The Pope is going to Carnaby Street!

Why would he go there? Well, to recruit unhappy Anglicans it seems.

The pope also has a delicate path to tread during his four-day-trip to England and Scotland in relations with the Church of England after his offer last October making it easier for disaffected Anglicans, unhappy over women ordination and gay bishops, to convert.

The leader of the world's best known group of pedophiles has other problems: Cardinals who think Brits are barbarians.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, who retired last summer as the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, caused a stir this week when he told the German magazine Focus that landing at Heathrow Airport was like landing “in a third world country.” He also criticized the “aggressive atheism” of Britain.

Funny how any time a mission from Rome, as far back as the Emperor Claudius, arrives and finds the British just seem to have their own religious thing. Some don't have any at all.

Maybe the Brits are barbarians. Gawds know, I spent enough time trying to eat the compost they call composite rations. In any case, at least some of them behaved in an "appalling" manner in the lead up to Benny's visit and to be honest, I can only applaud. Back in April a Foreign Office memo appeared with many brilliant suggestions.

The paper was attached as one of three "background documents" to a memo dated 5 March 2010 inviting officials in Whitehall and Downing Street to attend a meeting to discuss themes for the papal visit.

Themes! Acers stuff.

It suggested Benedict XVI could show his hard line on the sensitive issue of child abuse allegations against Roman Catholic priests by "sacking dodgy bishops" and launching a helpline for abused children.

The document went on to propose the Pope could apologise for the Spanish Armada or sing a song with the Queen for charity.

It listed "positive" public figures who could be made part of the Pope's visit, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair and 2009 Britain's Got Talent runner-up Susan Boyle, and those considered "negative", such as Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins.

All good ideas. Although I have to admit that I was not aware that the Vatican had not yet apologized for the Spanish Armada. Given that the Pope is supposedly just a continuing line of one person then it would be proper to arrest him and toss him into The Tower... wouldn't it?

Back then even the bishops were speaking.

Bishop McMahon said he hoped it was meant to be "light hearted".

But he added: "That in itself can be dangerous if these memos move around the departments, they tend to gain momentum."

But they gain no more momentum than memos from Vatican cardinals (who go on to become Pope) attempting to cover up the criminal behaviour of Catholic priests.

Beware the alliance which is exclusive

This may look like nothing more than conservative efficiency in action but it carries with it the great dangers which led to the 1914 - 1918 Great War.

... a Defence Ministry source told Reuters that Britain might cancel one or both of its planned new aircraft carriers to cut costs, though there were no plans to scale back the country's nuclear deterrent.

The proposal involving France would make it easier for Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers under construction, the Times said.

The newspaper said the proposal would ensure that one of three ships -- one French and two British -- would always patrol the seas.

"Using each other's carriers would require decisions to be made at the strategic level so that national aims on any given operation would be the same," the naval source was quoted as saying.

That may sound eminently logical but it puts a great many things at risk. For one thing, it means that the foreign policy of both countries has to be identical. Aircraft carriers have only had one good war - the 2nd World War, and then we can divide that to two different roles. In the Pacific they were both the projection of tactical power and the defence of the fleet logistics train which ranged across the World's largest ocean. In the Atlantic they were, with exceptions, employed in an expanding defensive role.

Since then, they have been expensive and difficult to defend targets. They do well in an escalating diplomatic environment, but the survivability of such a large warship requiring so many layers of defence has been the subject of many debates. Even in the Falklands conflict the post-mortem of that action has raised a question which I have never heard answered properly: "Would it have been easier and more effective to take and defend an island airfield?"

But this really isn't about aircraft carriers. This is about forming one of those back door alliances which eventually result in a euchre.

We already know how a major collective alliance responds to an unexpected call to arms. When the United States was attacked, not by a nation state, but by a group of ideological whackjobs the US invoked a chapter 5 response from NATO. Every member of NATO nodded in the affirmative. Most then sat back and watched. An alliance structured to deal with a single threat, the Soviet Union, was not prepared to shift the focus to another and perhaps more ominous threat. If it wasn't T-72 tanks crossing the German plains then it made no sense - and it wasn't their problem.

Time wore on that alliance. It became clear that the machinations of the George W. Bush administration were not consistent with the intended purpose of the NATO alliance. Bush's insistence on the requirement to invade Iraq put NATO in a spot. Afghanistan - maybe; Iraq - not part of the program.

