Sample:

Here.

Some commenters on this blog got more than a little sniffy when I had a few critical things to see about Ron Paul the other day. I stand by my remarks, which actually were hardly the sort of fire-eating stuff that some people come up with, but I'll happily repeat my respect for his genuine good points, as I see them.

David French, over at National Review, has an interesting item reflecting on why, of all GOP candidates, and of Obama himself, Ron Paul gets more respect in financial terms from the serving military. Here is the final paragraph:

"I know there are many other reasons why troops support Ron Paul (quite a few embrace libertarian economic principles), but this post is an attempt to explain his support within a national-security framework — how some of the most hardened warriors I know enthusiastically embrace a man whom others say is soft on national security. They don’t see him as soft. They see him as realistic. I disagree (strongly), but it’s an argument that won’t be defeated by ridicule, and it’s an argument grounded in a cultural reality that few Americans have experienced."

Unlike Dale Amon, one of this site's editors, I am not much of a fan of Ron Paul, or at least, not a fan of some of the people who back and cheerlead for his campaign. I can respect, even admire, how he has been consistent in pointing to the folly of central bank financial manipulation, which is why his campaign against the Fed is something I admire. I can also appreciate how he has pushed some important libertarian ideas into the political culture. A lot of people whose views I respect say that he has done a tremendous amount of good. And they argue that yes, that whole business about the letters back in the late 80s and early 90s was poor and did not reflect well on his judgement - hardly a good thing in a potential POTUS - but hey, plenty of people make mistakes and Paul has disowned this stuff.

But one of the things about the Ron Paul campaign that has concerned me is his foreign policy stance. I am not complaining about his anti-interventionism. That's entirely consistent with a libertarian point of view; it draws on the wisdom of realising that one intervention inevitably breeds another and and another and so on in endless, disastrous profusion. But where he seriously leaves me behind is when he starts to make excuses, or gives the impression of doing so, for lousy regimes and individuals. Case in point being a video arguing that there would be a parallel between how Americans might feel if foreign troops were based in say, Texas, and the situation regarding US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tim Sandefur, a long-time critic of Ron Paul (he has called RP a "conman" and not a libertarian), has a ferocious article about the video, and in particular, brings up the issue of the American Civil War to highlight what he thinks is wrong with the video's underlying premises and arguments.

"The video starts out by inviting us to sympathize with the Islamofascists, who, we are told, are led to military “resistance” against a foreign occupier—that is, the United States. Imagine that, say, the Chinese or the Russians maintained a military base in Texas, and that thousands of armed troops from such a nation were patrolling American streets. Wouldn’t that be awful? So surely we can understand why al Quaeda in Mesopotamia plants roadside bombs to kill American soldiers, no?"

"One notices right away that this opening sentence demands that we ignore the differences between the American forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the forces of al Qaeda and its allies—or the relative characters of the nations or institutions on whose behalf they act. American troops, representing a democratic nation that liberated Iraq from the barbarism of Saddam Hussein and helped to institute the first-ever democratic governments there and in Afghanistan, are to be regarded as the moral equivalent of, say, the People’s Liberation Army patrolling the streets of Dallas. Of course, once one accepts this moral equivalence, one is prepared to accept anything."

Then, several paras later, this is:

"The climax of this moral equivalency comes in the middle of the video, when we are explicitly invited to imagine ourselves joining with some Holy Army of Martyrdom to “defend our soil and our sovereignty” by fighting against this invading army—and to feel sorry for these freedom fighters who are (so sad) labeled by an unfeeling world as terrorists or insurgents. This absurdity mutates into a thinly veiled accusation that Americans are simply committing genocide. At this point, one loses any interest in watching further."

“Soil and sovereignty” is a particularly interesting choice of phrase: note that even this video does not have the chutzpah to suggest that those who strap bombs to their chests or set IEDs by roadsides in the Middle East are doing so in defense of, say, justice, or individual rights. It is just a question of “soil and sovereignty.” Of course, “soil and sovereignty,” or “Blut und Boden,” has long been the favorite slogan of all fascists. What it really means is, “room to oppress with impunity.” It is the demand for the freedom to enslave. Failure to recognize this is what has so often led otherwise sensible and sensitive people to mistake despotic thuggery for wars of national liberation—often until it is too late, and the bell tolls for thee."

A question, though, is that its defence of intervention into brutal regimes does beg the question of who gets to decide which regimes fail a test of decency and should therefore be dealt with? But it is a good article, and I recommend the whole of it. Here is the final paragraph:

"By ridiculing the notion of defending democracy and preserving the peace in the Middle East, by regarding the troops of a democratic coalition in a region pock-marked with totalitarian fascist states as equivalent to a communist military patrolling the towns of Texas, the video ignores the difference between justice and tyranny, between peace and desolation, between freedom and slavery. And one who chooses to blind himself to these differences has chosen to blind himself to everything of importance in the world."

Exactly so. If one is serious about belief in expanding freedom, would one not, to take another example, want to do something about the guy down the street who is known to be torturing his wife and kids, even if his actions had no direct bearing on one's own?

At the same time, this article, by constitutional scholar and classical liberal, Randy Barnett, is a thoughtful item about some of the possible contradictions and problems associated with issues of sovereignty, liberty, and war.

But the question remains: however powerful the sort of arguments that Sandefur presents - and they are very powerful - who gets to decide that it is okay to pull the trigger? That is what makes these debates so infernally difficult.

We've already killed all the dumb terrorists, so all that's left are the smart ones.

- I heard an American voice saying that, in connection with the ongoing war in Afghanistan, while I was transferring a recording I had made of a show called The World's Deadliest Arms Race (shown in the UK about a month ago on Channel 4 TV) from my TV hard disc onto a DVD.

One of the best things about recording TV shows, as opposed to merely watching them, is being able to wind back and find out exactly who said something of particular interest, and exactly what it consisted of. The above words, I quickly learned, were spoken by a big, tough guy in a black T-shirt by the name of Marine Staff Sergeant Jack Pierce. They come right near the end of the show, which lasts just over forty five minutes.

