Downgrading "Europe"? - by Richard... Monday, October 12, 2009

Downgrading "Europe"? - by Richard... Monday, October 12, 2009

According to The Times, Gordon Brown appears to have downgraded the post of Europe Minister after shifting Baroness Kinnock from the job to become Foreign Office minister responsible for Africa.

Her replacement is Chris Bryant, but he remains a parliamentary under-secretary, "the lowest rank on the paid ministerial ladder", observes Philip Webster, the paper's political editor. The job, he says, has always been done in the past by a Minister of State and they have usually attended the Cabinet when European affairs have been discussed.

Actually, Webster has got it totally wrong. With the constitutional Lisbon treaty about to come into force, a separate post of "Europe minister" is no longer necessary (not that it ever was). 

The duties have been merged with the post of prime minister who, as member of the European Council, is the man responsible for European (i.e., EU) affairs. Bryant's appointment is merely cosmetic, hence the downgrading of his rank.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Totally unprepared - by Richard...

Armed police with 10 snow-clearing machines and vehicles have rescuedmore than 260 Tibetan villagers and 1,000 head of livestock stranded for at least three days by heavy snow. 

The week-long snowfall accumulated to about 30 centimeters in Pulan County of Ali, with some areas suffering meter-thick snow drifts.

Heavy snow cut off the roads connecting some townships in the county and local authorities requested help from the armed police on Sunday. 

Nothing special there, you might say – it does tend to snow in Tibet. But, says this report, "local herdsmen in summer pastures were totally unprepared for the disaster with no winter clothes, for it was not yet time to move to winter pastures." 

So we have early snow in the United States, in Finland and now in Tibet. Meanwhile, a winter weather advisory is in effect today for most of southern Minnesota and western Wisconsin where 2-3 inches of snow is expected in some areas - in what is being described as "another round of early season snow". 

Kent Barnard, leader of the snow clearance team for the "twin cities", says: "This is kind of an anomaly for us; we don't generally get snow obviously this early in the year. Our maintenance crews are ready to go, ready to fight the snow." 

Then, the other side of the world, in New Zealand, a "freak snow storm" has left hundreds of people stranded and unable to return to their homes in New Zealand's central North Island. A state of emergency was declared after heavy snow trapped around 700 people in their vehicles on two of the country's major roads. 

The bad weather, which the BBC says "is highly irregular at this time of year", has forced many to take refuge in nearby community centres. This doesn't sound much like global warming to me, yet still the idiots blather and blather and blather. We really are going to have to shoot them.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Not thinking straight - by Richard...

The twitterings of delight from the Tory Boys & Girls at Dave's great coup in bringing the "Army legend" on side, just in time to make a big deal of it a conference, are now looking more than a bit sad as the grown-ups chew over what in fact has been a huge blunder by the Great Leader.

That the issue refuses to melt away into the background is testament enough to the scale of that blunder. Not only yesterday did we have The Sunday Times leading the fray but today The Times returns to the subject, with a leader headed: "Generals and Politics".

Focusing first on president Obama, the paper sternly declares that, "Policy in Afghanistan must be set by elected governments, not the military," reminding us that the presidency also encompasses the role of Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. 

It notes that, in that latter capacity, Obama has to make the most difficult decision of his presidency, making the obvious but necessary statement that "decisions are needed now." 

Then we get to the nub, with the paper restating some home truths. "War should not be run by generals," it says. "The Commander-in-Chief is elected to decide how best to safeguard security. He should tell his commanders what the strategy in Afghanistan is; their task is to lay out the military options, warn the President of dangers and implement the decisions then taken."

There are two issues here, we are reminded: how best to prosecute the war against the Taleban, and who takes that decision. The first question is secondary to the essential constitutional principles of democratic government. President Truman was vilified when he dismissed General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination in the Korean War. Yet the decision was right. Truman confirmed that policy decisions are taken by civilian governments.

And now we get to Cameron's blunder. That principle, we are told, is no less pressing today, and it extends to the UK too. As defence adviser to the Conservative party, Dannatt will have unnecessarily stoked concerns about the politicisation of the Armed Forces and, in particular, the men who lead them. It is an essential principle of public service, the paper declares, "that elected governments set policies, and generals implement them."

