So the Americans didn’t rate the British effort in Afghanistan. So President Karzai (man of honour...hmm) was unimpressed with British efforts in Helmand Province. So the media have headlined this.
Well, let us get the facts straight because frankly, these cables published by Wikileaks really are examples of statements being taken out of context.
When the cables were sent in 2006, Helmand Province was – and still is – the most dangerous region in Afghanistan. The UK was the only country contributing troops to this area. The number of UK troops then was a brigade strength of 3000. Time and again, the soldiers fought with amazing courage and ability to take villages and Taliban strongholds. However, because of their limited numbers, they were then ordered to withdraw from their battlefield sucesses, back into their bases. The Taliban would then reoccupy what they had lost. This happened repeatedly.
In addition, commanders - both in theatre and at home - pleaded with the government to strengthen numbers and improve equipment; for the most part these pleas were ignored.
Under these circumstances, questions should be asked of our raison d’être in Helmand. If we are unable to contribute a meaningful size of force, why should we expect our troops to make the ultimate sacrifice?
The leaked cables are not telling us anything new but because they have been taken so out of context this could cause an adverse affect against British troops.
So, to set the record straight – no one is questioning the incredible bravery or ability of the British forces; they are the best in the world – absolutely no doubt. However, they lacked numbers and adequate equipment in the field which meant that they were not able to hold on to the numerous gains made.
Today, Helmand Province has a force of 30,000 comprising of 26,000 US and 4,000 British troops. They are still struggling to contain the Taliban and last month alone, the US suffered 16 deaths.
This is an illustration of how brilliantly the British servicemen and women fought with a force of only 3000.
Ecrivain Man
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Waki Wiki Leaks Worries Washington Wets
Once again the nauseating Julian Assange and his Wikileaks disclosures have dominated the press. The 250,000 or so cables allegedly handed over to the ‘international new media non-profit organisation’ (donations gratefully accepted) by US Army Private Bradley Manning is currently – in spite of the blocking of servers – being trickle fed to the general public through selected media channels. `
The diplomatic cables were sent via the United States' SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). Only 15,652 cables, are classified as "secret." and of those, 4,330 are so sensitive that they carry the additional label "NOFORN," meaning that they should not be made accessible to non-US nationals and of course, these are the cables of most interest.
On where we should draw the line with regards to freedom of information has always been a contentious issue for democratic countries. Does the publishing of the diplomatic cables promote openness, freedom and increased public knowledge or does it undermine western democracy and endanger lives?
And when a clearly worried White House administration defends its ‘candid assessments’ and condemns Wikileaks for publishing them, does this mean the US is afraid of being held to account? Oh to be a fly on the wall of the Oval Office!
The main issue with the publication of the material is that it undermines important current strategic relationships but for the most part is unlikely to directly endanger lives (from what I have seen so far). And that is the crux of the matter. Wikileaks should offer a degree of editing to remove anything which could endanger lives. I would hazard a guess that most of these cables will be within the 4330 NOFORN classification, so it is not necessary to edit a quarter of a million documents.
With regards to the reporting of the leaks, I can’t help but feel those which have made sensational reading and offered juicy dissection to news outlets are in fact the most harmless while the less spectacular feeds are those which should cause most concern. Most of what has been said so far is either already in the public domain or is commonly assumed.
Honesty time – hands up anyone who was genuinely surprised to read that foreign governments don’t trust Karzai, that Arab leaders – particularly Sunnis – are afraid of Ahmedinejad, Berlusconi is "feckless and vain" or that Mexico was failing in its fight against drug cartels. Who hadn’t already realised that Putin is seen as an alpha dog, that Obama doesn’t care about Europe or that it is actually the US bombing terrorist hides in Yemen? We knew that Cameron and Clegg didn’t get along (I love the one that says Clegg ‘gratefully’ accepted an ‘aggressive’ invitation to dinner from Cameron. Did he put a pistol to Clegg’s head or told him he’d steal his dinner money or maybe threatened to smash his face in if he didn’t come?), that the west fears Pakistani nuclear materials could fall into the wrong hands and that the Duke of York is an obnoxious, boorish freeloader.
So what if those details are out there. I do not feel that lives are put at risk by these ‘revelations’.
What I would draw the line at however (and I am surprised that this did not get as much media coverage as some of the more sensational cables) was the revelation of America’s list of ‘critical infrastructure’. These are worldwide sites which would cause chaos if hit. They vary from huge hydroelectric plants, to communication junctions, to a factory in Australia which makes antidotes for snake bites. I feel that this is a Wikileak too far and is in fact offering the terrorists a ready made list of ‘Please Insert Suicide Bomber Here’ targets.
Wikileaks has a huge number of journalists downloading these cables; I am sure there would be slightly more sympathy for Assange and his current plight had they thought to edit at least some of the revelations.
Ecrivain Man
The diplomatic cables were sent via the United States' SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). Only 15,652 cables, are classified as "secret." and of those, 4,330 are so sensitive that they carry the additional label "NOFORN," meaning that they should not be made accessible to non-US nationals and of course, these are the cables of most interest.
On where we should draw the line with regards to freedom of information has always been a contentious issue for democratic countries. Does the publishing of the diplomatic cables promote openness, freedom and increased public knowledge or does it undermine western democracy and endanger lives?
And when a clearly worried White House administration defends its ‘candid assessments’ and condemns Wikileaks for publishing them, does this mean the US is afraid of being held to account? Oh to be a fly on the wall of the Oval Office!
The main issue with the publication of the material is that it undermines important current strategic relationships but for the most part is unlikely to directly endanger lives (from what I have seen so far). And that is the crux of the matter. Wikileaks should offer a degree of editing to remove anything which could endanger lives. I would hazard a guess that most of these cables will be within the 4330 NOFORN classification, so it is not necessary to edit a quarter of a million documents.
With regards to the reporting of the leaks, I can’t help but feel those which have made sensational reading and offered juicy dissection to news outlets are in fact the most harmless while the less spectacular feeds are those which should cause most concern. Most of what has been said so far is either already in the public domain or is commonly assumed.
Honesty time – hands up anyone who was genuinely surprised to read that foreign governments don’t trust Karzai, that Arab leaders – particularly Sunnis – are afraid of Ahmedinejad, Berlusconi is "feckless and vain" or that Mexico was failing in its fight against drug cartels. Who hadn’t already realised that Putin is seen as an alpha dog, that Obama doesn’t care about Europe or that it is actually the US bombing terrorist hides in Yemen? We knew that Cameron and Clegg didn’t get along (I love the one that says Clegg ‘gratefully’ accepted an ‘aggressive’ invitation to dinner from Cameron. Did he put a pistol to Clegg’s head or told him he’d steal his dinner money or maybe threatened to smash his face in if he didn’t come?), that the west fears Pakistani nuclear materials could fall into the wrong hands and that the Duke of York is an obnoxious, boorish freeloader.
So what if those details are out there. I do not feel that lives are put at risk by these ‘revelations’.
What I would draw the line at however (and I am surprised that this did not get as much media coverage as some of the more sensational cables) was the revelation of America’s list of ‘critical infrastructure’. These are worldwide sites which would cause chaos if hit. They vary from huge hydroelectric plants, to communication junctions, to a factory in Australia which makes antidotes for snake bites. I feel that this is a Wikileak too far and is in fact offering the terrorists a ready made list of ‘Please Insert Suicide Bomber Here’ targets.
