Category Archives: Military

Britain, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Society, United States

Iraq and the tinderbox of the Middle East: America weighs up its options…

IRAQ

Intro: Learning the lessons of recent conflicts in the region should provide us with a guide concerning the current situation in Iraq

The paradox of the US and UK cosying up to Iran in light of the chaos in Iraq reconciles well with the age-old adage of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ – an example that demonstrates in comfortable fashion just what is implied by this historical idiom. And, yet, the crisis in the region leaves the US and UK with little choice.

Over the last ten days images of ISIS fighters massacring Shi’ite captives, brought to us most graphically through the medium of social media, are brutally barbaric and shocking – but, that has been their intention all along; horror is, after all, a weapon of war. It is being used by ISIS in ways that is totally depraved and inhumane of reasoned thinking.

We should be in no doubt. There will be more such images as the insurgents intensify their activities. And with that will come increasing calls for the UK to accept its responsibility for Iraq’s grim predicament and to help to do something to alleviate it.

We should not be misunderstood, either, when it is asserted that the UK is, in some measure, culpable in bringing about the grisly events that are being played out in Iraq. That can hardly be denied. There are, of course, other factors which have played their part, most notably the wave of sectarian conflict that has swept across the Middle East as part of the Arab Spring and revolution. Ultimately, though, in supporting the 2003 military invasion, Britain helped to light the fuse.

Pressure for the UK to re-engage militarily in Iraq must, however, be firmly resisted. There is no public or political appetite for an intervention again at this level on this occasion. Two things have emerged that should be crystal clear, and learning the lessons of recent conflicts in the region should provide us with a guide concerning the current situation in Iraq.

The first is that, like all modern warfare, aerial superiority is the key to victory. This was demonstrated through the use of UK/US air support in the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, and, as it happens, in the way the absence of this support for rebels in Syria has allowed president Bashar al-Assad to continue his onslaught and by surviving as the country’s brutal dictator.

But the second is that air supremacy on its own cannot conclusively defeat an insurgency. Boots on the ground are required – although, crucially, those boots do not need to be US or UK boots. Arguably, those boots can be Iraqi boots. Once the Baghdad military forces regroup following the recent embarrassing defections that ceded so much ground and territory to ISIS, Iraq’s own security personnel should be in a position to claim back much of the lost ground.

For the Iraqi government to regain control, it does look as if US air support will be needed. But such assistance carries significant risks.

With Sunni-Shia tensions already high in the region, how would others in close proximity to events in Iraq react to the US effectively becoming an instrument of Shia might and strength? Middle East conflagrations do have a habit of converging, no more so than in the tinderbox that is Lebanon. US air strikes in Iraq would not auger well for those neighbouring countries that have allegiances with each other.

President Barack Obama continues to weigh up his options. Mr Obama has already approved 300 extra troops to secure the US embassy and Baghdad airport, and calls are mounting in America – notably in Republican quarters – for a more strategic military deployment to help repel the rebels and by restoring order.

In all likelihood the US President will win domestic support for drone strikes. Given what has gone in recent conflicts an air of caution seems certain to be placed over the use of direct air strikes. The use of drones carries risks, too, as innocents caught up in the crossfire, for example, will always consider defecting to the other side for protection. On a calculation of minimising collateral damage to achieve its objectives the use of aerial drones is an option America has at its disposal.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, National Security, NATO, Politics, Society, United States

Being prepared for war is essential, but war is not cheap…

ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE STUDY

A study released by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) shows that Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the UK Treasury more than £29 billion. In the report, the think tank argues that the wars were “strategic blunders, spreading terrorism, drumming up resistance and increasing the opium trade”.

The conclusions, though, are controversial. For instance, the authors of the study assert that various terrorist groups would not be infiltrating Syria or threatening Britain had Saddam Hussein stayed in power. Yet, Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant and despot, who clearly acted as a state sponsor of terror. Tens of thousands of lives were lost, thousands more were gassed in ethnic style cleansing in northern Iraq, and Saddam Hussein would certainly have had vast stockpiles of nerve and chemical agents at his disposal left over from his 8-years war with Iran. Many of these stockpiles still remain unaccounted for. Had Hussein not been toppled he doubtless would have continued to persecute his own population. The tyrant’s bloody wars against the Kurds in the north and Arab populations of the south should never be forgotten.

