Timmyhawk

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST
Or maybe not? Here's historian Arthur Herman in the current issue of Commentary (NOT my favourite mag. . . ):

I point I've been making repeatedly for at least the last six years, though to be more accurate the last twelve is more like it. Here I am, without reservations I would make today, on my blog back in 2004:

Also here and here. What I find strange about this is that this is an obvious argument and yet Herman's comment above is the first time I've read/heard anybody else make it. Did I miss it?

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST
General Petraeus yesterday:

There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory; any turning point
will likely only be recognised in retrospect

Though you could have read that thought on my blog three years ago:

Finally someone listens to me… ;) Not quite, but the point matters.

MORE BASRA TERROR
I'm sure I'm not the only rubbing his eyes over this story, Giant man-eating badgers stalk Basra:

Of course, out-of-control badgers are not a new topic on this blog.
But to be serious again, what's the real cause here:

So, to sum up, Saddam caused the problem, and the Coalitions redemptive measures leave much to be desired. I’ve got a feeling that line has a familiar ring to it . . .
To wrap up, Via NRO, there's this strangeness. Huh?

QUOTE OF THE DAY
Further to the fourth anniversary of the invasion into Iraq this from an Iraqi is quite good:

The whole post is in fact worth reading.

OIF/TELIC FOUR YEARS ON
Don’t want to write much about Iraq at the moment. Here’s a good piece by Christopher Hitchens. Somtime I’ll have a bit of a review of what I got wrong on Iraq. I wasn’t publishing back in March 2003, but you can have a look at my March 2004 review and consider it in the light of the following three years.

As explained below we cannot reverse nuclear arms already aquired in the countries that have them. So, a realistic policy should firstly work at reducing their numbers, an area in which Britain is leading by example. The next realistic step is to stop further proliferation. The risk of this exists in two broad regions: the Pacific and the broader Mediterranean and greater Middle East.
Let's get the Pacific out of the way, as this is outside Britain's strategic sphere. The consequences of North Korea getting away with its programme and a possible weakening of American leadership could lead to the following chain reaction of nuclear weapons aquirement: South Korea & Japan, Taiwan, Australia and Indonesia.

Looking into our own region, let's have a look at the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, coupled with a possible drawdown of US-UK regional military policies: Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as the first in line would go nuclear first. In turn this would pressure and open opportunities for Egypt, Lybia and Greece. Leading on from there Algeria and Syria can also not be discounted entirely. Once this is getting underway, who can say that other European powers, especially Germany will not be tempted as well? Additionally remember the strategic pressure represented by Russia.
This is bad for Britain's security. So, in order to counter this we will have to work on strategic arrangements and security deals that will lift the potential burden of Iranian/Russian nuclear blackmail from these countries. This would require resetting our alliances and making it clear that armed conflict will at some point draw in British military force, which must, and will, ultimately be insured with nuclear weapons.
Such a policy would not be able to reverse nuclear weapons in any of the countries in our strategic neighbourhood (Britain, France, Israel, US, Russia, Iran), but it would prevent the spread of such weapons to other countries.

(See also this article in the JPost by Emanuel Adler on the Israeli case, which makes a good point, similar to mine, and which ties in with this earlier posting).

TRIDENT RENEWAL: TOWARDS NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Needless to say, it would be nice to be done entirely with such expensive and dangerous weapons, but Britain alone cannot not achieve anything with unilateral moves, except disadvantage the UK’s strategic position.
However, nuclear disarmament can only work if all potential competitors agree to do likewise, and in a simultaneous and verifiable fashion.

Who would that be for Britain/France/EU? And what other factors might drive their nuclear programmes?
Iran: Strategically this is a fairly direct neighbour. Iran claims in addition to us and the French, the US and Israel as concerns. Rivalry of course also with Russia.
Russia: Whilst there may not be much threat of any kind of serious conflict, we cannot know what the future holds, and in addition growing energy dependence on Russia would mean that our nuclear climbdown would shift the balance of power and influence excessively to Russia. So, what drives Russian nuclear arms policy? Its additional strategic neighbours and competitors are Iran, China and the US.

What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
Israel: To offset its numerical and spatial disadvantage vis a vis its neighbours, and because of Iran's programme, any Israeli disarmament moves are effectively impossible. And who knows who will follow in the region once Iran goes nuclear and the US-UK coalition abandons the region to its own devices: Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the most likely candidates; but more on this later.
China: Obviously the US is the main concern for China and additionally India plays a role, just as North Korea will be of some concern. Additionally a failure to contain North Korea and the weakening of American leadership would lead to more proliferation: most likely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and maybe Australia.
US: Strategic concerns about Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.

So again: What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
North Korea: nukes used to extract international aid, strategic concern about the US and China.
India: Rivalry with Pakistan and China.

