by Daniel Korski | May 15, 2008 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, Influence and networks
General Richard Dannat, the head of the British army, once remarked that the British Armed Forces are less understood and less honoured for their commitment and sacrifice by ordinary Britons than in comparable societies, like United States, and probably even less than in earlier periods.
But this is not unique to Britain. And it is part of two broader inter-related trends; the disappearance of sacrifice as an element of Europe’s development and, as a result, the divorce of the institution most knows for sacrifice – the military – from European society.
The most obvious example is the disappearance of ex-military officers from politics. The appointment of Admiral Sir Alan West, the decorated former head of the Royal Navy, to a junior ministerial post in Gordon Brown’s government is remarkable precisely because it’s rare. Military experience has similarly become less important for reaching reach high office; no Ministers in the current Cabinet have served in the armed forces.
Few European countries appoint general officers to civilian positions; none serve at the top of the European Union’s bureaucracy, the Commission or the Council Secretariat. Of seven hundred European parliamentarians, only one was a former high-ranking officer: Philippe Morrilon, the former French UN general.
Contrast this with the United States, where, from George Washington onwards, military officers have regularly shed their uniforms to take high office.
(more…)
by David Steven | May 14, 2008 | North America, Off topic
Earlier today, I noted George Bush’s cretinous and insulting claim that he had given up golf in solidarity with American soldiers who are dying in Iraq. The move, he said, was prompted by the death of UN envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello:
“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.
“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.’”
Problem is de Mello was killed in August 2003 and Bush was still playing golf in October. Coincidentally, the President also had knee problems at the time though I am sure that had nothing to do with his decision…
by Daniel Korski | May 13, 2008 | Middle East and North Africa
After a period of silence on the “Iran file”, the P5+1 will present Tehran with a new incentive package to convince the Iranians to suspend their enrichment program and enter negotiations. This is the second time the five permanent members offer a package. The first time was in 2006, which was rejected by Tehran.
Nobody thinks Tehran will accept the new offer as it crosses its red line – suspension of enrichment – and does not give Tehran what they want most i.e. U.S non-aggression guarantees (by a new U.S president).
On Monday, Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh ruled out accepting intrusive nuclear inspections unless there was an end to “double standards” on global non-proliferation that it said benefited nuclear arms powers.
But, as a report by the NIA Council, asks: why is this offer being made now? Trita Parsi notes the “nuclear offer coincides with an escalation of rhetoric between Washington and Tehran over allegations of Iranian meddling in Iraq.”
General David Petreus, the new head of CENTCOM, is reportedly preparing a presentation of evidence showcasing Iran’s direct involvement in the violence in Iraq. He is on record as seeing Iran’s hand in Iraq. But he – and the Bush administration – may be looking to shape the autumn’s electioral discussion of Iran.
If so, they are unlikely to succeed. On Iran, there are three policy options: what can be described as 1) “the coercive option”; 2) a Denis Ross-style incremental diplomacy; or 3) a game-changing event like a major offer of a “grand bargain”, which includes security guarantees.
The EU would obviously favor the latter, but I think that all presidential candidates, including John McCain, would at some point be willing to go down this route whatever their current rhetoric. Either way, it makes the timing of the P5+1 offer peculiar.
by Daniel Korski | Apr 23, 2008 | Conflict and security, Influence and networks, Middle East and North Africa
Today American Defence Secretary Robert Gates recommended that General David Petraeus be appointed head of US Central Command. Until Admiral William Fallon was sacked earlier in the year, the idea had been for General Petraeus to replace General John Craddock as Supreme Allied Commander and help fix the failing mission in Afghanistan, especially after Paddy Ashdown was nixed as UN chief by the Afghan government.
But with Fallon gone and things not altogether stable in Iraq, Afghanistan will have to wait. In Petraeus’ place will be Lt. General Ray Odierno, a mountain-like soldier who served as Petraeus’ no. 2 in Iraq until he was made Deputy Chief of the Army. The top military slot in Iraq had been rumoured to be reserved for Pete Chiarelli, Robert Gates’ Military Adviser, who was described to me as “possessing Petraeus’ intellect but none of his ego.”
In many ways, Petraeus’ move is an obvious one. Nobody knows the Iraq campaign better than Petraeus and the relationship with Odierno has worked before. Paradoxically, it may help restore the formal chain of command, which sees the Iraq commander reporting to the Centcom commander and then to the President (through the SecDef). This chain was famously disrupted because of the close link between President Bush and General Petraeus, which probably caused much of Fallon’s frustration. But will Odierno be given the freedom Petraeus himself had?
What of the persistent rumours that Petraeus will one day enter the political arena? Well, in Flordia he is closer to Washington (and the TV networks). If John McCain wins in November, he’d be a shoe-in for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. But perhaps the sheen will come off him when he is no longer the sand-covered field commander and everyone will be pilgrimaging to Baghdad to see Odierno. The real loser would seem to be NATO’s Afghan campaign, which would have benefitted from Petraeus’ skills. As Centcom commander he will still oversee the U.S-led, CT-focused Operation Enduring Freedom mission. But the military centre of gravity in Afghanistan is the NATO mission as it’s hard to see how Petraeus can now work his magic from Tampa, Florida.
by Alex Evans | Apr 17, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity
Via Joshua Keating at ForeignPolicy.com, the news that German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel has issued a statement strongly criticising President Bush’s new climate change “policy” under the glorious headline,
Gabriel criticises Bush’s Neanderthal speech. Losership, not Leadership.
As Joshua so rightly comments, “With a title like that, why even bother with a statement?”
