On Libyan Intervention

So, we're bombing Libya. Cue rapturous applause from neo-conservative types and wails of disgust from our peacenik brethren. I can't manage either emotion. There's nothing to celebrate here, but equally it had become pretty difficult for the Western world to stand by idly as Gaddafi continues to cling to power using some of the most brute force.

Which is the point, really. There seems to be a tendency among many to want to see issues in international relations in black and white terms - or rather making immediate and sweeping assumptions about whether any interventions are right or wrong. The reality is a little more complicated that.

Basically, as far as I can see, we had three options. Standing by and doing nothing would ensure that the coalition kills no-one. At least not directly. At best, this option would leave us with blood on our hands indirectly. At worst we would, once again, be turning a blind eye as an evil dictator kills his way to further power.

The second option - limited intervention - is the one we've gone for. And I have no doubt whatsoever that it is only a matter of (very limited) time before we start seeing reports about collateral damage - of innocents slayed by our armed forces. Then we drift into the difficult calculations about military interventions - would more people have died had we not intervened, or are our actions creating carnage that otherwise wouldn't exist?

This is even more pronounced in the third option - a direct onslaught, including ground forces, against the Gaddafi regime. We may yet end up in this situation; for what it's worth, I really hope that we don't. But with this option you can be pretty much guaranteed that Gaddafi will fall (the US army could destroy his forces on their own without too much fuss) but again there's the question of carnage. How many will have to die - on both sides, and among the civilians - for regime change to occur in Libya?

And there's a further problem with options 2 and 3. They leave us open to the charge of hypocrisy. We are fighting to protect rebels in Libya. What about rebellions in other parts of the world? What about dealing with other abhorrent dictators? Why aren't we doing something about, say, North Korea? You could argue that there is no credible indigenous resistance in North Korea, but then again that is hardly surprising given North Korea is a brutal totalitarian state. The reality is that we cannot afford to fight every regime across the world with whom we do not agree. But then how do we prioritise them? Why is the life of a North Korean less of a priority that the life of a Libyan? Again, we can argue that change is happening in Libya; we're just giving those forces of change a push. But the charge of hypocrisy can still be leveled. After all, Iraq in 2003 was hardly in the grip of a rebellion, was it? But when there was an uprising there after the first Gulf War, it was 'turn a blind eye' time again.

International relations is a messy arena, and an ethical foreign policy is in practice impossible. But what we can do is, whatever actions we take, make sure we consider the outcomes. So we're carrying out air operations in Libya. What's our endgame here? To enforce a no-fly zone? To just protect the existing rebel strongholds? Or are we actually going for the toppling of Gaddafi? And if that's the plan, who or what is going to replace him? Such questions appear to be obvious, but if we look back on the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, they were either not asked or not credibly answered.

It is impossible to know right now whether the intervention in Libya will ultimately prove to have been the right thing to do. If you think you know already, one way or another, then you're probably being naive. We won't know whether this was the right thing to do or not until it's all over, when the blood has been shed and the history books are being written.

Laurie Penny, Hyperbole, and Remembering the War Dead

Laurie Penny, on what for her constitutes "form" and for most other people hysterical, nonsensical hyperbole:

'Sacrifice' is the word continually used to associate this cynical and relentless carnage with public nostalgia for the glory of past victories. There are, however, two meanings to the word 'sacrifice.' One can sacrifice, in the sense of willingly giving one's for a cause, or one can be a sacrifice, offered up for slaughter by one's betters in the name of god, or greed, or homeland.

And this is news precisely how? Undoubtedly, some people in almost every war there has ever been have been sacrificed for whatever cause was being fought for. That is the nature of war - it is unfair, and it is unpleasant. But then again, it is war - what the hell were you expecting? A walk in the park?

And there are other reasons why people fight and are forced to fight - not just greed, good or homeland. World War Two would be the classic example here - sometimes, people fight for survival. That has nothing to do with being "offered up for slaughter by one's betters" - instead, it has everything to do with not being dominated by a totalitarian nightmare. I'm opposed to war - to some extent I am instinctively a pacifist. But at some point you have to fight, or risk being dominated by those you might abhor.

