by David Steven | Jun 2, 2009 | Conflict and security, East Asia and Pacific, Global Dashboard
British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband has responded to Alex’s post questioning the wisdom of drone attacks in Pakistan. Citing David Kilcullen, Alex’s argument was that drones killed too many civilians, contradicting basic counterinsurgency doctrine, which is, above all, to secure and serve the population.
Miliband (cautiously) agrees:
The threat to US and Pakistani (and UK) interests is real, the danger and damage of civilian casualties serious, and the range of options limited.
US technology is vitally important, but Pakistan is fighting its own struggle against violent extremism. The drone attacks have undoubtedly hurt the core of AQ, but I see the dangers. The first best solution is obviously to build up Pakistan’s capacity, but first best solutions are not always immediately available.
Miliband’s is right, I think, but there are, unfortunately, much deeper and darker questions to address. As I argued in August last year, Pakistan’s “struggle against violent extremism” has been mounted very much at the America’s behest – and its urgings have been wrong-headed at best, disastrous at worst.
Last summer, the Pakistani Prime Minister was given “an earful” by the White House and told to sort the border regions out. All well and good, except that the United States was pushing the Pakistan military towards a conventional encounter with the militants, something that it’s own manual on counter-insurgency advises strongly against.
The pattern was similaar in 2004, when General Musharraf was persuaded to attack the tribal areas. That led to fury among tribesman, forcing them into the arms of the Taliban. It also led to humiliation for the army, with one poor Colonel taking shelter in a mosque and then emerging to beg for mercy with the Koran on his head. Tribesmen stripped him of his uniform and sent him on his way.
Now, in 2009, we have a massive attack on the Swat valley, which has killed some militants – sure – but has led to the forceful displacement of 2.5 million people, “an exodus that is beyond biblical,” according to the Independent. In the long run, will this campaign contribute to Pakistan’s security? Time will tell, but I suspect not.
I am not, in way, pleading for tolerance for extremism. But I am demanding that we – the Americans in particular – start to stand account for the counterproductive nature of their Pakistan policy since 9/11.
Throughout its time in office, the Bush administration seemed intent on showing it could push a functioning state to the brink of failure. Pakistan’s complicity in arming and supporting the Taliban was ignored by the Bush administration. Instead, it pursued its short term goals in the war on terror with little care for the long term impact on a nuclear armed state with a young, fast-growing, and deeply frustrated population.
In his time in office, Bush hosed billions on the Pakistan army, but dedicated only around 1% of total aid to non-military purposes. America’s political strategy has been non-existent. Its influencing strategy even weaker. It really beggars belief that so much money could be spent only to achieve the reverse of the desired result.
Now, the Obama administration wants to engage in nation building, but it continues to focus efforts on the country’s most unstable zones, rather than supporting a comprehensive, nationwide response from the government. It is also arriving with its cheque book open, only to find that neither it nor the Pakistan government has much idea as to how or where the money should be spent.
Above all, it’s unclear whether – unlike in Iraq at the beginning of the surge, where there was a doctrinal revolution – the protagonists have truly accepted just how badly they have got things wrong. The US counterinsurgency manual describes insurgencies as ‘learning competitions’. If so, I fear that the best that we – the West – and the various arms of the Pakistan state can hope is some kind of consolation prize for taking part. (more…)
by Richard Gowan | Jun 2, 2009 | Conflict and security, UK
From a recent speech by General Sir Mike Jackson:
It takes more than soldiers to win wars. DFID’s aims are to relieve poverty, unqualified from geography and wider aims. But its aims are split from the Foreign Office. If the Foreign Office wants A, DFID will do B. This won’t do. The world is too important a place. This independence of action is a luxury to many. DFID, for example, spends more money than anywhere else on India – an emerging economy. I don’t understand the logic.
And just in case you thought the Defence guys had got away with it…
The Ministry of Defence is not agile enough. There are too many people in the MoD with the ability to say ‘No’ without the responsibility on that issue. Too many people who see process as the main purpose of the MoD.
And as for the Treasury…
by Richard Gowan | Jun 2, 2009 | Conflict and security, East Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Global system, South Asia
European security policy doesn’t exactly inspire big new ideas every day. So hats off to James Rogers, who has a very big idea indeed: the EU has been worrying about land forces too much, and needs to turn to naval strategy instead. Like Robert Kaplan, Rogers thinks that the Indian Ocean will be central to twenty-first century geopolitics:
All the major powers are now expanding their influence along the Eurasian coastal zone, a region rich in energy, raw materials and fertile land. Within this space, China, India, Russia and the United States have begun to reorient their foreign and security policies. Unfortunately, the EU’s main trade route – until now threatened only by pirates – ploughs through this littoral space and connects Europeans to the energy supplies of the Middle East and the manufacturing centres of China, South Korea and Japan. It carries a quarter of global maritime commerce, making it the most important trade line on Earth.
The region stretching from the Suez Canal to the city of Shanghai – and perhaps as far as Seoul – is therefore particularly critical to Europeans. But the same space is important to others too. With a rapidly growing navy, China has put together a “string of pearls” – naval stations, harbours and land-based infrastructure – to extend its maritime reach into the Indian Ocean, East Africa and the Middle East. Russia also has plans to build new naval stations around the Mediterranean and the Middle East, potentially in Syria and Yemen.
