops could be failing in the effort.)
So far as what we actually need to achieve in Iraq (and other, similar places) I would far rather have Iraqis saying “the ignorant foreigners are no good, we shall have to do it ourselves” than “oh, things are secure, the Coalition does a great job of policing.” The former builds a country; the latter abandons a car on the motorway when the owner leaves.
This is not to say the Coalition should go away right now. The Iraqis still need help from time to time (quite often, at the moment.) But it would be much better if the IP commander called up the local caserne and said, “this is more than my guys can handle. Give me some more boots” than if Coalition forces called in Iraqis only when things got desperate.
Regards,
Ric Locke
I think the ‘rest of us’ think ‘reinforcement’ means that the UK forces need reinforcement now in term of both manpower and material and the fact the army has been starved of funds for 20 years is just a useful point to make how we got to the situation we are in today. You will find our command of the English language is pretty good really.
Right. So your point is that Blair et al are willfully failing to send reinforcements they haven’t got, and that I’m somehow being foolish in pointing out that they can’t reinforce and resupply troops with materiel they don’t have.
And, if I’m following you correctly, you further argue that your command of the English language is such that your misleading misuse of the word “reinforce” was what “the rest of us” understand… and that this somehow answers my point that eloquence is no defense of ignorance.
I tell ya, you learn something new every day.
I think I agree with your basic view, it’s just that we could do with a lot more troops. If we had them.
I’m absolutely willing to believe that, and will argue in favor of getting more troops any time. As to whether (assuming such troops were available) we would be better off with more troops in Iraq at one time, I’ll defer to your superior knowledge — although I’d be interested in hearing more about what could be done without flooding the country with, say, a million troops (what you’d normally imagine for an occupation of that scope.)
But then I think we’re both agreeing on my original point: bitching about how Blair refuses to reinforce the troops with reinforcements he hasn’t got is failing to understand the real issue.
Oh, and PS: if I haven’t been clear about this, I absolutely agree, thanks for serving. I wish I weren’t 20 years too old to go back in.
Charlie don’t waste your breath here. These people lose the argument then start splitting hairs about language “I didn’t mean that sort of reinforcement”
…or they make up things…
the facts for anyone who is interested:
UK Housing benefit expenditure
98/99 2.6 billion
99/00 2.5 billion
UK Defence Expenditure
02/03 26.5 billion
03/04 38 billion
Source: UK National Statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk
Latest available figures. Even allowing for inflation (at less than 1.75% the lowest in the UK for over forty years) Housing benefit is a fraction of the amount spent on defence in the UK.
Housing Benefit was introduced in April 1983 and is awarded on a means related basis by housing and rating authorities. It is designed to provide assistance with rent and, prior to 1 April 1990, rates payable in respect of residential accommodation.
Many veterans of WW1, WW2 and all conflicts since are entitled to and deserved of housing benefit. As often occurs, their income falls in later years and the UK government rightly provides assistance to their housing costs. Older people particularly benefit from this state contribution – and quite right too, these people have worked all their lives and contributed to the fund through taxation.
Now the three questions set for ‘libertarians’ still stand unanswered above.
Beware those who are thinking of replying with made up stats, i.e myths. I’m ready at the plate and I will hit you out of the park.
Syon, I’m only a little-l libertarian — a classical liberal, if you will — but on this topic I’m with OMIB/OMIBA/whatever. We’re in a war and in wartime the military needs all the support it needs. If we (US/UK) can’t field as many soldiers as we need to field, we should spend more. Clinton and Blair took as much out of defense as they could, calling it a “peace dividend” … and as a result, we are behind the curve.
I don’t know a bit how your Housing Benefit works in the UK, but what I am pretty certain about is that if London turns into a glowing glass hole, housing benefits will be the least of your worries.
Syon,
I think a libertarian response to your questions would be that if we got rid of all the wasteful, inefficient, useless, bloated parts of the government and
pared it down to military defense, police and a few other *real* necessities, there would be room to lower taxes and still fund an adequate military, and reasonable support of its memebers.
Duncan? Duncan Smith?
Making vague generalisations about ‘waste’ within and by governement has no substance whatsoever.
What do you consider waste? Anything that doesn’t directly benefit YOU?
If you had an accident tomorrow (god forbid) would you expect NHS treatment, social services support, benefits if you are unable to do your work etc etc. Or do you class these as waste? All those Whitehall people who administer these systems – are they a waste?