If we now add in Pakistan (vis a vis India, perhaps Iran), we have all the world's nuclear powers involved. From this we can conclude that the nuclear disarmament of Western Europe will only be possible within a framework that sees total global nuclear disarmament.
Whilst the likelihood of this is fairly small, formulating this as an end goal for British foreign policy to support is nonetheless right.
But before this can come about, Britain is right to keep its nukes, while making sure that the numbers are as small as possible. And on this, the Government for once seems to have got it right.

LEGAL ISSUES ON INVADING IRAQ
I will flesh this out properly one day but given some discussions I have been party to recently I though I might as well make my key points again:

There are differing views by legal experts. I have no legal training so I am not qualified to examine all relevant documents in the correct manner.
It is true that the accusation is often raised that those who support the legality of the invasion are or have been in the employ of Government. However, this does not refute any of their arguments, and it is only logical that experts who share the Government’s view would also work for and support the Government.
In an equal manner, those legal scholars who claim the action was illegal are -just like anyone else- not some completely neutral opinion-free minds; they have their own personal political views and agendae too. In part this is due to professional reasons. Lawyers like to change the world by laws, so when laws fail and military force takes over they are understandably disappointed. Psychologically it is of course far more pleasing to blame Governments’ behaviour than accepting that one own profession has only limted abilities.
The other factor to be considered in international law experts is their basic motivation. How many of them became international legal scholars because they see themselves as internationalists trying to make a better world by making rules that instinctively favour the weak? And how many of them turned to this field because they wanted to serve Queen and Country and give international power politics a more sensible framework? Given that many of these experts tend to be involved in left-wing political activism, such as CND, their political biases must also be factored into the evaluation of their judgements.

So far to the experts’ background. There are two points to be made about the actual issue as far as I can see it.
Firstly, before turning to the real meat, there is the unaddressed issue of the Genocide Convention. This convention requires all signatory states, practically the whole globe, to take all measures necesary to put an end to genocide. These measures include war, and thus the convention puts the protection of human beings above state sovereignty. It also demands that all countries seek to bring the perpetrators to justice, and this requirement does not cease once the genocide is over. The Saddam regime’s war against the northern Kurds in 1988 is generally accepted by virtually all experts as being genocidal. Indeed Saddam is currently being tried for this in court. So the situation in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein was a perpetrator of genocide, and it was a legal requirement upon all signatories to the Genocide Convention, including of course the US and the UK, to bring Saddam to justice. The only way this was feasible was by invading Iraq and toppling his regime. So, whilst this is not generally used as an argument because it is only incidental to the question of the invasion in 2003, this could nonetheless be used an argument that shift the balance of doubt towards the coalition.

Secondly, and this is the real argument is the question of legitimacy. This is a more political and moral category than legality but it is an easier way to approach the issue for non-experts. First of all it is important when the Iraq war started, namely in 1990 when Iraq occupied Kuwait. So the war that we are to some extent still stuck in was initiated by Iraqi aggression. This aggression means that responsibility for the war lies with the regime of Saddam Hussein. After the coalition’s first round of operations a ceasefire was put into place. Iraq then spent the next 11 years violating the conditions of the ceasefire. As it is up to the aggressor to step down for peace to ensue, the coalition was entirely in its right to resume military operations against the aggressor.
Some of these circumstances were codified by UN-resolutions, which lead to the argument that an explicit UN-Security Council agreement had to be reached on going back to war. There are differing interpretations as to whether this was necessary, or whether the fact of Iraqi aggression and previous UN-resolutions were sufficient (the US administration’s view). There was an argument that a more up-to-date UN edict was necessary and an explicit choice for offensive military force desireable (the UK Government’s view). This is in turn in doubt as it would make the UN Security Council the highest legal authority in Britain, thus overriding the sovereignty of Parliament; a position hardly tenable for a mere diplomatic forum. However the sceptics’ view says that existing British legal frameworks, by being member of the UN, incorporate the need for giving precedence to the UN. Additionally there is the argument that because the legalitity/legitimacy of the war was, at least in part, in the hands of the UN, it could not be taken out of the UN process.
On a specifically British point one could also point out that in granting independence the UK guaranteed to Kuwait its existence and was thus bound by treaty to regard Iraqi aggression against the emirate as aggression against Britain.
To summarise, it could be said that the legal onus lay on Iraq as the aggressor, but it could also be argued that the switch from defensive to offensive military operations could only be authorised by Security Council mandate, thus rendering the coalition’s action legally dubious. I suppose, being of a somewhat conservative bent, I don’t have much time for transnationalism to begin with and am so inclined to share the Bush Administration’s view. Indeed I would say that this is a case were classical arguments on resisting aggression apply, which are unwritten laws of international order and are universally accepted. Thus there would be no further need for any other treaties or conventions to come into play. But, as I said, that a somewhat right-wing view and is certainly not widely shared (ahem).

