Iran
The Telegraph says that the CIA is supporting terrorists group in
Iran . There seems three major problems with this. One, the morality of it. The campaigns are against soldier and governmental officials, which perhaps makes it less terroristic than if it was against civilians, but these things rarely remains so compartmentalised. Second, the hypocrisy of it, particularly with respect to criticism of Iranian activity in Iraq. Finally, the fact that it might be counter-productive, as the article notes these groups are not particulary pro-the US.
I think these things need a very specific goal if they are to be successful. On the other hand if one wants a policy it is undoubtably a better policy than a military attack, which I think just won't succeed. The Times
reports that some US Generals plan to resign if Iraq is attacked. One shouldn't read too much into this, there are loads of Generals. Perhaps more interesting is the suggestion that the US Navy is being 'seriously careful' as it doesn't want to get involved in an incident with Iran that might provoke the White House.
Labels: defence
James Rogers
James Rogers, who we last heard of declaring that "Britain is unquestionably the second most powerful country in the world" now
writes (in an article that reminded me of the old story that Berwick upon Tweed was once at war with Russia) that:
[Russia] has an economy little larger than a European city like Paris or London
How can a man with so many academic qualifications be so ill-informed? I thnk that might have almost been true of GDP statistics about a decade ago, when the economy was at rock bottom and the rouble undervalued. But even then the comparision would have needed some explanation. Today, it's far from the truth. As of 2006 the IMF estimates that Russian GDP was $975bn, with UK $2.4 trillion. This makes London's GDP about $400bn, ie just over 40% of Russia's. For 2007 the estimate for Russia is nearly $200bn more, for London just $20bn. That mean's Russia's economy is not 'a little larger', it's a lot larger. PPP estimates, which have at least as good a claim to accuracy in this (and often a better guide to the future) are $1.7trn to $1.9trn, making London about $320bn, or 1/5th the size of Russia.
Labels: Decent Left, defence, economics
John Howard and Barack Obama
I couldn't say I was much of a supporter of Barack Obama's campaign for the White House, but I was impressed by his reply to John Howard's ridiculous comments. If you missed those, they went like this:
If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats
This seems to me not only desperately unoriginal - I imagine every single planned withdrawal of troops from anywhere has seen someone declare it was a victory for someone or other - but also a rather careless intervention in US politcs by a foreign government. Howard has essentially stated that he cannot work with a Democratic president.
In any case Obama's reply was spot on, noting that the US had in Iraq 140,000 (I think 133,000 now) troops to Australia's 1,400 (actually that's their total in the 'theatre', it's about 850 in Iraq itself). I can never understand why, if this battle is as important as people like Howard say it is, they don't have ten times as many troops there as they do. Australia should have around 9,000 troops if it was to have the same troops to population as the US,
ie 10 times as many, and 2,400 if it was the same as the UK.
But why should they not have more troops than the US or UK if Howard believes it to be so important? Australia fielded four divisions overseas in World War II, when the population was less than half what it is today. Howard is comforting Osama as he attacks Obama.
Labels: defence
Gerard Baker
So at the risk of finding myself in the dock with him [Tony Blair] when the modern elites have their Nuremberg, let me take issue.
In
The Times. Do you think he might take himself a bit too seriously?
Labels: Decent Left, defence, England, Iraq
Blair and buggery
Jamie links to a Blair speech in which the Prime Minister
warns the Army about cowardice. As Jamie says, Blairs farewell is essentially: "We’ve all let him down in our various ways, and we should all be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves."
Jamie
also links to the
new searchable online database of Old Baily Trials. He finds the ones involving animal buggery. I found the
sad case of George and Basil Blog, who had their gold watch nicked.
Labels: Blair, Bloggy, Decent Left, defence, England
The Top Dog Index
Despite my predictions, the Henry 'Scoop' Jackson Society haven't come up with this yet, so I've made a stab. The idea is twofold - first, to try to justify their famous statement, that Britain was 'unquestionably the world's second most important power', and second, to provide an index for global power comparable to what the World Economic Forum's
Global Competitive Index does for, er, global competitiveness. So far I've concentated on hard power, ie military spending, but I've also included economic power in that (though not trade yet, which I might include in soft power - you can't expect consistency, I'm afraid).
As I'm pretty sure the World Economic Forum knows, you can just about get any result you want in these things by choosing your inputs, and as importantly, your weightings. I've gone for seven categories - Population, GDP, PPP GDP, Military Spending, No. of troops, Aircraft Carriers, and UN SC permanent membership. Clearly there is some overlap here - GDP for instance with population, but also things like troops and military spending. But hey-ho. The weightings I began with are 18% for population, 30% for GDP, 5% for PPP GDP, 15% for troops, 25% for military spending, 5% for aircraft carriers and 2% for UNSC membership.