I think I can safely say that if any country other than the United States, especially when it was led by Cheney and Bush, had been similarly attacked, that country would have considered the attack an issue they would have had to deal with independently.

Britain never invoked the NATO response when dealing with the IRA.

The problem with strategic alliances, such as the British and French are considering is the deal. They make one, based on today's known threats and then it gets pulled into action for some reason altogether different from the original intention. Unless the British and French intend to pursue an identical foreign policy, they will have different strategic objectives. That's fine, but to commit each others' force projection platforms is little more than hiring expensive mercenaries.

Where's the morality?

There isn't any. It has the potential, based on historical proof, to draw a country into a war it did not want.

It was little back door alliances like the one apparently bubbling up between Britain and France which helped accelerate the rush into the Great War. It all started with saving money and moved to government led calls to patriotic nationalism. It was a militarism promoted by governments which could not afford it.

And there's no saying what will happen to second-rate powers like Canada in this. With a war junkie like Harper in charge it puts us in a position of thoughtless commitment of forces to an already lost effort. Keep in mind, Harper was more than a little adamant that Canada should have committed troops and resources to the Bush invasion of Iraq. He never once questioned Bush directly on why he was doing it. He simply sucked up the falsified information and went op-ed. It doesn't matter that he has subsequently suggested that his mindless intransigence would have been a mistake. We already know that, and if he'd been the prime minister of the day, we would have just now been withdrawing our surviving troops from the bloody occupation of a country which had attacked nobody and had threatened nobody with anything but empty words.

The results of war are unpredictable at best. Both sides are out to win - at all costs. Committing one's forces as a strategic resource to another nation's strategic objectives is dangerous - and as mindlessly stupid as the Triple Entente.

Samanatha Crozier has been told to get out of the UK...

Because she doesn't meet their immigration rules.

That's fair enough, I suppose. After all, Cozier is a Canadian. She's not entitled to become a UK citizen unless she goes through the process. Unless of course, there are extenuating circumstances. Let's see. What would be something significant?

The wife of a soldier faces deportation as her husband prepares to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh... fucking, OOPS!

Canadian-born Samantha Crozier, 23, has been given notice by the Home Office to leave the country by April 30, when her temporary visa expires after her application for British citizenship was refused.

Mrs Crozier, who has a British mother, Antoinette, claims their children, Ethan, two, and Celeb, one, will have to be put into care while her husband, Lance Corporal Andrew Crozier, is sent on a tour of duty after he completes training. Mrs Crozier says she has spoken to 15 other Army wives facing deportation.

Mrs Crozier moved to England with her husband, also 23, in October last year. She said MoD officials failed to tell her of the complicated procedure to become a British citizen.

Ethan and Celeb, who were born while her husband was posted to Osnabruck, Germany, were awarded full British citizenship and Mrs Crozier applied for a Status Stamp at the British embassy in Dusseldorf. The stamp allowed her to stay in Germany at the UK base for five years. She was stopped at Newcastle ferry port by Customs and Excise and advised to apply for citizenship. She said she was told that because she her husband was born in Northumberland her application would be successful.

That, apparently was one of the newest in famous lies.

However, Mrs Crozier received a letter last month, the day after her birthday, from the Home Office rejecting her application.

It read: "You have applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of your marriage to Andrew Douglas Crozier.

"However, the immigration rules direct that a person seeking such leave is to be refused if they do not meet the requirements set out in the immigration rules.

"This includes that the applicant has limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom other than where that leave is of six months duration or less. On 30 October 2007 you were granted limited leave to enter as a visitor for a period of six months from 30 October 2007 until 30 April 2008 therefore you do not meet the requirements.

"You are not entitled to appeal this decision."

Mrs Crozier, living in Bordon, near Petersfield, Hants, said: "We rang the MoD to tell them we were coming over and they gave us no advice other then to tell us to have a nice journey.

"I think it is disgraceful. I came here to start a new life with my husband and my two wonderful little boys. My husband is very patriotic and would gladly fight for his country but it seems his country won't fight for him."

Oh, how have I wanted to quote from Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and now I can.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die,
Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.

Ah, yes. Those days when the nation was at war, but, well, not really. The army was in a far off distant land fighting, dying, living with the great blunders. Oh well. There was tea to be sipped and thick cream on cakes at High Tea.