So basic and straightforward is this principle that one really does wonder why it needs re-stating. In the current Conservative party line-up, we have a former Times journalist in charge of education policy, and none of the Tory Boys seem to think there is anything wrong with that. Why do we not hear cries for a professional educator – a headmaster, or some-such, to be put in charge. 

Why is there not a cry for a qualified medical doctor to be put in charge of health policy – such as Dr Liam Fox? For trade policy, surely we need a former captain of industry, and for transport policy we should have ... a road builder, a railway expert, a former airline executive, or a one-time shipping magnate?

Therein lies the absurdity. Just at a very basic level, what makes a retired army general so well qualified that he should have an executive role in determining the policy for the RAF, the Royal Navy, the Marines, or for grand global defence strategies, or for the very special circumstances of the campaign in Afghanistan, of which he has neither operational experience nor any track-record of success?

The baying of the crowd that in the one particular sphere of activity, defence policy, ministers should have specialist knowledge to the extent of being former professionals in the field, is absurd. People are not thinking straight. In this country and most Western democracies, policy decisions are taken by civilian governments. That is how it should be, and to blur the line is dangerous.

Cameron is going to have to row back from his decision to take Dannatt on board, and then get down to some serious policy-making, the like of which we have not yet seen. And the sooner he admits his mistake the better. The longer he leaves it, the more difficult it will get.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

A full month ahead of normal - by Richard...

Southern parts of Finland are expected to have snowfall on Monday morning - a full month ahead of normal. It is likely that Monday's snows will soon melt away, but roads will be slippery in many areas. 

This global warming is getting serious.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Not a great recipe - by Richard...

From the Irish Times:

"Tory conference planning left them unprepared to handle either possible result of the long-planned Irish referendum on Lisbon. If a rejection would have catapulted Cameron into a distinctly hot seat, the overwhelming approval obliges him to mutely contemplate how to be prime minister of an EU member state. Europe shone by its absence from his leader's address.

In the late 19th century Conservatives convinced themselves that by refusing Irish voters' endorsements of Home Rule they would somehow preserve the union and the empire. Today's Tories seem equally determined to convince themselves that the rest of the world will change to suit their fantasies.

It's not a great recipe for an opposition, but it's a real 'bastard' of a one for a government."

Couldn't put it better myself. You can't keep a lid on a volcano forever.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

"Very worried" - by Richard... Sunday, October 11, 2009

EU commission president José Manuel Barroso is very worried about global climate talks with less than two months left until governments are due to meet in Denmark to try to seal a deal.

Barroso's remarks came on the last day of negotiations in Bangkok by officials from 180 nations trying to narrow differences over how to share the burden of the fight against climate change and draft a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

"Despite those efforts," Barroso says, "I remain very worried by the progress at this stage of negotiations where we are dangerously close to deadlock if we do not put some more impetus into this process."

One really does wish that the "very worried" Mr Barroso would read the news occasionally - and look at this picture, an unidentified woman walking her dog as early snow fell yesterday in Omaha, Nebraska. Several inches of snow accumulated. Then, at least, he would know why we want to shoot him.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

A "crass" mistake - by Richard...

For a news event to break mid-week and then to continue in the media, culminating in making the lead editorial in The Sunday Times, with major comment pieces in other newspapers, says something of its importance.

On the face of it though, the appointment by David Cameron of the former CGS, General Sir Richard Dannatt, is not that important. But, clearly, the media thinks otherwise – and they are not wrong. This affair shines a bright light into the heart of the Cameron project and highlights a deep, structural flaw which could be its undoing. It really is that serious.

The affair also serves to identify a fault line in our own society, separating those who take the event at its apparent face value, applauding the "brave, honest general" and those who see in it a grave and disturbing development, and judge it to be a major error of judgement on the part of David Cameron.

Into that latter category clearly falls The Sunday Times leader, all the more remarkable for the fact that there are plenty of "hot issues" which it could have addressed at the end of the political conference season. Thus to run a headline: "General Sir Richard Dannatt affair is a self-inflicted Tory wound" is significant.