India has been busily kitting out its fleet with new aircraft carriers, submarines and stealth destroyers, which it claims are needed to complete its “manifest destiny” to control the Indian Ocean. And the United States has undertaken a “global posture review” since 2004, where it has repositioned many of its naval assets, away from Europe, and towards East Asia.
And what is the EU doing about this? Not much, other than its anti-piracy patrols off Somalia. Rogers thinks that’s the Union’s “most important” operation yet. I think he may be a bit over-excited (we let the pirates go free). But his long-term vision is compelling:
First, the EU needs to rethink certain parts of its foreign and security policy, and concentrate more on the affairs of the Eurasian coastal zone. Europeans need to build up strong partnerships with countries in key geopolitical nodes – like India, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore – in order to keep the peace in the region most likely to experience competition and disorder in the years ahead. This will allow the EU to prevent conflict and insecurity from threatening key European interests throughout the area.
Second, the EU should take part and lead more naval operations along its principal maritime trade route, particularly in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. The EU mission to quash piracy in the Gulf of Aden is just the beginning, and Europeans must step up their visibility throughout all the maritime approaches to European home waters. Increasingly, port calls, anti-piracy missions and surveillance and presence operations will all be required to uphold the peace.
Third, a European strategic defence review is needed to allow for the construction of common warship classes, which should replace the costly and inefficient mishmash of vessels currently operated by European fleets. An integrated EU coastguard should be put together to free up naval vessels in the Baltic and Mediterranean for use elsewhere. And ultimately, standing EU naval forces equipped with aircraft carriers and amphibious platforms for power projection into troublesome areas should also be developed and built.
It’s sound strategy, even if doesn’t feel that likely politically. But we will hear more of this Jolly Rogers.
by David Steven | Jun 2, 2009 | North America, UK
Rumours have long been floating around that the Abu Ghraib photos that Barack Obama has been battling to keep secret are much more graphic than anything yet published. A week ago the Telegraph dived into the fray to confirm the story:
Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse… At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.
Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube. Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.
Shocking stuff and all the more credible because their source, Major General Anthony Taguba, conducted the original investigation of Abu Ghraib and has since played a key role in continuing to describe “a systematic regime of torture” authorised directly by George Bush. Taguba believes that there is “no doubt” that the Bush adminstration was guilty of war crimes.
The Telegraph, however, had Obama in its sights, not Bush. He’d promised to release the photos, then relented when lobbied by the military. He’d then lied about their content: “I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.” Rape? Sodomy? Not particularly sensational! It was quite a scoop.
The Obama adminstration was unamused, trying to divert attention by attacking the British meda, with an Obama spokesman describing the British press as the last place you’d look for “something that bordered on truthful news.”
The Telegraph was apoplectic, publishing three furious responses. Nile Gardiner: “‘juvenile,” an “absolute disgrace.” Toby Harnden: “a smokescreen,” “as arrogant as anything the Bush administration ever said about the press.” James Delingpole: “stop pooping on our lawn.”
One problem. It turns out the Taguba had been misquoted. He was referring to other photos that he’d seen – and which have already been published in 2006 – by Salon. Scott Horton, who had also been promoting the story, issued this apology:
The 44 photos subject to the ACLU lawsuit and reviewed by President Obama do not contain sexually explicit images. I regret my errors.
And the Telegraph? Well, so far it’s just kept digging. Indeed, it reported Taguba’s clear denial as confirming its story, while claiming Scott Horton’s reporting also backed them up. Apologies, as James Delingpole would no doubt put it, are clearly for “pantywaists”.
Expect more “robus”‘ reporting from the Telegraph in the future, now it’s cemented in its role as the scourge of the political class, and as it acts to correct the failings of America’s “congenitally libtard Mainstream Media.” According to Delingpole:
We don’t respect politicians any more. Not our politicians, and not yours either. Imagine how this new strain of irreverence bordering on utter contempt is going to affect our reporting of political affairs.
It’s going to be a fun ride…
by Richard Gowan | Jun 2, 2009 | Cooperation and coherence, North America, UK
Who said Britain was in decline? Here’s the NYT.
The Obama administration is working with their French counterparts to make sure that Britain’s Queen Elizabeth — reportedly miffed, according to the British Press, at not being invited to the D-Day anniversary festivities in Normandy this weekend — gets a formal invitation.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said on Monday that President Obama thinks the queen should be present at the event on Saturday. “We are working with those involved to see if we can make that happen,” Mr. Gibbs said.
Mr. Gibbs’s comments came after Buckingham Palace pointedly noted last week that the queen didn’t get an invite, an omission which has had the British press fuming. Mr. Obama is attending the event (French President Nicolas Sarkozy invited him two months ago) as is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mr. Sarkozy has said that the queen is welcome to come to the ceremony, but Obama administration officials say that they would like to see her receive a formal invitation.
Driving home that point, Mr. Gibbs joked at the end of his daily briefing with reporters Monday: “Will you — will you — will you please pass that directly to the queen for me?”