Ssgt. Pierce was reflecting on how he and the rest of the crew of the vehicle they were all in were subjected to attack with an I(mprovised) E(xplosive) D(evice). Six of the crew were badly wounded, including Ssgt. Pierce who is now paralysed from the chest downwards. The other two died instantly.

Earlier today, Remembrance Sunday and a rare sunny day after many grey ones, I walked to Westminster Abbey, to take photos of the commemorations outside the Abbey of our war dead:

As every year around this time, Britain remembers its war dead with smal wooden crosses, almost all with a poppy attached, and a small written message, of a name or a note of remembrance.

Not surprisingly, given how many died, there are a lot of crosses:

Some of the messages said that every one of the dead was a "hero". Maybe. But there can be no doubting that these men, with "VC" after their names, definitely were, whatever you may think of the wars they were fighting:

As was this man:

There are not many individual commemorations of this sort, with a personal photo. More common were clutches of crosses, with the bigger lettering used only for the names of the regiments of the men commemorated.

I liked this regimental sign, embodying what tanks looked like on the very first occasions when they took to the battlefield:

And once I started noticing in particular these regimental signs, I particularly noticed this one:

Artists' Rifles? Artists?

Yes, apparently these men were, to begin with anyway, painters who chose to swap their paintbrushes for rifles and their tubes of paint for bullets:

The first 'Captain' of the Regiment to be elected was Lord Bury (later the Earl of Albemarle) but he did not remain in office for very long. The first Commanding Officer in 1860 was Henry Wyndham Phillips, the painter and amongst the early distinguished 'Artists' were John Everett Millais, G F Watts, Val Prinsep, Frederick Leighton (later Lord Leighton, CO after Henry Wyndham Phillips and a future President of the Royal Academy), R W Edis (a future CO), Holman Hunt and William Morris.

However, the artistic influence somewhat declined:

The influence of the Pre-Raphaelite group, however, appears to have been more social than military! As years went by the composition of the Regiment was broadened to include many other professions. By 1893, for example, painters and sculptors represented less than 5 per cent. of the membership with architects 12 per cent., lawyers 12 per cent., doctors 10 per cent. and civil engineers 6 per cent.

Blog and learn.

Imagine that happening now.

According to a Jane's newsletter, the UK is at least studying the idea of going to sea with a carrier more in line with its naval heritage than the little ones it has been living with for some decades:

UK launches carrier conversion studies. The UK's Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) - comprising BAE Systems, Babcock, Thales and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) - has commenced an incremental 18-month Conversion Development Phase (CDP) to explore options for the adaptation of at least one of its Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to a 'cats and traps' configuration to enable the operation of the F-35C Carrier Variant (CV) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Seed funding of about GBP5 million (USD8 million) is covering activity through to the end of October, with further contracts to be let in the near future to the ACA and the MoD-led Naval Design Partnering (NDP) team

For those unfamiliar with fleet carriers, the UK and many other nations have been building ships with decks that tilt upward so the airplane has more time to gain speed as it falls off the end of the carrier in full afterburner. This avoids the need for the complex catapult operations but has the downside that it cannot launch heavier aircraft, something which severely limits its force projection capabilities.

I should also note that the UK invented the carrier aircraft catapult, along with many other features we consider synonymous with US super-carriers.

Today is Memorial Day, which although it is an American holiday, is relevant to anyone anywhere who has had friends or relatives serve their country and perhaps make the ultimate sacrifice.

The father of a woman friend personalizes it for me: he served with the Marines and went ashore on Iwo Jima. He was there when the flag went up. Some days later he was wounded and evacuated. He fortunately lived through the war despite serving in such terrible battles for otherwise someone very close to me would not have been born.

It is difficult to honor such people enough. They were the ordinary men who did extraordinary things when called upon to do so.

I look at this item over at Wired, the technology/culture publication, and think that this is all very geeky, very Sci Fi and very clever, but it also makes me think, as a commenter does on the article, that it is hardly surprising that defence procurement costs are so high, and getting higher. Which is possibly not very smart if government budgets are under so much strain.

I ran across this item in a Jane's Newsletter this morning:

US, Japan agree to diversify rare earth minerals. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara agreed on 28 October that diversifying sources of rare earth minerals was a priority in the wake of China's freeze on exports to Japan. These minerals are indispensible to modern defence systems and see commercial use in mobile phones, wind turbines, televisions and hybrid electric drives

Rare earth elements, with names like Yttrium, Scandium, Lanthanum and Praeseodymium, are critical to a modern industrial society. They appear in lasers, high tech alloys, superconductors, and much else. China is applying Mercantilist practices to corner a larger share of the global market in high end electronics. They are the largest producer of the strategic REE's and see this as an advantage in a geopolitical sense as well.

It will not work however. They may well be the current largest producer, but these elements exist all over the world. In the short term they will gain an advantage. Over the medium to longer term they will accomplish the same thing ITAR regulations accomplished for the United States. They will create a thriving industry elsewhere and it will eventually 'eat their lunch'.

To paraphrase an old saw: "You can't fool Mother Market."

Today's Times has the headline:

Allies at odds over death of hostage in bungled rescue

The story is behind a paywall. It does not matter. I am only interested in the headline and whoever wrote it.

Do these people have any idea at all of what life-or-death fighting is actually like? I do not demand that they have actually done any before writing about it; little would ever be reported about war if that were the test. But they could at least have read a few memoirs, or talked to their grandfathers. Reading about the Dieppe Raid might put things in perspective.

Hint: it is not like planning a dinner party. With that sort of thing if you make a careful list of Things To Do and do them all in good time you generally can be reasonably confident that it will work out OK and if it does not work out OK, say the soufflé does not rise or the wine was too sweet, it probably was because someone bungled.

Military small group operations - by which I mean small group killings of people who can also kill you - are not like that. They always hang on a knife edge. The most skilled soldiers in the world frequently die young and frequently fail. A hand is a fraction of a second too slow on the trigger - a human mind is a fraction of a second slower than another, hostile, human mind to make sense of the confusion - and a comrade dies, or a hostage dies, and a lifetime of agonized mental replaying of that moment of failure begins.