Wikileaks has a huge number of journalists downloading these cables; I am sure there would be slightly more sympathy for Assange and his current plight had they thought to edit at least some of the revelations.
Ecrivain Man
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Read my latest post on the 'Talking Human Rights' blog
Hi, you can read my latest post on the 'Talking Human Rights' blog 'UN Must Reject for Iran to Reflect' by clicking here.
Ecrivain Man
Ecrivain Man
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Slightly Overlooked - Belfast Bombs
While the UK turns its eyes internationally towards the latest terrorist outrages, two events in Northern Ireland have had very little news coverage.
Within the space of 24 hours a bomb was discovered under a railway bridge in County Armagh followed by the discovery of an explosive device inside a car at Belfast International airport.
Fortunately neither device detonated and police are investigating. Both incidents are thought to be the work of dissident republicans.
Although this is not the Real IRA operating on the mainland, which I wrote about earlier, it is a reminder that republican terrorism is still active within the United Kingdom although thankfully on a less spectacular scale to Islamic extremism.
Ecrivain Man
Within the space of 24 hours a bomb was discovered under a railway bridge in County Armagh followed by the discovery of an explosive device inside a car at Belfast International airport.
Fortunately neither device detonated and police are investigating. Both incidents are thought to be the work of dissident republicans.
Although this is not the Real IRA operating on the mainland, which I wrote about earlier, it is a reminder that republican terrorism is still active within the United Kingdom although thankfully on a less spectacular scale to Islamic extremism.
Ecrivain Man
From Yemen with Love
Once again we have had a narrow escape. Two bombs, hidden in UPS cargo were – latest reports indicate – primed to explode. In these early stages of investigation, it seems that thanks should be directed towards Saudi, British and US intelligence units.
David Cameron – speaking about the bomb discovered at East Midlands Airport – claimed that because the flight containing the package took off from Yemen, landed Germany and the UK with the US as its final destination, this demonstrated how united we have to be to defeat terrorism. Well yes, this is an obvious statement but I am more concerned about the fact that the device was not detected in any of the first two countries and only found in the UK after a tip off.
Cargo planes have been identified for some time as the Achilles heal of aviation transport. Less than 5% of freight is scanned by x-ray machines and questions constantly persist about the reliability of airside staff. It appears that terrorists have found a new method of attack, proving that they continue to explore new avenues of attack.
One of the bomb components – PETN – as well as the origin of the device, indicates that the driving force behind these latest incidents is likely to be Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular (AQAP). Yemen is the birthplace of Al-Qaeda, ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and AQAP is widely recognised as the terrorist organisation’s best franchise.
We can not win in the fight against terrorism by intervening at the very last minute as we will not succeed every time. We need a multi-layered approach of physical security right through to good intelligence obtained on the ground and electronically – the fight has to be taken to the front line whether that is Saana, Somalia or Saltford.
But as a final note, I’d like to mention two men who both made public statements this week – one illustrated brilliant timing and the other quite the opposite; Sir John Sawers became the first head of MI6 (the UK’s international intelligence arm) ever to speak publicly. One of the things he mentioned was that Yemen now posed a particular threat to our security. The second was Sir Martin Broughton, the British Airways chairman (better known for his handling of the recent Liverpool FC sale). He chose this week to criticize airport security measures as being too stringent.
I choose to listen to MI6 thank you.
Ecrivain Man
David Cameron – speaking about the bomb discovered at East Midlands Airport – claimed that because the flight containing the package took off from Yemen, landed Germany and the UK with the US as its final destination, this demonstrated how united we have to be to defeat terrorism. Well yes, this is an obvious statement but I am more concerned about the fact that the device was not detected in any of the first two countries and only found in the UK after a tip off.
Cargo planes have been identified for some time as the Achilles heal of aviation transport. Less than 5% of freight is scanned by x-ray machines and questions constantly persist about the reliability of airside staff. It appears that terrorists have found a new method of attack, proving that they continue to explore new avenues of attack.
One of the bomb components – PETN – as well as the origin of the device, indicates that the driving force behind these latest incidents is likely to be Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular (AQAP). Yemen is the birthplace of Al-Qaeda, ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and AQAP is widely recognised as the terrorist organisation’s best franchise.
We can not win in the fight against terrorism by intervening at the very last minute as we will not succeed every time. We need a multi-layered approach of physical security right through to good intelligence obtained on the ground and electronically – the fight has to be taken to the front line whether that is Saana, Somalia or Saltford.
But as a final note, I’d like to mention two men who both made public statements this week – one illustrated brilliant timing and the other quite the opposite; Sir John Sawers became the first head of MI6 (the UK’s international intelligence arm) ever to speak publicly. One of the things he mentioned was that Yemen now posed a particular threat to our security. The second was Sir Martin Broughton, the British Airways chairman (better known for his handling of the recent Liverpool FC sale). He chose this week to criticize airport security measures as being too stringent.
I choose to listen to MI6 thank you.
Ecrivain Man
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Terrorists? They don’t make them like they used to!
A rant from me…
Back in the day, when I was a lad, when men were men, etc., there was an assumption that to be a terrorist you generally had to have been through the mill somewhat. A real terrorist couldn’t just step up to the mark, make a video, strap on a vest then…bang. Oh no, back in the day there was due process to being a terrorist.
To start with, the majority of those willing to risk all for the cause – whether it was IRA, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, FARC, Black September, etc., - had one thing in common - they would rough it a bit; go out and live off the land, make crap videos pretending they know kung fu and fire an AK47 into the air for a promotional cine film (or later video). They would be willing to go and rough it in the cold Andes, in the scorched deserts, in the sub continental jungles, in the Irish bogs(!) in order to learn their trade. In those heady days, it was necessary to painstakingly learn how to make a bomb and hope that you survived to do it a second time. Those badly choreographed karate moves for the cine camera actually hurt (especially if your partner was some handy sensei from the east). It was necessary to learn how to survive and eat worm omelettes with raw badger kebabs.
Now don’t misunderstand me; I detest all forms of terrorism and deplore the use of force to make people follow some warped sense of how things should be. I hate the fact that invariably, the majority of terrorist victims end up being innocent children, women and men who just want to live their lives in peace. But since time in memorial there have been terrorists kicking around, giving it large and gobbing off – that won’t change.
And for the most part they were working class at best and in many instances from fully impoverished backgrounds. Injustices were experienced and not just read about or imagined. They had generation after terrorist generation to live up to and not a small number of them were very intelligent. But today - well, today’s would be batch of terrorists have never had it so good. They just don’t know they are born, do this lot. Not like in days of yore.
Gone is the necessity to attend boot camps, designed to make a terrorist out of you. No more does a potential hijacker have to lie up for months at a time in the mountains/deserts/jungles/bogs(!). And as for the crap kung-fu propaganda film – not a necessity for today’s heroic freedom fighter.
And worst of all, unlike in days gone bye, today’s generation of terrorists don’t even have to be born into the cause, to have lived through the conditions they feel they are fighting for, nor to have even met anyone who has lived like this.
And why not? Because of the Internet!