Or should we just leave you in a heap?
If it’s not you, should we leave the other people in a heap?
Looking after them may just be a ‘waste’.
Syon,
“Duncan Smith?” er… no, I’m not sure if you’re making a comment about me not leaving a last name or if you know a Duncan Smith personally… my last name is Sutherland. I’m from the US so some of your post is a little cryptic to me… I’m unfamiliar with NHS, though I have a pretty good guess at what it is… and I’m not sure who the “Whitehall” people are, but I’m sure they’re lovely.
Aaaannyway,
The goverment’s first first role is to protect my rights domestically and internationally, (police and military.) and to provide a court system to make sure that this happens. I’m not an un-caring person, and I would be willing to *freely* help fund institutions to help society as a whole. However, *making* me pay for this is wrong. I don’t expect anyone to pay for me. We have systems in place for the general welfare… they don’t seem to help much.. how much of my check do they need to have a working system over the %40 already taken? 60% , 70% … all of it?! Even then I’m sure there would still be plenty of people “falling through the cracks.” Taking care of everyone is impossible.
And besides… there are plenty of goverment agencies besides the more controversial medical services that could go or at least be curtailed. All of them may be “useful”… but if you can’t afford them, without taking more than I’m willing to give, then we shouldn’t be paying for them.
You say “Taking care of everyone is impossible.”
Let’s hope you don’t end up needing help one day; but I’m afraid most of us do.
Duncan Smith was a non entity right wing UK politician, who shared your idea of low taxes / low state provision. It’s a favoured idea of people who have good health and reasonable disposable income (with family members likewise). They say “I don’t expect anyone to pay for me” – in Britain we have a phrase for this – “I’m alright Jack”.
So if taking care of everyone is impossible why don’t you make the decision. Which would you not fund treatment for?
1. The infant with cerebral palsy who will need extensive and costly rehabilitation and social services during their life.
2. The HIV positive patient who will require expensive medication.
3 The child with cystic fibrosis who will need regular medical input during their short life.
4 The elderly dementia patient.
5 The middle aged man who is unable to work due the disability caused by a stroke.
Like you said, you have to draw the line somewhere and you obviously despise paying taxes.
According to http://budget2004.treasury.gov.uk, defence spending for 2004/5 is £27bn. Housing and the environment is £17bn and social protection and other social sevices total £160bn. Housing benefit may have been £2.5bn in 2000 but it accounts for only a small fraction of the social services budget, or are you trying to imply that housing benefit is the only source of welfare provision available?
Think of the job of the troops in Iraq as that of the police.
Precisely. We have no real military problems in Iraq – we can send however many troops we wish anywhere in the country without strategic risk or militarily significant tactical opposition.
What Iraq has isn’t a military problem. It is a civic and political problem, the solution for which is cultural change and more Iraqi cops and security folks, not more American and British troops. Indeed, overreliance on American and British troops may already be stunting Iraqi civic development.
Just because we have the best hammer in the world doesn’t mean that everything is a nail that needs hammering down.
Of course not. If you read the thread from the top – someone else claimed housing benefit was far higher than defence expenditure. I was merely responding to correct this error.
Social services provision is the biggest expenditure of all local councils in the UK – usually more than twice the next biggest spend – education. What you ‘libertarians’ see as the only council services you use i.e waste disposal, highways, police and fire brigade account for only a fraction of the social service budget.
No wonder you don’t like paying taxes! Especially council tax!
Social services budget goes on the afore mentioned housing benefit, support for children and adults with disabilities, hospital social work teams, community care for the elderly, mental health provision, homecare ‘Meals on wheels’, fostering and adoption services for children, child protection, substance abuse therapy and this will really piss you lot off – social care for ethnic minority groups.
Dunc (above) stated “…if we got rid of all the wasteful, inefficient, useless, bloated parts of the government and pared it down to military defense, police and a few other *real* necessities, there would be room to lower taxes..”
So which areas of social services would be got rid of? ‘Out you get kids, you’re on the street tonight. What do you mean granny, you’re too demented to feed yourself?’ “We can’t afford it! I wanna tax cut!”, says Duncan.
Some people would return us to Victorian times where the vulnerable members of society relied on the charity of the rich. Thankfully in a humane modern society those people are entitled to help from the state as a right.
Syon Park: Which century have you emerged from? The one where people still believed that public services can actually provide anything… ? Remind me why is anyone entitled to my money as a right?