Six hours later a headline writer in an office far away expresses his displeasure.

I have been thoroughly enjoying reading this book about how the Allies sought - very cleverly - to throw the Nazis off the scent ahead of the invasion of Italy, hence saving potentially thousands of Allied soldiers' lives. An extraordinary cast of characters is involved, conjuring up the sort of plot-lines that would do credit to any writer of spy fiction. And indeed several of the protagonists on the Allied side were novelists with vivid imaginations.

A current controversy intrudes. Back in WW2, the Allies had the priceless knowledge via the code-breakers of Enigma about the enemy's plans, and even more vitally, the fact of having cracked Enigma was kept a secret for many years under the various pieces of legislation controlling such matters both during the war and into the Cold War era. So when I read today about the latest moves by the Wikileaks website to publish all kinds of classified military information on the Web, I wonder about what would have happened if, say, a Wikileaks kind of outfit had been around during WW2 and had stumbled upon the kind of facts as described in the book I link to?

Of course, if we had had the internet back in 1939 or earlier, and had the ability to spread information and views around outside the conventional channels of the MSM that existed back then, maybe this would also have been used to weaken or undermine the enemy side as well. (Would a Hitler have prospered in the Information Age?). I remember that in David Friedman's recent interesting book (also available in an online form) about various trends, he addresses both sides of this question: what happens to privacy in an age of good encryption and ever-increasing attempts by states and other groups to put folk under surveillance.

But even so, it should trouble anyone concerned with security to think that a Wikileaks outfit can put out this sort of material and seems to have no compunctions about doing so. And while Wikileaks may think it is performing a sort of public service, if we are in a war for national survival, say, and we use deception techniques to win, and some self-appointed characters decide to blow the lid on those techniques, then what should the response be? In my view, this is a treasonable act or at the very least an act of aiding and abetting enemy combatants. It goes beyond, I think, the sort of opposition and free speech, including the right to condemn what a government is doing, during wartime. (And by the way, even under anarchism, secrets might be of importance to certain people, so it is no answer to say that such issues are made redundant if we get rid of states).

And it is not just about issues of national security that I think this website is running amok on. Take the world of banking. Some time ago, for instance, Wikileaks published data on individuals who have accounts at an Icelandic bank. Now no doubt the website will claim that it was acting in the public interest, but there are perfectly honest reasons for why people have private bank accounts, such as not giving out valuable information to oppressive governments/criminals (but I repeat myself, Ed) trying to grab that money, or kidnap them for ransom, etc.

And perhaps the man who runs Wikileaks should be glad that some of the older punishments for treason no longer are used in this country. Very glad, in fact.

"It is typical of the spin era that the first serious “crisis” in relations between General McChrystal and President Obama occurs over a few disobliging words the General and his team spoke about the President and his team. The endless rounds of deaths and dangerous patrols, the delays in finding political settlements on the ground and the ubiquitous ability of the “insurgents” to reappear are not apparently worthy reasons to recall the General for talks, but a magazine article is."

- John Redwood, MP and blogger.

David Friedman has a thought-provoking item up on whether politicians in the 1850s would have acted differently had they known of the carnage that was to be caused by the US Civil War of the following decade. He runs some interesting scenarios.

Counter-factual history is a genre in fiction, of course. I remember Philip Chaston wrote about this issue some time ago. Sean Gabb, one of the current leaders of the Libertarian Alliance, has thoughts related to this about the Second World War (as readers may recall, I find his revisionist perspective unconvincing, as does Patrick Crozier).

One of my little pleasures in life is finding interesting pictures to put on my personal blog which are vertically very thin, and which thus assist in the pursuit of blogging brevity. As here for instance, yesterday, when I displayed a wafer thin slice of a picture of the rings of Saturn.

And I was all set to put this picture up at my personal blog too, until I found myself asking technological questions of the sort that Samizdata's commenters are the very people to answer.

That picture, severely cropped by me, I found here. It is the new unmanned Israeli bomber, the Heron TP. The Israelis have apparently just put a flock of them into service.

Two thoughts.

One, this is surely vivid evidence of the wisdom, from the purely defence point of view (never mind the wider economic arguments), of the Israelis contriving, with encouraging tax policies, their own version of Silicon Valley, said to be second only in the world to Silicon Valley itself. And who knows how long the original will last, given the current insanity of Californian fiscal policy. The surrounding enemies of Israel can only dream of being able to contrive such birds. But is this a purely Israeli achievement, or did Americans have a big input? And do Israelis now have quite a big input into American aircraft of a similar sort?

Two, I find it interesting that although there is no pilot on board, there is still a bulge at the front and on top, just as if there was. Why is that? It surely can't just be that they are used to such bulges at the front of airplanes, so they stuck with it. Could it? I'm guessing it's the logical spot to put lots of guidance kit, telling the bird where it is and where to fly next and how to aim its weapons. It's the best place to put, that is to say, the various "pilots". Or, is their some aerodynamic reason? Comments on that appreciated.

"Churchill, who was prone to the black dog of depression, went to bed on the night of the 5th of June 1944 with a heavy heart. Gloomily he told his wife, Clementine, that by the time they awoke in the morning many tens of thousands of young men he had sent across the Channel might lie dead on the beaches of Normandy. In Alanbrooke’s diaries (he was the finest of the WWII diarists) it is clear how heavily he felt the weight of responsibility throughout his time as a commander in France in 1940, and subsequently as CIGS. Yet neither Alanbrooke nor Churchill felt the need to go in front of the cameras and explain how troubled they were by all the pressure. Even long afterwards it wouldn’t have occurred to either for a split second that this would be a good idea or remotely appropriate."

- Iain Martin, commenting on the recent performance of Mr Blair's former spinmeister on the TV. He makes a good point, I think.