That multi-layered and inexhaustible internet backbone of ISPs and the TCP/IP Protocol blah blah information net, somewhere invisible in the ether, makes life easy for any would be terrorist. Today, any young or middle aged trendy who suddenly decides that life in the suburbs of Surrey is boring can log on to ‘How to be a terrorist without doing any hard work dot com'. He (and it always seems to be a male) grows his hair, visits extremist chat-rooms (quite obviously too socially inept to visit a ‘meet a fit chick dot com’ chat-room), adopts a ridiculous accent and falls for all of the rubbish he hears. Then not content with that, he learns how to make a bomb from the internet on ‘How you, a pathetic and sad want-to-be terrorist, can make a bomb dot com’ and tries to blow himself up - after posting a suicide video on 'We accept all suicide bomber videos here dot com' - in order to take as many innocent lives as he possibly can (yeh! that’ll teach them).
But then he doesn’t even get that right; his shoe/underpants/shampoo bottle/smart 4x4 fails (thankfully) to go bang.
So a message to those snotty little prats who think the world is unfair and so they want to be a terrorist - be a man, go out there and do it like they used to, mix it with the really bad people face to face not in behind a computer screen.
But of course you won’t!
Ecrivain Man
Back in the day, when I was a lad, when men were men, etc., there was an assumption that to be a terrorist you generally had to have been through the mill somewhat. A real terrorist couldn’t just step up to the mark, make a video, strap on a vest then…bang. Oh no, back in the day there was due process to being a terrorist.
To start with, the majority of those willing to risk all for the cause – whether it was IRA, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, FARC, Black September, etc., - had one thing in common - they would rough it a bit; go out and live off the land, make crap videos pretending they know kung fu and fire an AK47 into the air for a promotional cine film (or later video). They would be willing to go and rough it in the cold Andes, in the scorched deserts, in the sub continental jungles, in the Irish bogs(!) in order to learn their trade. In those heady days, it was necessary to painstakingly learn how to make a bomb and hope that you survived to do it a second time. Those badly choreographed karate moves for the cine camera actually hurt (especially if your partner was some handy sensei from the east). It was necessary to learn how to survive and eat worm omelettes with raw badger kebabs.
Now don’t misunderstand me; I detest all forms of terrorism and deplore the use of force to make people follow some warped sense of how things should be. I hate the fact that invariably, the majority of terrorist victims end up being innocent children, women and men who just want to live their lives in peace. But since time in memorial there have been terrorists kicking around, giving it large and gobbing off – that won’t change.
And for the most part they were working class at best and in many instances from fully impoverished backgrounds. Injustices were experienced and not just read about or imagined. They had generation after terrorist generation to live up to and not a small number of them were very intelligent. But today - well, today’s would be batch of terrorists have never had it so good. They just don’t know they are born, do this lot. Not like in days of yore.
Gone is the necessity to attend boot camps, designed to make a terrorist out of you. No more does a potential hijacker have to lie up for months at a time in the mountains/deserts/jungles/bogs(!). And as for the crap kung-fu propaganda film – not a necessity for today’s heroic freedom fighter.
And worst of all, unlike in days gone bye, today’s generation of terrorists don’t even have to be born into the cause, to have lived through the conditions they feel they are fighting for, nor to have even met anyone who has lived like this.
And why not? Because of the Internet!
That multi-layered and inexhaustible internet backbone of ISPs and the TCP/IP Protocol blah blah information net, somewhere invisible in the ether, makes life easy for any would be terrorist. Today, any young or middle aged trendy who suddenly decides that life in the suburbs of Surrey is boring can log on to ‘How to be a terrorist without doing any hard work dot com'. He (and it always seems to be a male) grows his hair, visits extremist chat-rooms (quite obviously too socially inept to visit a ‘meet a fit chick dot com’ chat-room), adopts a ridiculous accent and falls for all of the rubbish he hears. Then not content with that, he learns how to make a bomb from the internet on ‘How you, a pathetic and sad want-to-be terrorist, can make a bomb dot com’ and tries to blow himself up - after posting a suicide video on 'We accept all suicide bomber videos here dot com' - in order to take as many innocent lives as he possibly can (yeh! that’ll teach them).
But then he doesn’t even get that right; his shoe/underpants/shampoo bottle/smart 4x4 fails (thankfully) to go bang.
So a message to those snotty little prats who think the world is unfair and so they want to be a terrorist - be a man, go out there and do it like they used to, mix it with the really bad people face to face not in behind a computer screen.
But of course you won’t!
Ecrivain Man
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Strategic Defence Review - Two Parties, One and a Half Leaders , One Outcome
At last we faced the first real battle between the Conservative/LibDem coalition and Her Majesty's Opposition in the House of Commons today as the government announced the results of the Strategic Defence Review. This offered the opposition some ammunition (OK, bad pun) with which to hit the nervous government.
In the blue corner we had wealthy, dashing, confident, former Etonian and current Premier - Blue Dave. And opposite, the young and self appointed 'new generation' of leader for the opposition - Red Ed...in the - errrrr - red corner.
Round one started. Standing at the dispatch box, immaculately dressed, an erudite and confident Prime Minister stared (or maybe even glared) at the Labour front bench which, in true leftist fashion, looked collectively nervous (all animals are made equal but Red Ed was wishing he was Snowball and not Napoleon at this point). They expected a high tempo opening round and they got it. Blue Dave laid into what he regards as Labour mismanagement in both the economy and defence spending. He sounded exasperated as he spoke of the £38 billion defence spending deficit left by the previous government. A good start Mr Prime Minister - pre-emptive action ahead of hard announcements - nice uppercut.
He emphasized the continuing commitment to our troops in Afghanistan, stressing that no cuts - only minutes away from being announced - would affect our forces in Afghanistan as they are funded separately by the Treasury's special reserve. Another sound jab in the face of opposition benches - our boys/girls have been ring fenced. How could Red Ed object to this? Another round to the ConLibCo
And then a swift combination - Britain would still meet its NATO spending commitment of 2% of GDP (something our European partners are falling well short of) and maintain the fourth largest military machine in the world, still able to punch above our weight... ouch! A stumble from the opposition - knees almost buckle. A standing count but Red Ed may still have a say to save face - he looked around...where was his brother when he needed him?
The middle of the fight saw a change - Blue Dave spent most of the time punching and missing, dropping disappointment after (not wholly unexpected) disappointment - scrap the Harrier fleet, cancel the Nimrod spy plane, reduce by 17,000 the number in forces personnel.
He dodged a possible right hook when Trident surfaced(!) announcing a reduction in size of the much talked of replacement nuclear deterrent and more importantly delayed the decision until after the next election (very canny - yes at last Yellow/Blue Nick could smile because a unilateral nuclear strike meant he had saved face - how ironic).
He rallied in later rounds - 25,000 MOD civil servant posts to be axed (the previous government had allowed the numbers to rise to more than the number of Naval and RAF personnel combined) - bang! The procurement of a fleet of hunter killer Astute class submarines would go ahead as would the completion of the six Type 45 destroyers - wallop!
Then the strangest announcement to be made - the building of two aircraft carriers would still go ahead because contracts had already been signed by the previous incumbents. It would - stressed Blue Dave trying hard to punch his way out of the corner - be more expensive to cancel them than to continue with the order! Now, I'm no boxing coach but it seems to me that investing in a boxing gym because my predecessor had committed to it, even though I don't want it, seems strange. What about the running costs Blue Dave? What about the fact that the gym could be doing nothing for years because there is no equipment (ie aircraft) for it? The Americans would no doubt have called this collateral budget damage.