What has changed?

Goddamn! The lot of the British soldier has always been a bad one, but to deny him his hearth, home and a loving wife, because she's Canadian and hasn't followed Queen's regulations for having conjugal relations with a loyal trooper?

Apparently nothing has changed.

Cannon fodder is cannon fodder. At least that's the way the British Home Office sees it.

Notwithstanding that the delightfully attractive Samantha will do much to elevate the the level of the British gene-pool, rules are, after all, rules. It's in the book!

Given that the British army is now begging for troops, it is perhaps a good time to make a few introductions.

Left hand meet the right hand.

I wonder if Samantha Crozier's husband will remain with the British army or if the treatment of his wife will result in further unforecast attrition?

This must be one of those "world stage" moments.

Hat tip reader Cat

British cabinet minister quits to become a throttlehead

Let's see now. When ministers of the Crown resign, any minister, they have a rather limited menu from which to select when writing the letter which the stenographers in the news media will reproduce. It's pretty much the same for cabinet members in almost all western democracies.

I wish to spend more time with my family.

My children are now of an age where my presence is now vitally important to their well-being.

My decision is based purely on personal reasons.

I have decided to pursue opportunities in the private sector.

My mistress is about to blow the whistle on me.

Well, when Lord Drayson, the British minister for defence equipment and support wrote his letter of resignation to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he took the opportunity to go out with a bit of a bang and a lot of class.

"I have the opportunity to race next year in the American Le Mans series in the United States, a key step towards my eventual dream of success in the Le Mans 24-hour endurance race," Drayson said in a letter to Brown.

"Unfortunately, it cannot be combined with the challenge of full time government office."

Not bad!

For what it's worth, Drayson is not just driving a typical LeMans race car. He has been competing in a British GT series of races in "green" experimental race cars which provide high mileage and feature substantially reduced emission levels. His goal is to move the best of those vehicles into the field of the LeMans 24 hour endurance races.

It could all end there... except its politics and Lord Drayson was right in the middle of it.

Drayson is widely credited with being the architect of the strategy, which is aimed at reforming MoD procurement and support policy. That was rushed out by Drayson in December 2005, just seven months after he joined the government.

A revamp of the strategy was expected in December. Speculation has been rife, though, that the effort had run into problems caused partially by serious funding shortfalls in the equipment budget for the next three years.

One political analyst said there had been other signs Drayson was becoming disenchanted with the MoD.

“He had been snubbed by new Prime Minister Gordon Brown when he took the decision in July to disband the MoD Defence Export Sales Organisation without any consultation,” he said.

But at least he brought something new to the world of political resignations. That in itself is an accomplishment.

Dotted line between Iran and Iraq

There has been a lot of interest generated by the view of former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, on the maritime border between Iran and Iraq at the frontier to the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The capture of 15 British naval personnel has raised a question as to whether there is or is not a border there at all.

I have a lot of respect for Murray, particularly in regards to his stand on Uzbekistan, but I have to disagree with his assessment of the existence of the borders at the Shatt end of the Persian Gulf.

The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker. But there are two colossal problems. A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force. B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

Well, yes and no.

Murray is quite correct in stating that the boundary on the British chart does not exist. At least by agreement. That would be a border established by a treaty and then entered into law. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist by convention.

The actions of the Iranians themselves indicate that they accept the conventional border as drawn on the British chart. When the initially advertised position of the capture of the Royal Navy boats put them on the Iraqi side of the line on the British chart, the Iranians changed the geographic location of the capture to put them on the Iranian side of the boundary displayed on the British chart. They wouldn't do that unless they accepted that boundary, even temporarily, as having some force.

The corporate media has been harkening back to the 1975 agreement which settled a dispute over the Shatt al-Arab waterway by following the thalweg or, deepest part of the river, and dividing it. This is a common means of establishing a border where the river forms the boundary between two countries, as is the case with the Danube in Europe.

Big media has it right, in a small sense, but they don't know why. The dispute between Iraq and Iran over the Shatt al-Arab waterway has been going on since 1639. The 1975 Algiers Accord resolved the division of the waterway between the two land masses but did not clear up the sea frontier. When the media, and Tony Blair, refer back to the Algiers Accord as the resolution of that frontier they are wrong.