The BBC, as well as other news outlets, is carrying this story about the father of a dead soldier. The father is complaining about the lack of helicopters and other important equipment. It also turns out that a letter that was due to be sent from Downing Street to the man's father was sent very late. This is a sad and anger-inducing story: the father was interviewed, clearly distressed, on BBC television this morning, and was also making very angry, and to my mind, some pretty shrewd, points about the management, or mismanagement, of the war in Afghanistan.

And yet there is something about these interviews with grieving parents of dead military personnel that bothers me. And it clearly also has bothered the writer and one-time prison doctor, Theodore Dalrymple. Mr Dalrymple was writing about a related recent story of how a letter of condolence, sent by Gordon Brown to the mother of a dead serviceman, contained spelling errors. Mr Dalrymple writes in the Social Affairs Unit blog:

"No one, I think, would take me for an admirer of Gordon Brown, much less an apologist for him; but in the matter of the letter that he wrote to Mrs Janes, mother of the soldier killed in Afghanistan, I feel sorry for him. He has become a victim of the ideological sentimentality so assiduously promoted by his odious predecessor, and now so fully a part of our national character."

"The letter he wrote to Mrs Janes seemed to me a perfectly decent one. It was legible (perhaps, as a doctor, my standards of legibility are low); the sentiments expressed are decent, conventional ones, without the kind of extravagance that might lead you to suspect insincerity."

"The offence of the mistake in the name - Mrs James instead of Mrs Janes - does not seem to me a hanging one. Mr Brown is a very busy man (would that he were less busy!) and the mistake is one that we could surely all envisage ourselves making, given the relative frequency of the two names."

"The grief of Mrs Janes was perfectly understandable, of course; the loss of a child is like the loss of a world. But grief is not necessarily the midwife of truth, and some of the things that Mrs Janes said are simply not true. Surely only someone determined in advance to find the letter disrespectful would have found it so; one might even think that a hand-written letter from the Prime Minister was a sign of respect, when he could so easily have written nothing or have ordered someone else to do it on his behalf."

I agree. I think it is terribly harsh to say to a person like the father interviewed this morning that he should bear in mind that serving in the army is a risky profession and that anyone who joins up should recognise this, but it does need to be said, by someone. The "victim culture" is spreading its slimy tentacles across the land; when I see any parent lash out and demand that X or Y be blamed or shamed for a train of events happening in a warzone, I can sympathise, even agree with some of the comments. But what I cannot abide is the failure to recognise that the risks are high, and many brave people pay the supreme price.

A member of the Australian military went missing in the middle of a deadly clash with the Taliban then, fourteen months later, she just wanders back into camp. Is a court martial convened to see if she is guilty of desertion? No, people just shrug their shoulders and start playing tennis with her. What madness is this?

What is the world coming to when a valued member of the armed services takes off under fire and leaves their comrades chasing their tails wondering what happened to her? And it should be noted there were persistent rumours that far from being held captive by the Taliban, she was sniffing around an area of Afghanistan notorious for opium production while her compatriots were risking their lives facing down the enemy. How can this not cause serious repercussions when she wanders back to base after being located by US soldiers (who reportedly said she was a real bitch)? Shocking.

I have my doubts - which grow by the day, to be honest - about what exactly we are achieving by the operations in Afghanistan. This story is picked up by me at random, but of course there are hundreds of deaths that hit home the mesage about what a grim struggle that conflict is proving to be. May this gallant soldier rest in peace, and my condolences to his friends, comrades and family.

I just picked this up from a Jane's newsletter:

UK Conservatives plan procurement overhaul. The UK's procurement process will undergo "root and branch reform" if the Conservative party wins the next General Election, Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the Jane's UK Defence Conference on 7 September. The Conservative politician said that the current procurement team was bloated and required significant changes in personnel. "How can it be that, while we have a navy of only 34,000, we have almost 24,000 people working in procurement alone?" he asked. "Military personnel are routinely placed in roles inside the procurement process for which they do not have the required skills or experience.

As Glenn Reynolds is wont to say: "Indeed".

Michael Yon emails Instapundit, "The British Ministry of Defence cancelled my embed after today’s dispatch. Please read Bad Medicine."

I must admit that in many respects, I find the former Labour cabinet minister, Roy Hattersley, to be a bit of a buffoon in his clinging to socialist dogmas of a planned, highly taxed economy. But he can write: and this essay on the funeral of Harry Patch, who had been the last surviving British soldier of the First World War, is first class.

This article in the Independent articulates an argument that I summarise thus: North Korea is developing nukes, it is firing rockets and other stuff into the sky near or above its neighbours, but the country is a basket case; it is led by a nutcase and all this stuff is in fact it is a sign of weakness, not strength. In other words, nothing much to worry about, please move along, ManU are playing Barcelona in the Champions League, etc.

I actually accept that there is probably a great deal of truth in this "nothing to get overly worried about" line. There'd better be. There is not much, short of war, with all the terrible costs it would bring, that neighbouring countries such as South Korea, China or Japan can do to pressure North Korea that they have not done already. (Japan, by the way, has been busily expanding its naval forces). When in the past I have briefly mentioned North Korea, some commentators on Samizdata will point out that the West (ie, the US), should not, or has no need or business, to defend South Korea or indeed to act as if North Korea is a "problem" to be fixed. Let the locals sort it out, etc. Well up to a point, but there will be wider effects to think about if nuclear weapons are ever used, or threatened to be used, against what is, after all, a broadly free and friendly country like South Korea.

I think part of the problem is that as long as the US has kept significant armed forces in the region, it can create a sort of moral hazard problem, in that the countries thus protected fall out of the habit of learning to defend themselves, or understand its costs. I am not an expert on South Korean public opinion, but I cannot help but wonder what the impact of a long-running US presence will have on creating a possible false sense of security. One of the things that is clearly coming out of the current economic crisis, and the wrecked state of US public finances, is that there will now be enormous pressure on any US administration, even one led by more hawkish people than Mr Obama, to cut, or just limit, defence spending. South Korea has not escaped the impact of the credit crunch, and if it was not willing to shell out more money on defence five years ago, it is hard to see it doing that now, unless it is completely terrified of an attack. I am sure that the top brass in North Korea understand all this only too well.