Putting aside the arguments about Britain’s role in the ‘War on Terror’, one uncontroversial fact emerges from the report which is indisputable: war is not cheap. The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) has witnessed massive cuts to our Armed Forces budget. Army numbers have been drastically cut back, aircraft have been withdrawn, tank battalions diminished, and even our last aircraft carrier decommissioned. Further cuts are imminent. Many of these cuts are being justified by the theory that we would never have to engage in the variety of long-term overseas military adventures that typified our activities and engagements during the Cold War era.

Since 2001, however, we have actually been involved in two such operations at a significant cost. And within the last few days, President Barack Obama announced that he would like America to act more as part of an international coalition rather than taking unilateral action. This implies, at least, a continued British role in Western security.

The UK has to be prepared for all eventualities, and adequate contingencies should be in place. As relations with Russia continue to worsen, for example, it might prove necessary for the UK to play a part in the wider campaign of checking Vladimir Putin’s belligerence. Only last month, Britain sent four Typhoon fighter jets to the Baltics as part of a NATO deployment, a sign that the West is unwilling to allow Europe to disintegrate at the hands of the Russian president. Nobody wants a conflict, but the potential for a tough offence remains the best defence.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Military, National Security, Politics, Society

New round of British Defence Cuts…

DEFENCE

Intro: Our severely reduced military capability amounts to a mere standing defence force, and one that is barely equipped enough at present to deal with the most basic of future threats

The announcement from Whitehall that there is to be further cuts to Britain’s already shrinking Army, albeit on grounds of economy rather than strategic priorities, is deeply alarming.

The new rounds of cuts are aimed, primarily, at Britain’s elite rapid reaction force – the most unwarranted target for making economies and savings through cost-cutting. A prime target earmarked is 16 Air Assault Brigade, a core component of which is Britain’s elite Parachute Regiment. It is to be stripped of half its regular infantry battalions, as well as reductions in some of its helicopters, artillery and armoured vehicles. The Royal Engineers, who support our elite forces through maintenance of equipment and servicing, are also to suffer wide ranging cuts to its budget. 16 Air Assault Brigade is to be reduced from the current level of 8,000 troops to 5,000 by the end of this year. Such a scaling-down is difficult to discern given Britain’s post-Afghanistan strategy. This was meant to be focused on our military capability deemed agile enough to respond and execute contingency operations as they arise in the future. A diminishing capability raises fresh concerns over the Government’s overall defence policy.

Alarmingly, these latest cost reductions are to be implemented alongside the already massive cuts inflicted on the Armed Forces. The last strategic defence review in 2010 proposed the reduction of the Army’s strength from 102,000 regular soldiers to just 82,000 by the end of the decade. Parallel reductions of 8,000 personnel in the RAF and 5,500 in the Navy were also part of the defence reconfiguration. Not since before the Napoleonic Wars has Britain had such a low level of manning to call upon in the event of defending sovereign interests.

Some £10 billion has already been cut from the defence budget. Whilst understanding the need for austerity and for efficiency gains to be made where they can, of which the Ministry of Defence cannot expect to be excluded given its high wastage rate on incompetent procurement programmes, defence of the realm is a paramount obligation of every government. If that duty is neglected, a government runs the risk of all of its other priorities and government policies becoming compromised in the process. It is crucial, then, that Britain retains an effectively trained army with a full complement of experienced and professional troops. For many, though, our severely reduced military capability amounts to a mere defence force, and one that is barely equipped enough to deal with the most basic of future threats. Yet, the world is a far more dangerous place than it has ever been, and Britain should be punching above its weight: diminution of military resources reduces the UK’s global influence – military cuts which go against the Government’s aspiration of retaining a place at the top table around the world. To have a positive influence, it is crucial that Britain’s Armed Forces are sufficiently maintained if that ambition is to be met.

There is no doubt that Britain’s military Armed Forces have been pared to the bone. It has reached the stage where any further cuts may well imperil national security.

Standard