The office has spoken - by Richard... Monday, September 21, 2009

The office has spoken - by Richard... Monday, September 21, 2009

It is the day for reports, this one from the office of Tony Blair on climate change. It writes:

It has not taken long for people to understand that climate change is more than just an environmental issue. The impacts of global warming threaten people's homes, their livelihoods, their food supply and their health. Businesses, transport systems and infrastructure are at risk. The economic consequences of unchecked climate change are likely to be huge.

We're not going to fisk it. It is not worth the time or effort. The "office" is totally mad. Amongst its gems, it argues that "ambitious efforts to cut emissions can create as many as 10 million new jobs by 2020." This, of course, is moonshine ... we know all about "green jobs". The "office" is displaying economic illiteracy on a heroic scale.

Climate change is a tragedy of the global commons, it then goes on to say. Tragedy it is indeed – that so much time, effort and wealth are being expended on a chimera. But "the office of Tony Blair" is beyond all that. And that's another tragedy.

COMMENT THREAD

Permalink

Coprophagia watch #2 - by Richard...

The New York Times was amongst the first, with "General Calls for More US Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure". 

Right behind in the coprophagic stakes, however, was Sky News with "US General: 'More Troops Or Lose Afghan War'", alongsideChannel 4 News with "McChrystal wants more Afghanistan troops" and the news agency AFPwhich has "Afghan war 'to fail' without more troops: US general". 

The Press Association joins in the feast with "US call for more Taliban war troops" and The Daily Telegraph, borrowing from Reuters gives us: "Nato mission in Afghanistan 'risks failure' without more troops, says Stanley McChrystal".

These are but a small sample of the growing torrent of similar headlines, all copied out mindlessly, as hacks consume each others' fare. AndThe Guardian, quick off the mark with its first story, has now planted a Union Jack on it, proclaiming: "British commanders demand more troops for Afghanistan".

Strangely though, Associated Press comes in with "Afghan police say more troops not the answer," but then McChrystal would doubtless agree – certainly in the sense that AP puts the proposition. 

Then, making the most of the feast is Jerome Starkey in The Times, blithely giving us: "Analysis: the flaws in General McChrystal's strategy". More troops might stop Nato failing in Afghanistan, he writes, but they certainly won't guarantee victory. There is no way he could have read McChrystal's report because, if he had, he would have found that that is precisely what the General is saying.

Nonetheless, way back in the dim and distant past (in journalistic terms) – i.e., yesterday -Reuters was headlining: "Obama: Need Afghan strategy before more troops", reporting that "President Barack Obama said in interviews aired on Sunday he wants to wait to determine the proper strategy for US forces in Afghanistan before considering whether more troops should be sent there."

Now, Obama may be the coprophiles' golden boy but, like the rest of us, unless you stick to the narrative, you don't get heard. The media narrative is that we need more troops, and that is what you must say to get a headline. Media coprophagia has its own rules, it seems. It must be the sole fare – you are not allowed to produce anything else.

COMMENT THREAD

Permalink

Missing the point - by Richard...

The Washington Post has obtained a copy of Gen Stanley McChrystal's 66-page "assessment report" on Afghanistan. On the back of that, it headlines: "More Forces or 'Mission Failure'" with the strap: "Top US Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive". The lead paragraph of a long article written by Bob Woodward then tells us:

The top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure."

To give him his due, though, Woodward then goes on:

McChrystal makes clear that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. Most starkly, he says: "[I]nadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced."

This last sentence is the nub of McChrystal's report. As it stands, the coalition forces are doing more harm than good, and are losing the war. Thus, in his report, he says: Success is achievable but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or "doubling down" on the previous strategy.

He then goes on to write that: "Additional forces are necessary, but focussing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change in our strategy and the way we think and operate."

The British media seems to be slow on the uptake, with the BBC first out of the traps with its report. Now look at the way it handles the issue. It tells us:

The US mission in Afghanistan will "likely result in failure" unless troops are increased within a year, the top general there has said in a report. He recently called for a revised military strategy in Afghanistan, suggesting the current one is failing.

This was followed by The Times which told us: "America and Nato's top military commander in Afghanistan has warned in a secret report that he needs more troops and a new strategy or his mission will probably end in failure."

You can bet that, when the rest of the media catches up, there will be heavy emphasis on "resources" – i.e., more troops - and much less on the need for a new strategy. Very little, I suspect, will be said of McChrystal's caveat, that "without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced."

For what it is worth, that has been the consistent stance of the British government, which it is why it has resisted the siren calls of the "generals" and the media for more "boots on the ground". The case for more resources is not denied, but they have to be used properly, within the context of a well-founded strategic framework.

To date, the British military have not been able to offer anything like a coherent strategy, even within its own area of operation, as indicated by the tenor of the constant media briefing that we see in the British media. The emphasis throughout has been on more resources. There has been next to no discussion on strategy and, in fact, Stirrup's official "take" is that "the strategy in Afghanistan is the right one."

McChrystal now gives the lie to that, but there is little expectation of the media focusing on that. As with Iraq, the military will be the last to acknowledge that they got it wrong and their pals in the media will back them to the hilt.

The fact is though, that the most recent government (i.e., political) stance of not reinforcing failure has been the correct one. It had always been the intention to wait for the McChrystal review and then make decisions as to force levels on the basis of the strategic appreciation.

Now, it remains to be seen whether the coalition can absorb and deal with McChrystal's recommendations, and indeed whether he has got his priorities right and has offered a successful strategy. We will look at this in a more detailed post.

COMMENT THREAD