It's November already. Where's the time gone? I'm well into the Masters course by now. Whilst engaging, it is certainly the most intense period of time I've ever experienced. Mountains of work that don't seem to be getting any smaller.
However, when one has a two-hour seminar discussing the failures and successes of Blitzkrieg and the utility of battle tanks in mechanised warfare it's not all bad. That, and writing an essay about a European military space policy that's cunningly disguised within 'civilian' programmes.
This blog has been neglected. Hopefully I will have more time in future to add more posts when I can. I'm sure I'll comment on some news eventually... maybe when Anne Widdecombe wins Strictly Come Dancing...
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Travel Blog 2 - Boston, MA
I was happy to leave the infernal swamp that was Washington DC to the promise of a cooler sea breeze in Boston. Though it was still quite warm in Boston, it was not half as bad as Washington DC.
'How to lose a colony 101'
I walked the 'Freedom Trail', a three-hour walk originating in the heart of the city and finishing across the river and at up a slight hill. I followed the 'red brick road' past all the historical sights telling the history of the revolutionary war and how it began in Boston. The pamphlet was handy in explaining these 'old' sites. Being a Welshman I have different view of what old or ancient is... nevertheless, some parts of the city were unchanged since the late 1600s.
As well as the old, the city was constantly full of contrast between the old and new. There was no better example than this of an old Catholic Church sat right next to a towering, glimmering skyscraper.
Apart from the 'Freedom Trail', I visited a jazz bar, a Second World War destroyer, and the Christian Science Centre. When I asked the female representative how this particular sect of Christianity was different to other denominations, she looked on very blank at me and could only recite how many members they had worldwide. So I decided to leave the woman who didn't understand her own religion. The Centre did have a unique Mapparium, a glass sphere you'd walk into which was essentially an inverted political globe of Earth.
Near the Bunker Hill Monument, after I had climbed it, I bought some water from a vendor on the street. His sign read:
"That's a peculiar way to spell water." I told the vendor.
"Yeah, well that how we say it." he replied.
"Oh right, phonetic is it?"
"You say what?"
"Thanks for the wat-ER" I said as I turned.
I left the imbecilic cretin with a little laughter but also with a pang of dread.
Monday, 9 August 2010
Travel blog 1 - Washington DC
It's been a while since I've written a blog post, and with good reason: exams in May, end of year celebrations (including my birthday), and preparation for my seven week sojourn in the US and Canada. And now I'm back in Wales where we have baked beans, decent tea, decent chocolate and no tipping! This post is the first of many with a few pictures and comments. It may take a while to get through it all, I have 1600 photos. But only a select few will be posted.
I began my trip in Washington, DC in the middle of June. No-one told me it would be so humid. The 30-35C heat was bad enough, but the humidity made it so awful to walk around in. As i waited for the bus at Dulles International Airport, I wondered what the hell I'd gotten myself into.
My first full day in DC was spent with a fellow traveler at the hostel, A Brazilian named Gusto. He and I walked around the Mall, went into the Holocaust Museum (which is not as good as London's Imperial War Museum's Holocaust section), the American History Museum, the Abraham Lincoln Memorial (which had a distinct sense of hypocrisy about it in regards to Native Americans) and walked to the foot of the Washington Monument.
Afterwards, being a Brazilian, Gusto had to watch the Brazil-DPRK football game. We went to the now-closed ESPN bar a few blocks away from the Mall. It was amusing to watch him panic as Brazil failed to get a goal in the first half, and then see North Korea score against them in the second. But, Brazil won in the end so it was business as usual...
The subsequent days were spent doing much of the same, albeit by myself. I visited the Air and Space Museum. That was most interesting, especially considering my particular academic interest in space politics. The museum had a gallery section, full of stunning photos taken by space craft traveling to the far reaches of our solar system. I was there for quite a while studying these photographs, particularly the well known picture of Io in transit across Jupiter taken by Cassini:
I began my trip in Washington, DC in the middle of June. No-one told me it would be so humid. The 30-35C heat was bad enough, but the humidity made it so awful to walk around in. As i waited for the bus at Dulles International Airport, I wondered what the hell I'd gotten myself into.
My first full day in DC was spent with a fellow traveler at the hostel, A Brazilian named Gusto. He and I walked around the Mall, went into the Holocaust Museum (which is not as good as London's Imperial War Museum's Holocaust section), the American History Museum, the Abraham Lincoln Memorial (which had a distinct sense of hypocrisy about it in regards to Native Americans) and walked to the foot of the Washington Monument.
Afterwards, being a Brazilian, Gusto had to watch the Brazil-DPRK football game. We went to the now-closed ESPN bar a few blocks away from the Mall. It was amusing to watch him panic as Brazil failed to get a goal in the first half, and then see North Korea score against them in the second. But, Brazil won in the end so it was business as usual...
The subsequent days were spent doing much of the same, albeit by myself. I visited the Air and Space Museum. That was most interesting, especially considering my particular academic interest in space politics. The museum had a gallery section, full of stunning photos taken by space craft traveling to the far reaches of our solar system. I was there for quite a while studying these photographs, particularly the well known picture of Io in transit across Jupiter taken by Cassini:
Whilst there I went to the museum's IMAX 3D cinema and watched Hubble 3D, a 40 minute documentary film narrated by Leonardo Dicaprio which showed a space shuttle crew's mission to repair and upgrade the Hubble Space telescope. That movie was certainly a spectacle in 3D, particularly when it took you on a 3D tour of a star nebula.
I also visited the Library of Congress, which was lavishly decorated inside. Quite a fine example of (free)masonry and 18th/19th Century architecture.
The Native American museum was interesting, but also very very deep and tough going for a complete outsider such as I. All the myriad tribes and nations of the indigenous people of the Americas had their own sections in this huge museum. It is a place where an extremely proud nation should feel its guilt, like so many others. The museum had a lovely cafeteria which featured food from five different American regions, with their own delicacies and recipes. Certainly a must for unique food when you wish to extend your life a bit by not having another greasy burger.
I also paid a visit to the Natural History Museum. Not exactly my cup of tea but it was interesting to walk around. I did notice, however, a complete absence of religious zealots leading children around in this museum. Whereas in the rest of the Mall I saw hordes of children and leaders from who-knows-what religious sect or denomination. The slogans on the backs of their t-shirts made for amusing reading. Perhaps these groups didn't want to expose the children to evolution and Earth's fossilised history...
They say that the design of Washington, DC, was meant to be large to impress the individual. It didn't. It annoyed. It took ten minutes to walk one block.
That pretty much covers the highlights of Washginton, DC. I was exceedingly happy to leave that climate as soon as I possibly could. I shall leave a few more photos below, and stay tuned for the next installment - Boston, MA.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
And the loser is... the British electoral system
Whilst a humbled Clegg twiddles his thumbs and considers his options on a coalition with the Tories or whoever else will jump into bed with him, I am more concerned with what seems to be a strengthened public and media attitude towards a British Presidency.
While it is true that Cameron's Conservatives have amassed the greatest amount of votes, they are still short of that crucial majority. Many seem to be repulsed by the fact that Gordon Brown could yet become PM in a rainbow coalition of everyone vs the Tories.
"I voted for David Cameron, not Gordon Brown!"
"I voted for Nick Clegg. I don't want to see Brown take his place."
"Gordon Brown can't be PM again, but who else can be from Labour? I didn't vote for David Miliband to be PM"
These statements are all untrue unless you voted for those as your MP in your local constituency. You may have voted Conservative, but you did not vote for Cameron. You may have voted Liberal Democrat, but you didn't vote for Nick Clegg. And so forth.
The parties appoint their leaders, and these leaders assume the premiership if their party gains a clear majority. The system as it stands now in the UK does not allow the public to directly vote for a Prime Minister. We all vote for our representative in the House of Commons.
The media seems generally happy to feed the public's misperception, particularly in regard to those awful TV debates. It is good MPs/candidates that have pandered to their local constituents that win elections for the parties and their leaders.
Nevertheless, there do seem to be people around who understand the media has it all wrong and that the system is becoming too Americanised in light of the media. Our system is different to the USA's, we do not need the same kind of media coverage. If you wanted complete parity with the USA you'd have a TV debate with... the Queen. Arguing with herself.
I think we can all agree that we don't want the media to dumb-down the election process for us. Directly, the PM is appointed, not elected. But the people decide the ruling party. It's just convenient that the leader of the ruling party usually is the PM.
While it is true that Cameron's Conservatives have amassed the greatest amount of votes, they are still short of that crucial majority. Many seem to be repulsed by the fact that Gordon Brown could yet become PM in a rainbow coalition of everyone vs the Tories.
"I voted for David Cameron, not Gordon Brown!"
"I voted for Nick Clegg. I don't want to see Brown take his place."
"Gordon Brown can't be PM again, but who else can be from Labour? I didn't vote for David Miliband to be PM"
These statements are all untrue unless you voted for those as your MP in your local constituency. You may have voted Conservative, but you did not vote for Cameron. You may have voted Liberal Democrat, but you didn't vote for Nick Clegg. And so forth.
The parties appoint their leaders, and these leaders assume the premiership if their party gains a clear majority. The system as it stands now in the UK does not allow the public to directly vote for a Prime Minister. We all vote for our representative in the House of Commons.
The media seems generally happy to feed the public's misperception, particularly in regard to those awful TV debates. It is good MPs/candidates that have pandered to their local constituents that win elections for the parties and their leaders.