Without retailing at length the text, suffice it to say that the paper believes the appointment to have been correctly defined by Chris Grayling as a "political gimmick", concluding that, "This unfortunate PR stunt was a reminder that there is still plenty of spin around and Mr Cameron should instead concentrate on the straight ball." 

Not only is it a mistake, says the paper, "In fact it is so crass it is hard to believe that the usually deft Conservative party could have made such a mistake." Rarely does one get that degree of unequivocal, direct condemnation, the like of which should make even the most hardened Cameron supporter stop to think.

Regular readers of this blog will be well aware of our own antipathy towards David Cameron and also to our deep distrust of Gen Dannatt. In this affair, the two personalities come together and one would expect, therefore, for us to make a meal of it.

Stepping back and looking at Dannatt, though, our distrust of the man was neither instinctive nor personal. After all, we do not know the man and, from what we hear from his close associates, he is in his own terms and by his own estimation a deeply honourable man. 

But, in his famed "honesty and integrity", Charles Moore had a pertinent observation yesterdaywhen he noted that "he (Dannatt) has that problem, quite common among evangelical Christians, of not thinking clearly about the effect of what he says. The Biblical text about needing the wisdom of the serpent is one they tend to skip."

Actually, there is something akin to obsessive compulsive disorder in the General, with his obsessive truth-telling (or what he believes to be the truth), leading him to tell the media that Cameron had approached him for help because the Conservative leader's team "lacked expert understanding" of defence.

At a stroke, says The Sunday Times, General Dannatt undermined his future colleagues and left the Conservative leader with the task of smoothing the bruised egos of Liam Fox, the long-standing shadow defence secretary, and other shadow ministers. 

However, the more pertinent observation comes in the Mail on Sunday which retails the view of an anonymous "senior officer" who describes Dannatt as "the last of the Cold War warriors who believe in heavy metal gear to fight a world war ... He supports those who want to go back to the age of massive pieces of kit and set-piece operations, but that would be a grave error."

This encapsulates if not completely defines our concerns about Dannatt. At the time when the CGS took office, we were embroiled in a vicious counter-insurgency in Iraq for which the Army was ill-equipped, poorly structured and lacking entirely an appropriate doctrine. Yet, as we observed time and time again, Dannatt chose to make his number one equipment priority theprocurement of FRES, offering right up to the end an incoherent view of current campaigns, having entirely failed to sponsor an all-embracing doctrine.

We have taken a great deal of flak for our stance on Dannatt but, as is beginning to emerge, this one man – more than any – held the Army back and prevented it evolving to meet the threats first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan. Thus, while we saw recently Blair being snubbed for having "blood on his hands", that epithet could apply equally to the "soldier's general". He has left "his" Army fatally ill-prepared to deal with the threats it is encountering in Afghanistan.

However, this is not so much about Dannatt as Mr Cameron. The Mail on Sunday retails the observation that "Cameron has chosen the wrong man." And indeed he has. 

If the leader of the opposition wanted a man to advise him – or his team – on how effectively to conduct military operations in Afghanistan (notwithstanding the overall strategic framework), Dannatt is the last man he should have chosen. He is neither expert nor current in counter-insurgency tactics and equipment and has a recent and demonstrable track record that testifies to a failure to deal with these issues.

It was not only the fact of making the wrong choice though. This is about how he went about making that choice. Clearly, Cameron did not consult his wider shadow team or keep them in the loop as to his intentions. And while even Max Hastings concedes that that Dannatt is "a controversial figure among his own tribe," if Cameron did take soundings on the general's competence, he must have ignored them.

This in many ways defines the Cameron "project" - a tight, exclusive, self-referential circle which rejects outside ideas and influence, blindly following its own agenda.

The great problem now is that Cameron is saddled with an advisor who, with his high profile, must be taken note of, yet is the wrong man for the job. Says Hastings, "A heavy shadow hangs over British defence policy-making, which is deepened by the Dannatt appointment." He thus writes that Dannatt, in accepting the appointment, has shot himself in the foot.

But, in making such a "crass" mistake – for which he must take personal responsibility – Cameron has shot himself in both feet.

COMMENT THREAD