Following on from the below article, it appears General Dannatt is proposing the British Armed Forces adopts a frugal approach to defense spending. This will involve ditching 'big-ticket' defense projects and re-focussing defense spending on immediate needs, such as supporting 'stability operations', and away from post-Cold War strategic defense spending.
General Dannatt describes the current British security situation thus:
"We are in an era of persistent conflict. Iraq and Afghanistan are not aberrations, they are signposts to the future. We risk becoming irrelevant if we do not adapt right across the board."
The General also accepts that, wrongly or rightly our reputation as a powerful ally to America and global military force has been "called into question" due to Iraq.
"Credibility with the United States is earned by being an ally that can be relied on to state clearly what it will do and then do it effectively. Credibility is also linked to the vital currency of reputation and in this respect there is a recognition that our national and military reputation and credibility, unfairly or not, have been called into question at several levels in the eyes of our most important ally as a result of some aspects of the Iraq campaign."
Not surpisingly, General Dannatt is ferociously sharp and his points clearly well considered. The recording of yesterday's speech reminded me more of a presentation by a corporate management consultant, than a military general. Quite fitting I feel, considering once you cut through the euthamisms his proposed solutions are all too common: we must raine in unecessary spending, take stock of our needs and requirements, and focus on what we do best.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, British Army Chair: Dr Robin Niblett, Director, Chatham House
In strategic and inclusive terms the speaker will give a view of future conflict, dominated by the concept of hybrid operations. He will explain the implications of this for the land environment in particular, showing how the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have acted as a catalyst for 'transformation in contact' and describe how the Army could continue to evolve so that it can better contribute to defence and security in the future.
The question and answer session in this meeting was off the record.
VBS.TV has been at the fore-front of programming that is sometimes clueless but deeply hilarious. and other times crucially . They boldly go where most people don't care to look. This is excellent.
INSIDE AFGHANISTAN WITH BEN ANDERSON In Inside Afghanistan VBS joins BBC correspondent and former Iranian captiveBen Anderson to review some of the footage he shot on his latest foray to the colossally mismanaged logjam that is NATO's war against the resurgent Afghani Taliban. Here's what Ben had to say about what he shot (we mean with a camera).
"This series is about 24 hours in Helmand, Afghanistan's most violent province. I was with the Queen's Company, British soldiers who normally guard Buckingham Palace. Their job was to train the Afghan National Army while fighting the Taliban, an almost impossible combination. On the day this was shot, we were ambushed late in the morning, then surrounded in a small house belonging to a terrified Afghan family. The battle to get out of the house lasted eight hours. The two most senior soldiers there - both veterans of Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Northern Ireland - agreed that it was the most intense day they had ever experienced. I spent two months in Afghanistan, and I'm sure that what I saw in Helmand is going on in many other parts of the country. We could be there for decades."
PS: If you're in Britain this week, also check out Ben Anderson's Jack: A Soldier's Story on BBC Three.
Despite international eventssuggesting otherwise, Russia and America yesterday stressed the positive working relationship between their governments on a broad range of issues. President Obama and Secretary Lavrov expressed their professional respect of each other and their counterparts, ushering in an era of pragmatic co-operation. Check out the video of the resulting press conference here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8039346.stm
Chiming with this sentiment, Secretary Clinton recently remarked; "It is, I think, old thinking to say that we have a disagreement in one area, therefore we shouldn't work on something else that is of overwhelming importance."
The guys over at CTLab are really on to something at the moment. I attended a lecture at the ICA (with my partner in academic crime) on Monday given by Antoine Bousquet who speaks here. So what does happen when the command and control structure is flattened...
'First, they leaked details of naval and air bases to be established on the shores of the Black Sea in the breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia, whose independence is recognised by Moscow alone. Then they signed an air defence treaty with the former Soviet republic of Belarus, apparently paving the way for an anti-missile defence system to counter one planned by the previous US administration across the border in Poland. Moscow appears to have persuaded the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan to oust the US from its air base at Manas, outside Bishkek, in exchange for $2bn (€1.6bn, £1.4bn) in loans, and $150m in financial aid.'
That all amounts to quite a few moves on the great chess board. However this is a common trend amongst post-Soviet and pseudo-democratic states; the external projection of strength is designed to distract the gaze from internal weakness.
On Saturday (13th September 2008), BBC Radio 4's Beyond Westminster hosted a fascinating discussion on the nature and future of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United Nations. Those invited onto the programme did an excellent job of examining the complex world both organisations now find themselves deeply involved in. I have no further comment to add to this discussion, so I have posted my (very) rough notes below.
UN & NATO relied upon by the Western world as the ‘twin pillars of peace’.
John Bolton (former US Ambassador to United Nations). UN is at best an irrelevance and at worst an obstacle. The two biggest threats to the world are terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The world sees its existential threats as the same as America. Feels the UN has an inability to ‘resolve’ conflicts. Peacekeepers are stationed on conflict lines and can remain there for decades arguably helping maintain the status-quo/maintain the unresolved conflict. A proponent of the creation of a League of Democracies.