WHAT A DOUR WEEK
I should be blogging properly on all of this, but it’s not so much anger but despair that marks my reaction to what’s been going on in the past days. Where to start?
ID cards. Has anybody anywhere seen anything resembling a convincing argument that we actually need these breathing licenses? Sure their cheerleaders have argued well, if not convincingly, that they won’t turn this country into a police state and that they won’t bankrupt us. And that’s it. And some of the cheek they use in their arguments - just consider our probable future prime minister:

More shocking abuse in Iraq . . . well not really. We get a journalistically indefensible running of abuse image of Abu Ghraib. Why this qualifies as “news” escapes me, as it’s the same incident, the same day, that we have already worked through and it offers nothing in the way of new evidence. The only thing it does is provide material to the opponents of the Coalition. It’s almost like the responsible media want us to lose this war . . .
And as for our own boys, am I missing something here? I only read about it and didn’t see the images so I was expecting something disturbing. So I was rather dismayed to see the whole furour was kicked up only about a few troops in rather desperate circumstances kicking and hitting a little too much during an arrest. Admittedly, too much is too much and it is necessary for disciplinary action to be taken. But given the circumstances of an mob assault on the Army base, a mere few kicks and hits are pretty mild to the possible alternative of machine gunning the crowd. Again, this abuse only really shows again how we remain on the moral highground even if we lose the PR battle.
Which moves us on to the smoking ban. What to make of that? Is this fox hunting for pubbers? I don’t really see how this can be popular, or why we need it. In consequence pubs will wither lose customers, or change their licences to being private premises. As for people who don’t go to pubs, and who are probably the majority backing this move, they’re not going to be showing up in Ye Old Rose anytime soon. The only change is that now we have to waste the resources of public order on implementing this idiocy. What a day for limited government.
The final straw I think was the bizarre Dick Cheney shooting incindent. Sure, given that the victim seems in good shape, it’s certainly worth a giggle and some jokes in satire shows, but can anybody give me any reason why this was given whole minutes on prime time British tv news? Or why does it warrant any real attention? It’s all beyond me. It does however, along with the above raise questions about the competence of the journalistic profession.
All in all I just feel that sensible argument is just being lost.

NO BRITISH WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ
I saw parts of Question Time last night, which was not quite the freak show that it normally is, so at least that was a relief. One of the questions about withdrawing British troops from Iraq got me thinking that we don’t really have a proper debate about the issue in this country. It’s not that it doesn’t get debated, it’s just that the conclusion is virtually always the same: the doves say pull ‘em out now, and the tougher doves say pull ‘em out when Iraq’s ready. Though it’s notable that the latter often have difficulty defining when exactly Iraq is “ready”.
Another element in this debate is the idea of a fixed timetable. This is most easily dealt with: if there’s a timetable the criminals, insurgents and jihadists that are already making life in Iraq misery will have a field day. They can then sit back and relax knowing that their most formidable enemy will be gone soon. This interlude can be used to recruit more and more fighters by giving them an opportunity for victory; because let’s face it, without the shield of the Coalition the insurgents are going to make mince meat out of the Iraqi police and security forces. Also, if there’s a timetable all cooperation by the local populace with our troops will cease: after all, no one wants to be on the losing side, particularly when the victors are not exactly renowned for their humane and forgiving nature.
To return to the starting point, my complaint is that we’re not having a proper debate. One gigantic hole in the debate is the view held by hawks like me, namely that we shouldn’t be debating how and when to withdraw, but how and when to send reinforcements to Iraq to get a grip on the situation (rather than Afghanistan). The longer we wait the more entrenched our enemies, the enemies of a functioning Iraqi democracy, will inevitably become. Now, whether or not you agree with this view isn’t my main concern right now, my concern is that this is nowhere in the debate. How often have supporters of the Iraq war or Government ministers been questioned on tv or the radio whether it’s time to withdraw? Compare that to how often they have been asked whether a bad security situation would surely necessitate more troops? I can’t remember that question ever being raised. This is a real problem.
Particularly because our troops aren’t leaving Iraq anytime soon. Certainly not within a decade if not longer. What makes me so sure? Have a brief look at where a large portion of the Army’s bases is located. Notice something? There’s a huge contingent in north West Germany. What on earth are they doing there? Well, British troops first arrived to defeat Nazi Germany. Then they occupied Germany to rebuild it. Following on from that they were stationed there to deter and in extremis help stop the flood of Warsaw Pact tanks sweeping across the north German plains. Then the Cold War ended. That was 16 years ago, but our troops are still there. Why? Partly convenience because it spares the Army from finding new training grounds in the UK.
I see no reason why the deployment to Iraq will be any different. After invading to depose Saddam, the troops are occupying Iraq to rebuild it and will eventually stay on to deter Iran. Additionally British forces have been stationed in the Persian Gulf area now for a good century and with the region’s increasing importance for our security and interests the rationale is only going to increase. Indeed my guess would be that the permanent stationing in Germany might well be exchanged for setting up home in Iraq.
This is the most likely outcome, so there will be no withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