Nevertheless, there do seem to be people around who understand the media has it all wrong and that the system is becoming too Americanised in light of the media. Our system is different to the USA's, we do not need the same kind of media coverage. If you wanted complete parity with the USA you'd have a TV debate with... the Queen. Arguing with herself.
I think we can all agree that we don't want the media to dumb-down the election process for us. Directly, the PM is appointed, not elected. But the people decide the ruling party. It's just convenient that the leader of the ruling party usually is the PM.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Second debate: foreign policy
Well done Sky for making a better show than ITV. The set looked more up to date and the questions were up in text on the screen as the leaders debated. Common sense at last.
And, the topic was foreign affairs, which is my favourite! Although some issues weren't touched upon enough, or hardly at all, such as Afghanistan (apart from general equipment issues), Iraq, Iran, the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and relations with Russia and energy security.
There is one thing I am immensely glad of Brown and Clegg for bringing up - the importance of the EU for British trade and jobs. Brown quoted 50% of our trade is with the EU, and some three million jobs. Let that be a crippling blow to all who want to be out of the EU. The EU is good for us, and we are dependent on trade with and through it. End of.
Cameron said that the other two leaders "won't stand up for Britain" in Europe. What? It makes no sense that British leaders just throw everything away to Brussels - what do they gain from it. The first and foremost duty of any leader is to secure the best interests of his/her people. It makes no sense. And despite what Euroskeptics may believe, Blair and Brown have insisted on the most opt-outs for the UK from so many EU agreements than any other member. The UK is one of the main players in the EU - within it the UK can get better terms for us than outside of it. Cameron can't be allowed to ruin our economy on top of ruining our relations in Europe.
Thankfully, Brown and Cameron did put Clegg down over the Trident issue. "Get real", Brown said to Clegg. And he's right. It doesn't matter that Trident was developed during the Cold War. Nuclear weapons still exist, and they have dynamics that affect world politics and national security way beyond the Cold War. The nuclear deterrent ensures the UK's place on the UN Security Council and stabilises relations with Russia and China, amongst other nuclear powers and wannabes.
There is no cheap alternative to Trident - it's a hell of a bargain we've gotten from the Americans. We can't develop our own system because it will either be rubbish or cost much more money than renewing a similar system to Trident. Knowing us, our own system will probably cost a lot of money and still be shit. For Clegg's "anti-Americanism", it is ironic that he wants to get rid of Trident. In a crisis, what is Britain's main ability to take its own diplomatic action independent of other actors, including the US? The nuclear deterrent! Furthermore, New Labour has pushed the securitisation and militarisation of the EU more than any other British government. With a more unified and militarised EU, we will be able to go our own way, independent of US influence sooner. Clegg's foreign policy is highly schizophrenic.
I have to say that during that debate, Brown came out on top. He said what made the most sense, and Cameron was agreeing with Brown on the nuclear issue. Nick Clegg didn't answer Brown's question about nuclear power. Why are the Lib Dems set against nuclear power sations? It is the only affordable way we can reduce our carbon emmissions.
On a side note, I do feel sorry for Ieuan Wyn Jones and Penri James of Plaid Cymru. In Ceredigion, the race is between Penri James of Plaid Cymru and Mark Williams (incumbent) of the Lib Dems. With Clegg doing well in the polls as a result of the TV debates, Plaid is left reeling from the effects. Polls show that Plaid's support has dropped relative to everyone else because of the debates. In Ceredigion, my constituency, Plaid faces an uphill battle unless Clegg manages to make a hash of things before May 6th.
I look forward to the next debate!
Sunday, 18 April 2010
UK Election 2010
Once again, I enjoy being blunt. Particularly when in contrast to what I'm talking about.
If you're a UK citizen it's likely that you watched or heard of the first Prime Ministerial debate recently. It was an enjoyable 90 minutes. The media's analysis was awful, which I will get onto later.
ITV did a crap job of the set, I thought. It harks back to the 1980s and Fifteen-to-One. It looked archaic and outdated, and already on newsbites the clips of the debates look over 20 years old. And there was no text on screen of what the question was to remind us as the three men argued.
Anyway, to the nitty-gritty. Personally, I could see Gordon Brown tear David Cameron's policies apart. No wonder Brown was smiling - he was crippling his policies. Unfortunately it seems most other people I spoke to about it completely ignored what was being said and though Cameron wasn't waffling at all. On so many occasions Brown cornered Cameron - particularly on public spending and the £6bn cuts. As Brown was grimacing at Cameron, I was laughing WITH Brown. I loved watching Cameron's wishi-washi idealistic crap be torn apart. I was paying attention to what was being said.
I could tell Brown was genuinely worried about what the Tories would do in power. And I agree with him. At times like these spending needs to be upheld. Tory cuts would make thousands redundant and destroy a large slice of the state's income and ability to finance itself. You have to spend money to make money! That was Gordon Brown, the economist speaking. Yes, Brown was part of the economy that collapsed, but so were the Tories. Remember that it was Thatcher and Reagan who set up that system in the 1980s.
The Lib Dems agree with Labour (mostly) on this issue. Cuts in public spending are not the answer. And I like Vince Cable. I'd love to see Brown as PM and Cable as Chancellor. No disrespect to Alastair Darling, he is a competent Chancellor.
As for Clegg, I didn't have a major bone to pick with him, apart from the Trident issue. As much as it pains me to say, Cameron has it right on Trident. But so does Brown. I'd hate to see what the Lib Dems would to our deterrent. He says he wants cheap one, well, we can't get much cheaper than the one we already have! The deal we have with the USA is a bargain already. We can't get better for less than what we're already paying.
But Clegg did do well in the debate. Like Gordon Brown, he could put figures to his policies. Cameron was full of abstract language and absent figures and commitment to policy.
Well done Brown and Clegg, let's just hope the nation sees the holes you've put in Cameron's 'policies'.
The media coverage afterwards was awful. ITV reporting was awful as always. Cameron bias of course, saying he did very well... blah blah blah. That and the Icelandic volcano will kill us all.
Newsnight wasn't much better... argh I got so angry. I don't care what jonny-anonymous has said on twitter or facebook! If I wanted to know I'd have looked myself. The same reason you're reading this - you might be interested to know what I think. And then the Newsnight man showed this pointless shitty flash game on the interweb where Cameron and Brown were boxing... I mean - this is Newsnight! Not CBBC! Bloody hell... And the 'experts' on Newsnight were shit... I don't care about Clegg's body language... so what if he has one leg slightly forward of the other?!
The British media's coverage of the debate can be summed up in one word: FAIL.
If you're a UK citizen it's likely that you watched or heard of the first Prime Ministerial debate recently. It was an enjoyable 90 minutes. The media's analysis was awful, which I will get onto later.
ITV did a crap job of the set, I thought. It harks back to the 1980s and Fifteen-to-One. It looked archaic and outdated, and already on newsbites the clips of the debates look over 20 years old. And there was no text on screen of what the question was to remind us as the three men argued.
Anyway, to the nitty-gritty. Personally, I could see Gordon Brown tear David Cameron's policies apart. No wonder Brown was smiling - he was crippling his policies. Unfortunately it seems most other people I spoke to about it completely ignored what was being said and though Cameron wasn't waffling at all. On so many occasions Brown cornered Cameron - particularly on public spending and the £6bn cuts. As Brown was grimacing at Cameron, I was laughing WITH Brown. I loved watching Cameron's wishi-washi idealistic crap be torn apart. I was paying attention to what was being said.
I could tell Brown was genuinely worried about what the Tories would do in power. And I agree with him. At times like these spending needs to be upheld. Tory cuts would make thousands redundant and destroy a large slice of the state's income and ability to finance itself. You have to spend money to make money! That was Gordon Brown, the economist speaking. Yes, Brown was part of the economy that collapsed, but so were the Tories. Remember that it was Thatcher and Reagan who set up that system in the 1980s.
The Lib Dems agree with Labour (mostly) on this issue. Cuts in public spending are not the answer. And I like Vince Cable. I'd love to see Brown as PM and Cable as Chancellor. No disrespect to Alastair Darling, he is a competent Chancellor.
As for Clegg, I didn't have a major bone to pick with him, apart from the Trident issue. As much as it pains me to say, Cameron has it right on Trident. But so does Brown. I'd hate to see what the Lib Dems would to our deterrent. He says he wants cheap one, well, we can't get much cheaper than the one we already have! The deal we have with the USA is a bargain already. We can't get better for less than what we're already paying.
But Clegg did do well in the debate. Like Gordon Brown, he could put figures to his policies. Cameron was full of abstract language and absent figures and commitment to policy.
Well done Brown and Clegg, let's just hope the nation sees the holes you've put in Cameron's 'policies'.
The media coverage afterwards was awful. ITV reporting was awful as always. Cameron bias of course, saying he did very well... blah blah blah. That and the Icelandic volcano will kill us all.
Newsnight wasn't much better... argh I got so angry. I don't care what jonny-anonymous has said on twitter or facebook! If I wanted to know I'd have looked myself. The same reason you're reading this - you might be interested to know what I think. And then the Newsnight man showed this pointless shitty flash game on the interweb where Cameron and Brown were boxing... I mean - this is Newsnight! Not CBBC! Bloody hell... And the 'experts' on Newsnight were shit... I don't care about Clegg's body language... so what if he has one leg slightly forward of the other?!
The British media's coverage of the debate can be summed up in one word: FAIL.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
Dissertation!
After blitzing the dissertation for over a week, I seem to be getting ahead of the workload of my 12,000 word dissertation. Currently it stands at approximately 9,000.