All the things you want provided by the state are far more efficiently provided by the private sector, it is the public sector that wastes billions of taxpayers’ money without providing any meaningful value in return.
And please, spare us the ‘you, libertarians’ crap… I am not a libertarian, merely somebody who knows for a fact that the state is not your friend…
If you want more arguments, read this blog and stop making a fool of yourself by parroting socialist propaganda without putting up half-decent argument.
Syon Park thinks that the only way anything can be provided is if the state provides it. As that is untrue, his argument is so much hot air. Whilst it is largely (but not entirely) true that it takes a state to provide a military, there are few other things that cannot be provided more effectively by a sophisticated market economy. He acts as if any sophisticated first world country without a UK style socialist healthcare system has no healthcare system, which is preposterous. In fact the UK system, far from being the envy of the world, is a ghastly mess and national disgrace.
I believe in private solutions both for the utilitarian reason that they work better and the moral reason that they are not funded by theft when superior non-theft bases systems are clearly available. The immorality of those statists who claim to have the best interest of other at heart is not just that they actually provide solutions which are inferior, they deny genuine charitable and market solutions the ability to function by using force to impose a single politically derived solution regardless, not to mention the whole moral hazard issue and gutting of civil society caused by statism.
The NHS is neither a mess nor a disgrace.
I’d like to invite you to London where should you be hit by one of our famous red buses you would recieve world class treatment without a bill (of course we’ve paid for it already via taxation).
Of course the bitter people above despise paying taxes as they’ve never had the misfortune to require the services. One day maybe following a cerebro-vascular accident, when you have to spend your life savings on private medical care (and they tell you you haven’t got enough to afford a nurse every day) you may wish you lived in the UK and could take advantage of our ‘disgrace’ NHS.
To suggest tax is theft is just dumb, and probably indicates how greedy you are.
Of course the modern NHS is funded partly by private investment and contracts for maintenance and cleaning etc are contracted out. So I’m not the blinkered statist you’d like to paint me as. It’s just that you know as well as me business could not foot the bill for every healthcare intervention.
Perry’s idea of a sophisticated market economy seems to be ‘make sure you have enough cash to cover your medical bills’ – that’s fine for those of us who can afford it. But what about those who can’t?
Stupid man has been hit by a bus here, he has no money. Any sophisticated market economists prepared to eat into this years dividend and pay for this poor sod’s treatment? I think not. Especially given the scale of poor sods having accidents / getting ill / being born ill etc.
My arguments still stand. The questions posed above remain – which patients and services listed above represent ‘waste’ on the part of the funding government?
Er, Syon Park: We are Brits living in London and have been ‘victims’ of the NHS too many a time. Still bear scars to prove it and I am not talking about physical ones either. NHS is one of the worst healthcare systems I have ever come across, and I talk as someone who experienced other than Western and First World healthcare systems.
Why do you assume that people living in countries that don’t have NHS style monstrosity for a healthcare system do not get treated, when hit by a bus…?
As I said before, search NHS or healthcare on Samizdata.net and get the full blown arguments. Your ignorance and self-righteousness are no longer amusing…
Whilst you may have had a poor personal experience this does not reflect the majority of NHS patients. I doubt whether yours or samizdata’s views on the NHS are unbiased (biased sources lead to your true ignorance), and this constant knocking is motivated by political ideals rather than true clinical performance.
Having worked in healthcare systems in England, France and the US I can say there is negligible difference in terms of clinical care for the man hit by a bus – of course everyone gets treated.
However the medical bill you get in the US is bigger, whereas the European model is ‘free at the point of contact’ (paid for via the taxation you loathe).
Syon Park, I must offer you an apology for my inaccurate statistic above. A genuine mistake I assure you, caused by seeing the same figures as “gasky” quotes, except that where I read them it stated that the largest single component of Social Security spending was on Housing Benefit. I suspect it just depends how you divide it up. However, as Gasky’s figures show, my essential point still holds. And yours don’t; the NHS is a lottery, sometimes good, often appalling, and I have experienced both. As for your emotive sick children references- my mother works for Mencap, in a hostel providing relief for mentally handicapped children, suposedly funded by the local council. Their funds are being cut to next to nothing; meanwhile the council spent over 1m pounds to put large metal stautes of lions and mapleleafs around a local motorway interchange. And the taxes are going up. Get her opinion of council provision for the dis-advantaged. The word “evil” is used often. (And she is no “libertarian”).