It is this second understanding of sacrifice that we should bear in mind this Poppy day. Even in the Great War, not all of the men and boys shot by their own side for cowardice or driven out 'like cattle', in Wilfred Owen's words, in front of the German machine guns, died with future generations in mind. Not all of them bled willingly, for king and country; some of them simply bled because they had been seriously injured, because their leaders deemed it appropriate for them to die in pain and terror. A million cardboard flowers, rooted in the dark earth of this country's frantic military self- fashioning, will never be enough to mop up the carnage.

And in this paragraph we see that Laurie has completely missed the point of Remembrance Sunday (not "Poppy day" - let's call it by a more proper name, shall we?) It isn't about political point scoring, it isn't about class strife. It is about remembering all those who died -whether they did so willingly, or under duress in a state of terrified anxiety.

And the Poppy is not meant to to mop up the carnage - it is a symbol, to remind us of that carnage and those who died. And it should also remind us to reflect on why those wars happened, and what we can do right now to prevent future devastating conflicts.

But thus far in her article, Penny has been restrained. She's flirted with the idea of class conflict and its impact on the choice of those who were sent to fight in the First World War. As always, she saves the best - and most offensive - to last:

As we celebrate another memorial Sunday, we should remember that the politicians wearing red flowers in Whitehall have cheerfully authorised the decimation of jobs, welfare and public education in order to defend Britain's military spending and nuclear arsenal and offer tax breaks for business. They have sacrificed the life chances of a generation of young and working-class people whilst making rhetorical sops towards "the national interest", and that is not remembrance, nor is it any way to honour the memory of the Great Generation. That, in fact, is "just show business".

Yes, what we should do is remember, on Remembrance Sunday, not those who died in war but rather the actions of politicians with whom Penny does not agree. Yes, that's the fucking point of Remembrance Sunday, isn't it? To agree with Penny's crass political point scoring. Don't think about the war dead, for God's sake. Think about the fact that a feckless and hopelessly naive young journalist writing for The New Statesman doesn't like spending cuts.

And how offensive is it to compare a generation who may have some of their number adversely affected by the spending cuts with the generation sent to die on the battlefields of the First World War? How crass can one person be? That is no way to honour the memory of those who died. In fact, it too is "just show business" - it is taking an event, and twisting its meaning to back up whatever toss Laurie Penny happens to be thinking at any given time. It takes Remembrance Sunday, and debases it. It turns it into the sort of cheap political point scoring that shows what an ignorant idiot that writer actually is.

Quote of the Day

On the future of one George W. Bush:

As for retirement, Sherzer says Bush is "done with politics but not with policy. He's a young man and feels like he has a lot of energy left. He and Mrs Bush are excited about using the Institute as a force for peace, to promote human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth."

Ignoring the fact that politics and policy and largely synonymous in this day and age, I'd just like to praise Baby Bush for pursuing peace, human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth in his retirement - whilst lamenting the fact that his eight years in office saw him pursuing policies that lead to the exact opposite of peace, human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth.

Gordon's Afghan Sleepover

And we're supposed to be impressed, right?

It is one thing to visit. It is another to stay over.

But this is exactly what Gordon Brown has done in Afghanistan, the first prime minister since World War II to spend a night in a combat zone.

He bunked down in a basic hut with limited heating and shared latrine in Kandahar airbase, which comes under rocket fire at least once a week. "No frills," was how one officer described it. "One star at most," said another.

Really, so what if Gordon Brown* chose to have a sleepover in Afghanistan? Does that make up for all the other shitty things he has ever done? I mean, do the troops gain anything by having Gordo there for an overnight stay? Or is just additional hassle with all the extra security that they have to have to protect him? On top of the problem of having to put up with the malign fucker for an extended period of time.

Now, there may well be reasons why every British Prime Minister since World War II has chosen not spend the night in a combat zone. Comfort may well be one of the reasons. But security might be another crucial reason. The additional burden of having the Prime Minister staying might have been judged as not being a worthwhile use of resources. Now, I don't know this for sure, but it has the ring of truth to it.

And finally, stressing the "one star" nature of the accommodation doesn't make Gordon Brown look like some sort of hero who is willing to slum it with his troops, but rather stresses the fact that the troops are expected to slum it 24/7 when in combat zones. It merely highlights the ongoing problem that this government seems to have with equipping their troops to even a basic standard. This ends up being another example of the patented Gordon Brown approach to photo opportunities; instead of showing how great he is, instead they merely highlight his ongoing failings.

*Who, dressed up in protective gear in the photo, looks a lot like an Action Man who has melted.