It's been quite an interesting topic. As a note to myself more than anything, to help me clarify my thoughts, I'm jotting down the gist of each chapter so far. Apart from the theoretical chapter. I know that bit well enough inside and out! To those reading this is a sneak preview of some of my work.
I believe the American space policy chapter depicts a superpower struggling to define the best policy to preserve its own assets. It is torn between weaponising space to protect its assets but this would likely spark an arms race... on top of soured relations with Russia and China. On the other hand, America will have to restrain itself once more from weaponisation and believe in restraint from the other sides... this worked in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Why do some military hawks believe it won't this time, when the United States does not have a capable ideological foe?
Europe proved to be interesting too. The European Commission has practically taken over the European Space Agency and is giving it orders. Good ones too. Europe is weaning itself off of dependence on America bit by bit. Galileo sat-nav and the Common Security and Defence Policy go hand in hand.
Russia, for its part, is performing a balancing act. It is keen to get any and all countries off of GPS dependence. It is actively helping the Chinese and Indians in developing their own sat-nav systems.
America seems to be losing its superiority in space... bit by bit, as more states and actors emerge to use outer space for communication, commerce and science research. The space sector, I believe, will see the most radical change in the 21st Century, in technology, capabilities, politics, and general public understand and appreciation.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
UK Space Agency
Great news. The UK will be getting its own space agency next week. Timid starts, yes. The UK does spend a little and get a lot from the space sector.
At last the UK has a space agency that should provide a coherent face on Britain in any space negotiations, and a central authority for industry.
At last the UK has a space agency that should provide a coherent face on Britain in any space negotiations, and a central authority for industry.
Sunday, 14 March 2010
One Month Later and Europe is on its knees...
How time flies. It's been a busy past month, hence the lack of blog posts. Ironically, the workload is only going to get tougher as the weeks go on until the end of the Easter holidays. Yet here I am with a respite to write a new blog post.
What do I cover? Perhaps the most exciting thing that's happened is the crisis games the International Politics department at Aberystwyth University. Held twice a year, it is a simulated international crisis where teams of participating students are assigned countries or NGOs to represent during a scripted (usually in an ad hoc manner as time goes by) crisis.
This semester's game was my second. This one was based on a flu pandemic, an energy crisis and the coldest winter on record in Europe in January 2011. Three crises rolled into one. Not an appealing prospect, even before we got to know the details.
A new strain of flu was spreading throughout the Western world: Janus flu. It had spawned and spread simultaneously in Washington DC and Los Angeles, and subsequently developed hotspots in London and Berlin. The flu had a mortality rate of 25%. Rumours of a manufactured virus were not unrealistic. On top of this, there had been a diplomatic crisis in the Middle East during the summer, and there was an existing oil and energy shortage. Furthermore, Europe was seeing its highest energy demand due to the coldest winter on record.
I was on the British team. Unenviably, gas made up for 25% or so of the UK's electricity production, not to mention home heating. On the bus on the way to Gregynog mansion, where the crisis games are held, we were handed a Reuters news report mentioning a gas explosion at Russia's three gas terminals that supplies gas to Europe. All gas supplies were cut off.
Knowing that the UK had only 14 days' worth of reserve gas (6-7 game sessions), our team had to find an alternative to energy production, fast. Without an alternative, a lot of British people would not only cough to death but also freeze in the process. Immediately, I spoke to the Americans and arranged a heightened effort to discover the status of the Russian gas terminals. Russian authorities could not be trusted.
The military was already mobilised to ensure the maintenance of critical civilian infrastructure, i.e. power plants, food supplies and field hospitals where existing health infrastructure was already inundated. With weather and illness threatening the workforce, the breakdown in critical services was imminent, and the first time for it to happen since WWII. Soon enough, newspapers reported up to 500,000 cases of the flu in London and the South East. That would equate to roughly 125,000 deaths. In one region.
The World Health Organisation (WHO), made up of an initially quiet team, pushed for efforts at sharing the development of a vaccine. France, with its large nuclear energy infrastructure, and skills transfer from the US, managed to keep its nuclear plants running to an extent that surplus energy was available for trade. We, in the UK, was depserate enough to accept France's only condition - a donation of €5bn to the WHO for vaccination efforts. France matched this donation.
Poland, with its coal-based energy infrastructure, also managed to provide a surplus of electricity. Poland kindly traded this energy at normal prices with the UK. For the short term the UK could stave off complete depletion of its energy reserves.
During this time, Russia was quiet. By the fourth session, Western intelligence sources had confirmed that the Russians were involved in masikrovka in relation to their gas distribution centres. The Russians fabricated the Chechen attack and fed it to the news. The Russians had willingly turned off the gas at Europe's most vulnerable time.
Angered by this, I, the British Prime Minister, sent a signed secret communique to Moscow from all European states asking what were their demands to get the gas back on. We knew that the Russian gas infrastructure was intact. This communique was met with stark denial from Moscow.
The British team, amongst disagreements from within and a fracturing of the Cabinet, attempted to get gas from Norwegian deposits. The European Union team considered seizing its gas assets by force. The UK refused any military action against Norway. Before any concrete deal was made, espionage efforts by an unknown party had neutralised the Norwegian gas infrastructure. Also the flu had hit Norway particularly badly.
Bang went that plan too. The UK was running out of energy sources, and the French and the Poles couldn't keep energy production at such high levels indefinitely. The flu was taking its toll on the European populace. The Middle East had sealed itself off to Western trade to isolate it from the flu.
The USA had decided not to pool its resources in the WHO vaccination effort, and to devevlop its own, faster, vaccine. This backfired on the Americans as they did develop a vaccine faster, but the vaccine resulted in "undesired sideffects", namely, death.
Eventually the WHO, with China's aid, curiously, developed a working vaccine. Production centres in the UK began mass production immediately. For the time being the WHO recommended to isolate healthy people from the sick. This would mean moving the healthy around into isolated areas. All states undertook this advice, except the Ukraine and the UK. I, the Prime Minister, faced objections from within about ignoring the WHO's advice, but it turned out to be the best course of action. The states that did listen to the WHO faced mass riots against security forces as healthy people were separated from their families, and quarantine was never fully established. It only took one unhealthy person to slip the net to ruin the whole programme.
Buoyed by the success of my judgement, I managed to put down a rebellion within my own government. This brief relief was soon quashed by the arrival of Russian demands in Europe for the resumption of gas supplies. And the news that the Janus flu was indeed manufactured, but without any clues as to by whom. Curiously, there were zero cases of the flu in China and the Middle East.
Russia wanted a new pricing agreement and structure, separate from actual market prices, the expulsion of NATO forces from previous Warsaw Pact states, and a 'neutral' Ukraine and European mediation on American policy. The Americans had lost two pilots over Russian soil, the spyplane incident embarrassed the White House. Refusing to apologise over spying on Russian assets, the Americans seriously considered military action against Russia.
Extremely worried and growing ever more pensive at the prospect of nuclear war, I decided that negotiations were imperative or we would all be facing nuclear armageddon. The Germans, intriguingly, approached me with an offer. In dialogue with the Russians, the Germans had a set of reasonable demands from Russia that European states could accommodate. The European Union was sidelined. I set at work to get France, Germany and Poland to agree to some terms of the Russian demands. However, Russia's insistence on NATO withdrawal from ex-Warsaw Pact states was flatly rejected. With a tacit threat from me of nuclear war if the gas wasn't switched back on due to rejection of our agreement, the Russians switched the gas back on. For the time being.
Getting the Americans to back down over the pilot issue wasn't easy. However, I did present a way out of the crisis without conflict (and likely nuclear war) to the Americans and they did listen. I managed to hold them off from their military strike against Russia to see if the Euro-Russian deal would work.
It did work. But then Russia decided to seize Alaska. Then the world went to hell.
Facing a large conventional counterattack from the Americans, the Russians pulled back before escalation occured. We Europeans provided no assistance to the Americans in this misadventure, we needed Russian gas. Reportedly, one Russian official was quoted as saying "I'd rather spend a fortnight in Borth" than Alaska.
The French reneged and refused to sign the European deal with Russia. Their loss. With the gas switched back on, and the vaccination programme beginning, the crisis seemed to have passed its zenith. With 80 million dead worldwide, mostly in Western states, a new world order was emerging with China as the world's strongest state.
Let's hope this crisis game remains a hypothetical. It's plausible and terrifyingly possible. If one thing is to be learned from this - Britain needed its nuclear weapons. During this crisis, I did not have to beg the Americans to protect us with their nuclear arms. Not once. Had we not had our nuclear weapons, our bargaining position with Russia would have been much weaker. So, support the British nuclear deterrent!
What do I cover? Perhaps the most exciting thing that's happened is the crisis games the International Politics department at Aberystwyth University. Held twice a year, it is a simulated international crisis where teams of participating students are assigned countries or NGOs to represent during a scripted (usually in an ad hoc manner as time goes by) crisis.
This semester's game was my second. This one was based on a flu pandemic, an energy crisis and the coldest winter on record in Europe in January 2011. Three crises rolled into one. Not an appealing prospect, even before we got to know the details.
A new strain of flu was spreading throughout the Western world: Janus flu. It had spawned and spread simultaneously in Washington DC and Los Angeles, and subsequently developed hotspots in London and Berlin. The flu had a mortality rate of 25%. Rumours of a manufactured virus were not unrealistic. On top of this, there had been a diplomatic crisis in the Middle East during the summer, and there was an existing oil and energy shortage. Furthermore, Europe was seeing its highest energy demand due to the coldest winter on record.