What happens, in the absence of any other treaty, law or international convention is that a straight line extension of the same angle as the land boundary is drawn out to seaward for 12 miles. With no other means of determining the actual boundary, that is the only method of being able to resolve the territorial waters of two adjacent countries.

However, there is more information. Iran claims a 12 mile territorial limit. The baseline, or point of origin for that measurement is a mudflat which only dries at low tide. Many people have been claiming, quite incorrectly, that the baseline for territorial waters is the high water mark. In fact, Iran is using the baseline properly for the measured distance to seaward. It is the rest of their claim which is off the mark and those who jump on the "Iran was within its rights" bandwagon do so without understanding the UN Convention of the Law Of The Sea.

Iran, Iraq and Kuwait have all signed the UNCLOS agreement. Iran has the right to establish a 12 mile territorial limit to seaward from the low tide mark of their land in accordance with the convention.

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.

and
Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.

So does Kuwait, and that causes a problem because if both enforce a 12 mile limit in all seaward directions from their land mass Iraq is totally cut off from the Persian Gulf. That is prohibited by the same convention Part II, Section 2, Article 7, para 6.

6. The system of straight baselines may not be applied by a State in such a manner as to cut off the territorial sea of another State from the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.

Essentially, what that says is that Iran cannot use the measurement that would give them a territorial sea in all directions to seaward, 12 miles from the baseline. They are not allowed to cut off Iraq and must accept prior use by Iraq as a means of establishing a boundary.

That goes back to the original event. While the boundary is murky, and crowds of people are protesting the British chart as being an arbitrary invention of their own, the Iranians, attempting to continue justification of their act, changed the position they said they had captured the RN boats to put themselves on the Iranian side of the conventional line. They had a good reason for doing that. They did not want to get into an UNCLOS dispute because
a) it would dilute their intended purpose and change the focus of their actions;
b) they would lose any argument in which they claimed territorial waters beyond the conventional border described by the British.

I get a little irked when I see people take a position that Iran needs to be given the benefit of the doubt over the position they were in when they took those sailors and marines hostage. That's patronizing and it belies the fact that Iran is not some bunch of medieval, turban-wearing religious nutballs. The Iranians are a completely capable crew with a full grasp of international conventions. Their leader is whacked out, but overall, underestimating the Iranians and their ability to play a grand strategy would be to make a huge mistake.

The maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran isn't why Iran captured those sailors and marines anyway. Much closer to the real reason is here.

Heating up the rhetoric with ignorance

A second member of the boats crew and boarding party arrested by Iran has been paraded in an Iranian video in which he "apologized" for entering Iranian waters.

In the video Friday, Royal Marine rifleman Nathan Thomas Summers was shown sitting with another male serviceman and the female British sailor Faye Turney against a pink floral curtain.

Both men wore camouflage fatigues with a label saying "Royal Navy" on their chests and a small British flag stitched to their left sleeves. Turney wore a blue jumpsuit and a black headscarf.

"Again I deeply apologize for entering your waters," Summers said in the clip broadcast on Al-Alam television. "We trespassed without permission."

That got a couple of mouthbreathers over at the Blogging Tories all hot and bothered precipitating a descent into ignorance which can be measured by the Cheezie™ dust on their laps.

No, I'm not going to link to them. Use teh Google.

These clots seem to think being taken into detention in this situation is a straight-forward "prisoner of war" event. They also seem to have developed a view that these people are in a position to defy their captors while puffing on a filterless cigarette as they stroke their Death before dishonour tattoos. One of them went so far as to suggest that Leading Seaman Faye Turney would never be able to show her face among her countrymen again, and that being taken prisoner in this instance was the true test of a warrior.

The writers of that crap, so willing to broadcast the definition of a "true" warrior and the test of combat and captivity demonstrate through their use of language that they have no experience as members of any armed service and their opinions are formed from watching Hollywood renderings of prisoner of war dramas and comic books.

Something needs to be put into perspective here. Those fifteen Royal Navy personnel are not Prisoners of War. They are hostages. Britain is not at war with Iran and while this all has the potential to spiral right out of control, the suggestions by still others that Britain close down any negotiations and simply attack Iran is tantamount to signing a death warrant for all fifteen of those troops.

The several suggestions that these hostages should only be providing "name, rank and serial number", (Yes. One actually said that.), demonstrates further ignorance of both the situation and the training those people would have received.