David Hanney (Britain’s Ambassador to the UN). Skeptical of the possibility of removing the veto power for certain nations. He was the author of 100 recommendations made to Koffe Annan, UN Secretary General, on how to reform the ‘outdated’ organization structure. These recommendations included the ‘responsibility to protect’ idea, stating that the UN had a responsibility to protect the people of a country if the country was unable to do so. In contrast to John Bolton’s view, he believes the UN to be ‘indispensable but not very effective’.
Maurice Jochams (Senior NATO Official and Director of NATO Operations in Afghanistan). Since 9/11 the geographical scope of NATO has increased dramatically. He believes that although Georgia joining NATO could be perceived as provocative by the Russians, it should be in their interests as having democratic countries on their borders will increase stability.
Simon Jenkins (Author and Journalist). Believes NATO should be disbanded as it is outdated and outmoded. Russia and Britain have been belligerent in recent years. As an organisation which prevented Soviet expansion into Europe, it was excellent. Now though, there is nothing positive to be gained from taunting Russia by allowing membership from Poland, CzechRepublic, etc. Russia will eventually respond aggressively to what it views as an aggressive threat. Russia is not stable enough to start enraging. NATO has gone back to being an ‘artificial confrontation organisation’ and it is dangerous. UN Security Council membership should be decided on some definition of power and some idea of a ‘being a policeman in an area where there is none’. The UN is a vast gravy train, and it is a wonder that anything gets done at all. It is at its best when it is a forum.
Dr. Paul Cornish (International Security Programme – Chatham House). NATO mishandled the build-up to and aftermath of the Georgia war but did not cause Russian tanks to cross into Georgian territory. Russian attempts to join NATO were mischievous. The recent conflict in Georgia will now be used by numerous Balkan and Caucus states as proof of their need to join NATO so as to shield them from the Russian threat. The war in Afghanistan is not going well and it is due to the lack of cohesion between the NATO members. On the UN, he believes that as spheres of influence, diplomatic conflicts and the high-wielded power of the veto become more commonly used [following the post-9/11 example of the United States perhaps] the UN is again becoming paralysed.
Margo Light (Professor of International Relations - LSE). Believes NATO to be the cause of the Georgia war which it now fights to contain. NATO has expanded too far already and should not accept the Ukraine and Georgia as members. The UN has benefited hugely when the US has acted as one of the main protagonists of the UN. In recent years all the US has sought to do is undermine the organisation and this significantly discredits and disarms the organisation.
On the anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks, President Dmitry Medvedev drew a direct comparison between 9/11 and the recent war in Georgia/South Ossetia.
"The world has changed and it occurred to me that 8 August 2008 has become for Russia as 11 September 2001 for the United States. This is an accurate comparison corresponding to Russian realities. Humankind has drawn lessons from 11 September tragedy and other tragic events. I would like the world to draw lessons also from these events [in South Ossetia]."
This is one of many Western-Russian comparisons the Kremlin tag-team has been drawing recently. Commenting on the poor diplomatic relationship between the UK and Russia, Vladimir Putin indicated why he thought they were unlikely to improve.
"Why do you allow UK territory to be used [as] a launching pad to fight Russia? Imagine if we gave sanctuary to armed members of the IRA - that's why its not possible to build normal relations with Britain."
Relationships between countries are very much like relationships between people. Each country has it's own specific culture, like each person their own unique personality. Some people's personalities are immediately compatible, due to similarities in taste or attitude, and as a result people become friends. Some people have shared similar experiences or have shared a particular experience, and are drawn together as a result. It is in this way that relationships between people take shape and in a similar manner, so to do relationships between cultures, peoples, and states.
These comparative statements provoke a gut reaction that is difficult to ignore; a rejection of the comparison, the very suggestion showing an unsympathetic attitude and a strong feeling that it is based on a gross misunderstanding of fact. But taking action based on this feeling is deeply wrong.
For decades Russia and the West have understood each other as opposites. 'Democratic capitalist USA' and 'authoritarian communist Russia' - content in themselves, at ease with their polar opposite, and so settled in their relationship. The West and Russia were best understood, as was their relationship, by comparisons. This framework is now obsolete.
Russia is attempting to build a relationship built on similarities and should be implored for doing so. As I have indicated before, I am of the firm belief that a strong Russia can also be a benign Russia. But in their zealous drive for equal friendship, they find a largely sceptical Western audience.
For the West, it is difficult to ignore the rife political violence, the sham democracy, the transparently cynical foreign policy and capitalist gangsterism which has come to define Putin's eight years in office. With no real break from the Putin-era, Medvedev rests on a cursed thrown. And so recent history looms large and relatively recent historical precedent, as irritating as Russia may find it, is quite hard for the West to ignore.
Let us remember, Russia is not the only state to be defined by terrible acts and riddled with hypocrisy. Their old adversary the United States lectures on human rights and liberal democracy while propping up oil-rich Gulf states and running a shameful PoW camp in Cuba. And who, they say, is Britain to tell us of Empire.
How then will these individuals replenish their relationship? Unfortunately, I have no answer only that time will tell.
Following on from the below article, it appears General Dannatt is proposing the British Armed Forces adopts a frugal approach to defense spending. This will involve ditching 'big-ticket' defense projects and re-focussing defense spending on immediate needs, such as supporting 'stability operations', and away from post-Cold War strategic defense spending.
Posts