Let us hope it is a sign of a weak, not strong regime. But remember also that weak, or desperate countries can do desperate things, such as the Argentine Junta's decision to invade the Falkland Islands in 1982. As we know, Argentina lost that conflict, and it helped destroy the regime. But Argentina did not have, or threaten to use, nukes.

Mr Obama's administration has released documents about details of "harsh interrogation techniques" that were used, or considered acceptable to be used, to deal with suspected terrorists. What is interesting is that Mr Obama does not intend to prosecute those responsible. I guess the difficulty here is that Mr Obama does not want to be drawn into moves to prosecute and go after senior officials in the previous Bush administration. But if there are to be no legal consequences - assuming that the use of such powers is clearly illegal as well as wicked - then it is hard to see what can be gained by all this non-action by Mr Obama. If there is insufficient evidence to launch a prosecution of those who sanctioned its use, then they are entitled to have that fact known, since a stain will attach to their name otherwise. On the other hand, if there was authorisation of torture, then the fact of there being no prosecutions will send out a message that such behaviour will not be punished and can happen again. Is that what "hope and change" meant?
(Update: or maybe Mr Obama and some of his supporters fear that punishment of torturers could be used against Democrats in the future if officials in Democrat-led administrations ever sanction such techniques, or are suspected of so doing. Mr Obama and his party are not consistent civil libertarians.)

Torture, and its use, is one of those "canary in the mineshaft" issues for me; it shows a government has no respect for law. Any attempts to try and domesticate it and limit it under strict guidelines are likely to fail. As we are finding here at home in the UK, if you give governments powers, then they will use them, sooner or later, against innocent people.

As a side-note, I would add that while some of the venom directed at the Bush administration was partisan grandstanding, there is no doubt that part of it was driven by a real worry about where the US and other Western governments were headed. It is not remotely comforting that Mr Obama has taken the course he has. We cannot be confident that torture is off-limits under his administration, and nor should we be. It is not as if he has, for instance, abolished indefinite detention of terror suspects, despite the much-touted plan to shut down Gitmo.

Some earlier thoughts by me on this issue.

Okay, let's remember that there is a world outside the Westminster Village. The president of Iran is not a man whom anyone would want with his hands on the nuclear button, certainly not Israel, which has reason to worry that the man is an anti-semitic fruitcake. It appears that there has been a possible change in the tack of US policy towards Iran now that Mr Obama is at the helm. Now it may be that Mr Obama is playing a devilishly cunning game and, by trying to make nice to Iran, is either buying time or trying to engineer real, positive change. Of course, it also may be that Mr Obama is out of his depth and has made the fatal mistake that one can do business with a regime like Iran.

The danger, it seems to me, is that failing to stop Iran from proceeding with an enrichment programme for nuclear material is going to worry the hell out of Israel. And remember, that while Iran may not be the West's immediate problem, it is a massive, existential one for Israel. The US may be wise not to want to pick a fight on this issue, given that such a course could go horribly wrong. Israel may not have the luxury of having to make even that choice.

Given that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction tends to work when both sides are basically rational, even if they are bad, it is folly to suppose that nuclear deterrence will work with a regime led by a man who sincerely dreams of taking his place in heaven, and putting lots of those he loathes somewhere else, very violently. At the very least, a defence policy must now involve greater development of anti-ballistic missiles to shoot down incoming weapons, since there will be the risk that the launch sites and development sites may be out of reach of an airforce or ground assault team.

Consider this: why does Iran, with all its oil reserves, want to spend billions of its currency reserves on developing enriched fissile material? What does the Iranian government propose to do with it - use it for garden compost?

This item about the recent missile firing by North Korea reminds us that in all the attention currently being focused on the credit crunch and the policies of governments to deal with it, that geo-political threats cannot be ignored. It is, I suppose, all too easy to dismiss the leader of North Korea as some sort of harmless nut if you are living thousands of miles away. For the Japanese, who fear that a leader of a broken country might try something really stupid - as dictators tend to do - the situation is far less easy to shrug off. And Japan had better reckon without a blanket promise of support from the US in the future. I hope the anti-missile defence systems that Japan has installed are in good working order. Japan now has a pretty useful navy.

Not a happy situation. At all. Here's an agency report on the rocket launch.

This looks like a film worth seeing for anyone who values the bravery and steadfastness of the American soldier, as I do and as should any Briton. (Full disclosure: I am related to several people serving in the US military). Kevin Bacon is a fine actor and well chosen for the lead part.

Blogger and soldier Andrew Olmsted was mentioned on a Fox News report I listened to on the net tonight. His posthumous last post from January of this year seems worthy of Christmas Eve.

If I (and apparently he) are wrong and there is an after... I sincerely hope it is populated by souls such as his.

So writes Michael Portillo.

Well, you can certainly tell that he does not intend to stand for election again. This blog is not generally a fan club for politicians, but even here one must admit that when a former Secretary of State for Defence and Shadow Chancellor writes -

It raises questions about the stamina of our nation and the resolve of our political class. It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down.

The extent of Britain’s fiasco has been masked by the media’s relief that we are at last leaving Iraq. Those who have been urging Britain to quit are not in a strong position to criticise the government’s lack of staying power. Reporting of Basra has mainly focused on British casualties and the prospect for withdrawal. The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack.

- it carries more weight than the same sentiments coming from most other sources.

Is it true? Broadly speaking, of course it is. I agree with those commenters to the Times who placed blame on the "carping, self-loathing left wing commentariat", or made the parallel with the media in the Vietnam War, or with MGG of Auckland, who wrote

Fortunately Britain's Armed Forces have not so far 'lost the stomach for a fight'. But faced with this continuing lack of moral fibre in the civil population bred by the 'Nanny State' policies of New Labour it won't be long before they give up too - in disgust!

As I wrote in a post about the New Cowardice in the emergency services called 'Loss of Nerve', "Poisoned soil does not long give forth good fruit."

