Category Archives: National Security

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Society, United States

The ‘war on terror’ doctrine has failed, but why?

‘WAR ON TERROR’

Intro: The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily

It is now more than twelve and a half years since the Al-Qaeda attack on America’s Twin Towers of 9/11. Yet, despite all the efforts by the West in dealing with additional terrorist threats under its catch all phrase ‘war on terror’, al-Qaeda and its affiliate type organisations (of which there are many) now control an area the size of Britain in western Iraq and eastern Syria. This size increases still further if we factor in Afghanistan, Libya and vast swathes of Somalia.

The rapid expansion and spread of jihadi groups comes amid the west’s ongoing fight and struggle of George W Bush’s infamous war on terror doctrine. In the name of such a struggle, great sums have been expended; wars have been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; civil rights have been curtailed; and the practices of torture, rendition, detention without trial and domestic espionage have been justified. What is so extraordinary is that the attempts made by the West to eliminate the supposed enemy have wholly failed.

It was never an inevitable outcome that organisations and splinter groups aligned to the ideology and methods of Osama bin-Laden should have survived and flourished like they have. Al-Qaeda inspired jihad is now stronger than ever.

Undoubtedly, Saudi Arabia was crucial to the rise of the original al-Qaeda based group. On the 9/11 attacks, 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi and the Commission Report in the aftermath revealed that Saudi donors were the main financial supporters and backers for al-Qaeda. More than 28 pages of the report relating to Saudi involvement have never been published, and the Bush administration never sought for a moment to pin blame or any measure of responsibility on Saudi Arabia. This failure has enabled the Saudis to go on playing a central role in the funding and recruitment for jihadi groups across much of the Muslim world. Instead, Bush sought to wholly attribute blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, without a shred of acceptable evidence.

Policies of wrong-footedness have continued. Since the start of the Arab Spring the US, Britain and their allies have supported jihadis who manoeuvred and appeared to be on their side – much in the same way as they backed them in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Rebel groups in Syria and Libya, much like al-Qaeda, have been viewed tolerantly thanks to their opposition and denouncements of Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. The US ambassador to Libya, J Christopher Stevens, paid with his life after Washington underestimated the danger posed by the jihadis with whom America had been cooperating.

The willingness of the US, Britain, and their allies to cooperate with theocratic absolute regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf does have aspects to it which are hypocritical. The absurd pretence that they want to establish secular democracies in Syria, Libya and Iraq is the clearest example. There is a sustained unwillingness, too, to admit that the Sunni monarchs are viscerally anti-Shia. We need to look no further than the sectarian hate propaganda proliferating on well-funded Arabic satellite television stations, across social media sites, and through the internet in general.

But ‘why’ you may ask has the West been so gentle with the Saudis (and their allies) responsible though they are for sustaining the jihadi movement. The reason is the kingdom’s financial might. Washington and London’s hunger for lucrative arms deals and the lure of consultancy contracts and other personal benefits for powerful individuals is a prime driver.

The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily. Greater accountability should have been delivered by now for those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Syria

Recent peace talks in Syria have been a complete failure…

SYRIA

The recent round of peace talks in Geneva concerning Syria collapsed in just under 30 minutes. If anyone believed that the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, and his enemies had the slightest intention of making peace, this latest setback should be evidence enough of just how difficult it is going to be in bringing about a peace treaty. At this stage it seems wholly impossible. Just to get the blood-stained dictator and a selection of his foes to the negotiating table required almost three years of international endeavour and a death toll that has now reached 140,000 people since the civil war started. All efforts to bring about peace in Syria have ended in failure.

The crisis has usurped even the bleakest of forecasts. Last year, it seemed reasonable and rational to believe that Assad’s agreement to disable his poisonous gases and chemical weapons would at least rid the conflict of these ghastly weapons. But even that deal is unravelling.

Under the agreed timetable, 700 tons of Assad’s most dangerous chemical agents should have been shipped out of Syria by 31 December, 2013. In January, the best estimate was that a mere 4 per cent had actually been removed. It is understood that a further shipment (of an undisclosed size) has taken place since, but it will not have altered the overall stockpiles of chemical agents being held by the Syrian regime by that much. The agreement was designed to destroy Syria’s entire inventory of some 1,300 tons; less than 50 tons has been deemed to have been disposed of.