DEALING WITH IRAN: WHY WE NEED AN ISRAELI SECURITY GUARANTEE
Is it time for an "Osiran" strike? Is the solution to the current crisis about Iran's nuclear weapons programme a repeat of Israel's famed attack on Saddam's Osirak facility, or O'Chirac if you prefer that spelling?
I can see that many people are hoping this is going to happen. In a way it's a dream scenario: Israel does the actual dangerous and dirty work, the Coalition can huff and puff and indignantly protest how Israel has destroyed all its efforts at a peaceful solution etc., and in the end the problem is fixed or at least delayed. Equally the strategic fall-out would only hit Israel in the form of Iranian proxy retaliation via Hizballah and possibly Hamas, so we're in the clear on that one as well. Phew.
On the other hand if Britain and her allies take military steps against Iran there is going to be serious violence in Iraq, the conditions for which are already in place. As Iranian agents have reportedly been observing targets in Western cities, we may well even get some heavy hits on the "home front". Well, better let Israel take the brunt until we can find some magic wand to make the nuclear problem disappear.
One thing is clear however, a military strike by Israel alone will not suffice to end the Iranian programme it can only delay it a bit. Still it is an option Israeli policy makers will be considering now. And the timing is becoming more urgent. As has been pointed out by Richard North and the Wall Street Journal, Iran will soon have a new set of high-tech air defences from Russia (SA-15 Gauntlet, to be precise). These new systems would be good enough to make a single strike by Israel ineffective. That means that if Israel wants a sensible, i.e. non-nuclear option against Iranian nukes, it has until about March to do so, when the Russian systems are up and running. After that the options of dealing with Iran via air strikes will only be open to the US Air Force's stealth bombers, F-117s and B-2s.
The consequence of this situation is that Israel must either act now, or completely place its fate in the hands of the US and the EU-3, not to mention Russia and China. If you were an Israeli what would you be thinking?
So an Israeli strike is well on the table, and there is plenty of rumour about this sloshing around too.

But is this really desirable? I don't think so. There is a real risk that Iranian counter measures would spill over on to non-Israeli targets, including British ones. After all an attack by the demonised "Zionist entity" would be the perfect ideological rallying tool for Iran's current leader. He has something of a pedigree here after all. So, who's to say an Israeli strike couldn't be used as an excuse to recruit for and launch a serious jihadist campaign in the region and beyond. This would clearly hurt our interests, though this is a more speculative outcome.
Another problem I see is that diplomacy may still have some hope in Iran. Perhaps not in changing the ambitions of the current leader, but perhaps by slowing the programme down enough for an internal regime change to occur (or at least some moderation). An Israeli strike would clearly be a further step to full on violent escalation and I don't think we are politically or militarily entirely prepared for that yet. If we ever will be.

From this problem there are two separate courses of remedial action to be taken.
Firstly, there must be a way to stop Russia providing Iran with the Gauntlet missile system.
Secondly, and this is the key point of this posting, we have to find a way to dissuade Israel from attacking. Israel has many a good reason to carry out a strike, if it cannot depend on anyone else for its security. So an obvious step to take now would be for the US and the EU-3 to offer a clear security guarantee to Israel. Such a guarantee would bind all countries security together in this instance and by putting Israel's security into the diplomatic mix openly and comprehensively would remove Israel's need for action.

This would be a logical and necessary step, so it will be eventually taken, when it's too late, as these things always are. Nonetheless, it's simple really, it only requires a bit of political foresight. So, fingers crossed.

“BOMB AL JAZEERAH!”- WHY?
So we see the return of the story about how Bush allegedly wanted to bomb the headquarters of the Al Jazeerah tv channel in Quatar. I don’t know whether or not this is accurate but there is something else I have been wondering about: why would he even consider it? I am just assuming from hearsay that al-J’s reporting of Western military effort is biased against the Coalition. But if that’s what was bugging Bush, he would have been singling out al-J rather unfairly, given that there are plenty of other tv channels that are not noted for their enthusiasm for the war in Iraq. Some of them rather closer to home too.
Ok, so perhaps he really is the kind of war-mongeringly thoughtless nutter that the anti-war likes to make him out to be. Despite being a fully committed pro-American über-hawk I cannot of course rule this out theoretically. Well, I’ll leave that to the theorists then.
Another possibility that also can’t be discounted is that he was joking. Who knows? He might have been discussing the difficulty of getting any kind of good PR, and after mulling over the frustration of al-J specifically, might have jested, “we should just bomb them!”. If that were the case I can also see why no one would want this published because it would appear rather immature to be making jokes like that in the midst of a war crisis. And that’s still an understatement.
But here’s my guess at what could have been the driving factor. Apologies for the fuzzy detail and I don’t have any links at present, but I remember there was a story about al-J paying insurgents to carry out attacks so they had some exciting material. Additionally there were a whole host of allegations about collusion between al-J reporters and insurgents. I don’t know if those stories ever really got substantiated, but it would be quite a serious situation if it were true. Perhaps Bush indeed suggested to Blair that bombing al-J’s HQ might be an option of dealing with the problem. To my knowledge nothing was ever done. So the problem I see for Bush in regards to this memo is that it shows he had evidence of al-J/insurgent cooperation and then did nothing about it. This would be a real damper in regards to his standing with more hawkish types. Remember of course when this supposed discussion took place, frustration and even anger was on the boil about Bush N’ Blair’s refusal to send enough troops in the right fashion to win in Iraq (see archives of timmyhawk and Weekly Standard ad nauseam). Bush and Blair may simply now be trying to avoid coming under even more pressure from within their own camps.
There is one final reason for suppressing the memo. It’s a memo of a confidential, i.e. secret, deliberation between heads of government. If such conversations can in future not take place because of an overbearing fear of unprofessional civil servants leaking anything that tickles their fancy, communication between our governments will become ever more difficult, and in consequence it will become evermore harder to act. Particularly damaging to the Government in times of war.
Well that’s my quid’s worth, we’ll see one day I suppose. We always do in the end.