He went back to the ropes, ready for the onslaught. Red Ed moved forward, scratched, shuffled papers, avoided eye contact with his opposite number and.........missed a jab- then an uppercut - a right hook - he tripped - he fell onto the ropes - Red Ed floundered. As he stuttered/paused/restarted/contradicted/mixed words/stumbled over words/searched for words/gasped for words (lost for words), his front bench colleagues could barely disguise their look of horror. An opportunity missed, a chance to assert some credibility after a drawn out and hugely damaging leadership contest which saw - with the luck of a union sucker punch - the favourite and heavy weight contender - Purple (with rage) David - knocked out by his lightweight brother Red Ed.
Huge spending cuts are on their way - fact. Most of them are necessary but in times of austerity it is vital to have a strong opposition ready and capable of challenging and questioning at every opportunity. They must make sure every cut is examined in the tiniest detail. The ConLibCo must not be given an easy ride.
On today's performance the current opposition - the leader in particular - is not yet ready for this battle. How long before Red Ed's team throw his towel in for him and go in search for their hiding heavyweight - still the first choice of the Parliamentary Labour Party as well as Labour's rank and file members?
I will be posting more specifically on the Strategic Defence and Security Review soon.
Ecrivain Man
In the blue corner we had wealthy, dashing, confident, former Etonian and current Premier - Blue Dave. And opposite, the young and self appointed 'new generation' of leader for the opposition - Red Ed...in the - errrrr - red corner.
Round one started. Standing at the dispatch box, immaculately dressed, an erudite and confident Prime Minister stared (or maybe even glared) at the Labour front bench which, in true leftist fashion, looked collectively nervous (all animals are made equal but Red Ed was wishing he was Snowball and not Napoleon at this point). They expected a high tempo opening round and they got it. Blue Dave laid into what he regards as Labour mismanagement in both the economy and defence spending. He sounded exasperated as he spoke of the £38 billion defence spending deficit left by the previous government. A good start Mr Prime Minister - pre-emptive action ahead of hard announcements - nice uppercut.
He emphasized the continuing commitment to our troops in Afghanistan, stressing that no cuts - only minutes away from being announced - would affect our forces in Afghanistan as they are funded separately by the Treasury's special reserve. Another sound jab in the face of opposition benches - our boys/girls have been ring fenced. How could Red Ed object to this? Another round to the ConLibCo
And then a swift combination - Britain would still meet its NATO spending commitment of 2% of GDP (something our European partners are falling well short of) and maintain the fourth largest military machine in the world, still able to punch above our weight... ouch! A stumble from the opposition - knees almost buckle. A standing count but Red Ed may still have a say to save face - he looked around...where was his brother when he needed him?
The middle of the fight saw a change - Blue Dave spent most of the time punching and missing, dropping disappointment after (not wholly unexpected) disappointment - scrap the Harrier fleet, cancel the Nimrod spy plane, reduce by 17,000 the number in forces personnel.
He dodged a possible right hook when Trident surfaced(!) announcing a reduction in size of the much talked of replacement nuclear deterrent and more importantly delayed the decision until after the next election (very canny - yes at last Yellow/Blue Nick could smile because a unilateral nuclear strike meant he had saved face - how ironic).
He rallied in later rounds - 25,000 MOD civil servant posts to be axed (the previous government had allowed the numbers to rise to more than the number of Naval and RAF personnel combined) - bang! The procurement of a fleet of hunter killer Astute class submarines would go ahead as would the completion of the six Type 45 destroyers - wallop!
Then the strangest announcement to be made - the building of two aircraft carriers would still go ahead because contracts had already been signed by the previous incumbents. It would - stressed Blue Dave trying hard to punch his way out of the corner - be more expensive to cancel them than to continue with the order! Now, I'm no boxing coach but it seems to me that investing in a boxing gym because my predecessor had committed to it, even though I don't want it, seems strange. What about the running costs Blue Dave? What about the fact that the gym could be doing nothing for years because there is no equipment (ie aircraft) for it? The Americans would no doubt have called this collateral budget damage.
He went back to the ropes, ready for the onslaught. Red Ed moved forward, scratched, shuffled papers, avoided eye contact with his opposite number and.........missed a jab- then an uppercut - a right hook - he tripped - he fell onto the ropes - Red Ed floundered. As he stuttered/paused/restarted/contradicted/mixed words/stumbled over words/searched for words/gasped for words (lost for words), his front bench colleagues could barely disguise their look of horror. An opportunity missed, a chance to assert some credibility after a drawn out and hugely damaging leadership contest which saw - with the luck of a union sucker punch - the favourite and heavy weight contender - Purple (with rage) David - knocked out by his lightweight brother Red Ed.
Huge spending cuts are on their way - fact. Most of them are necessary but in times of austerity it is vital to have a strong opposition ready and capable of challenging and questioning at every opportunity. They must make sure every cut is examined in the tiniest detail. The ConLibCo must not be given an easy ride.
On today's performance the current opposition - the leader in particular - is not yet ready for this battle. How long before Red Ed's team throw his towel in for him and go in search for their hiding heavyweight - still the first choice of the Parliamentary Labour Party as well as Labour's rank and file members?
I will be posting more specifically on the Strategic Defence and Security Review soon.
Ecrivain Man
Saturday, 9 October 2010
The Real IRA on the mainland
Someone asked me a question on one of my earlier posts as to what my thoughts were on the Northern Ireland situation concerning concerning the Real IRA (RIRA)so I have put a few thoughts together.
First of all, let us start with labels; although we now refer to the RIRA and other republican terror groups as dissidents, they don’t like this label. They see themselves as loyal to the cause of a united Ireland and senior republican figures such as Jerry Adams and Martin McGuinness – in the eyes of the RIRA - are the dissidents by virtue of the fact they appear to have given up on achieving the ultimate goal of uniting the north and the south.
The recent raising of the alert state leads to the assumption that something directly associated with the RIRA could happen in the near future. Even though this Irish dissident alert remains lower than the risk of an Islamic attack, the fact that it was made public (for the first time) is puzzling.
How ready is the Real IRA to launch any significant attack outside of Northern Ireland? They have proved that they can maintain a low level and relatively low impact campaign within the six northern counties but a switch to the mainland is something else.
So what is their capability?
Whatever intelligence the government received to raise the alert state, I feel it is unlikely that the Real IRA possess the means to have anywhere near the same effect as republicans did during the time of the troubles.
However, they must now have a critical mass large enough to be classed as an organisation and this in itself raises the risk significantly. They probably also have a quantity of Semtex as well as a willingness to hit the mainland and a belief that they can succeed. If they have learned anything from the Provisional IRA, they will realise that the most successful Republican terrorist bombings in Britain have been against financial targets as opposed to just aiming to kill people. I believe that this is their more likely type of target.
Whatever the reason for the rise in the alert state, one thing is certain, Republicans are getting restless. As the island’s troubled history becomes more a thing of the past their cause becomes increasingly difficult. On both sides of the divide, the people of Northern Ireland are seeing their children living in peace for the first time in decades. Why would they want to return to the days of violence and intimidation. And for this reason, the Real IRA can see the prospects of a united Ireland moving further away. They feel they must up their game if they are to turn this around.
Ecrivain Man
First of all, let us start with labels; although we now refer to the RIRA and other republican terror groups as dissidents, they don’t like this label. They see themselves as loyal to the cause of a united Ireland and senior republican figures such as Jerry Adams and Martin McGuinness – in the eyes of the RIRA - are the dissidents by virtue of the fact they appear to have given up on achieving the ultimate goal of uniting the north and the south.
The recent raising of the alert state leads to the assumption that something directly associated with the RIRA could happen in the near future. Even though this Irish dissident alert remains lower than the risk of an Islamic attack, the fact that it was made public (for the first time) is puzzling.
