Defence

Unwinnable war?

Today is Armed Forces Day, and I don’t recall seeing such collective negativity from newspapers and broadcasters on the Afghan war.  It borders on despair. Most news outlets have dissected David Cameron’s comments yesterday, where he could only offer the hope that troops would be withdrawn by the end of this parliament. Cameron’s non-committal answers, the regular drip of casualties and the sense that the surge has become a slog have led journalists and analysts to conclude, en masse, that the war is unwinnable.   Three interviews are particularly striking. Nick Harvey, the armed forces minister, re-iterated Cameron’s comments in the exact same terms. As I argued yesterday, the vague

Cameron wants troops out of Afghanistan by 2015

Everything about the Cameron government comes in fives. Five year terms, a five-year coalition and now we learn that it is Cameron’s considered opinion that British troops cannot remain Afghanistan for another five years. All Cameron has offered is the hope that troops will be home before the proposed May 2015 election. Five more years in Helmand on the current trajectory would be extremely costly and unpopular, especially given the political pressure surrounding defence cuts. Cameron realises this but will the nature of Britain’s engagement change? The assumption was that Britain would mirror President Obama’s timetable and begin a gradual withdrawal next year. That political and military strategy depended on

Defence matters

Sir Jock Stirrup’s early departure was one of the worst kept secrets in Westminster. But the ‘resignation’ could have been better handled. The coalition has created a lame duck in Stirrup. And, rightly, Con Coughlin asks why Stirrup is overseeing the strategic defence review if he was sufficiently inept as CDS? It makes no sense, as removing Stirrup and Sir Bill Jeffrey (the MoD’s permanent secretary) is clearly about preparing the way for spending cuts and a new model of UK military intervention. Liam Fox gave a speech this morning promising a ‘clean break with the Cold War mindset’. He emphasised the importance of maintaining counter-insurgency spending and training; presumably,

RAB

ABC was the acronym used for meetings of Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger and William Cohen when they all worked for the President Bill Clinton. RAB will hopefully in future be an American-style acronym for the cooperation of the three people voted to chair the parliamentary committees for foreign affairs, defence and international development: Richard Ottaway, James Arbuthnot and Malcolm Bruce. If the government succeeds in welding together the different perspectives of the FCO, DFID and the MoD – a prerequisite of modern crisis management – then the three MPs will have to find new ways of working together too as parliament will have to scrutinise this new dynamic. They must

Select committee chairmen in full

Courtesy of PoliticsHome, here is the full list of the new chairmen of select committees: ‘The following candidates have been elected unopposed as select committee chairs: – Culture, Media and Sport: Mr John Whittingdale – International Development: Malcolm Bruce – Justice: Sir Alan Beith – Northern Ireland: Mr Laurence Robertson – Procedure: Mr Greg Knight – Scottish Affairs: Mr Ian Davidson – Transport: Mrs Louise Ellman – Welsh Affairs: David T. C. Davies The following candidates have been elected as select committee chairs by secret ballot, under the Alternative Vote system: – Business, Innovation and Skills: Mr Adrian Bailey – Children, Schools and Families (Education): Mr Graham Stuart – Communities

Did the bureaucrats lose the war?

The Times went big on their story of Britain’s campaign in Helmand, and all the mistakes made in 2005 when the deployment was being planned. It is a good piece of reporting, which adds to the volume of stories about the war, its planning and execution. Britain’s effort Helmand, like the one in Basra, will in time need a magisterial study, a sort of multi-volume study like Winston Churchill’s The Second World War, which can weave the front-line experience together with the turning of the bureaucratic wheels. But at least the first draft of history is now being written. The articles make some mistakes and quotes people who did not

No politician visits the frontline

A few years ago, when I was serving with the Grenadier Guards in Iraq, I was part of a team tasked with looking after the visiting Secretary of State. There were five Defence Secretaries during my short spell in the army – a sign, perhaps, of the lack of attention the last government paid to the armed forces. Some were impressive, some less so. One was famous for falling asleep during briefings, but the one I was accompanying in Basra was wide awake. He wished to carry out of the most important missions facing Cabinet members in a warzone: conduct an interview with the Today programme on BBC Radio Four.

Will the coalition rue ring-fencing health?

George Osborne has unveiled his plans for a comprehensive spending review. In addition to the pledge to broaden the base of consultation, the most significant announcement was that health spending “will increase in real terms in every year of this parliament”. The oft repeated objection to this pledge is that of the IFS. Spending in other departments will have to be cut by a savage 25 percent to pay for it. In view of Britain’s current commitments, could the defence budget sustain such a cut? David Cameron defines his politics with three letters: NHS. But think of the political damage caused by mass resignations over, say, the relationship between swingeing

Achtung, Liam

Defence Secretary Liam Fox is used to looking across the Atlantic for military inspiration and across the English Channel to France for the future of defence cooperation. But he might do well to look somewhere else – namely to Germany where the young defence minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, has launched one of the Cabinet’s most ambitious cost-cutting programmes. He is planning to cut the number of active-duty soldiers from 250,000 to 150,000 as part of a an effort to find  €1bn (£840m) worth of cuts as part of the government’s €80 billion austerity programme. He is even contemplating an end to compulsory military service — something normally seen as a

Politicize aid? It already is – and good too

On Thursday, Andrew Mitchell rolled out the government’s first overseas aid initiative – a transparency watchdog – and took to the airwaves to explain the idea. It makes particular sense in a downturn to ensure that taxpayer’s money is well spent but also to give voters the feeling that independent assessments are carried out to guarantee value for their money.   On Newsnight, the International Development Secretary ran into a criticism, often voiced by the aid community – that the Conservatives are too willing to “militarise” aid or to “politicise” it. He dealt with the criticism  robustly – but I want to have a go too. Because while these are