The NHS is neither a mess nor a disgrace.
Depending on the meaning of “mess” and “disgrace” I suppose.
I dunno. What I do know is that I’ve known a number of people from the UK (and Canada) who have told me stories of, eg., a six-week wait for an “emergency” GYN appointment that would have been done in the US on the same day as the problem first presented — usually before that person left the emergency room.
(Oh, and before you even bring it up — it’s illegal to deny emergency treatment in this country, so insurance or the lack thereof wouldn’t have made any difference.)
At least one of those people died in the interval.
If (in the small sample I’ve run into) this has happened even once, and given the well-documented long waiting lists etc., it is a very high probability there are lots of people who are dying as a result of not being able to get access to medical care in time.
This strikes me as something like a mess and a disgrace. but, as I say, maybe it’s just a matter of what you consider disgraceful.
Syon Park,
Having noted your postings, I get the impression that you consider yourself to be a ‘caring’ sort of person, and that you consider most of the commenters here as being selfish, greedy people who would deprive their fellow citizens of the breathe of life if they had the chance.
It just goes to show how, over the course of time, and with the right type of propaganda, that common logic can be altered sufficently to convince the public that the only ‘good’ benefactor is the State.
In reality, it is just an easy excuse for people such as yourself, not to get involved, in any personal way with dispensing any charity or largesse among your fellow man. You feel that you have ‘done your bit’, when you have paid your taxes, (which you obviously enjoy doing). Far from the libertarian (or whatever), being the one saying ‘I’m alright Jack’, it is you who are saying just that, and at the same time trying to lecture the rest of us, as to what a wonderful caring person you are. It is a bit like when asked to donate time or money to a worthwhile cause, you would be the one with his chequebook at the ready, rather than spending your precious time in a ‘hands-on’ capacity. You sound like some antiquated ‘Lord of the Manor’, who feels that his forte is more organisational, than practical, and besides, that way you do not get your hands dirty, nor your mind tainted by reality.
For those among you, of a religious nature, even Jesus was not too proud to wash a few feet in his time…
Charity is only worthy when given freely and willingly, and with a caring heart. It loses its altruism when dispensed by the State as ‘a right’. In the former instance it benefits the donor, who feels that they have done something worthwhile, and the recipient, who feels that someone, (a real person), cares about them, and that they are more than just another number. In the latter case it is seen ‘as a right’, and of course, is never enough…both donor, and recipient, feel cheated. How can the State be caring, or be cared about?
May I ask, when did you last do any act of charity for which you were not being paid? ( I am assuming that you are connected to the health industry in some way, – you wouldn’t be at the West Middlesex Hospital by any chance?..).
Ever tried spending a little time at the old folks home, not doing anything too mucky, after all we wouldn’t want to bring you down to earth with too much of a bump, but just spending an hour or two each week, talking or reading to some of those people who, collectively, have made your comfortable lifestyle possible. I know that one of the Royal family does so on a regular basis. If it is good enough for her, it should be good enough for you!
Incidentally, The NHS is a total mess, and a disgrace, being utterly soulless, and barbaric in the extreme. I talk from a long and varied personal experience. There is nothing worse than being cared for by staff who have little morale.
Far from blaming the bureaucrats for all of the mess, I am convinced that it is the doctors, – those wonderful practioners of caring and goodwill toward their fellow man, – who are ultimately responsible. It suits their collective financial purpose to work in such a disorganised environment, where it is not only the patients records that get lost. If this remark is untrue, then the BMA would be the first trade union that did not hold it’s members interests above all else…if they wanted to, the doctors could have the NHS performing in a much more satisfactory way, and in short order.
Hands on care! You make me laugh. Puting my hands on people and making them better is my life. Not “two hours per week” and I regularly treat with a fee, so don’t lecture me on charity, of which this is jsut part of my contribution.
If the NHS was as bad as you make out it wouldn’t exist. The truth is it provides a very high standard of care, with some exceptions to that rule.
Funny how you all have tales of poor treatment. Could it be you carry your atitude too openly into the treatment room and it is reciprocated by the staff? I’ved heard rumours that some nurses think “Oh leave that miserable moaning fucker – he can wait.” obviously these aren’t emergency cases. Perhaps this rings a bell?