How ready is the Real IRA to launch any significant attack outside of Northern Ireland? They have proved that they can maintain a low level and relatively low impact campaign within the six northern counties but a switch to the mainland is something else.
So what is their capability?
Whatever intelligence the government received to raise the alert state, I feel it is unlikely that the Real IRA possess the means to have anywhere near the same effect as republicans did during the time of the troubles.
However, they must now have a critical mass large enough to be classed as an organisation and this in itself raises the risk significantly. They probably also have a quantity of Semtex as well as a willingness to hit the mainland and a belief that they can succeed. If they have learned anything from the Provisional IRA, they will realise that the most successful Republican terrorist bombings in Britain have been against financial targets as opposed to just aiming to kill people. I believe that this is their more likely type of target.
Whatever the reason for the rise in the alert state, one thing is certain, Republicans are getting restless. As the island’s troubled history becomes more a thing of the past their cause becomes increasingly difficult. On both sides of the divide, the people of Northern Ireland are seeing their children living in peace for the first time in decades. Why would they want to return to the days of violence and intimidation. And for this reason, the Real IRA can see the prospects of a united Ireland moving further away. They feel they must up their game if they are to turn this around.
Ecrivain Man
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
A Link to my latest post on the 'Talking Human Rights' blog
Nukes, Terrorists And Rogue States - A Measured Response
http://talkinghr.blogspot.com/2010/09/nukes-terrorists-and-rogue-states.html
http://talkinghr.blogspot.com/2010/09/nukes-terrorists-and-rogue-states.html
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Crazy Publicity For A Non-Descript Bigot
This post will be brief but I really feel the need to say something.
Although I may have criticised some people's reaction to the proposed building of an Islamic Centre and mosque close to Ground Zero in an earlier post, Pastor Terry Jones and his 50 strong congregation are not representative of the general US population. They are bigots seeking publicity in spite of the possible repercussions for people both at home and abroad. Additionally, this non-event is proving to be a perfect propaganda tool for terrorists. Surely Jones' brilliantly conceived attempt at courting publicity has to be halted right away. Media outlets should refuse to report on this stunt any longer.
Ecrivain Man
Although I may have criticised some people's reaction to the proposed building of an Islamic Centre and mosque close to Ground Zero in an earlier post, Pastor Terry Jones and his 50 strong congregation are not representative of the general US population. They are bigots seeking publicity in spite of the possible repercussions for people both at home and abroad. Additionally, this non-event is proving to be a perfect propaganda tool for terrorists. Surely Jones' brilliantly conceived attempt at courting publicity has to be halted right away. Media outlets should refuse to report on this stunt any longer.
Ecrivain Man
Friday, 3 September 2010
Obama Should Study Korean History For Iraqi Future
I've just finished reading ’Rethinking the Korean War' by William Stueck and the timing has coincided with the US troop withdrawal from Iraq thus giving me an opportunity to make some comparisons and observations between the two conflicts.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II the Korean peninsular was a vital location for both western powers and communist forces. It offered the US and its allies a strategic staging post right on the doorstep of China as well as the south eastern tip of the USSR.
In 1949 the peninsular was divided along the thirty-eighth parallel roughly as it is today. Because the US viewed Europe as their priority as well as having heavy troop numbers in Japan, the forces withdrew from post war South Korea and as a result, the following year saw Kim Il-sung lead an invasion which forced South Korean troops to the southern tip of the peninsular. Forced to intervein, huge numbers of US and UN personnel managed, with the South Koreans, to push North Korean and Chinese forces back over and beyond the parallel. When in 1953 an armistice was finally signed, the US kept a large number of troops in the country, keen not to repeat its earlier mistake.
Even today, South Korea remains a strategically vital US and western ally. Becasue of the need for South Korea to remain stable, US and UN troops have remained there. Post war South Korea was far from perfect but the alternative was a lot worse.
And now Iraq faces a similarly uncertain future. Although the build up of the war in Iraq was different, the official end of US combat missions sees the state of the country in a precarious position, as was South Korea in 1953.
Iraq is strategically important within the Middle East and a stable Iraq will mean a much safer region especially with a belligerent Iran - trying for nuclear armament - looking over the border. Iran can not be allowed to destabilise the whole of the region and so a strong Iraq is key. Many Iraqi voices - from Sunnis to Shias, from politicians to generals - have expressed concern that the country is not yet ready to stand alone.
Even after last month's withdrawal, 50,000 conventional US troops plus 4,500 special forces remain to 'advise and assist' the Iraqis. These troops are going to be needed in the months ahead and unless an unforeseen change occurs, it is going to be very difficult for President Obama to pull out completely as he insists will happen in 2011.
The reports coming out of Iraq daily are cause for concern but we can also take positives out of what has happened in an otherwise awful seven year post invasion period. The country is no longer ruled by a brutal dictator; democracy is working all-be-it at a frustratingly slow pace and Iraq is now more democratic than any other Middle Eastern country - excluding Lebanon (it was more than thirty years after the war before South Korea became democratic). Iraq has the 12th fastest growing economy for 2010 and oil and gas contracts have been signed with international companies. This should enable a sharp rise in production very soon which could eventually put levels second only to Saudi Arabia.
After all of the pain and suffering Iraq has gone through since 2003 and for decades before that, we can not allow the country to slip further into chaos. The biggest mistake made by the US Department of Defence, supported by Iraq Administrator Paul Bremer, made to disband the Iraqi army. It is impossible to expect today's infant military machine to stand alone so soon after its formation. Complete troop withdrawal should happen when the country is ready and not to make political gains prior to the 2012 election campaign.
Ecrivain Man
In the immediate aftermath of World War II the Korean peninsular was a vital location for both western powers and communist forces. It offered the US and its allies a strategic staging post right on the doorstep of China as well as the south eastern tip of the USSR.
In 1949 the peninsular was divided along the thirty-eighth parallel roughly as it is today. Because the US viewed Europe as their priority as well as having heavy troop numbers in Japan, the forces withdrew from post war South Korea and as a result, the following year saw Kim Il-sung lead an invasion which forced South Korean troops to the southern tip of the peninsular. Forced to intervein, huge numbers of US and UN personnel managed, with the South Koreans, to push North Korean and Chinese forces back over and beyond the parallel. When in 1953 an armistice was finally signed, the US kept a large number of troops in the country, keen not to repeat its earlier mistake.
Even today, South Korea remains a strategically vital US and western ally. Becasue of the need for South Korea to remain stable, US and UN troops have remained there. Post war South Korea was far from perfect but the alternative was a lot worse.
And now Iraq faces a similarly uncertain future. Although the build up of the war in Iraq was different, the official end of US combat missions sees the state of the country in a precarious position, as was South Korea in 1953.
Iraq is strategically important within the Middle East and a stable Iraq will mean a much safer region especially with a belligerent Iran - trying for nuclear armament - looking over the border. Iran can not be allowed to destabilise the whole of the region and so a strong Iraq is key. Many Iraqi voices - from Sunnis to Shias, from politicians to generals - have expressed concern that the country is not yet ready to stand alone.
Even after last month's withdrawal, 50,000 conventional US troops plus 4,500 special forces remain to 'advise and assist' the Iraqis. These troops are going to be needed in the months ahead and unless an unforeseen change occurs, it is going to be very difficult for President Obama to pull out completely as he insists will happen in 2011.