That said, I suspect that when viewed from the distance of thirty years, the sharp outline of defeat in Basra (and what is worse, a defeat that followed from a disgraceful accommodation with the enemy on the part of commanders too fond of their own cleverness) will be blurred by other, better parts of the picture.

Mr Portillo has shown an admirable willingness to make himself unpopular: he praised George W Bush, rightly, for the latter's contempt of public and educated opinion. Mr Bush (contrary to popular opinion, which is one reason he has such contempt for it) has studied history and will certainly have paused over this quotation from Lincoln, written in August 1864:

This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so cooperate with the President-elect as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such grounds that he cannot possibly save it afterwards."

That is why I say that the difference between the United States and Britain in this story is not so large as all that. After all, in this war the Americans voted in the favoured candidate of the Copperheads, a President-elect who did indeed secure his election on such grounds that it would have been impossible for him to win the war after his inauguration, though he will be glad enough to take the victory that was won by other hands before it.

Chinese crew used beer bottles to fight off pirates

While I salute the captain and crew of the Zhenua 4, I cannot help thinking that guns might have been more convenient. What, exactly, is the difficulty over providing them?

Glenn Reynolds has an interesting article at Forbes about the connection between wars and the expansion in state power. He argues - quite convincingly I think - that while war may once have been one of the primary causes of increases in state power, that increasingly, it is demand for other public goods and initiatives that drives state power. For example, I reckon that the environmentalist argument is likely to prove a significant justification for such increases in spending, tax and regulation, as will, alas, the current financial crisis.

The "war is the health of the state" argument is often one that some libertarians use to oppose any wars, even if such wars might have some legal/moral justification, on the grounds that wars inevitably create costs that outweigh the supposed benefits of toppling some nasty regime, etc. An example of this view comes from Robert Higgs, whom I recommend. But the WIHOS argument is not a fixed law, rather a general tendency with some clear exceptions. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars, for example, the UK public sector, such as it was, was retrenched and the income tax was abolished for more than two decades. The end of the Cold War saw significant cuts in military spending. Perhaps what is not so easily retrenched, however, are state controls and regulations over behaviour. Consider World War One. Before 1914, UK subjects did not need a passport; there was no Official Secrets Act and the role of the state, relative to that of our own time, was small. Now it is much larger.

WIHOS is not an iron law, but rather a sensible rule of thumb. Alas, there are plenty of other factors besides war that drive expansion of public spending and controls.

I have written about this subject before as an urgent issue of security, and surely the topic of piracy must be at the top of countries' security agendas now that a large oil tanker has been seized. It makes me wonder what insurers such as Lloyds of London must think: surely, if shipping fleets want to keep insurance premia down, an obvious solution must be to arm, or better protect, such vessels. I do not know what the law is about whether ships, operating in international waters, on carrying weapons on board merchant vessels. In centuries past, vessels of the East India Company, for instance, were frequently as well armed as many naval vessels. They had to be.

If this problem gets worse, then it is not just the navies of the western powers, such as those of Britain or the US, that might have to think about protecting shipping routes more aggressively. I think that the rising economic power of India must take on more responsibility to guarding some of the shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean. India, after all, is a prime beneficiary of globalisation and global trade. For that matter, China probably will have to think about protecting its shipping more effectively, as must jurisdictions which engage in much ship-borne trade such as Singapore and Australia and Brazil.

One of the reasons why a strictly isolationist foreign policy does not work is that in the real world, the web of global trading routes from which we all benefit have to be protected. Free market transactions must be protected against predators. That means things like naval bases or agreements between states to protect certain shipping routes, for example. If states cannot do this, but somehow expect merchant ships to continue conveying the goods which drive the world economy, pressure to let merchant ships carry weapons will be irresistable.

Some time ago, I read the Frederick Forsyth novel, The Afghan. I won't give away the plot but piracy is a key part of it. Any security policy, including an anti-terrorist one, must take account of seaborne threats. It might seem rather obvious to point this out in an island nation like the UK, but a large proportion of our economic produce is conveyed over the wet stuff. If the anti-terror experts have not addressed themselves fully to this issue, they had better start doing so. Maybe this hijacking might have a galvanising effect.

Here is what the US navy has been doing.

His supreme blogness, Glenn Reynolds, links to an NYT article on how American firms are increasingly warming to hiring former military personnel, on the grounds that the quality of such hires are getting better and are frequently far better than those who have never been in the armed forces. Hmm. It is the sort of story that might be dreamed up by an army recruiter saying: "Join the Army and when you want to quit, make a great life afterward". That makes a lot of sense. For most people, a lifetime in the forces is not something they would ever want to contemplate, but a short spell, maybe. I know quite a few people who have got decent careers and businesses after having served in the forces, and I notice a few patterns. Of those I know, the following:

My father (RAF navigator): farmer.
RAF jet pilot: air traffic controller, West Drayton.
RAF Defence Rgt: Senior security manager, public transport.
SAS operative: security advisor, South Africa, Middle East.
Army officer, cavalry rgt: salesman, farmer.
Tank commander: hedge fund administrator.
Army officer: wealth management industry job-search executive.
Australian navy officer: property developer.
US navy officer, financial journalist.
US navy submariner: software engineer, paramedic, post-grad student at Columbia.
South African army: landscape gardener, property developer.
Army officer: property developer.
Army officer: pharmaceutical industry executive.
Army sergeant: pest control business owner (no irony intended!).
RAF tailgunner (WW2), social worker.

The last one always struck me as poignant. The man is now in his eighties, was a tailgunner on Lancasters during WW2 and saw his fair share of death and destruction. He ended up running a youthclub for kids in Pimlico for much of his adult life and one of my relations benefited from his tender care.

I'd be interested in seeing if commenters with military backgrounds ended up doing anything comparable to the stuff above, or something totally different.

Johnathan has already posted a remembrance for this day, but I would like to add a hearty "Thank you" on behalf of the Samizdata editorial staff to all the US and UK warriors who have fought and died for us over the ensuing years.