I was on the British team. Unenviably, gas made up for 25% or so of the UK's electricity production, not to mention home heating. On the bus on the way to Gregynog mansion, where the crisis games are held, we were handed a Reuters news report mentioning a gas explosion at Russia's three gas terminals that supplies gas to Europe. All gas supplies were cut off.
Knowing that the UK had only 14 days' worth of reserve gas (6-7 game sessions), our team had to find an alternative to energy production, fast. Without an alternative, a lot of British people would not only cough to death but also freeze in the process. Immediately, I spoke to the Americans and arranged a heightened effort to discover the status of the Russian gas terminals. Russian authorities could not be trusted.
The military was already mobilised to ensure the maintenance of critical civilian infrastructure, i.e. power plants, food supplies and field hospitals where existing health infrastructure was already inundated. With weather and illness threatening the workforce, the breakdown in critical services was imminent, and the first time for it to happen since WWII. Soon enough, newspapers reported up to 500,000 cases of the flu in London and the South East. That would equate to roughly 125,000 deaths. In one region.
The World Health Organisation (WHO), made up of an initially quiet team, pushed for efforts at sharing the development of a vaccine. France, with its large nuclear energy infrastructure, and skills transfer from the US, managed to keep its nuclear plants running to an extent that surplus energy was available for trade. We, in the UK, was depserate enough to accept France's only condition - a donation of €5bn to the WHO for vaccination efforts. France matched this donation.
Poland, with its coal-based energy infrastructure, also managed to provide a surplus of electricity. Poland kindly traded this energy at normal prices with the UK. For the short term the UK could stave off complete depletion of its energy reserves.
During this time, Russia was quiet. By the fourth session, Western intelligence sources had confirmed that the Russians were involved in masikrovka in relation to their gas distribution centres. The Russians fabricated the Chechen attack and fed it to the news. The Russians had willingly turned off the gas at Europe's most vulnerable time.
Angered by this, I, the British Prime Minister, sent a signed secret communique to Moscow from all European states asking what were their demands to get the gas back on. We knew that the Russian gas infrastructure was intact. This communique was met with stark denial from Moscow.
The British team, amongst disagreements from within and a fracturing of the Cabinet, attempted to get gas from Norwegian deposits. The European Union team considered seizing its gas assets by force. The UK refused any military action against Norway. Before any concrete deal was made, espionage efforts by an unknown party had neutralised the Norwegian gas infrastructure. Also the flu had hit Norway particularly badly.
Bang went that plan too. The UK was running out of energy sources, and the French and the Poles couldn't keep energy production at such high levels indefinitely. The flu was taking its toll on the European populace. The Middle East had sealed itself off to Western trade to isolate it from the flu.
The USA had decided not to pool its resources in the WHO vaccination effort, and to devevlop its own, faster, vaccine. This backfired on the Americans as they did develop a vaccine faster, but the vaccine resulted in "undesired sideffects", namely, death.
Eventually the WHO, with China's aid, curiously, developed a working vaccine. Production centres in the UK began mass production immediately. For the time being the WHO recommended to isolate healthy people from the sick. This would mean moving the healthy around into isolated areas. All states undertook this advice, except the Ukraine and the UK. I, the Prime Minister, faced objections from within about ignoring the WHO's advice, but it turned out to be the best course of action. The states that did listen to the WHO faced mass riots against security forces as healthy people were separated from their families, and quarantine was never fully established. It only took one unhealthy person to slip the net to ruin the whole programme.
Buoyed by the success of my judgement, I managed to put down a rebellion within my own government. This brief relief was soon quashed by the arrival of Russian demands in Europe for the resumption of gas supplies. And the news that the Janus flu was indeed manufactured, but without any clues as to by whom. Curiously, there were zero cases of the flu in China and the Middle East.
Russia wanted a new pricing agreement and structure, separate from actual market prices, the expulsion of NATO forces from previous Warsaw Pact states, and a 'neutral' Ukraine and European mediation on American policy. The Americans had lost two pilots over Russian soil, the spyplane incident embarrassed the White House. Refusing to apologise over spying on Russian assets, the Americans seriously considered military action against Russia.
Extremely worried and growing ever more pensive at the prospect of nuclear war, I decided that negotiations were imperative or we would all be facing nuclear armageddon. The Germans, intriguingly, approached me with an offer. In dialogue with the Russians, the Germans had a set of reasonable demands from Russia that European states could accommodate. The European Union was sidelined. I set at work to get France, Germany and Poland to agree to some terms of the Russian demands. However, Russia's insistence on NATO withdrawal from ex-Warsaw Pact states was flatly rejected. With a tacit threat from me of nuclear war if the gas wasn't switched back on due to rejection of our agreement, the Russians switched the gas back on. For the time being.
Getting the Americans to back down over the pilot issue wasn't easy. However, I did present a way out of the crisis without conflict (and likely nuclear war) to the Americans and they did listen. I managed to hold them off from their military strike against Russia to see if the Euro-Russian deal would work.
It did work. But then Russia decided to seize Alaska. Then the world went to hell.
Facing a large conventional counterattack from the Americans, the Russians pulled back before escalation occured. We Europeans provided no assistance to the Americans in this misadventure, we needed Russian gas. Reportedly, one Russian official was quoted as saying "I'd rather spend a fortnight in Borth" than Alaska.
The French reneged and refused to sign the European deal with Russia. Their loss. With the gas switched back on, and the vaccination programme beginning, the crisis seemed to have passed its zenith. With 80 million dead worldwide, mostly in Western states, a new world order was emerging with China as the world's strongest state.
Let's hope this crisis game remains a hypothetical. It's plausible and terrifyingly possible. If one thing is to be learned from this - Britain needed its nuclear weapons. During this crisis, I did not have to beg the Americans to protect us with their nuclear arms. Not once. Had we not had our nuclear weapons, our bargaining position with Russia would have been much weaker. So, support the British nuclear deterrent!
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Kremlin values the NPT?
An interesting newsbite this week. Normally the media focuses on the headline grabbing soundbites, such as Clinton's 'warning' of the Revolutionary Guards supplanting civilian control of the Iranian government.
What's most striking about this article is that Russia has suggested it may support further sanctions in light of Iran's increasing of uranium enrichment from 2%ish to 20%. It seems that Russia may yet be frustrated and tired of Iran, and does not want to see the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) die. If Iran does become a nuclear armed power then the NPT will stand a good chance of becoming obsolete and a failure.
Or is it because Russia is afraid of the instability of the Iranian regime, and the nuclear equation makes any instability an immediate and important concern. Look at Pakistan.
Russia and China had always consistently played against Western sanctions on Iran. With Russia now tentatively agreeing with the West, will China follow suit? China has to learn eventually that it has great responsibility in global security as long as it continues to meddle in other countries' affairs. The situation will have to be resolved soon, as at 20%, Iran will have enough stockpiled enriched uranium to develop a few bombs.
What's most striking about this article is that Russia has suggested it may support further sanctions in light of Iran's increasing of uranium enrichment from 2%ish to 20%. It seems that Russia may yet be frustrated and tired of Iran, and does not want to see the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) die. If Iran does become a nuclear armed power then the NPT will stand a good chance of becoming obsolete and a failure.
Or is it because Russia is afraid of the instability of the Iranian regime, and the nuclear equation makes any instability an immediate and important concern. Look at Pakistan.
Russia and China had always consistently played against Western sanctions on Iran. With Russia now tentatively agreeing with the West, will China follow suit? China has to learn eventually that it has great responsibility in global security as long as it continues to meddle in other countries' affairs. The situation will have to be resolved soon, as at 20%, Iran will have enough stockpiled enriched uranium to develop a few bombs.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Nuclear weapons saved us from ourselves, therefore Barack Obama is wrong.
An essay I wrote last semester for my course was a counter-factual exercise musing on what the Cold War would have been like without nuclear weapons. It got published on www.e-ir.info yesterday for all to see.
To get the full effect of this blog post, I recommend reading it. However, in a nutshell, I explain and speculate how nuclear weapons prevented a conventional Third World War. The logic of mutually assured destruction (MAD) and the pressures caused by the nuclear revolution made wars too costly, even suicidal for states to contemplate and the two opposing superpowers were forced to coexist peacefully or not exist at all.
MAD and both sides' guaranteed second strike capabilities kept the Soviet Union and the USA at bay. Were nuclear weapons and the psychological effect of them taken away, war between them would have remained a means to an end, as opposed to the end of civilisation. War would have been winnable, and a conventional WWIII would have benen ultimately more destructive than the previous one. Either way, Europe would have been reduced to rubble. Again.
By no means do I denigrate the severity of the atomic bombings on Japan in 1945. However, it seems without a nuclear standoff another more destructive war would have taken its place, and as far as academic debate goes, Japan could have faced a much worse conventional land invasion if the US had not used its atomic arsenal.
My point here is to relate this to Obama's foolhardy nuclear idealism. He's said, as I'm sure you know, that he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons off the face of the Earth. Given that I trust in MAD to prevent any conflict between the USA/NATO, Russia, China, India and Pakistan I dread the day if nukes were abolished. If Iran were to acquire nukes, I wouldn't be surprised if things would stabilise in the long term between it and Israel. Deterrence and MAD are universal, and Israel and Iran could be forced into an uneasy coexistence, or both sides face eradication.
Obama got a peace prize for his rhetoric. Illogic rhetoric for any calculating statesman. However in the ignorant public's eyes it's an easy card to play. Were the US to get rid of nukes it would enjoy countries without a trump card to match it's clear conventional military advantage. Nuclear zero would make small states or large ones with old technology and hardware feel very insecure and trigger arms races. And who's to say that other states won't renege on past promises to disarm their nukes?