The reports coming out of Iraq daily are cause for concern but we can also take positives out of what has happened in an otherwise awful seven year post invasion period. The country is no longer ruled by a brutal dictator; democracy is working all-be-it at a frustratingly slow pace and Iraq is now more democratic than any other Middle Eastern country - excluding Lebanon (it was more than thirty years after the war before South Korea became democratic). Iraq has the 12th fastest growing economy for 2010 and oil and gas contracts have been signed with international companies. This should enable a sharp rise in production very soon which could eventually put levels second only to Saudi Arabia.
After all of the pain and suffering Iraq has gone through since 2003 and for decades before that, we can not allow the country to slip further into chaos. The biggest mistake made by the US Department of Defence, supported by Iraq Administrator Paul Bremer, made to disband the Iraqi army. It is impossible to expect today's infant military machine to stand alone so soon after its formation. Complete troop withdrawal should happen when the country is ready and not to make political gains prior to the 2012 election campaign.
Ecrivain Man
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Making a Difference? The Cluster Munition Ban
On 1st August 2010, a global treaty banning the use of cluster munitions came into force. States having signed and ratified the convention are also banned from stockpiling the weapons and are obliged to compensate victims.
Cluster munitions were developed for a huge Cold War confrontation that thankfully never happened and thus are outdated. The weapons are indiscriminate and pose a threat, not only to civilians, but also to our own troops. A single bomb is designed to cover large area and can be launched by artillery or aircraft. As it nears its target, the shell releases a number of smaller bomblets – each of which can be devastating. Those that fail to detonate often remain active for years and some estimates from charity organisations claim that 98% of victims are civilians, one third of which are children.
In principle, the Convention on Cluster Munitions looks promising; to date it has been adopted by 108 states and praise has come from such dignitaries as Pope Benedict XVI and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. However, questions must be asked about the effectiveness of the convention. Although 108 countries have singed, at the time of writing, only 38 of these states have ratified the convention. Some of the biggest stockpilers - including the USA, Russia and China - have not signed up to the convention and this means positive effects are going to be limited.
Pressure from the EU, the UN and allies must be exerted on these three huge military powers in an attempt to pull them into the fold.
Ecrivain Man
Cluster munitions were developed for a huge Cold War confrontation that thankfully never happened and thus are outdated. The weapons are indiscriminate and pose a threat, not only to civilians, but also to our own troops. A single bomb is designed to cover large area and can be launched by artillery or aircraft. As it nears its target, the shell releases a number of smaller bomblets – each of which can be devastating. Those that fail to detonate often remain active for years and some estimates from charity organisations claim that 98% of victims are civilians, one third of which are children.
In principle, the Convention on Cluster Munitions looks promising; to date it has been adopted by 108 states and praise has come from such dignitaries as Pope Benedict XVI and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. However, questions must be asked about the effectiveness of the convention. Although 108 countries have singed, at the time of writing, only 38 of these states have ratified the convention. Some of the biggest stockpilers - including the USA, Russia and China - have not signed up to the convention and this means positive effects are going to be limited.
Pressure from the EU, the UN and allies must be exerted on these three huge military powers in an attempt to pull them into the fold.
Ecrivain Man
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Lack of Flood Relief Encouraging Pakistani Radicals
During the evening of 21st May 2003 I was on the roof of a 4 story building in Algiers when an earthquake of 6.8 hit - the worst the country had experienced in twenty years. The following morning, two of us from the company I was working with visited the epicentre of Boumerdes and its surrounding regions. The carnage we witnessed was appalling and a decision was made that the following day we would personally accompany the aid that the company was donating to the areas most affected. Within Boumerdes the authorities were disorganised although it could be said that they were in control (there was widespread criticism of how the government handled the whole situation and indeed President Bouteflika had to flee the town during a visit). However, when we moved out to less populated areas the mood changed and we were unable to remain in any one place for longer than a few minutes. The reason? Because elements of Algeria's Islamic militant groups were taking advantage of the carnage caused by the earthquake. Suddenly, they were on the streets of small towns and villages not only controlling the aid stations and the distribution but also imposing their form of hardline Islamism; girls and women not wearing the hijab were refused aid and men objecting to this were beaten.
Therefore, I am not surprised to have learned over the past week or so that militant groups are now distributing aid in the affected areas of Pakistan's floods. Various reports have emerged of extremists cashing in on the government's weak response to the disaster. An example came to light recently; Jamaat-ud-Dawa -a banned Islamic charity which was accused by the UN of fronting the militants allegedly responsible for the planning and execution of the Mumbai attacks in 2008 - have been helping in areas where the hard-stretched authorities are unable to. And any aid they distribute comes with propaganda literature and stern religious and political rhetoric. Elsewhere stories have emerged of orphans being taken away to study in Madrases and militant charities taking advantage of the chaos of an unorganised and corrupt government.
Today in the Sunday Times, Jemima Khan writes an article on plight of Pakistanis from the grassroots level and her report makes grim reading. Up to two million homeless, no functioning infrastructure, no clean water, cholera outbreaks and reports of up to 70% of the World Bank aid has disappeared or been badly spent. All of this helps to fertilise radical Islam.
A lot has been made recently on Pakistan's exporting of terrorism including in one of my earlier posts. However, we in the west must also accept some of the criticism. For extreme radicalism to grow, they must have an unhappy proportion of a population of whom to appeal to. By the west not responding with more aid and logistical assistance to distribute this aid, we are fueling the fire desired by the Taliban and al-Qaeda
Ecrivain Man
Therefore, I am not surprised to have learned over the past week or so that militant groups are now distributing aid in the affected areas of Pakistan's floods. Various reports have emerged of extremists cashing in on the government's weak response to the disaster. An example came to light recently; Jamaat-ud-Dawa -a banned Islamic charity which was accused by the UN of fronting the militants allegedly responsible for the planning and execution of the Mumbai attacks in 2008 - have been helping in areas where the hard-stretched authorities are unable to. And any aid they distribute comes with propaganda literature and stern religious and political rhetoric. Elsewhere stories have emerged of orphans being taken away to study in Madrases and militant charities taking advantage of the chaos of an unorganised and corrupt government.
Today in the Sunday Times, Jemima Khan writes an article on plight of Pakistanis from the grassroots level and her report makes grim reading. Up to two million homeless, no functioning infrastructure, no clean water, cholera outbreaks and reports of up to 70% of the World Bank aid has disappeared or been badly spent. All of this helps to fertilise radical Islam.
A lot has been made recently on Pakistan's exporting of terrorism including in one of my earlier posts. However, we in the west must also accept some of the criticism. For extreme radicalism to grow, they must have an unhappy proportion of a population of whom to appeal to. By the west not responding with more aid and logistical assistance to distribute this aid, we are fueling the fire desired by the Taliban and al-Qaeda
Ecrivain Man
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
...well they started it!
For the United States of America, the tragic events of September 11 2001 caused wide spread shock and created a sense of self-righteous isolation. President Bush – at the time with approval ratings of 90% - declared a War on Terror. Bush warned the rest of the world ‘… you are with us or you are with the terrorists.’ – a statement far too black and white to have any sort of justification and an illustration that the Bush regime incorrectly saw the terrorist threat as singular. The general population believed (wrongly as it happened) that they had until that day, been immune from terrorist attacks and looked to strong leadership to protect them.