OMIB (Bolton?) it must be quiet over there, if your complaining about your mothers council. Mencap, as a charity will not recieve any funding from a local authority – but if you don’t like how the council puts ‘metal lions on roundabouts’ (sounds ridiculous) you know what to do – vote them out. (Apologies accepted for your previous erratum also).
And as for the chap blaming everything on the doctors and the BMA – you sound like Tony Blair.
Syon Park: It’s Our Man in the British Army, my dear fellow.
And no, we don’t take any attitude to anywhere with us. We compare the quality of the service across several healthcare systems. And NHS is in a dire, dire state as many people who work for it will testify. It is much worse than the public realises and the penny is dropping that all those billions do not provide the care the most vulnerable in the society need.
The number of incidents where old people have died on trolleys left in hospital corridors and people whose life is utter misery due to interminable waiting lists has nothing to do with our attitude. UK hospitals are so incredibly dirty that they act as sources of infections themselves. The attitude of staff is dehumanising and the entire NHS experience depressing.
Syon Park,
Yet another socialist with a reading problem, I gathered you were in the medical profession, that is why I specifically said, when did you last do any act of charity for which you were not being paid.
Obviously, you do not believe in doing anything on a ‘pro bono’ basis, that is the job of the State…and treating patients for a fee is charity? just what are you smoking?
Believe me the NHS is as bad as suggested – would you care for some details? and may I suggest that it is people, such as yourself, who just cannot, or will not see, that there is a problem, who are a large part of the problem.
And no, I did not go for any treatment with a predispostion to a ‘bad attitude’. I leave that to people such as yourself…
In your reply you demonstrate just why the NHS is bad, you have difficulty reading the written word, you jump to unfounded conclusions, and you just cannot abide any sort of criticism. You and your ilk have managed to destroy the respect that the public once had for members of the medical profession. You have treated your customers (patients), with total disdain for too long, and now you are seeing the result.
I also suspect that you are not who you imply you are. Earlier, you aligned yourself with the CEO’s of medium sized companies, now you are a ‘hands-on’ medical professional. Who do think you are – Jesus Christ, and all things to all men?…
You Sir, are a fool, worse yet, you are a blind fool…
No, it has to be Walter Mitty, or worse, Benjamin…
without a fee (i have both a typing and reading problem)
Chaps you have a choice. I can easily treat you in my private clinic (that way you pay twice: taxes for the NHS then your fees directly to me). Or you could do away with the NHS and I’ll crank up my private fees as I’ll be in greater demand.
It will even leave me more time to run my medium sized business.
What you people seem to forget is the private healthcare system is staffed by the same people who work in the NHS – you choose to believe it’s better because you pay more for it.
Despite your prejudices the NHS provides an excellent standard of care for the vast majority of patients and is improving.
Chaps you have a choice. I can easily treat you in my private clinic (that way you pay twice: taxes for the NHS then your fees directly to me). Or you could do away with the NHS and I’ll crank up my private fees as I’ll be in greater demand.
This is so far out in sheer ignorance of basic economics that I don’t know where to stop laughing. I never knew a private clinic could be a monopoly.
Dude, get a grip. My country’s been trying to privatise our medical sector, and results have been excellent, and would be even better if not for state-mandated limits on the output of medical personnel a few years back, rather than letting the private sector do its job. The government had since learnt from that mistake.
As the number of medical personnel available increase, the costs of healthcare will only decrease and quality will increase. In fact, the numbers of ‘health tourists’ coming to Singapore for medical services has been increasing, and this goes hand-in-hand with increasing privatisation.
None of this would have happened if the government had maintained its stringent hold. We pay much less for our medical benefits, and less tax as well without needing to support too much of a nationalised system. More money is great. ^_^
TWG
Syon Park,
What you people seem to forget is the private healthcare system is staffed by the same people who work in the NHS – you choose to believe it’s better because you pay more for it.>/i>
Which segues nicely into my reasoning that doctors are a large part of the problem, as the turgid mess of the NHS, directly benefits their private practices, by offering an viable alternative. That they are responsible for both the NHS and their private practices, would suggest that they are at best, guilty of commiting fraud, and at worst of being corrupt as well.
It suits their collective financial purpose to work in such a disorganised environment
You are still suffering from ‘cloud cuckoo’ syndrome, and if you really are a practitioner, then I rest my case that the NHS is not only an organisational mess, but it is also in a pathetic state on the personel front…