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."
Friday, 29 January 2010
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.
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Karzai can't learn from mistakes.
After a scolding from NATO leaders Karzai still hasn't learned.
17 out of 24 of Karzai's cabinet nominees were rejected by the Afghan parliament. There are fears (a PC way of saying that's what actually happened) of ethnicity, bribes or repaying favours is what lead to most of these nominations. This is what Karzai has done before. What part of 'don't do it again' did he not understand? What does Karzai hope to achieve from this? Appease the Afghan parliament and then you'll appease the aid agencies. Only then can NATO get on with the task of civil protection.
I'd pay McChrystal to slap Karzai in the face... We need to sort out Afghanistan, but only with a clear and patient strategy. We can't do a quick cut and run, like Obama seems to be doing. Merely mentioning a date of withdrawal is counterproductive. There is no way NATO will be able to have any lasting impact in Afghanistan by 2011.
17 out of 24 of Karzai's cabinet nominees were rejected by the Afghan parliament. There are fears (a PC way of saying that's what actually happened) of ethnicity, bribes or repaying favours is what lead to most of these nominations. This is what Karzai has done before. What part of 'don't do it again' did he not understand? What does Karzai hope to achieve from this? Appease the Afghan parliament and then you'll appease the aid agencies. Only then can NATO get on with the task of civil protection.
I'd pay McChrystal to slap Karzai in the face... We need to sort out Afghanistan, but only with a clear and patient strategy. We can't do a quick cut and run, like Obama seems to be doing. Merely mentioning a date of withdrawal is counterproductive. There is no way NATO will be able to have any lasting impact in Afghanistan by 2011.
A love-hate relationship with academia
There is something utterly bittersweet about prophetic articles with regard to international relations. The latest case in point for this relationship is an article I read a little while back on e-IR. The author wrote of an expected increase in Al-Qaeda activities and that Al-Qaeda's External Operations Unit was far from dormant.
If only academic research could come up with such a prophetic resolution for the Islamic fundamentalist problem. Francis Fukuyama's 'End of History' is far too optimistic and Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations' leaves much to be desired!
Friday, 1 January 2010
Dissertation preoccupation and Russia doing a Bruce Willis
It's the end of the festive period and I've been hard at work for the past few days beginning my research for my Batchelor's degree dissertation. It broadly involves analysing certain space programmes and applying international relations theory and classical geopolitics to the understandings I have of them. Spending time in the flat before my flatmates arrive has given me ample silence and lack of distractions to get cracking with my work.
I am surprised with myself. I managed to watch an EU/ESA conference on future space exploration plans (not in its entirety however) without suffering spontaneous narcolepsy. The Russian and Indian insights were very interesting indeed. I do hope that the European Space Agency manages to coordinate efforts for further human space flight, namely developing a manned ATV.
Finding one concise document detailing for each of the space programmes I need would be most useful, but it remains illusory.
In other news, is seems that the Russians are keen on doing what Bruce Willis did. Nonsense aside, if the Russians keep taking this seriously I think it can only serve to get other space agencies off their arses and do something ambitious, being it solo or working together with other agencies. If this is what it takes to recapture the population's imagination in regards to space, go for it!
First post on my first blog on this 'Interweb' thing...
Perhaps I'll leave a proper introductory blog for later once I've figured out how to properly use this blog tool. Anyhow, I'll have fun with this and if anyone does care to read in this in future: hello!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