We will not forget you, either.

A few days ago, the venerable Glenn Reynolds linked to an article published in the Asia Times titled Americans Play Monopoly, Russians Chess. The article, written by pseudonymous columnist Spengler, is something of an interesting read, as it offers up a comprehensively explained and intriguing motive for the former superpower's recent machinations in Georgia.

Many Western commentators ascribe the recent Russian belligerence to a newly acquired military ability able to act upon the yearning of its current leadership which is trying to recapture the glory days of Soviet power. A good dollop of credible force applied carefully should make Russia's tiny neighbours wake up to the fact that they are kissing the wrong butt. Spengler contends that the truth is rather less vainglorious; Russia's recent adventures represent moves in a long-term game in which the country's very survival is at stake.

After all, it is - as any moderately informed individual knows - facing what present-day figures predict to be a near total demographic collapse in the coming years. Russia is, says Spengler, exercising a grand strategy to eventually absorb the Russians and other ethnic populations living in the nations in its so-called "near abroad", declaring them all Russian and thus halting the country's disastrous population decline. This will also ensure the minority status of the Muslim population in Russia (the only ones who are breeding) and, lo and behold, win the survival of the nation in the eyes of those pulling the levers in the Kremlin. It is an insightful alternative analysis of what is driving the crisis in Georgia - not groundbreakingly so, as I am certain a number of Samizdata contributors and commenters could have provided us with much the same explanation - but nevertheless well worth consideration.

Beyond this, however, the article is boneheaded. Of course, the reader immediately perceives the author's withering contempt of American foreign policy - and the refined superiority of that of the Russians - just by reading the title of the article: (simple) Americans play (the simple game of) Monopoly, while (cerebral) Russians (that most cerebral of games) chess. This metaphor is rather silly and falls apart quite easily after examining the facts, however one must delve into the article to fully comprehend just how ridiculous Mr Spengler's representation of the tensions in Russia's "near abroad" is. One also has the added bonus of marvelling at the astonishingly amoral and historically myopic remedy Spengler proposes to pacify the unfolding crisis. All in good time. Firstly, let us have a poke and a prod at the myth of the Russian leader as über genius that Spengler somewhat artlessly constructs:

The fact is that all Russian politicians are clever. The stupid ones are all dead. By contrast, America in its complacency promotes dullards

This is rank hyperbole, especially the bit about all the stupid Russian politicians being dead. Certainly, there were periods of significant attrition in post-Soviet society, when the present crimina - sorry, commercial - elite was establishing itself by expropriating the wealth of the fallen Soviet Union. And no one is denying that the undoubtedly highly intelligent Putin has sidelined those politicians (perhaps even some smart ones, as well as the dumb) who sought to stymie his consolidation of autocratic power. But Mr Spengler suggests that Putin, his former masters and his subordinates had all their vanquished, lesser rivals put to the sword! Of course, there are most probably politicians who met with a sticky end and just happened to oppose Putin and his new political order. It would also not surprise me that, even after the reign of the country's most notorious butcher ended, the odd political obstacle in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia suffered an untimely demise at the hands of an unidentifiable but highly lethal aggressor. However, Spengel makes it sound as though Stalin has taken leave from the absolute depths of hell, where he is undoubtedly residing, to again sweep through Russia's political class, this time weeding out the dim-witted as opposed to the Trotskyites. This is a misleading assertion deployed to convince the reader that the sinister, Darwinian ruthlessness of the current Russian leadership will undoubtedly overcome its clueless and ham-fisted American opponent.

No doubt that plays well in certain circles, where a good spot of America-bashing never goes unappreciated. Et tu, Mr Spengler? I mean, we have seen some folk question the intelligence of American foreign policy, only to rather spectacularly eat their words when events did not turn out as predicted. Consider when Ronald Reagan - widely derided as stupid, even in the present - saw through the accepted wisdom of the day and outmanoeuvred the Soviet Union, supposedly primed and optimised by socialism's best technocrats, but all in vain. The anticlimax of its demise was thunderously louder than its feeble implosion. Bringing the rotting hulk of the Soviet state down also rather impudently snuffed out the inspiration of countless highly intelligent folk who no doubt considered (and consider) themselves to be easily the intellectual superior of that improbable President; a man who was fit for little more than making Bedtime for Bonzo sequels, a man who would have been better advised to leave the business of statecraft to a more suitable candidate, such as his predecessor. One would think that when the US won the Cold War so decisively, the Spenglers of this world might have started to realise that just because they cannot perceive a coherent strategy behind American action, the Pavlovian assumption that one does not exist may be inaccurate. But no, our fearless columnist insists on toeing the ever-popular "doltish, clueless America blundering about on the world stage" line:

What Americans understand by "war games" is exactly what occurs on the board of the Parker Brothers' pastime. The board game Monopoly is won by placing as many hotels as possible on squares of the playing board. Substitute military bases, and you have the sum of American strategic thinking.

And that is all there is to it, folks. American "hard power" foreign policy stripped naked; its writhing, muscular, unfocused imbecility revealed. All right, enough of the sarcasm. I concede that I do not have an exhaustive knowledge of declared US foreign policy imperatives, and I am the first to admit that my interpretations as to why a base is built here and not there should not be considered authoritative by any means. Still, I am fairly confident that there's rather more to it than the "hotels on squares" Monopoly metaphor offered above. Spengler interprets US base building in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, along with the encirclement of Russia by pro-Western neighbours as the US clumsily and unnecessarily creating a potentially dangerous strategic opponent. My interpretation is that the US considers that Russia could credibly develop into a strategic threat to the US in the long term, regardless of whether the US turns a blind eye to Russian aggression in its region, thus it builds bases and cultivates alliances along Russia's border.