IF "JARHEAD" IS A SERIOUS FILM . . .
. . . then why is it being advertised with a web banner that screams: Win a Tank Driving Experience! That strikes me more as the kind of thing you would do promote some jingoist action flick, rather than a "meditation about war".
Bad PR? Or perhaps this is just super-clever post-modern advertising. One of the most noted passages in Anthony Swofford's book that Sam Mendes' film is based on, is after about how anti-war films are indistinguishable from "pro-war" ones, if you want to call them that. The point Swofford made, was that any film about war served as a sort of pornography to soldiers as it showed their grizzly skill in action, and this proved titillating viewing independent of the context. (see here)
So, perhaps the ad men were extra clued in on this and this was only for the select few who understood the deeper context between such an otherwise infantile advertising gimmick?
Somehow though I don't quite believe it . . .

BRITAIN’S SELF-DESTRUCTION CONTINUES
That Sir Michael Rose, eh? I wonder if anybody is surprised by today’s news that he’s joined in the chorus of “impeach Blair!”. I’m certainly not. According to Sir Mikey, Blair “mislead” Parliament and the public over invading Iraq. There are arguments I can’t be bothered to enter into anymore, and this is certainly one of them. But there is something else going on here. Even if there was more truth in Rose’s claims that I can see, what on earth does he think he’s doing? He’s not going to achieve anything positive or constructive.
On another revealing wider point, his argument about wmd, where do you link to, if you want to refutation of that view? In the US it’d be fairly easy, and this piece is the first that comes to mind. But from a British perspective? I can’t off my head reading anything in, say, the Spectator, that made a similar argument about Britain’s war. Where are our hawks? (Even if they go ott.)
This only reflects the sheer and ever growing lack of nerve by the “great and the good”, of which a former general should be considered a member. Increasingly I get the feeling that the British establishment is losing its sense of political seriousness.
It is after all one thing thinking that invading Iraq in 2003 was a bad idea, it is quite another beating the anti-war drum long after the decision has been made and our troops are in the field. The only thing that will achieve is in undermining public support for a war that can’t be made undone anymore. In turn this saps away at the troops’ morale. Think about it, would you want to be a soldier risking his life in Iraq, when at home everybody’s saying that you shouldn’t be there and we’re going to lose anyway and everything you’re doing is a waste of space et al? No? Neither would I.
I find this episode all the more disappointing because Sir Michael Rose is a former general himself. He could at least counterbalanced his complaints about the political procedure prior to the invasion with a few strong words of support for his former colleagues.
And Britain sinks a little more . . .

IRAQ AS KOREA
Via Clive Davis here’s great column by Anne Applebaum comparing Iraq not to Vietnam but to Korea. I think Applebaum is quite on the money here though I still find it too defeatist. But I think it’s worth comparing how the issue has shifted since I made the Iraq-Korea analogy more than two years ago. At the time I thought Korea was not the way to go and we needed to push for genuine victory. But I think the risk of ending up with another Korea, a situation that achieves a costly and ambivalent situation is quite big in Iraq now. Like in Korea, intervention in Iraq has brought good, but it has also created problems that proper success would have avoided.

NOTES: THE EU-JUGGERNAUT, PRESERVING THE CHURCH, LOSING OUR MORALE OVER IRAQ, APPEARANCE OF NEW TORY FOREIGN POLICY?, ARMENIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM
Whilst I complained that many people in this country were going slack in regards to the expansion of EU (and less recently), that was more of an aside, I had little idea just how fast and far the EU was actually going. In the Speccie's cover story Anthony Brown recounts some of the major development from only the past few months. It is pretty dizzying reading. Whilst one could try to find solace in Brown's remark that

I fear the EU is simply doing its usual thing in flying under the radar. Again it's a shame that the main press doesn't really pick these stories up properly. In turn of course that leads to angry-old-man-syndrome when it suddenly becomes apparent that the EU has instigated some mind bogglingly stupid and rightfully unpopular move like forcing out the Red Ensign. Well, probably too late if true. By the time you see the result of EU regulations or an expansion of EU institutional competences it's probably already too late to do anything about it - that's how it works. It's time the wider public got to understand this better. It's good of the Speccie to run these stories (and reminds me why we really need it), but that is just not enough.