The Long War in Afghanistan?

With the 100th British soldier dying in Afghanistan, it is probably worth asking the fundamental question about our presence in that conflict. It has nothing to do with the Labour rhetoric of endlessly repeating the idea that this war is vital to UK security, or the current Tory tactic of demanding more international support. Immediate questions of rhetoric and logistics are irrelevant in the long-term. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we have the stomach to cope with the war in Afghanistan in the long term; whether we are willing to stay there for another ten to twenty years; and whether we are willing to see the death count double (if not treble or quadruple) in pursuit of some sort of stability in that country.

Because in order to put down the insurgency in Afghanistan, we will probably need to be there until at least 2020. If not longer. We will need to build up a sense of security in that country (no mean feat for any occupying force, even a heavily armed one, since any security the occupying force can offer ceases on the day that force leaves), and then help it build up some sort of society where the best career option isn't been an insurgent. That cannot happen overnight. In reality, it will take years. And the insurgents will continue to fight, and to kill. The IEDS will keep going off. The body bags will keep coming home. And the mistakes that claim innocent Afghan lives will continue to be made. It is a bleak prognosis, but is also a realistic one. The only reason why the Taliban managed to gain such a strong foothold in that country is because they were able to offer some form of security. We need to be able to offer the same but this is far more difficult for us, since on the day we leave, the Taliban will still be there. As things stand, a pragmatic, long-term view for any Afghan would be to back the Taliban - and that is what we need to combat.

It is well within the bounds of possibility that a successful counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan will not just last longer that the current Labour government, but also the incoming Tory one. It would be a long-term campaign, that would require the support of the British people. Therefore, the key question that the government needs to ask the people of this country is whether they are willing to commit to this conflict for years to come, or whether they wish to write off the lives lost so far, and run away from that conflict. It is not an easy choice to make - but at this stage, the British people need to know what the choice actually is. Against the empty futility of the meaningless platitudes spouted by politicians of all parties, it would be great to get a feeling for the reality of the situation facing us in Afghanistan actually is.

Gordon Brown, Letter Writing, and Afghanistan

There can be few better examples of the inverted midas touch* of Gordon Brown than the furore about his letter to Jacqui Janes and then his ensuing phone apology. Of course, Gordon Brown's handwriting is appalling and very difficult to read, and his phone call reads like a muted argument involving a man who can't help himself but to try to make himself look correct, even if it means arguing with a recently bereaved mother who he has already managed to piss off massively. Now, this whole exchange has given Brown some unlikely (and, no doubt, extremely temporary) allies and I have no doubt that Jacqui Janes' appalling tragedy has been shamelessly milked by The Scum - a paper that, lest we forget, was a bellicose supporter of both the Iraq and Afghan invasions and that did much to ensure both the election and repeated re-election of Nu Labour. But I can't help but think that once again we have a classic mountain being constructed from a molehill - and one that obscures what should be debated right here, right now.

The issue isn't Gordon Brown's handwriting, or his insensitivity on the phone. That is nothing more than cheap, point scoring politics. Fun, to be sure, but nothing more than that. And the issue isn't about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place - that's one for military and political historians now. The fact is we are there, and people are dying. So there are two, crucial issues - one tactical, one strategic. And neither is about this unfortunate letter sent out by Gordo.

On a tactical level, there needs to be an open and honest debate between the government and those leading the armed forces on what needs to be done to make sure that the troops have the best chance possible of surviving in what is proving to be one of the most hostile battlefields Britain has encountered in decades. Specifically, what equipment is necessary. Put simply, when joining the army people should expect at some point to have to fight. They shouldn't expect to die because their "grateful" government has failed to provide the equipment needed for the army to fight the very war the government sent it in to. There has been lots of talk recently about spending cuts, with many lamenting a drop in spending - yet it appears that perhaps the one area where more spending might be appropriate is on those fighting a brutal counter-insurgency in Afghanistan.

The alternative to increasing spending on the Armed Forces in order to maximise their chances of survival is, of course, to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. But even if we choose to stay, then we need to come up with something a little more credible than the present plan. Which seems to be sitting tight and hoping for the best. No-one is saying that it will be easy - after all, Afghanistan is a disparate collection of tribes that has track record of repelling any British incursions. Yet there needs to be some sort of strategy to indicate just how the ongoing deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan can be turned into a situation where if we cannot claim something approaching victory then at least we can point to some sort of stability in that country. At the moment, there appears to be nothing.