I refuse to believe that Obama or any serious minded politican can really believe in eradicating nuclear weapons. It would make a major interstate war too likely.
To get the full effect of this blog post, I recommend reading it. However, in a nutshell, I explain and speculate how nuclear weapons prevented a conventional Third World War. The logic of mutually assured destruction (MAD) and the pressures caused by the nuclear revolution made wars too costly, even suicidal for states to contemplate and the two opposing superpowers were forced to coexist peacefully or not exist at all.
MAD and both sides' guaranteed second strike capabilities kept the Soviet Union and the USA at bay. Were nuclear weapons and the psychological effect of them taken away, war between them would have remained a means to an end, as opposed to the end of civilisation. War would have been winnable, and a conventional WWIII would have benen ultimately more destructive than the previous one. Either way, Europe would have been reduced to rubble. Again.
By no means do I denigrate the severity of the atomic bombings on Japan in 1945. However, it seems without a nuclear standoff another more destructive war would have taken its place, and as far as academic debate goes, Japan could have faced a much worse conventional land invasion if the US had not used its atomic arsenal.
My point here is to relate this to Obama's foolhardy nuclear idealism. He's said, as I'm sure you know, that he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons off the face of the Earth. Given that I trust in MAD to prevent any conflict between the USA/NATO, Russia, China, India and Pakistan I dread the day if nukes were abolished. If Iran were to acquire nukes, I wouldn't be surprised if things would stabilise in the long term between it and Israel. Deterrence and MAD are universal, and Israel and Iran could be forced into an uneasy coexistence, or both sides face eradication.
Obama got a peace prize for his rhetoric. Illogic rhetoric for any calculating statesman. However in the ignorant public's eyes it's an easy card to play. Were the US to get rid of nukes it would enjoy countries without a trump card to match it's clear conventional military advantage. Nuclear zero would make small states or large ones with old technology and hardware feel very insecure and trigger arms races. And who's to say that other states won't renege on past promises to disarm their nukes?
I refuse to believe that Obama or any serious minded politican can really believe in eradicating nuclear weapons. It would make a major interstate war too likely.
Monday, 1 February 2010
Commercialisation of LEO launch systems is about to 'take off'
Please excuse the cheap pun in the title.
News has reached me today of preliminary reports of Obama's decision on how to solve a problem like NASA's. In a nutshell, it seems that Obama is keen on cutting the inspirational tasks of getting humans back to the Moon, or to the asteroid belt or Mars. Instead he hopes to get more bang for his buck by providing incentives to commercial space companies to develop and deploy their own launchers. These commercial launchers will be able to launch satellites, humans and other cargoes to low-Earth orbit (LEO). This course of action has great potential. Commercial entities have greater incentives to cut costs and increase performance in a competitive market, and can possibly avoid the political wrangling that has become endemic within NASA. This could do to LEO access what commercialisation of aviation did to the US in the 1920s.
This is all well and good. I welcome more participants in space, and in the interests of balance, non-governmental entities are required to keep some degree of shared common interests alive in outer space. This has great implications to the American military-industrial complex. Will traditionally non-military companies get a footing in this market as opposed to military-industrial complex giants, such as Boeing? Since the 1980s, American goverments have consistently intertwined what were once recognised as purely civil space operations with military interests. Watch this space.
I am worried, however. The Augustine report (Autumn 2009) points out that there will be a lack of human heavy-lift launch capability for the US. If the commercial ventures fail to deliver, the US has yet a means to fall back on a safety net. Obama intends to cancel the Ares rocket plan, and this will only further delay a new American launcher. In the worst case scenario, the US might have to turn to Europe's venerable Ariane rocket or Russia's Soyuz for ALL it's heavy human launch needs. How embarrassing would that be for the country that got humans to the Moon and back again?
Obama must, of course, stay within what is financially possible. Perhaps it is wiser in the long run to develop more efficient means of getting humans and materiel into LEO before venturing further to the Moon and beyond. I wouldn't mind seeing greater expansion on the International Space Station or a construction of humanity's first orbital shipyard. Britain's R&D into the Skylon spaceplane is certainly interesting and promising. A single stage flyer, taking off and landing at conventional airports, could go into LEO, dock in space with proposed space stations, go from London to Sydney in two hours.
Certainly plenty of analysis and evidence to come yet. I've got plenty of things to add to my dissertation...
News has reached me today of preliminary reports of Obama's decision on how to solve a problem like NASA's. In a nutshell, it seems that Obama is keen on cutting the inspirational tasks of getting humans back to the Moon, or to the asteroid belt or Mars. Instead he hopes to get more bang for his buck by providing incentives to commercial space companies to develop and deploy their own launchers. These commercial launchers will be able to launch satellites, humans and other cargoes to low-Earth orbit (LEO). This course of action has great potential. Commercial entities have greater incentives to cut costs and increase performance in a competitive market, and can possibly avoid the political wrangling that has become endemic within NASA. This could do to LEO access what commercialisation of aviation did to the US in the 1920s.
This is all well and good. I welcome more participants in space, and in the interests of balance, non-governmental entities are required to keep some degree of shared common interests alive in outer space. This has great implications to the American military-industrial complex. Will traditionally non-military companies get a footing in this market as opposed to military-industrial complex giants, such as Boeing? Since the 1980s, American goverments have consistently intertwined what were once recognised as purely civil space operations with military interests. Watch this space.
I am worried, however. The Augustine report (Autumn 2009) points out that there will be a lack of human heavy-lift launch capability for the US. If the commercial ventures fail to deliver, the US has yet a means to fall back on a safety net. Obama intends to cancel the Ares rocket plan, and this will only further delay a new American launcher. In the worst case scenario, the US might have to turn to Europe's venerable Ariane rocket or Russia's Soyuz for ALL it's heavy human launch needs. How embarrassing would that be for the country that got humans to the Moon and back again?
Obama must, of course, stay within what is financially possible. Perhaps it is wiser in the long run to develop more efficient means of getting humans and materiel into LEO before venturing further to the Moon and beyond. I wouldn't mind seeing greater expansion on the International Space Station or a construction of humanity's first orbital shipyard. Britain's R&D into the Skylon spaceplane is certainly interesting and promising. A single stage flyer, taking off and landing at conventional airports, could go into LEO, dock in space with proposed space stations, go from London to Sydney in two hours.
Certainly plenty of analysis and evidence to come yet. I've got plenty of things to add to my dissertation...
Friday, 29 January 2010
"Good, good, use your anger..."
I've become irritated with NATO in the past few days, as talks with 'moderate Taliban' have emerged and by today are becoming bolder after the summit in London. Over a hundred million dollars has been allocated to buy-off disenchanted fighters.
This completely undermines the reason the West is in Afghanistan and makes our armed forces' sacrifices completely pointless if we are now giving the Taliban the 'olive branch'. Carrots will not work... fundamentalists like the Taliban only understand the language of the stick, especially when they are undertaking fourth generation warfare.
Who are the 'moderate Taliban'? Pakistan tried a political settlement with the Taliban within their borders. Time and time again the Pakistani Taliban enroached on the more civilised parts of the country until the government had to go back to square one and try to push out the Taliban with brute force which, so far, has heralded some good results. The Afghan Taliban will do the same. Yes, they will use any respite in fighting to regroup, muster more resources in preparation for the eventual armed struggle with the incumbent Kabul government when the West will have pulled out and left Afghanistan to its own fate.
Let's not forget the reason we went there; the Taliban harboured Al-Qaeda and developed a symbiotic relationship with them. The Taliban have as much to do with 9/11 and previous Al-Qaeda attacks as bin Laden himself. Like it or not, we are at war with them, over our values and security. The Taliban refused to hand over Al-Qaeda to the US, and (almost) caused their own destruction. If any more reminders are needed, what we do in and with Afghanistan (and Pakistan) will affect our long term domestic security. Indirectly, Al-Qaeda is still orchestrating and attempting to disrupt Western life. The 25th December attempt is a reminder. Glasgow 2007, another. They are in it for the long run. We, as the Western population, are forgetting that.
A ceasefire and a peace with the Taliban intact will be an enormous propaganda victory to Islamic fundamentalists all over the world. Another huge recruitment tool. Let's not forget that indoctrinated and brainwashed individuals are or were also the victims of Islamic extremists. The Taliban will be able to portray itself as beating the most technologically advanced and most powerful military alliance on Earth. Need I say anymore on this point?
Which is why I'd prefer to see a huge effort now to press on the Taliban while there are signs of fatigue on their side. Mao Zedong and Ho-Chi Minh can teach us a lot here. We pursue when they retreat. When they tire, we cripple them. We can deliver reeling blows if the effort is there. There are news reports of a planned major British push in Helmand. Hopefully this will show some determination to keep fighting on our side.
Generally speaking, the Afghan population supports the effort against the Taliban. That may be the most important aspect of our mission there. Afghans have begun to enjoy many freedoms never before seen, how will that taste of liberal individualism affect Afghan society in the years to come?
Keep pushing the Taliban NATO, that will make them easier to deal with and take the smug smiles off their faces at the table. Otherwise the West looks like it really is losing its stomach for conflict.
I'll finish with a very interesting line from a certain video game. Some may recognise it:
"A culture's teachings, and most importantly, the nature of its people, achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves... or find themselves lacking."
This completely undermines the reason the West is in Afghanistan and makes our armed forces' sacrifices completely pointless if we are now giving the Taliban the 'olive branch'. Carrots will not work... fundamentalists like the Taliban only understand the language of the stick, especially when they are undertaking fourth generation warfare.