Noises off, officers

David Cameron is caught between a rock and a hard place. His government is rightly committed to its AfPak policy and the need to keep ties with the United States strong and close. But the Prime Minister and his aides probably also know that the assessments offered by a number of senior military officers of the campaign are rose-tinted, and suspect that the US administration may pivot and head for the exit far quicker than is comfortable for its allies. This is a tough choice; a wrong move could damage transatlantic ties and set back the fight against Jihadism. Staying the course will mean greater opposition from both Right and

The case for Carswell

Douglas Carswell has an outside chance of becoming the chairman of the Defence Select Committee. I hope MPs take a punt and elect him because his ideas on defence procurement deserve regular airings. The festering sore of defence procurement went septic under Gordon Brown. The Nimrod Inquiry and the Gray Report concluded that contractors and the defence establishment operate a ‘conspiracy of optimism’ which disregards the requirements of specific theatres, causing casualties and diminishing military capability. Soldiers in Helmand cannot subdue Helmand with Viking trucks that were designed for arctic warfare (why the hell would we be fighting there anyway?). Whilst there are no panaceas in warfare, heavy armour, light

The Department for Fragile States?

The Department for International Development (DFID) should forsake peaceful but poor countries and instead turn into “a world leader in tackling the problems of fragile states.” That’s what a new Chatham House report by Alex Evans, who used to be an adviser to Hilary Benn, and his colleague, David Steven, argue: ‘If the UK wants to deepen its commitment to backing the challenges posed by fragile states, it needs to remodel DFID extensively, with the department concentrating on developing a coherent preventive agenda for fragile states. The Secretary of State for International Development should make it clear that where a poor country’s main need is financial, the UK will not

Call the committee to order

It’s committee chairmanship season in Westminster, and there are two noteworthy battles. Michael Fallon and Andrew Tyrie are scrapping over the Treasury Select Committee. The FT summarises the pros and cons of both. Fallon, who served as John McFall’s deputy, remains the front-runner, but the cerebral Tyrie has an impeccable record as an economist, committee member and constituency MP – I grew up near Chichester and Tyrie deserves credit for tackling the city’s perennial flooding problems; and, for what it’s worth, he won the Spectator’s backbencher of the year award again last year. I understand that Tyrie has the requisite number of backers, as well as ties with Nigel Lawson,

Organising for national security

Four weeks into the new government and the National Security Council machinery is still being put in place and ministers are still getting read into their briefs. The visit by William Hague, Andrew Mitchell and Liam Fox to Afghanistan was important, despite the brouhaha over the Defence Secretary’s comments. Such a visit was simply not imaginable under the Brown government. On the other hand, insiders say there is no real difference yet from the NSID committee that Gordon Brown created and the National Security Council that David Cameron has convened – except that the latter meets weekly, producing a torrent of tasks for officials. Permanent Secretaries are meeting regularly to

The Tories have their eyes on Iran

You may not have expected anything less, but it’s still encouraging to see the new government pay so much attention to Afghanistan. After David Cameron’s meeting with Hamid Karzai last week, no less than three ministers have visited the country today: William Hague, Liam Fox and Andrew Mitchell. And Whitehall’s number-crunchers are busy trying to find extra money for the mission. There’s a sense, though, that all the attention actually represents an underlying shift in focus. In his interview with the Telegraph today, Liam Fox is surprisingly forthright on Afghanistan, suggesting that our troops won’t hang around to fully rebuild the country: “What we want is a stable enough Afghanistan,

Building on the coalition’s good start

A week in, and I am loving the Conservative-led government. The new line-up of Secretaries of State is very impressive and, though a few solid Tory politicians missed out on Cabinet posts, the inclusion of the Liberal Democrat bench has swelled the government’s talent quota. David Cameron has infused No 10 with energy and purpose. You can just feel the umpf. As the former MP John Gummer said, there is now “smile on the face of Britain”. Foreign Secretary William Hague’s trip to the US set the right tone by calling the UK-US link “an unbreakable alliance”. If he now goes on to places where the “economic action” is, to

A grim reminder of the Islamist threat?

Yesterday’s attempted car-bombing in Times Square doesn’t really tell us anything beyond that there are sociapaths willing to blow people up, and that sometimes luck – rather than judgement – foils their bloody plans.  But, given the Pakistani Taliban’s claim that they were responsible for the attempt, it does serve as a grim reminder of the poison seeping out of that region.   The question now, and for the next few months, is whether the West will somehow become more engaged inside Pakistan.  It’s notable how British ministers have increasingly namechecked the country when justifying our presence in Afghanistan – but, still, it seems that the Taliban and other Islamist

A culture of intimidation and a conspiracy to silence

On the afternoon of 4 June 2009, John Hutton, then Secretary of State for Defence, told the House of Commons: ‘Every one of our servicemen and women has the right to know that we are doing everything possible to ensure that every pound of investment in our equipment programme goes towards the front line and is not wasted in inefficient or weak processes of acquisition. That is why I asked Bernard Gray in December last year to conduct a detailed examination of progress in implementing the MOD’s acquisition change programme, as I hope right hon. and hon. Members will recall. I have to be satisfied that the current programme of

Cable catches a broadside

What is the difference between ‘an alternative’ and ‘an addition’? It is on this question that the Liberal Democrat manifesto turns. If there is a difference, then there is a substantial black hole in their deficit reduction plans. There is a difference. The manifesto presents a £3.4bn public sector payroll measure as an addition to existing government measures, when in fact the small-print discloses that it’s an alternative. Caught double counting, at best the Lib Dems would cut £36.6bn of the £40bn or so pledged. Under further scrutiny from Andrew Neil and Stephanie Flanders, Cable could not define where a further £10bn of cuts was coming from. £20bn of the