In a hostage situation, and all of those troops would be well aware that such is their condition, the dumbest thing they could do is to antagonize their captors. Cooperation will both keep them alive and perhaps in good condition. No "apology" or letter of contrition has any meaning outside the place of detention. Those things are being done to feed the domestic situation in Iran. The rest of the world is well able to understand that coercion is being used and if it does anything, it makes the Iranians look worse.

We have no way of knowing how those people are actually being treated, except through a previous experience, which would suggest they are receiving adequate treatment although suffering severe humiliation. None of them will know their location and they will not have access to information of any negotiations save that which their captors provide.

The one thing that they are expected to do is stay alive and as healthy as possible. Getting killed through an act of defiance serves absolutely no purpose and may escalate the situation well beyond where anyone wants it to go. I know that denies the war-bloggers of their orgasmic moment but it isn't them that gets killed.

Both sides are using those sailors and marines as fodder for a dangerous spin game. Despite both sides claiming a boundary in that zone of the Persian Gulf, there has never been resolution and neither side can make the claim that one or the other actually trespassed across an internationally recognized boundary. There isn't one. That will be the subject of another post later today.

Still others are foaming at the mouth insisting that Blair "do something" and quit messing around. I'll admit, I don't like his response to this point either, but not for the same reason some of the Blogging Tories are complaining about. While Blair needed to be forceful, he should have weighed what needed to be done to get his sailors and marines back. Then start piling on the rhetoric.

Iran could have made themselves look like world-class diplomats had they held those people for a day and then returned them with a comment like, "They were in our waters. Don't do it again."

Since that didn't happen, it's now a matter of keeping things even enough to prevent a disaster. And, as far as the clowns barking that some form of action should be taken, it demonstrates another lack of knowledge.

How do they know something isn't being planned? Just because they don't read it in a press release doesn't mean there isn't an incursion and rescue being readied. I'm also sure that if that kind of event took place, the same loudmouths would be patting each other on the back for knowing that the SBS or the SAS came through as usual.

More later.

Incident off the Shat-al-Arab waterway

This is not good at all.

Iran seized 15 British sailors and Marines who were conducting ``routine boarding operations'' in Iraqi waters, the U.K. Ministry of Defence said.

``The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters,'' the ministry said in an e-mailed statement. ``We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level.''

Iran's foreign ministry confirmed seizing the Britons ``for investigation and questioning'' and said it was because British sailors have illegally entered its own territorial waters ``a number of times,'' Agence France-Presse reported, citing Iranian State television.

Tensions have been rising between Western nations and Iran over its nuclear program, and the Islamic Republic has also been accused by the administrations of U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush of meddling in Iraq.

The seizure of forces occurred in the Persian Gulf at about 10:30 a.m. Iraqi time today, the ministry said. Britain demanded the immediate return of the military personnel and equipment in a meeting today between Peter Ricketts, the permanent under- secretary at the U.K. Foreign Office, and Rasoul Movahedian, the Iranian ambassador in London, the Foreign Office said.

``The meeting with the Iranian ambassador was brisk but polite, but he was left in no doubt that we want them back,'' U.K. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in a televised statement. ``We have asked for a full explanation on what has happened and we are leaving them in no doubt that we want the immediate and safe return of our personnel and their equipment.''

First, there have been several reports that it was the Iranian Navy that did this. That's not the case. It was the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and they are a whole different group, operating separately from the Iranian Navy.

Second, the Shat-al-Arab waterway, in which this took place, was granted to Iraq in 1975. The Iranians have never recognized that and continue to lay claim to that region.

Third, this is bad from about twenty different angles, not the least of which, it is the kind of incident which could easily spark off the attack on Iran Bush so desperately wants. It would do well for Bush to allow the British to work this incident without interference.

Lastly, the sailors and marines are from HMS Cornwall, a type 22 frigate. I know it's a little constricted up at that end of the Gulf, but boarding operations usually involve the combatant ship being close by and providing force protection for their boarding party. Reports suggest Cornwall lost communications with the boarding party and a helicopter witnessed the Iranian capture of the British boats. Without more information, it looks like the boarding party was not being covered by their own ship. (That's purely a guess and may be wildly inaccurate).

In any case, the best chance of getting those sailors and marines back safely rests with Bush keeping his nose out and his mouth shut.