Of the seven categories the US scores highest for four categories, China two, and all Permanent Members in one. For each category I take each country's ratio of the highest value, and then multiply it by the weighting. So for GDP, for instance, the US has the highest at $13.26bn, and Lebanon's is $0.022bn, so Lebanon's score is 0.22/13.26 which equals 0.2% of the US level, and then for both the US and Lebanon it is multiplied by the 30% weighting for that category. These are then summed across the categories to give a total score out of 100.
Anyway, drum roll (note the category scores are before weighting...
Top Dog Index | Country | Pop. | GDP | PPP | Troops | Mil. Ex | A/C | UN | TOTAL |
| United States | 23% | 100% | 100% | 63% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 80.58 |
| China | 100% | 19% | 81% | 100% | 16% | 0% | 100% | 48.77 |
| India | 85% | 6% | 30% | 59% | 4% | 8% | 0% | 28.82 |
| Russia | 11% | 7% | 13% | 46% | 28% | 8% | 100% | 21.17 |
| Japan | 10% | 34% | 31% | 11% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 17.15 |
| United Kingdom | 5% | 18% | 15% | 8% | 9% | 17% | 100% | 13.31 |
| France | 5% | 17% | 15% | 11% | 9% | 8% | 100% | 12.95 |
| Germany | 6% | 22% | 20% | 13% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 12.25 |
| Italy | 4% | 14% | 13% | 10% | 5% | 8% | 0% | 8.93 |
| Korea | 4% | 7% | 8% | 30% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 8.65 |
| Brazil | 14% | 7% | 13% | 13% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 8.18 |
| Pakistan | 12% | 1% | 3% | 27% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 6.91 |
| Indonesia | 17% | 3% | 8% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6.41 |
| Turkey | 6% | 3% | 5% | 23% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 6.09 |
| Spain | 3% | 9% | 9% | 8% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 5.76 |
| Iran | 5% | 2% | 5% | 24% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 5.68 |
| Mexico | 8% | 6% | 9% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 5.31 |
Pretty damn exciting, eh? Anyway on the current hard-power version of the "
Top Dog" index, I'm afraid, at least for the H'S'JS, that the UK is not 2nd, at least not 'unquestionably'. The United States is the clear leader, with 81%, followed by China, 49%, then India, 29%, Russia, 21%, Japan 17%, then us, on a respectable 13%, slightly higher than France and Germany. Italy just pips Korea and Brazil.
Update: In response to Nick's comments, I've changed it about a bit, lowering population, adding a Nuke's column (you can see the weights at the top of the table)
Top Dog Index | Weight | 13 | 30 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 100.00 |
| Name | Pop | GDP | PPP | Troops | Mil.Ex | A/C | Nukes | UN | Total |
| United States | 23% | 100% | 100% | 63% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 86.28 |
| China | 100% | 19% | 81% | 100% | 16% | 0% | 100% | 100% | 48.77 |
| India | 85% | 6% | 30% | 59% | 4% | 8% | 100% | 0% | 31.65 |
| Russia | 11% | 7% | 13% | 46% | 28% | 8% | 100% | 100% | 28.33 |
| United Kingdom | 5% | 18% | 15% | 8% | 9% | 17% | 100% | 100% | 22.66 |
| France | 5% | 17% | 15% | 11% | 9% | 8% | 100% | 100% | 22.13 |
| Japan | 10% | 34% | 31% | 11% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 16.13 |
| Pakistan | 12% | 1% | 3% | 27% | 1% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 14.95 |
| Israel | 1% | 1% | 1% | 7% | 2% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 11.64 |
| Germany | 6% | 22% | 20% | 13% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 11.31 |
| Italy | 4% | 14% | 13% | 10% | 5% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 8.20 |
| Korea | 4% | 7% | 8% | 30% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6.94 |
| Brazil | 14% | 7% | 13% | 13% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 6.84 |
| Spain | 3% | 9% | 9% | 8% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 5.21 |
| Indonesia | 17% | 3% | 8% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.86 |
| Turkey | 6% | 3% | 5% | 23% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.67 |
| Mexico | 8% | 6% | 9% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.47 |
Labels: defence, economics, England, newspapers, Nukes, politics
Royal Navy getting worse by the day
The Daily Telegraph has a
story quoting unnamed 'senior officers' saying that the Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self, wouldn't be able to retake the Falklands (or a similar operation) and worse - quelle horreur - it is inferior to the French Navy. The Times had the
story last week.