Another thing many Americans lost after the attack was their sense of perspective seen in parallel with their frightening rise in patriotism. Suddenly it was acceptable to go to war in countries many Americans had barely heard of, even for the most tenuous of links to 9/11. Congress was able to pass the Homeland Security Act . Hate crime rose against not just Muslims but also against those perceived to be Muslims (including Sikhs and people with Middle Eastern appearance).
In many quarters it seemed to be overlooked that among those thousands of deaths were casualties from dozens of other countries and many different religions including Islam.
It therefore came as no surprise to me to find that the majority of New Yorkers are against the building of a Mosque and Islamic Culture Centre close to Ground Zero.
November’s mid-term elections have religion, tolerance and race as central issues (Arizona’s immigration bill is an example). Former Republican vice-presidential nominee and 2012 presidential hopeful Sarah Palin – keen to benefit from the popular anti-Muslim sentiment - has made it known that she is opposed to this constuction. Former Republican White House spokesman and neocon - Newt Gingrich - has declared that ‘...there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia’. I am assuming that this narrow minded statement is a sign of his opposition. Does he mean that we should now enforce Saudi laws on American Muslims? Do we now stone to death a Muslim lady in Los Angeles for committing adultery? Do we cut off the hand of an Islamic thief from Littlerock? Not a helpful argument I would suggest - reacting to religious intolerance with religious intolerance is self-defeating.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to his credit, is sticking to the decision and has stated that men and women of the United States are fighting distant wars for the individual’s right to choose which religion to support and that it is not for governments to make this choice.
How, I ask, is constructing a religious building close to (and not as is ofter reported on) Groud Zero an insult to those 3000 people who perished? The irony is that this Islamic centre was planned to encourage interfaith dialogue.
Ecrivain Man
Another thing many Americans lost after the attack was their sense of perspective seen in parallel with their frightening rise in patriotism. Suddenly it was acceptable to go to war in countries many Americans had barely heard of, even for the most tenuous of links to 9/11. Congress was able to pass the Homeland Security Act . Hate crime rose against not just Muslims but also against those perceived to be Muslims (including Sikhs and people with Middle Eastern appearance).
In many quarters it seemed to be overlooked that among those thousands of deaths were casualties from dozens of other countries and many different religions including Islam.
It therefore came as no surprise to me to find that the majority of New Yorkers are against the building of a Mosque and Islamic Culture Centre close to Ground Zero.
November’s mid-term elections have religion, tolerance and race as central issues (Arizona’s immigration bill is an example). Former Republican vice-presidential nominee and 2012 presidential hopeful Sarah Palin – keen to benefit from the popular anti-Muslim sentiment - has made it known that she is opposed to this constuction. Former Republican White House spokesman and neocon - Newt Gingrich - has declared that ‘...there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia’. I am assuming that this narrow minded statement is a sign of his opposition. Does he mean that we should now enforce Saudi laws on American Muslims? Do we now stone to death a Muslim lady in Los Angeles for committing adultery? Do we cut off the hand of an Islamic thief from Littlerock? Not a helpful argument I would suggest - reacting to religious intolerance with religious intolerance is self-defeating.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to his credit, is sticking to the decision and has stated that men and women of the United States are fighting distant wars for the individual’s right to choose which religion to support and that it is not for governments to make this choice.
How, I ask, is constructing a religious building close to (and not as is ofter reported on) Groud Zero an insult to those 3000 people who perished? The irony is that this Islamic centre was planned to encourage interfaith dialogue.
Ecrivain Man
A True Viking
I spend a lot of time in Norway and I feel an affinity towards the country and its people. I would therefore like to briefly mention that 137 years ago today (August 3rd) , King Haakon VII, one of Norway’s most respected kings was born.
He is perhaps remembered above all else for the courageous decisions he made during World War II thus inspiring the men and women of Norway during that dark period.
On 9th April 1940, Norwegian forces faced a German naval detachment under orders to capture Oslo. The Norwegians stood firm against the invaders causing them to withdraw with heavy casualties. This gave the Royal family time to flee. A meeting between the king and a German diplomat later followed where Haakon refused to recognise Nazi sympathizer Vidkun Quisling as Prime Minister nor would he tell the Norwegian population to cease their opposition to the Nazis. This refusal and his threat to abdicate should the Norwegian government cooperate with the Germans was instrumental in uniting the Norwegian resistance throughout the 5 years of occupation. King Haakon and Queen Maud (a daughter of Britain's King Edward VII) fled to the UK where they spent the remainder of the war, making a jubilant return to Norway on 7th June 1945
Ecrivain Man
He is perhaps remembered above all else for the courageous decisions he made during World War II thus inspiring the men and women of Norway during that dark period.
On 9th April 1940, Norwegian forces faced a German naval detachment under orders to capture Oslo. The Norwegians stood firm against the invaders causing them to withdraw with heavy casualties. This gave the Royal family time to flee. A meeting between the king and a German diplomat later followed where Haakon refused to recognise Nazi sympathizer Vidkun Quisling as Prime Minister nor would he tell the Norwegian population to cease their opposition to the Nazis. This refusal and his threat to abdicate should the Norwegian government cooperate with the Germans was instrumental in uniting the Norwegian resistance throughout the 5 years of occupation. King Haakon and Queen Maud (a daughter of Britain's King Edward VII) fled to the UK where they spent the remainder of the war, making a jubilant return to Norway on 7th June 1945
Ecrivain Man
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Trident’s Strident Step Back?
Because the £20 billion cost for the Trident nuclear deterrent will now come out of the MoD’s budget and not, as previously thought, from the Treasury, I suspect that pre-election promises of implementing Trident may come under yet more pressure within the coalition ranks. Let’s not forget that even before the question of which department has to pay for it cropped up, the LibDems were against having a new nuclear deterrent.
The fact that Dr Liam Fox and his team are already under enormous pressure to make savings within the Ministry of Defence without effectively having to find an additional £20 billion, makes the anticipation of the findings of the ongoing Security and Defence Review in the MoD and Whitehall more fascinating yet. Of course, the key questions which must be asked in the review are; what are the key threats to the United Kingdom both now and in the future and which courses of action will best keep us safe?
So what can we do without? Would an upgraded nuclear deterrent be at the expense of new naval vessels, fighter aircraft and soldiers on the ground? This is very possible. The planned building of new aircraft carriers would most likely be halted, there is already talk of grounding Tornadoes and of course there are ongoing questions surrounding the Eurofighter project. I’m sure equally savage cuts would hit the army. Yet this type of equipment is exactly what we need right now (although I accept the Eurofighter was designed to combat Russian MiGs). The warfare we face today requires conventional, mobile, well equipped armed forces with an ability to adapt to changing situations. It has taken a war in Iraq and an ongoing war in Afghanistan to achieve this but the UK's armed forces are just about there. This conventional modus operandi should be reflected in the latest round of defence spending.
In addition, I feel that Security and Defence Reviews should be conducted more often to reflect the dynamic face of international conflict (the last review was in the late 1990s) as well as trying to predict through long term intelligence assessments the type of threats we will face in the future. A nuclear missile launched from a Trident submarine is not required in Helmand Province or on the streets of Basra. On the other hand, should, ten years from now, we once again find ourselves in a Cold War, then the argument changes.
Ecrivain Man
The fact that Dr Liam Fox and his team are already under enormous pressure to make savings within the Ministry of Defence without effectively having to find an additional £20 billion, makes the anticipation of the findings of the ongoing Security and Defence Review in the MoD and Whitehall more fascinating yet. Of course, the key questions which must be asked in the review are; what are the key threats to the United Kingdom both now and in the future and which courses of action will best keep us safe?