Who are the 'moderate Taliban'? Pakistan tried a political settlement with the Taliban within their borders. Time and time again the Pakistani Taliban enroached on the more civilised parts of the country until the government had to go back to square one and try to push out the Taliban with brute force which, so far, has heralded some good results. The Afghan Taliban will do the same. Yes, they will use any respite in fighting to regroup, muster more resources in preparation for the eventual armed struggle with the incumbent Kabul government when the West will have pulled out and left Afghanistan to its own fate.
Let's not forget the reason we went there; the Taliban harboured Al-Qaeda and developed a symbiotic relationship with them. The Taliban have as much to do with 9/11 and previous Al-Qaeda attacks as bin Laden himself. Like it or not, we are at war with them, over our values and security. The Taliban refused to hand over Al-Qaeda to the US, and (almost) caused their own destruction. If any more reminders are needed, what we do in and with Afghanistan (and Pakistan) will affect our long term domestic security. Indirectly, Al-Qaeda is still orchestrating and attempting to disrupt Western life. The 25th December attempt is a reminder. Glasgow 2007, another. They are in it for the long run. We, as the Western population, are forgetting that.
A ceasefire and a peace with the Taliban intact will be an enormous propaganda victory to Islamic fundamentalists all over the world. Another huge recruitment tool. Let's not forget that indoctrinated and brainwashed individuals are or were also the victims of Islamic extremists. The Taliban will be able to portray itself as beating the most technologically advanced and most powerful military alliance on Earth. Need I say anymore on this point?
Which is why I'd prefer to see a huge effort now to press on the Taliban while there are signs of fatigue on their side. Mao Zedong and Ho-Chi Minh can teach us a lot here. We pursue when they retreat. When they tire, we cripple them. We can deliver reeling blows if the effort is there. There are news reports of a planned major British push in Helmand. Hopefully this will show some determination to keep fighting on our side.
Generally speaking, the Afghan population supports the effort against the Taliban. That may be the most important aspect of our mission there. Afghans have begun to enjoy many freedoms never before seen, how will that taste of liberal individualism affect Afghan society in the years to come?
Keep pushing the Taliban NATO, that will make them easier to deal with and take the smug smiles off their faces at the table. Otherwise the West looks like it really is losing its stomach for conflict.
I'll finish with a very interesting line from a certain video game. Some may recognise it:
"A culture's teachings, and most importantly, the nature of its people, achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves... or find themselves lacking."
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
The benevolent side of the US?
We all know about the disaster in Haiti. It's impossible not to hear about it. The pictures are horrifying.
The US has sent thousands of troops and civilian support personnel to Haiti (I've lost count of the actual number, but I think it's safe to say over 10,000 American personnel are in Haiti or going there). Of course it is an international effort, rescuers and aid from all over the globe has been pouring in.
At first glance this is an excellent example to the pacifists of what armed forces are good for other than fighting/preventing wars and providing security to ourselves. The US here is showing it's benevolent side, rightly assisting one of the poorest countries in the world that has been completely reduced to rubble following a natural disaster. These people desperately need all the help they can get for essential means to live. Only armed forces (and that of the US in terms of sheer scale) can provide materiel and personnel to disaster zones in need of assistance. Civil protection from any country could not provide such support in such a disaster, as well as food, water and healthcare the US armed forces can provide basic security duties.
However there is a hard security concern in sending the troops there; Haiti is on America's doorstep, and the US should avoid tolerating a failed state within the boundaries of its Monroe Doctrine. Even worse, no Haitian government could take control of what's left and the country could descend into pure anarchy and destabilise the Dominican Republic. The inevitable rise in crime, people and drug smuggling would cause problems for the US homeland.
It's nice to see Obama taking swift and decisive action for once. At least out in the open.
It seems the US is helping itself by helping others here. I'll drink to that.
The US has sent thousands of troops and civilian support personnel to Haiti (I've lost count of the actual number, but I think it's safe to say over 10,000 American personnel are in Haiti or going there). Of course it is an international effort, rescuers and aid from all over the globe has been pouring in.
At first glance this is an excellent example to the pacifists of what armed forces are good for other than fighting/preventing wars and providing security to ourselves. The US here is showing it's benevolent side, rightly assisting one of the poorest countries in the world that has been completely reduced to rubble following a natural disaster. These people desperately need all the help they can get for essential means to live. Only armed forces (and that of the US in terms of sheer scale) can provide materiel and personnel to disaster zones in need of assistance. Civil protection from any country could not provide such support in such a disaster, as well as food, water and healthcare the US armed forces can provide basic security duties.
However there is a hard security concern in sending the troops there; Haiti is on America's doorstep, and the US should avoid tolerating a failed state within the boundaries of its Monroe Doctrine. Even worse, no Haitian government could take control of what's left and the country could descend into pure anarchy and destabilise the Dominican Republic. The inevitable rise in crime, people and drug smuggling would cause problems for the US homeland.
It's nice to see Obama taking swift and decisive action for once. At least out in the open.
It seems the US is helping itself by helping others here. I'll drink to that.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Defence of liberty, democracy and freedom?
This week The Economist had an article that described at length how various indicators showed a decline of democracy, personal and political freedoms have declined since 2001.
It also consisted of a useful diagram:
Here you can see the red is more obvious on the 2009 map than the 2001. The article goes on to lament the failure of Francis Fukuyama's 'End of History' to materialise. The spread of Western liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War didn't quite happen as Fukuyama expected.
The Economist goes on how our liberal values and democracy need to be defended, as they are 'under threat' like never before. Erm, it survived communism, didn't it?
The Economist treats the numbers as worrying, rather than which countries have actually 'regressed' in their freedoms. Oh, and before I go any further I know that 'freedom' is a highly subjective term which I will explain my view of later.
I think that a subjective and quantative analysis is required. Russia may be less 'free' today, but democracy in Russia will always be a farce unless the Russian psyche changes drastically. The West could deal with the Soviet Union, we can deal with an authoritarian Russia. As for the Chinese Communist Party, it has more to worry from China's growing rich middle class than we have of authoritarian values. Taking a Kennan/geopolitical view, other authoritarian regimes don't matter so much. Yet.
On the map you can see how 'freedom' has spread in eastern Europe, and more importantly Brazil. India and Brazil are green in the 2009 map (even Pakistan is upgraded). This is far more important I think. After the meltdown of 2009 Brazil was the economy that spearheaded growth and has come out of the world economy as one of the most vibrant and robust. Brazil is and will grow to be a great trading partner and player in global politics. India as well is important. As Earth's largest democracy it has huge potential. Indonesia is also a good example of how Islam and democracy are compatible.
Freedom itself is a highly subjective term. The freedom to vote in privacy, free thought, free speech and press, expression etc are hall given hallmarks. I'm sure you can find some arguments to say that certain western countries still don't allow everyone to be free. But these countries do provide equal protection to citizens under the law, regardless of race, religion (or lack of), sex, sexuality, gender etc...
Anyway, I believe that democracy and liberty in the bigger picture here is quite safe, as long as ordinary citizens continue to keep an interest in what happens to their governments.
It also consisted of a useful diagram:
Here you can see the red is more obvious on the 2009 map than the 2001. The article goes on to lament the failure of Francis Fukuyama's 'End of History' to materialise. The spread of Western liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War didn't quite happen as Fukuyama expected.
The Economist goes on how our liberal values and democracy need to be defended, as they are 'under threat' like never before. Erm, it survived communism, didn't it?
The Economist treats the numbers as worrying, rather than which countries have actually 'regressed' in their freedoms. Oh, and before I go any further I know that 'freedom' is a highly subjective term which I will explain my view of later.
I think that a subjective and quantative analysis is required. Russia may be less 'free' today, but democracy in Russia will always be a farce unless the Russian psyche changes drastically. The West could deal with the Soviet Union, we can deal with an authoritarian Russia. As for the Chinese Communist Party, it has more to worry from China's growing rich middle class than we have of authoritarian values. Taking a Kennan/geopolitical view, other authoritarian regimes don't matter so much. Yet.
On the map you can see how 'freedom' has spread in eastern Europe, and more importantly Brazil. India and Brazil are green in the 2009 map (even Pakistan is upgraded). This is far more important I think. After the meltdown of 2009 Brazil was the economy that spearheaded growth and has come out of the world economy as one of the most vibrant and robust. Brazil is and will grow to be a great trading partner and player in global politics. India as well is important. As Earth's largest democracy it has huge potential. Indonesia is also a good example of how Islam and democracy are compatible.
Freedom itself is a highly subjective term. The freedom to vote in privacy, free thought, free speech and press, expression etc are hall given hallmarks. I'm sure you can find some arguments to say that certain western countries still don't allow everyone to be free. But these countries do provide equal protection to citizens under the law, regardless of race, religion (or lack of), sex, sexuality, gender etc...
Anyway, I believe that democracy and liberty in the bigger picture here is quite safe, as long as ordinary citizens continue to keep an interest in what happens to their governments.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Video games - most definitely an art form
Today I thought I'd have a break from politics and diplomacy (and from revision) on my blog and rant about video games as an art form, through music.
Too often I've seen the cultural contribution of video games being sidelined by, well I was about to say the masses, but the masses (especially the under 30s) are increasingly using video games. Games are taking over from films, especially as part of pop culture for many various reasons I won't go into right now. Think of the most epic movie music you can think of, and most people would not smirk or laugh if you said you appreciated those scores, e.g. any John Williams masterpiece, the Lord of the Rings music, Requiem for a Dream, Bernard Hermann and countless others. There are magnificent movie scores everywhere, and are recognised as great parts of their respective cultures.