Having spent the day in Canterbury I am impressively reminded why I stand by the Church of England, despite some of its growing troubles. When you look at the Cathedral but also some of the smaller Church buildings spread around you are not immediately struck by it. It's when you look closer, that what really conveys the quiet splendour of the Anglican faith are the little details and the air of historical matter-of-courseness that accompanies the Church and its works. It certainly grew on me again while I was there.


In Saturday's Times Matthew Parris has an interesting comment on Iraq, in which he says that whatever we may consciously argue, subconsciously we all agree on Iraq having failed. I am afraid I know what he means. When Iraq hawks talk and particularly blog amongst themselves it all seems less bad, but the moment you open a newspaper, switch on the telly or the radio you can't avoid this sinking feeling. I see no reason (yet?) to change my mind over invading and occupying Iraq, but the emotional commitment to the enterprise had been gone for a long time. In the lead up to the invasion there was a real feeling that things were changing for the better, and this was a just and necessary war that it was a pleasure to be an advocate for. I can't really say when that tipping point came. Looking back there are two points that stand out for me.
The first was Bush's "mission accomplished" show. At the moment when the war was going into its more difficult phase of reestablishing order in Iraq Bush was effectively saying there's nothing to do anymore, let's go home. That built up exactly the wrong kind fo expectation both in the military and the public. After you've created the impression that the job is as good as done and you then say, "yes, but I need to send an extra two hundred thousand troops in for at least a year" (a realistic war plan I would wager), people are going baulk at that. I think this is when I began feeling that our leaders were possibly going to mess things up.
The second was the David Kelly affair. Whether or not Andrew Gilligan was journalistically right or not to blow the wmd story up at a time when public support was already beginning to wane I will leave to others to debate; ultimately there’s nothing that can be done about freedom of the press, even if that freedom gets used badly. But again like Bush’s speech this was in the transformationary phase of the war. To run a proper nation building war effort would have required public backing. The Kelly affair set off the then sheer endless stream of officials past and present rolling out supposed exposes about wmd lies. This helped undermine public morale. Why the Government was so incompetent in meeting this bad pr remains a mystery to me, given how good they are normally at spinning.
But both those incidences I think we’re instrumental in pushing the emotional dimension of the Iraq war debate in the wrong direction. To be sure, there is plenty that went wrong policy and argument wise to be sure.
If you read the Economist's fine leader on Iraq this week you are struck by the level of disappointment that seeps through the comment. That is a feeling I sadly share. What makes it worse is that I know it's possibly too late to make a real shift in strategy. That would also be politically difficulty increasingly in Iraq itself now I guess. Otherwise I think this posting from more than two years ago describes what would needed to be done.
(As an aside, advocating the invasion of Iraq may have been a pleasure, but socially comfortable it wasn't; I guess people don't really like debating politics properly in a social environment; it's more about finding commonality with other, which intensifies ten-fold the displaesure on realising the other side diagrees with you.)


So what template would a Tory Government do to deal with such a situation? Not easy to tell. Back in June I had pointed out that the Conservatives needed to debate and develop clear thinking on foreign policy. Whilst Michael Howard's positions had already hinted in an interventionist, hawkish and sovereignist direction, it seems that outlook is gaining traction amongst the Tories. In this week's Speccie Peter Oborne reports on a London meeting of the Henry Jackson Society. Plenty of up and coming Tories in there. It certainly looks like this is where the Conservatives seem to be heading in terms of forging a new foreign policy consensus. This will definitely help the Conservatives win the next election. After all, one of my favourites themes I like to go on about is how you can’t fight properly in politics if you don’t have certainty on the national strategy, Britain’s place in the world and on how you would decide matters of war and peace. Even if there is a wide political range in the Henry Jackson Society itself, most are centre-right and I think it is no safe to say that therefore the Tory revival edges closer.
(see also Stephen Pollard)


After the doubtful occurances during Azerbaijan’s elections recently, time to turn to another South Caucasus state and an expression of public will, the constitutional amendment referendum in Armenia. The proposal would most importantly have moved powers away from the presidency towards parliament. After first hearing about it I thought this looks a lot more promising avenue for bringing genuine democracy into the post-Soviet sphere than trying to do so in single big steps such as revolutions or general elections. By gradually starting to move things from the bottom up, piece by piece, chances are far better that the democracy that emerges from that will hold. Sadly, it seems the referendum has followed the dubious routes that similar events have gone in the ex-USSR. Shame really. Hopefully it will work one day.