So what can we do without? Would an upgraded nuclear deterrent be at the expense of new naval vessels, fighter aircraft and soldiers on the ground? This is very possible. The planned building of new aircraft carriers would most likely be halted, there is already talk of grounding Tornadoes and of course there are ongoing questions surrounding the Eurofighter project. I’m sure equally savage cuts would hit the army. Yet this type of equipment is exactly what we need right now (although I accept the Eurofighter was designed to combat Russian MiGs). The warfare we face today requires conventional, mobile, well equipped armed forces with an ability to adapt to changing situations. It has taken a war in Iraq and an ongoing war in Afghanistan to achieve this but the UK's armed forces are just about there. This conventional modus operandi should be reflected in the latest round of defence spending.
In addition, I feel that Security and Defence Reviews should be conducted more often to reflect the dynamic face of international conflict (the last review was in the late 1990s) as well as trying to predict through long term intelligence assessments the type of threats we will face in the future. A nuclear missile launched from a Trident submarine is not required in Helmand Province or on the streets of Basra. On the other hand, should, ten years from now, we once again find ourselves in a Cold War, then the argument changes.
Ecrivain Man
Friday, 30 July 2010
Mississippi Lobster Screams at Scottish Salmond and British Petroleum
OK, I’ll accept that with mid-term elections just around the corner, US politicians on Capital Hill were always going to scream at BP and outgoing CEO Tony Haywood in particular. I’ll accept that for the first time in 12 years since their rebranding, the Americans have suddenly started referring to BP as British Petroleum. I’ll accept that that BP and Haywood – unjustly in my opinion – will probably end up shouldering all of the blame for the devastating Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico – even though US companies and US workers sat on and worked the well (Transocean operated the rig, Cameron built the blowout preventer that failed to shut down the well and Halliburton cemented the oil drill into place underwater). However, what I find really hard to accept is the sudden posturing from Senator Robert Menendez and the congressional inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber – and the dragging of BP into the fray.
While I personally felt uncomfortable about the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi in August 2009, the sudden cacophony of noise coming from Capital Hill is irritating to say the least.
The UK Government and the Scottish Parliament are not answerable to the US Government for any actions taken within the UK and under UK jurisdiction. I agree with Jack Straw and Kenny MacAskill (former UK Justice Secretary and Scottish Justice Secretary respectively) for refusing to give evidence to a committee hearing of any foreign legislature not just the US.
And who can blame Tony Haywood for declining his invitation after the last committee grilling from previously anonymous senators falling over one another - rabid like - to score cheap political points.
This hearing would have been minor news at best had it not been for the GoM disaster. Instead, the US Senate has decided to once again hound BP even though there is no evidence that al-Megrahi’s release is linked to BP in Libya.
However, within our own country, questions should be asked about this sorry affair - not least of which is; why did Mr MacAskill make a personal visit to al-Megrahi in his cell? Shortly after this visit, the Libyan dropped his call for an appeal and consequently his release was assured.
Finally, one image will always remain with me from 20th August 2009 – when the convicted terrorist al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli, TV pictures showed Libyans waiving Scottish flags.
Are you proud Mr Salmond?
Ecrivain Man
While I personally felt uncomfortable about the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi in August 2009, the sudden cacophony of noise coming from Capital Hill is irritating to say the least.
The UK Government and the Scottish Parliament are not answerable to the US Government for any actions taken within the UK and under UK jurisdiction. I agree with Jack Straw and Kenny MacAskill (former UK Justice Secretary and Scottish Justice Secretary respectively) for refusing to give evidence to a committee hearing of any foreign legislature not just the US.
And who can blame Tony Haywood for declining his invitation after the last committee grilling from previously anonymous senators falling over one another - rabid like - to score cheap political points.
This hearing would have been minor news at best had it not been for the GoM disaster. Instead, the US Senate has decided to once again hound BP even though there is no evidence that al-Megrahi’s release is linked to BP in Libya.
However, within our own country, questions should be asked about this sorry affair - not least of which is; why did Mr MacAskill make a personal visit to al-Megrahi in his cell? Shortly after this visit, the Libyan dropped his call for an appeal and consequently his release was assured.
Finally, one image will always remain with me from 20th August 2009 – when the convicted terrorist al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli, TV pictures showed Libyans waiving Scottish flags.
Are you proud Mr Salmond?
Ecrivain Man
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Heard the one about the American, the Israeli and the Pakistani....
I’ve been observing the media response to Cameron’s various comments while he’s ‘on tour’. Most notable was his admission that we are very much the junior partner in our Special Relationship with the USA, his liking Gaza to a prison camp and yesterday his rather surprising (yet refreshing) remarks concerning Pakistan’s double dealing over terrorism. While I do not have the time nor desire to comb through all media outlets, I’ve found a lot of negative sentiment towards Cameron’s forthright views and am not sure why this would be the case.
· Can anyone seriously argue that we are anything other than the junior partner in our so called ‘Special Relationship’ with the United States?
· The deplorable conditions in which Palestinians exist in Gaza go beyond that of a prison camp so why should he worry about upsetting the Israelis or a small number of neo-cons within his own Conservative party by admitting that this is the case?
· There is a long held belief that – in spite of denials by Lt Gen Hamid Gul – Pakistan and the ISI in particular, are not only sympathetic towards al-Qaeda and the Taliban but offer direct tactical and strategic backing (a belief held long before posts from the nauseating Julian Assange and his Wikileaks released their documents).
Maybe in the modern political world of soundbites and spin it comes as a surprise when we hear a straight talking and – even more rare within the Palace of Westminster and other seats of government around the world – an honest(ish) politician.
Ecrivain Man
· Can anyone seriously argue that we are anything other than the junior partner in our so called ‘Special Relationship’ with the United States?
· The deplorable conditions in which Palestinians exist in Gaza go beyond that of a prison camp so why should he worry about upsetting the Israelis or a small number of neo-cons within his own Conservative party by admitting that this is the case?
· There is a long held belief that – in spite of denials by Lt Gen Hamid Gul – Pakistan and the ISI in particular, are not only sympathetic towards al-Qaeda and the Taliban but offer direct tactical and strategic backing (a belief held long before posts from the nauseating Julian Assange and his Wikileaks released their documents).
Maybe in the modern political world of soundbites and spin it comes as a surprise when we hear a straight talking and – even more rare within the Palace of Westminster and other seats of government around the world – an honest(ish) politician.
Ecrivain Man
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Ahem....Won't the real Ecrivain Man please stand up...
Well, here I go. This is going to be the first of many entires for 'The Pen or the Sword?'. I intend writing various posts about international and current affairs, security, human rights and also some of the subjects I'll be coverning on my new course - an MA in War in the Modern World at Kings College, London. All topics are related and I aim to move seamlessly from one to another - mmm, we'll see.
I hope to get plenty of feedback from you and don’t be shy in letting me know your thoughts…I’m a big boy.
I intend to start another two blogs on different subjects a little later. More about that when it happens though.
Anyway, keep checking the site and spread the word.
Talk soon
Ecrivain Man
I hope to get plenty of feedback from you and don’t be shy in letting me know your thoughts…I’m a big boy.
I intend to start another two blogs on different subjects a little later. More about that when it happens though.
Anyway, keep checking the site and spread the word.
Talk soon
Ecrivain Man
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