The musical beauty of some games is going unrecognised, except in niche markets or concerts such as Play! or Video Games Live. Here's an example of a great orchestral score written for a video game:
That was 'Baba Yetu' by Christopher Tin, which featured in Civilization IV. Although a bit simplistic, it is powerful and complements the character of the video game perfectly.
Here's another example:
That was 'To Zanarkand', from Final Fantasy X by Nobuo Uematsu (also known as the John Williams of the video game world). Like the video game, this piece of music (among countless scores within the game) is fraught with emotion and the feeling of unavoidable tragedy.
Talent, emotion and thinking has gone into many video game scores, and over the years more and more full orchestras are being hired to perform. This is only good for classical music, which I do enjoy. This will introduce thousands (if not millions) of people of all ages across the world to the beauty of dozens of men and women playing an amazing symphony together.
Here's another great example:
'Operation Market Garden', from Medal of Honor: Frontline by Michael Giacchino (since then he's gone on to do movie soundtracks, such as The Incredibles). The early Medal of Honor games were the first to use a full orchestra to the entire soundtrack of a video game. What you got was one of the best series of WWII games ever made with great emotional depth.
These are but a few examples. They do show how far video game soundtracks have come in the past 20 years, when it was still a matter of bleeps.
Too often I've seen the cultural contribution of video games being sidelined by, well I was about to say the masses, but the masses (especially the under 30s) are increasingly using video games. Games are taking over from films, especially as part of pop culture for many various reasons I won't go into right now. Think of the most epic movie music you can think of, and most people would not smirk or laugh if you said you appreciated those scores, e.g. any John Williams masterpiece, the Lord of the Rings music, Requiem for a Dream, Bernard Hermann and countless others. There are magnificent movie scores everywhere, and are recognised as great parts of their respective cultures.
The musical beauty of some games is going unrecognised, except in niche markets or concerts such as Play! or Video Games Live. Here's an example of a great orchestral score written for a video game:
That was 'Baba Yetu' by Christopher Tin, which featured in Civilization IV. Although a bit simplistic, it is powerful and complements the character of the video game perfectly.
Here's another example:
That was 'To Zanarkand', from Final Fantasy X by Nobuo Uematsu (also known as the John Williams of the video game world). Like the video game, this piece of music (among countless scores within the game) is fraught with emotion and the feeling of unavoidable tragedy.
Talent, emotion and thinking has gone into many video game scores, and over the years more and more full orchestras are being hired to perform. This is only good for classical music, which I do enjoy. This will introduce thousands (if not millions) of people of all ages across the world to the beauty of dozens of men and women playing an amazing symphony together.
Here's another great example:
'Operation Market Garden', from Medal of Honor: Frontline by Michael Giacchino (since then he's gone on to do movie soundtracks, such as The Incredibles). The early Medal of Honor games were the first to use a full orchestra to the entire soundtrack of a video game. What you got was one of the best series of WWII games ever made with great emotional depth.
These are but a few examples. They do show how far video game soundtracks have come in the past 20 years, when it was still a matter of bleeps.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Iraq Inquiry: Campbell echoes Butler
Alastair Campbell, Blair's spin doctor at the time, has been answering questions at the Iraq inquiry today. He stresses that Blair genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat and needed to be taken out.
This reminds me of a lecture by Lord Butler, of the Butler inquiry, who held a lecture in Aberystwyth, about a year ago, about the British intelligence (or lack of) leading up to the war. He said much of the same thing. This somewhat casts doubt on Blair's popular image of being Bush's poodle.
Rightly or wrongly, I think that this is true. Blair really did want Saddam gone, his conviction was strong. One thing that both Bush and Blair have in common is their religious convicitions, only Blair's was only made apparent after he left office.
Blair, after a gruesome grilling by Jeremy Paxman - oh wait, no, Fern Britton - he made a rare mistake in his words. After all, in 2009 we did get a blue moon. He said that if WMDs failed to get the public on board he would have used other reasons to try to convince us. Regardless of what shape the WMDs would have been in he would have used other reasons to get into Iraq.
To be fair, Saddam was repressive, vile, ruthless and did not deserve power. He was a threat to his neighbours, and vice versa. However, it is unfair to use these reasons and not target other states across the world. Usual examples here are Saudi Arabia, Rwanda in the 1990s, Sudan to name but a few. Hell, we all are living with North Korea.
It's a good job Blair is a Catholic. He needs all the forgiveness he can get.
This reminds me of a lecture by Lord Butler, of the Butler inquiry, who held a lecture in Aberystwyth, about a year ago, about the British intelligence (or lack of) leading up to the war. He said much of the same thing. This somewhat casts doubt on Blair's popular image of being Bush's poodle.
Rightly or wrongly, I think that this is true. Blair really did want Saddam gone, his conviction was strong. One thing that both Bush and Blair have in common is their religious convicitions, only Blair's was only made apparent after he left office.
Blair, after a gruesome grilling by Jeremy Paxman - oh wait, no, Fern Britton - he made a rare mistake in his words. After all, in 2009 we did get a blue moon. He said that if WMDs failed to get the public on board he would have used other reasons to try to convince us. Regardless of what shape the WMDs would have been in he would have used other reasons to get into Iraq.
To be fair, Saddam was repressive, vile, ruthless and did not deserve power. He was a threat to his neighbours, and vice versa. However, it is unfair to use these reasons and not target other states across the world. Usual examples here are Saudi Arabia, Rwanda in the 1990s, Sudan to name but a few. Hell, we all are living with North Korea.
It's a good job Blair is a Catholic. He needs all the forgiveness he can get.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Progress of humanity, through the medium of Sid Meier's Civilization
Thinking that you're going nowhere? Think that nothing is being achieved these days? Do you look back into the past and wish that we'd have the same amazing discoveries that Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and countless others professed and wish the same was happening today?
I used to feel like that, years ago. What many people today I look on don't realise is that you must look for the information that can make you proud of your species/nation or whatever takes your fancy. I guarantee a short visit to the BBC News science/technology website section will present some new kind of discovery that would lift your heart and make possible new kind of ideas and innovative thinking. There is so much knowledge being added to human science every day it is hard to filter the more significant advances over others. Science does not sell either, so there is not much inviting the press to report on science, except if they can create unhelpful ignorant worries about generating lethal black holes...
Advances in the past decade in nanotechnology, optics, robotics, computing, genetics and many more areas are astounding. I'm wearing socks right now that were engineered with nanotechnology.
I tend to keep such an attitude over a human civilisation as a whole thanks to Sid Meier's Civilization games. Starting in 5000BC you have one settler unit and you create a city. Over the milennia you research new techonolgies, settle new cities, organise your people, choose your style of rule and, of course, build your armed forces to defend your people and territory (from barbarians and other unfriendly civilisations) . It's what everyone could use to learn about our common human civilisation and the workings of the modern state, very broadly, of course. It does give a useful insight into where humanity has been and where we are now. It gives hope to think that we are just another temporary phase until new technologies define the next age. I would term our age now the 'space age'. I hope this century will prove me right!
Being a student of international relations, the amount of power the game gives you is what we could only dream of. It gives a very interesting sandbox. If you were in charge of your civilisation, what would you be like? To win the game you can choose either a military, diplomatic, economic or technological victory. In our world it seems the US went on to win all of those things at the end of the Cold War... minus the military part.
My preferred method is economic, or the technological victories. To win economically you must be the richest nation and be the first to build the World Bank wonder. However, over the ages you must balance your economic growth with military spending and technology to keep on a par with other players. No point being the richest player if you can't protect your money! Erm, I mean people!
A tech victory is to be the first civilisation to launch a human colonisation ship and send it to Alpha Centauri, another star system.
Military victory is conquest of other civilisations' capital cities and global territorial domination (controlling 2/3 of the surface). Diplomatic victory is to be allied with many states and be the first to build the United Nations wonder.
I really think that Civilization deserves to be studied by IR theorists, and understand different people's strategies in playing it. I think it would be of huge significance to psychology experts too. Would a common human nature prevail? Would everyone react similarly to an unprovoked attack on their most economically significant city? Would players always or mostly go it alone or seek grand military alliances? Would we see the hallmark of the old British European doctrine? Balance of power?
And then if you're good enough you get to the point where you can develop nuclear weapons. These wipe out your cities in one turn. Would Jervis' Nuclear Revolution prevail here? If there was an atomic monopoly would we see an echo of American atomic diplomacy in the late 1940s?
Bottom line is, Civilization, to me, is an inspirational tale of the human story. As long we all don't end up nuking each other to kingdom come.
I used to feel like that, years ago. What many people today I look on don't realise is that you must look for the information that can make you proud of your species/nation or whatever takes your fancy. I guarantee a short visit to the BBC News science/technology website section will present some new kind of discovery that would lift your heart and make possible new kind of ideas and innovative thinking. There is so much knowledge being added to human science every day it is hard to filter the more significant advances over others. Science does not sell either, so there is not much inviting the press to report on science, except if they can create unhelpful ignorant worries about generating lethal black holes...
Advances in the past decade in nanotechnology, optics, robotics, computing, genetics and many more areas are astounding. I'm wearing socks right now that were engineered with nanotechnology.