And once we have managed to sort out both the tactics and the strategy in Afghanistan, then we can focus on the blame game and giving Labour the kicking it so richly deserves for the Afghan disaster. But when we do, the focus should be on the failure to give troops vital equipment and a plan. Rather than Brown's letter-writing ability. Because whilst he may have blundered in his dealings with Jacqui Janes, at least he didn't stoop as low as Donald Rumsfeld and his special signature stamp...

*In that everything he touches turns to shite and becomes absolutely worthless.

Nuclear Free Globe

God bless Obama. Taking his lead from Gordon Brown, he seems dead set on saving the world as well. However, he is planning to do this through getting rid of nuclear weapons rather than solely through dubious economics.

Which sounds pretty fucking dandy. In theory. A nuclear free world has been the chant of so many for so long that it is almost a given. We should all be aspiring to ridding this world of nuclear weapons – they are a source of nothing but grief and potential catastrophe.

Yet things may not be as simple as that.

Even within the article above, there are some of the reasons why it might be so difficult to rid this planet from the blight of nuclear weapons. First of all, it requires rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea to decide to get on board with what the rest of the world is doing. And whilst you might make some headway with the former (particularly if the next elections don’t go the way of the incumbent) I doubt you’re really going to have too much luck with the latter. Note Obama’s refusal to give up on the missile defence system until Iran starts to play ball; he knows that the nuclear free utopia he proposes is not going to happen any time soon.

Then there is the wild card – the nuclear material that has gone missing. It is likely to be in the hands of some extremely dodgy people (if it isn’t already in the hands of international terrorists) and historically those people just don’t play ball. Even if you managed to persuade every country in the world – no matter how loopy the leadership of those countries – then you are still going to have x amount of nuclear material AWOL in the black market. And my understanding is it will be difficult to properly combat that problem, not least because no-one has any idea of how much is out there and where it is.

There is a further point to make here. Nuclear weapons are, arguably, a force for peace. No, really, they are. Had it not been for nuclear weapons, then I think we would have seen world wars over Korea, the Berlin Blockade, and Vietnam to name but a few. India and Pakistan would probably be locked in perpetual conflict as well. Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the devastating potential of atomic weapons – since then world leaders have been extremely reluctant to engage in all out conflict and risk global annihilation. Nuclear weapons have not stopped wars; however they may have limited the scope of those wars.

And finally, even if all countries and all rogue agents do agree to get rid of nuclear weapons, you can’t unlearn the knowledge of how to create them. And you cannot stop other nations or other players, such as international terrorists, gaining or using that knowledge again in the future. The knowledge of how to create nuclear weapons would still exist, even if the weapons themselves did not.

So a world free of nuclear weapons sounds like a grand idea. But the reality and desirability of this ever happening is very much open to debate.

George W. Bush - The Verdict

Today is undeniably a historic day. Barack Obama becomes the first black President of the United States of America. But there is another reason to celebrate. Because, after eight long years in power, George W Bush – one of the worst Presidents in US history – leaves office.

It would be nice to write a balanced account of Bush, but there is so little that is positive about this most vilified of presidencies. So this isn’t a historical account of what happened, it is more a political autopsy of what went wrong.

That Stolen Election

It is a cliché, both in America and now across the world, to talk about how Bush and his cronies stole the 2000 election. And as with many a cliché, there is more than an element of truth to the accusation. Bush became President not because the voters elected him, but because the Supreme Court made him President.

Now, there are a lot of different reasons why Bush became President in what was one of the most farcical elections of recent history. The Florida electoral system, the rush to lawyers, the intervention of the Supreme Court, the refusal of Gore to fight on – all of these factors pushed Bush further and further towards the White House. Bush cannot be blamed entirely for the stolen election; but the reality is that he began his first term as a deeply compromised politician.

You can compare and contrast Bush in 2000 after his election “win” with Obama after his real election win last year. Bush was seen by half his country as a winner, and by the other half as a thief. Whereas there was a real surge of goodwill towards Obama. Obama enters office elected by a majority of voters and with a real sense that he should be there. Whereas Bush was “elected” by a minority, and entered office with half of his country resenting him.

Sure, Bush could have recovered his presidency. It was a bad way to start, but he could have turned it around. Yet at every important test he faced, he failed.