It seems like the bit about the Falkland Islands has been written every week for about 20 years. Similarly, the Telegraph says:
It is likely that they will eventually be sold or scrapped. There are also fears in the Admiralty that two new aircraft carriers, promised in 1998, might never be built.
Meanwhile the French navy, which will be far superior to the Royal Navy after the cuts, will announce before the April presidential elections that a new carrier will be built.
Is it really superior? The budget of the French Navy is pretty much the same as that of the Royal Navy (it's not that easy to make comparisions as defence budgets strip off much of the expenditure into categories such as R&D, or head office) and I don't see why it would be so much better, unless the French public sector is a lot more efficient than the British. My old International Politics teacher at Oxford (who I won't name in case he is now employed by the French Navy, though I think he's at one of our staff colleges) used to say that the French navy was only good for sailing up and down the west coast of Africa. In any case surely if we don't build our carriers, they aren't going to get theirs?
ps This
comment piece is somewhat odd. Apparently the naval chiefs keep buying destroyers, and don't realise that we really need carriers, which will be cheaper. Quite why someone who wrote a book about military waste believes the carriers will be built entirely on budget I can't say, particularly as I've seen him before claim they are not value for money.
Labels: defence
Callaghan, economic troubles and Nukes
Oliver notes in this
post that:
Ford worked with two Prime Ministers, one of them appalling (Harold Wilson) and one, in my minority view, good and underrated (James Callaghan). Wilson - a man of colossal vanity who was convinced he was held in high regard in Washington - wrote to Ford in October 1974 in effect giving an ultimatum that Britain would make defence cuts regardless of the damage to Nato's capabilities. Ford responded with a measured statement of fact, worrying about the effect on US allies and expressing the hope that the US would not be the only power capable of international intervention. When Callaghan sought Ford's assistance in the sterling crisis of 1976 - a long story, much recounted, in which I consider that Callaghan and his Chancellor, Denis Healey, performed with credit and to the lasting benefit of the country - the President immediately offered to help.
New government documents released
today (about 20 years too late) appear (at least on the Guardian's reporting) to refine this story - Callaghan might have also made a similar threat:
As telephone transcripts released today show, Callaghan used the questions over Britain's Nato commitment in an attempt to win American and German support to press the IMF to come up with more flexible terms for the loan. He told President Gerald Ford that without an IMF solution "we would be forced into action which would put at risk this country's contribution as an ally and a partner in the western alliance".
Labels: defence, England, Nukes
Trident
I'll post a
comment I made over at Jamie's:
I'm strangely optimistic about Trident's replacement, or moreover, it not happening. A lot has been made about the lack of controversy over replacing it compared with that of the early 1980s. But there seems also a lack of controversy about scrapping it too. This might reflect general political apathy, or just that the support/opposition for it is spread more evenly across the polical classes.
In the end I think it'll be like ID cards - popular (ish) until the cost is known, and then given a choice of the carriers or the subs they'll go for the carriers.
Labels: Decent Left, defence, England, Nukes, Taxation
Royal Navy 'face tinpot future'...
...declares
Admiral Sir Alan West, as rumours swirl that the MOD is going to scrap the aircraft carrier programme. The problem with the programme, I imagine, is that no-one at the MOD believes it is going to cost the stated cost of £3.7bn or whatever it is.
Labels: defence, economics, England
Royal hagiographies
Sarah Bradford's
King George VI is worse than her Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. I'm quite willing to believe he had some qualities - the way in which he rescued the Monarchy after the disasters of the Abdication, an interest in the lives of his subjects that went beyond the vague awareness they existed of George V, his support in wartime for the Prime Minister. But this book seems to imply he had hardly any defects, with a lot of over-the-top puffery ('his Royal memory' - ie he remembered something about a person he'd met before) - and any faults he did have, such as his horrendous temper, are often passed off as amusing Royal quirks.
One particular instance is illustrative. Any royal biography that covers the reign of Edward VIII will tell you that one consequence of his louche lifestyle was that State papers were 'returned marked with rings from cocktail glasses on them'. Bradford introduces this story with what seems to be the usual amount of evidence for it, 'there were stories'. Later, p.489 of the paperback, we learn that George VI
showed secret State telegrams from our country's Ambassador to the Foreign Office, to the pro-German King of Greece who of course happened to be his relative. There is no criticism of this behaviour (which in turn raises the issue over whether you ever fully trust your Monarch if they have relations who are foreign heads of state?) - merely a mention that the Foreign Office though it 'bordering on the unconstitutional'.