MORE NOTES: AZERIS VOTE, GUY FAWKES, IRAQ INQUIRY, TROOP MORALE AND QUIZZES
Very busy in my real life at the moment so still no proper posts . . .

There are elections in Azerbaijan today. The Economist has a good primer on this, Katy of blogrel is there now and Eurasianet is a good source for incoming news. This is quite an important event in a region whose strategic relevance has grown due to oil and being in the neighbourhood of Iran and the Nastystans. How the elections run today will have important ramifications. Ideally the elections will run smoothly and be fair. This in turn will enable the country to reform, make Western engagement such as military bases acceptable and help a peaceful resolution of the Karabagh conflict with Armenia. If this doesn't happen, and there is a real risk of this, there are two basic scenarios that are problematic. If incumbent holds on to power illicitly and the West stays, we will be compromising our moral standing and credibility. On the other hand, if we pull out, this might heighten the propensity of the Azerbaijan regime to seek a military solution to the conflict with Armenia. Needless to say such a war would be catastrophic for all involved but that's never stopped unstable dictatorships from going down that route for their egos and to cement crumbling regimes at home. As long as there is Western engagement in the region and the country, the West will try to quell any war as this would be deeply damaging to our interests. So I think we have a bit of a dilemma to solve if the current regime hangs on to power. (As for solving the Karabagh conflict, the first rule that outsiders should lay down and enforce would be one of absolute non-violence. And whichever side violates the ceasefire should then be treated as an illegitimate aggressor.)

Remember, remember, the fifth of November . . . The 400th time this year round. Clive Davis has some disappointing observations to make. Certainly the past five years the tradition of Bonfire Night has been pretty hollowed out. While I was at uni there was not a single event, but there were countless Halloween parties. I have nothing against Halloween, seeing as it connects to warm childhood memories, but it is still a shame that it is driving out Guy Fawkes. But that's the thing you see, if you abolish or downgrade national traditions like that what you end up with is not some bold global humanist utopia but rather more you will end with the resulting vacuum being filled by the commercially most available alternative. And that will normally be American for better or for worse. (I wrote an essay on Guy Fawkes' enduring relevance yesterday, but the footnoting went awol so you'll have to wait a little for that.) On the other hand, as our penchant for turning everything into a booze-fuelled mess, we all know what any festivities in this country tend to descend to . . . ;)
By the sounds of it so far this looks like an Iraq inquiry that makes sense:

For once we might actually get an investigation into the management of the war, particularly the post-invasion planning, rather than the endless and irrelevant arguments about wmd.

Sticking with Iraq, news is in that the stress levels of our troops have now reached those of World War Two. Things must have got much worse in Iraq, right? Well, not quite. It's mainly down to a fear of being prosecuted for killing an insurgent. The trial against seven Paras that collapsed this week is a good case in point. Despite no credible evidence for wrongdoing and witnesses who were allegedly being paid to make stuff up, it is fairly bizarre that the whole sordid affair could be drawn out for more than two years. DumbJohn is on form on this.

And now: quiz time! Oh dear, again? I hear you poor reader groan, but I'm having too much fun with this:

Although not immediately apparent fromt his blog's politics, but in my real life this is probably quite true:

SOME NOTES ON THE PAST WEEK
Am I the only one who notices an uncanny resemblance between this EU Referendum posting and this comment piece in the Sunday Times? Ok, well the Sunday Times article mentions the must-read arrse, but otherwise it's hard to see any other ground being covered there. Still, I suppose it's good to see these arguments moving from the blogosphere to the "proper" media.
Staying with defence and the Times, Saturday had a strange comment about the Navy's future:

Yes, the Army is more important, but the RAF? There is, to be clear, only a very limited need for an air force at the moment. What our forces need are deployable and close-in support assets, such as would be ideally provided by aircraft carriers equipped with the Joint Strike Fighter. We could hope . . .
Lot of work in those regards to do for the next Conservative prime minister. From the most recent polling it looks like Cameron will be it. Not that he's spent an awful lot of time on saying what his defence policy would be, but a BBC poll says Party members are going to vote him in. Whether it's Davis or Cameron, I am confident that the Conservatives will carry the day in 2009/2010. Having so far only followed this leadership race in print for the past three months I was pretty amazed at the visual difference between the two Davids. Whereas Cameron always seems to look fresh, healthy and energetic, Davis looks clapped-out and finished. I guess that will shift the balance in Cameron's favour too.
On the other hand perhaps the BBC is still continuing its practice of presenting people it doesn't like in a bad ligh. Evidence for this could be seen on Sunday's The Politics Show when they interviewed noted Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan, he had a sinister menacing shadow over the left half of his face, funny that with all the technology available in terms of make-up, lighting and computer retouching something like that should still happen . . . (Not that these methods are restricted to this side of the Big Pond mind you.)
While we're on the issue of that show, am I the only one who thinks that the presenters' insistence of not wearing ties makes the whole programme look a little tacky and akin to some Sunday afternoon football chat show?
Talking of politics on the BBC though, is it possible that the coverage has actually gotten fairer? For example on Newsnight they had an interview with two American experts (one was Dick Morris) about Bush's remaining years in office after such a week of crisis, all of which was possible without the usual anti-war and Bush-bashing claptrap clouding out sober analysis as used to be the case for the often. And again, on the Politics Show Sunday morning, the Tories interviewed were given proper space to speak and even the appropriate respect. Has the BBC seen the journalistic light? Or is it scared what will happen to its future once the Conservatives are back in power?
If you happen to be curious about the further developments on the German election front, I will be bringing an update soon given the current troubles (includes more demonic lighting, what's going on . . . ?!). I see that the Times seems to agree with my call for a second round of elections. Looking back though I will say that going for another election campaign now will be a better option than it would have been in late September. The leftward shift apparent in Schroeder's social democrats should lead to a workable majority for a Christian-democrat/right-liberal coalition that I have argued here occasionally.
So, David Blunkett has gone from office again. Well, I don't really know my way around the ministerial code of conduct, so I can't say anything useful about that. The only thing I noticed again, is that here was a Labour minister leaving office due to some form of corruption. Whilst that is good in itself, it masks the fact that there has been quite a dearth in the past years when it comes to ministers being sacked or resigning due to incompetence. And to be sure, there's been plenty of it: Geoff Hoon anyone . . . ? In the broader scheme of things I would say that incompetent Government is a bigger problem than incompetent Government and I think we should shift the balance of accountability in back in that direction.
As a side-note, it is quite funny really that Blunkett sat on the board of a company specialising in paternity testing isn't it?
To end this post on a gripe though, I was intermittently watching Sky News during the day. Is David Blunkett's resignation the only event worthy of reporting the whole day?

OUR DEFENCE POLICY LOSING THE PLOT?
So, in Basra, it has now come to this:

Given that the past two and a half years the British press has almost uniformly been unfavourably comparing our troops’ performance to that of their US colleagues, I wonder how on earth it could have come to this? Perhaps the media couldn’t be bothered to do any research. To be clear, on balance our Army is better, for reasons too extensive to go into here. Unfortunately that doesn’t mean it will always be better, and the way the situation in southern Iraq has come about by British passivity is clear evidence of larger failure. In fairness it’s not so much the troops’ fault as it is the fault of a Government that lacks either the will or the understanding to succeed in Iraq. Which would mean more troops and a more active strategy. So now comes this:

Of course, they’re not heading to Iraq where they are actually needed, because that would make military sense and we can’t have that now can we. No, they’re off to Afghanistan. To fight opium barons. Is that a real priority right now? Hardly. Afghanistan is admittedly in a mess, but this deployment will make no difference to the situation which is one of stable chaos. The only thing necessary in Afghanistan is to uphold the current status quo.
In Iraq on the other hand, developments are fast-paced and very important, and it is thus imperative to have enough forces on the ground to deal with increasingly assertive religious militias. Given that these could well be highly sympathetic towards Iran, it strikes me as pretty silly that a Government that apparently wants to bring Iran "into line", is not only shying away from, but actually withdrawing from confrontation with the Iranian regime’s possible allies. This is clearly shown by the decision, masked by administrative details, to reduce our troop levels in Iraq even more.
Even more risible in political terms is the fact that just a week earlier Reid had claimed that the Afghan effort 'won't affect Iraq'. I bet the Conservatives will really lay into him in Parliament, given such obvious inconsistencies when the Afghan deployment will also require a disproportionate amount of logistical support . . .
No, but seriously, it good to see that our Armed Forces are really at the cutting edge, deployed in highly important booster missions . . .
*sigh*

SAW CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS LAST NIGHT
Thanks to the Aspen Institute Berlin those in Berlin who are a little weary of always hearing the same anti-war orthodoxies about Iraq got to hear Christopher Hitchens in a Berlin bar (the Max & Moritz). It was quite good fun, though it is true that Hitchens is very rude. Still, made it more interesting I suppose. I have only read him in the past and it was nice to see and hear him live. In terms of the content, those who read Hitchens, Harry's Place, Norm or similar sites will probably be familiar with most of the left pro-war argument; and if you're not, well, why not? There were a number of witty moments too. At one point, when Hitchens was laying into Colin Powell, saying that after he had become the most overrated man in America he was now trying to become the most overrated man in the world, somebody in the audience heckled in and said that titel was already taken by Kofi Annan. Well, not your average German political audience there. In terms of his style of arguing he has a lot in common with his brother really, though politically not quite so. (As an aside, judging from what Peter Hitchens' website looks like, I don't think he's quite got with this blogging thing yet . . .).
Anyways, a good event.