More worryingly, hundreds of British Muslims have travelled to Syria’s war-torn country to join the most radical rebel groups, most of which are aligned to Al-Qaeda. British intelligence and senior police officers are gravely concerned of the prospect of these people returning home to the UK with their newly-found skills acquired from Al-Qaeda run training camps disbursed throughout Syria and neighbouring countries in the Middle East. No counter-terrorism official doubts that such radicalised individuals threaten our national security.

Syria is systematically destroying itself before our very eyes. Millions of refugees have been displaced and are placing an intolerable strain on neighbouring countries as they seek refuge and shelter. All efforts to bring peace to this blood-soaked land have been foiled, and have created in the process a new generation of jihadists.

No one should forget that Assad has been aided in his mission – and been given a licence to do what he has been doing – through Russia and Iran who have sustained this war by arming and funding the Syrian regime.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Intelligence, Military, National Security, Politics, Society, United States

Reconfiguring Defence for reasons of a changed world…

DEFENCE & FUTURE OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIPS

Over the course of the last half-century defence spending has attracted and been a hot issue of contention. This has been brought to the fore in recent times, through government rounds of budget and expenditure reductions. Most notably, the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and the cuts to overall manning levels to the armed services have brought the issue into sharp focus. Critics argue this has seriously skewed our defence posture and capability towards mammoth (and massively expensive) commitments such as upgrading and maintaining Trident and the development of new aircraft carriers.

Last month, former US defence secretary, Robert Gates, asserted that defence cuts in Britain have left the UK unable to be a ‘full partner’ in future military operations with the United States. As a result of defence cuts, Mr Gates believes that the UK no longer has ‘full-spectrum capabilities’. This, he says, will affect the UK’s ability to be a full partner and will change the dynamics of how operations are conducted in the future. His comments came in the wake of remarks by General Sir Nicholas Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that manpower is increasingly being perceived as an ‘overhead’ and that Britain’s defence capabilities have been ‘hollowed out’.

It is right that these cuts have been questioned in the UK. The concerns over the knock-on direct and indirect effects on local economies, and the dangers of global military over-stretch, have been well aired. At the same time, however, many have long queried the need for such a large and over-bloated defence budget, particularly when our appetite for overseas engagements in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts has greatly diminished.

The world has changed, too. Britain is certainly not the global power she once was. There is perhaps room for debate on the reasons for this relative decline, but some truths are incontrovertible. The growing focus of global power and wealth from West to East, the profound change in the nature and structure of armed conflict and the threats that we face to our national security are all factors that must enter the equation if we are to explain and account for how the world has changed and how, as a consequence, our influence has declined. Our reduced military capabilities reflect in large part the need to bear down and address our massive budget deficit and public debt. Such considerations have, as Gates himself stated, also forced spending reductions in the US.

But what is also true is that Britain is less committed in performing the role of being an acquiescent subordinate to the United States in international affairs. Widespread disquiet has also stemmed from the ubiquitous relationship that US intelligence has with Britain’s intelligence services and the close links that have existed between America’s National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain’s communications and listening posts at GCHQ in Cheltenham. In light of these considerations, it is only right and proper that the UK’s military relationship with the US be subject to re-examination.

Public ambivalence is not likely to stop there, either. It should also lead in due course to a more searching examination of Britain’s future commitment to Trident and what justifications there are in keeping a nuclear deterrent. Particularly so, given the changing political landscape in the UK and the very real prospect of Scotland (where Trident and the nuclear deterrent is housed against its will) becoming an independent nation. The referendum for Scottish independence is to be held this year in September.

It may be tempting to compare our defence capacity with what the country was able to sustain in the past and no-doubt some will rue Britain’s reduced capabilities. But the fact remains that the world has changed and with it the shifting balance of global power. It is to the future, not the past, which we should now look in how our overseas partnerships are formed. Britain’s defence arrangements will become a reflection of these changed requirements.

 

Standard