Labels: defence, England, Royalty
BAE
However, Lord Goldsmith consulted the prime minister, the defence secretary, foreign secretary, and the intelligence services, and they decided that "the wider public interest" "outweighed the need to maintain the rule of law".
Excellent news. This now means the sale of one of the world's most advanced fighter jets can go ahead to Saudia Arabia, our great regional ally.
Labels: defence, economics
Iraq
Timothy Garton Ash's
excellent column on the disaster in the Middle East can be summed up in that stump speech of Al Gore's - all the things that should be going up have gone down and all the things that should be going down have gone up.
Labels: Decent Left, defence, Iraq
Christmas Frenzy of War
You can always rely on
Melanie Philips to trump everyone. Her hysterical reply to the Baker report on Iraq declares that the issue for G W Bush "who, until now, has operated through consensus" is now:
In the dying fall of his presidency, does he have the wherewithal to go for broke? On this lonely and frail figure the fate of the free world now depends.
I'm not sure about you but I get nervous when people start advising world leaders, particularly ones who are C-in-Cs of large armed forces to 'go for broke'. I think 'going for broke' is always a bad idea if being broke is a disaster, and as we are talking about the 'fate of the free world' here, I think it would be. Basically she wants him to declare war ('confronted and defeated') on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Labels: Decent Left, defence, Iraq, Melanie Phillips
Iraq
Do we stay or do we go? The Sunday Telegraph declares, and gets its two star columnists, Niall Ferguson and Matthew d'Ancona, to 'reach very differing conclusions on the recommendations on the Iraq Study Group'.
They're differing in what they think the recommendation is, but not in what purpose they think it serves, and really what they want to see, which is continued American presence. Niall Ferguson
believes it is a bit of media manipulation designed to make the American public think they are withdrawing when in fact they are going to stay in Iraq, but do it better. He thinks this is good. Matthew d'Ancona
thinks it is a bit of media manipulation to make theAmerican public think they have won, when in fact they have lost. He thinks this is bad.
Ancona repeats the criticism you hear from people like
Christopher Hitchens, that James Baker is the last person anyone, particuarly if they think they are progressive, should listen to on Iraq (note The Dupe is consistent here - he didn't support the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein when James Baker was going around the world advocating it as secretary of state.). There seems to me three obvious replies to this. First, after spending the last four years telling us how wonderful G W Bush -
G W Bush - is, the sudden distaste for very right-wing men from Houston might have come a bit late. Second, it's a measure of the scale and scope of the disaster in Iraq that people like Hitchens have helped shat us into that people like James Baker (and the dictators of Iran and Syria) might have to shovel us out of (this
Michael Kinsley article is worth reading though) and finally, whilst I don't think much of the plan, it is a least a plan.
This last statement might sound desperate. Dan attacked those who declared 'the status quo is not an option'
here (and
here) on the effective grounds that the status quo cannot be worse than the status quo, whereas doing something often was, but in this case there really is no status quo other than the empty mantras of 'stay the course' and 'we will prevail' and so it has become far worse than doing nothing. Criticism of the 'realist' school of foreign policy clearly have a lot to go on, but they seem to compare it with a version of neoconservativism that exists only in their heads, and in which the bloody evidence of the last three years has been completely ignored.
There are probably hundreds of better ways to attempt to fix Iraq, but much as David Aaronovitch scorned those who were waiting for the 'Nelson Mandela Peace Corps' to invade the country, I'm afraid the Euston Manifesto Group isn't going to be allowed to suggest one. There are only two on the table - the one from the right-wing Texan with the initials JB or the one from the right-wing Texan with the initials GB - and the latter's hasn't worked.
Labels: Decent Left, defence, Iraq
Replacing Trident
On
Comment Is Free a commenter suggested today that we only
pretend to replace Trident, hence getting the deterrrent capability without spending the tens of billions of pounds. This is an interesting idea, but fails as to make the pretence believed we would have to spend the money on it anyway, unless we can get the US to take part in the subterfuge too, and pretend to give us them for free.
Incidentally I am on my way back from Edinburgh (which is a delightful place, although isn't the new Scottish Parliament building unattractive?) and the press there is full of comment on where the nuclear submarines will be based if Scotland goes its separate ways. It seems to me an obvious solution would be to ask the US if they could be based at
King's Bay, which (I think) is where the US's near identical ships are.
Labels: defence, England, politics