September 11th, 2001

9/11 gave Bush perhaps his best moment as President, and his one great display of leadership. Stood on the rubble of Ground Zero, shouting through a megaphone, he managed to unite his country.

Yet the immediate response of Bush to the emerging crisis – blankly staring into space for several minutes after being told of the attacks before going into hiding for the rest of the day, then later referring to the terrorists as “folks” – probably showed the real George W Bush. Cowardly, incompetent and lacking eloquence. You could argue that 9/11 was unprecedented, and no president would be able to respond in a flawless way. And I’d concede that point – to some extent. But the post 9/11 actions of the Bush administration were terrible and damaging – both nationally and internationally.

Bush’s attempts to increase the internal security of the US manifested itself in the utterly draconian Patriot Act. This Act represented the Republicans finally, and utterly, abandoning the small-state ethos of Ronald Reagan, and handing massive powers to the federal government. It will take years to roll back and fully unpick the devastating impact this terrible piece of legislation has had on the Land of the Free.

And internationally, Bush has managed to create not just one Vietnam but two – America is bogged down in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Even when the troops leave and US citizens stop dying in both of those countries (whenever rhetoric turns to action and that actually happens) there will be no stability in either country. Bush’s foreign policy adventures have not make terrorism less likely – in fact, the opposite is true. And he has not brought democracy and stability to either Iraq or Afghanistan. Bush’s global response to 9/11 has wasted the goodwill and sympathy may felt towards the US after 2001 atrocity, and leaves the incoming President Obama with a nation hated by many across the world.

Make no mistake; 9/11 would have tested any President; it certainly tested Bush. But his response to that attack would almost be used as a textbook example of what not to do in the face of a terrorist atrocity.

Hurricane Katrina

But – amazingly – it wasn’t Iraq or Afghanistan that broke the Bush Presidency. In fact, many supported him because he was “doing something”. He appeared decisive (you can be both decisive and wrong) and it appears many Americans respected that. Yet when the US faced a disaster caused by nature rather than terror, he was found to be wanting. He did nothing. He sat and waited, whilst New Orleans drowned.

And as New Orleans succumbed to the waters, so did the Bush presidency. I maintain that the Bush response to Katrina – or rather the lack of it – killed his second administration. Once Bush was seen as a ditherer and not taking actions that could have saved American lives, two things happened. The horrific Republican losses in the 2006 mid-term elections became inevitable, and Bush became a lame-duck President.

The polls reflect this; but Bush’s second term had to go on, even after the people turned against him. Which is one of the reasons why the 2008 Presidential Election became one of the longest and most expensive in history – almost as soon as he had been elected, the US was longing for his replacement.

The 2004 Presidential Election

Of course, no-one – not even Bush Junior – could be a total failure. Some point to his programme of aid to Africa as a resounding success. I’d concede this point, but would also point out that it is easy to be generous with money that isn’t your own.

Another apparent triumph for Bush was the 2004 election. Love him or hate, and regardless of whether you think he was the winner or the loser in 2000, you have to concede that he won in 2004. Yet, the extent to which this victory was down to Bush is open to question. The malign genius of Karl Rove was behind that election success, and Rove was aided no end by John Kerry – a compelling yet incompetent contender for President. Bush won; yet his victory was not because of Bush personally.

Perhaps, at the risk of being cynical, Bush’s real triumph was to stay alive during his time in the White House. Because by staying alive he was able to save us from the one person who would have been a worse President – the demon goblin himself, the bald Prince of evil, Dick Cheney.

So against every parameter and in the face of every test, Bush failed. The successes he did have can be attributed to others. And as such there can be only one verdict on the presidency of George W Bush; failure.

Remembrance Sunday

Tomorrow is Remembrance Sunday - and I think everyone should take a moment to think about what the day means. It doesn't matter whether you think war is a legitimate tool of foreign policy, or a necessary evil, or is totally wrong. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether you are a rabid nationalist, or a occasional patriot or, like me, someone without a real national identity. Because tomorrow isn't about war or the nation. It is about remembering those who fought, and especially those who died or were wounded. It is about remembering those who made a sacrifice. And just for one day, you can forget about all those arguments over whether the sacrifice was right or not.

I won't be on line tomorrow so I will leave you with the striking, poetic lines from the Ode of Remembrance today:

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
Straight of limb, true of eyes, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.