I tend to keep such an attitude over a human civilisation as a whole thanks to Sid Meier's Civilization games. Starting in 5000BC you have one settler unit and you create a city. Over the milennia you research new techonolgies, settle new cities, organise your people, choose your style of rule and, of course, build your armed forces to defend your people and territory (from barbarians and other unfriendly civilisations) . It's what everyone could use to learn about our common human civilisation and the workings of the modern state, very broadly, of course. It does give a useful insight into where humanity has been and where we are now. It gives hope to think that we are just another temporary phase until new technologies define the next age. I would term our age now the 'space age'. I hope this century will prove me right!
Being a student of international relations, the amount of power the game gives you is what we could only dream of. It gives a very interesting sandbox. If you were in charge of your civilisation, what would you be like? To win the game you can choose either a military, diplomatic, economic or technological victory. In our world it seems the US went on to win all of those things at the end of the Cold War... minus the military part.
My preferred method is economic, or the technological victories. To win economically you must be the richest nation and be the first to build the World Bank wonder. However, over the ages you must balance your economic growth with military spending and technology to keep on a par with other players. No point being the richest player if you can't protect your money! Erm, I mean people!
A tech victory is to be the first civilisation to launch a human colonisation ship and send it to Alpha Centauri, another star system.
Military victory is conquest of other civilisations' capital cities and global territorial domination (controlling 2/3 of the surface). Diplomatic victory is to be allied with many states and be the first to build the United Nations wonder.
I really think that Civilization deserves to be studied by IR theorists, and understand different people's strategies in playing it. I think it would be of huge significance to psychology experts too. Would a common human nature prevail? Would everyone react similarly to an unprovoked attack on their most economically significant city? Would players always or mostly go it alone or seek grand military alliances? Would we see the hallmark of the old British European doctrine? Balance of power?
And then if you're good enough you get to the point where you can develop nuclear weapons. These wipe out your cities in one turn. Would Jervis' Nuclear Revolution prevail here? If there was an atomic monopoly would we see an echo of American atomic diplomacy in the late 1940s?
Bottom line is, Civilization, to me, is an inspirational tale of the human story. As long we all don't end up nuking each other to kingdom come.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Galileo takes a large step forward
Good news from ESA today. Galileo has been contracted to European consortia and will build the first 14 of the Galileo constellation.
Couple this with Lisbon, the dual-use of European navigation tech and the wider securitisation and militarisation of the EU and we can see a very competent self-reliant EU emerging, albeit with significant hurdles yet to jump.
Could this be the beginnings of a concrete withdrawal of European reliance on the Americans? The Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy will be given greater life and potential with a fully functioning Galileo system in future.
Couple this with Lisbon, the dual-use of European navigation tech and the wider securitisation and militarisation of the EU and we can see a very competent self-reliant EU emerging, albeit with significant hurdles yet to jump.
Could this be the beginnings of a concrete withdrawal of European reliance on the Americans? The Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy will be given greater life and potential with a fully functioning Galileo system in future.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Ignorant complacency
A friend of mine posted a video of David Mitchell on the interweb having a little rant about Wales, Scotland, Yorkshire and the grumpiness towards England.
The video is indeed hilarious, but one of his lines certainly struck a chord and got me thinking about something again.
He says that Wales (i.e. the Assembly Government) spends on education and the arts like no other. I do not doubt this, time and time again in the news I see funding for new arts projects. There are plans for new and modernised schools in Wales that go into the millions of pounds, despite small school closures.
I'm not implying to any degree that Mitchell is ignorant. I'm talking about the general UK populace, and to a certain extent a general European attitude. This is my opinion and a rant, I'm not bothered to find suitable opinion polls but generally accepted knowledge is in my favour here.
How does the Welsh Assembly manage to place a large proportion of its expenditure to arts and education? Simple. It doesn't have to worry about security and defence. Westminster kindly keeps that in its jurisdiction, and rightly so. The modern state cannot ignore security and defence needs, states often depend on other more friendly states for security guarantees if the state in question cannot present a capable armed force. The role of the armed forces in the ability of us civilians being able to live as we want without fear of 'disturbed social life' is undervalued.
Too many times I have discussed devolution and Welsh independence with fellow Cymry (Welsh people) and the role of the armed forces in an independent Wales is ignored or marginalised. I've heard remarks like "we don't need an army". After laughing at such an incredulous statement I had to try and get the person to see reason. I went on about how security gives you a place to live without fear (or too much) of intervention from outside. Here I'd like to reference Monty Python:
On top of that, in natural disasters or man-made emergencies, when civil protection fails, the armed forces provide the people and material required to get any job done.
Today in the UK we take our security for granted. My stomach churns at constant defence cuts when we are so active in our military commitments. The UK cannot cut back on military spending to maintain our armed forces when we have so many assets, that make our lives at home here nice and cosy, in foreign or far-flung lands in need of our protection. Military strength is a hedge against being bullied around on the world stage.
To this the offending person didn't have much of a rebuke. Perhaps I caught her off-guard. Were Wales to become independent, it would either need to sustain a defence force or be completely dependent on a European power/organisation for a hard security guarantee. Then we have challenges to the notion of Welsh soveriegnty, which goes against the whole point of getting independence in the first place.
I say leave defence as it is to Westminster. Devolve matters that are unique to Wales to Cardiff, such as health, education and transport to name a few. But larger, more economically and industrially intensive areas, such as defence, energy and grand infrastructure, need to remain in Westminster where power and money lie.
"And may God strike me down were it to be otherwise!"
The video is indeed hilarious, but one of his lines certainly struck a chord and got me thinking about something again.
He says that Wales (i.e. the Assembly Government) spends on education and the arts like no other. I do not doubt this, time and time again in the news I see funding for new arts projects. There are plans for new and modernised schools in Wales that go into the millions of pounds, despite small school closures.
I'm not implying to any degree that Mitchell is ignorant. I'm talking about the general UK populace, and to a certain extent a general European attitude. This is my opinion and a rant, I'm not bothered to find suitable opinion polls but generally accepted knowledge is in my favour here.
How does the Welsh Assembly manage to place a large proportion of its expenditure to arts and education? Simple. It doesn't have to worry about security and defence. Westminster kindly keeps that in its jurisdiction, and rightly so. The modern state cannot ignore security and defence needs, states often depend on other more friendly states for security guarantees if the state in question cannot present a capable armed force. The role of the armed forces in the ability of us civilians being able to live as we want without fear of 'disturbed social life' is undervalued.
Too many times I have discussed devolution and Welsh independence with fellow Cymry (Welsh people) and the role of the armed forces in an independent Wales is ignored or marginalised. I've heard remarks like "we don't need an army". After laughing at such an incredulous statement I had to try and get the person to see reason. I went on about how security gives you a place to live without fear (or too much) of intervention from outside. Here I'd like to reference Monty Python:
On top of that, in natural disasters or man-made emergencies, when civil protection fails, the armed forces provide the people and material required to get any job done.
Today in the UK we take our security for granted. My stomach churns at constant defence cuts when we are so active in our military commitments. The UK cannot cut back on military spending to maintain our armed forces when we have so many assets, that make our lives at home here nice and cosy, in foreign or far-flung lands in need of our protection. Military strength is a hedge against being bullied around on the world stage.
To this the offending person didn't have much of a rebuke. Perhaps I caught her off-guard. Were Wales to become independent, it would either need to sustain a defence force or be completely dependent on a European power/organisation for a hard security guarantee. Then we have challenges to the notion of Welsh soveriegnty, which goes against the whole point of getting independence in the first place.
I say leave defence as it is to Westminster. Devolve matters that are unique to Wales to Cardiff, such as health, education and transport to name a few. But larger, more economically and industrially intensive areas, such as defence, energy and grand infrastructure, need to remain in Westminster where power and money lie.
"And may God strike me down were it to be otherwise!"
Sunday, 3 January 2010
Flanking maneuvers or tactical relocation?
Once again I read the news and I have plenty of healthy speculation to offer. After a previous blog on the festive attempted terrorist plots, it seems that my suspicions of further plots were correct as the US embassy in Yemen has now been shut because of "ongoing threats".
The Economist, in an article this week, quotes an American official in Yemen saying "Iraq was yesterday's war, Afghanistan is today's war. If we don't act pre-emptively, Yemen will be tomorrow's war."
This has a certain ring of truth to it. Although this official might be perspicacious, his wording is dangerous. We know what happened the last time a US president spoke of pre-emptive action. Granted Yemen is a completely different case to Iraq, I don't trust general Western populations to make the distinction. At least we have a government on side in Yemen.
Could this be a sign of Al-Qaeda trying to flank the US and NATO? With the US bogged down in Afghanistan and still reeling from Iraq anyone can understand that the US could not realistically commit to another massive troop deployment without serious domestic and economic consequences. Or, is this a sign of Al-Qaeda losing ground and safety in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Is Al-Qaeda trying to find a new refuge in Yemen? The same goes for Somalia.
Time will tell of course.
The Economist, in an article this week, quotes an American official in Yemen saying "Iraq was yesterday's war, Afghanistan is today's war. If we don't act pre-emptively, Yemen will be tomorrow's war."
This has a certain ring of truth to it. Although this official might be perspicacious, his wording is dangerous. We know what happened the last time a US president spoke of pre-emptive action. Granted Yemen is a completely different case to Iraq, I don't trust general Western populations to make the distinction. At least we have a government on side in Yemen.
Could this be a sign of Al-Qaeda trying to flank the US and NATO? With the US bogged down in Afghanistan and still reeling from Iraq anyone can understand that the US could not realistically commit to another massive troop deployment without serious domestic and economic consequences. Or, is this a sign of Al-Qaeda losing ground and safety in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Is Al-Qaeda trying to find a new refuge in Yemen? The same goes for Somalia.
Time will tell of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