No doubt, Spengler would consider the above a ridiculous notion. Russia and the US are so far away from each other. There is no reason for any strategic enmity if each country stays out of the other's way. I am not sure. Geopolitical realities have a habit of shifting over time. More importantly, it is not as though Russia doesn't have form when it comes to aggressing against others near to, and far from, its borders. What happened after the Americans, the British and the rest of the Allies helped the Soviet Union eliminate the hideous bedfellow that initially enabled the Soviets to devour Poland, before rather inconveniently metamorphosing into the motherland's most memorable Great Existential Threat? But that was then, and this is now. So let us examine the soothing balm Spengler prescribes to salve all that nasty chafing and inflammation between the US and Russia, so that the latter's present-day Great Existential Threat can be solved, to the overwhelming benefit of all. Oh, except for the Ukrainians, who will henceforth be known as Russians, if Mr Spengler has his way:

The West has two choices: draw a line in the sand around Ukraine, or trade it to the Russians for something more important.

My proposal is simple: Russia's help in containing nuclear proliferation and terrorism in the Middle East is of infinitely greater import to the West than the dubious self-determination of Ukraine. The West should do its best to pretend that the "Orange" revolution of 2004 and 2005 never happened, and secure Russia's assistance in the Iranian nuclear issue as well as energy security in return for an understanding of Russia's existential requirements in the near abroad. Anyone who thinks this sounds cynical should spend a week in Kiev.

Well, I am back from my week in Kiev and I did not manage to find your argument, which was sadly absent in your article, Mr Spengler. What is one supposed to discover in Kiev that would destroy that country's sovereign rights and make Russian conquest acceptable? Why is Ukraine's self-determination "dubious"? I agree that Russian cooperation over Iran and energy supplies would indeed be a valuable prize, but then again, so is the credibility of a US security guarantee. Hard to make alliances without it, and in this circumstance there can only be one choice.

Anyway, for the sake of argument, let us take Spengler's advice and give Russia a free hand in its "near abroad". The US sees the light and throws its allies in the region under a bus. Russia takes much of its former empire back, thus defusing - or more likely deferring - the population time bomb by the forcible "Russofication" of the people living in the former nations that made up the newly annexed "near abroad". Think of it as lebensraum, although the raum is not of such great importance this time around, more so the untermench living on it (well, they must be untermench in the eyes of the Russians if it's acceptable to steal their country). Of course, dear old Greater Mother Russia will still be a lousy place to live for most, yet its leaders will be too busy gobbling up other countries to do anything about that. Let us tease this out a little more. The factors that fuel the Russian population's dramatic David Copperfield impersonation will continue to make themselves felt, but with a vengeance - what with the huge influx of war-ravaged, miserable, press-ganged "Russians" and their no doubt limitless appreciation of their new nationality. I see no reason why the population will not go into freefall again. Never mind, Russia will have some fresh new neighbours to impose its "existential requirements" upon when these resurface.

Another troubling gap in Spengler's argument is that he does not attempt to explain his assumption that Russia has an absolute right to conquer its neighbours and assimilate the citizens of these countries to avert its impending population collapse, beyond sneering at their recent sovereignty and the quality of their democracies. These largely ad hominem remarks, which he does not bother to expand upon, have not convinced me as to why Russia should be allowed to destroy another nation to repair its own, especially considering that Russia is wholly responsible for its present misfortunes. The prevailing deep malaise that compels millions of Russian women to abort their unborn children rather than bring them into the world, men to drink themselves into the grave several decades too soon and refugees to get the hell out by any way they can is clearly - tch, what is that term so beloved of the American left? Ah, yes, blowback - from a seventy year long experiment with the most disastrous and destructive political system the world has seen thus far. Not only did the Russian leaders force their people to endure this nightmarish, mass-murdering tyranny; they also foisted it onto millions in many in other countries and tried to impose it upon all the world's people. Of course, the Russian communists eventually failed, thanks largely to the superior productive power of the vastly more moral alternative; a random network of free individuals making choices voluntarily in a market, but the toxic remnants evidently still remain in Russian society. This is unfortunate for the Russians. However, I am struggling to comprehend why on earth the US, the world capital of the enormously powerful system that slew the Soviet monster, should compromise its morals and throw its allies to the wolves to save Russia from demographic destruction that the nation brought upon itself.

Spengler makes some interesting points in his article, but ultimately his justification of Russia's designs upon its neighbours is morally bankrupt, and the solution he has devised for the West to undertake to reduce the tension between them and the Russians while Russia "solves" the problem it has brought upon itself is unconscionable, too. This is further emphasised by his inability to perceive the evil inherent in a government willing to invade its neighbours and forcibly assimilate the people living there, along with the enormous loss of innocent life that such action would invariably entail. He detects no threat from those willing to wield power in such a manner - they are so far away!

But hang on; after the dust has settled and all the involuntary new Russians have been minted, where do the country's conquering leaders look then? We have been down this road with the Russians before. Spengler may well have correctly identified the motive driving Vladimir Putin to want to force the now-sovereign countries that used to make up the Soviet Union into submission. However, he is dead wrong in suggesting that the US should simply turn a blind eye to such warlike behaviour, because it could never affect them. We can see the folly of this assumption from recent history. Moreover, instead of justifying Putin's naked aggression (and the subsequent reconquest of lost Soviet territory) as the only way for Russia to survive the life-or-death struggle Spengler describes, why not recommend that the Russian leader abandons his intention to devour his neighbours and starts to concentrate on making his country a better place to live? A place where women choose to give birth to their babies and raise them into adulthood, rather than terminating them at the first sign of pregnancy. A place where middle-aged men do not die in droves from alcohol poisoning because they don't need to drink bottles of vodka every day to escape from a poisonous reality and its unrelenting assault on them. A country that folks from abroad choose to migrate to, as opposed to the local inhabitants doing the reverse. It should be made explicitly clear to Vladimir Putin that this is the one and only way he can turn around his country's dire demographic predicament, and thus save it. He may not do so at the expense of another. If the US did elect to draw and maintain that line in the sand, then I assert that it is a moral and pragmatic decision to contain a demonstrably dangerous nation led by a warmonger that, if left unchecked and allowed to prosper, could certainly represent a threat to the US in the future.

And if that is Monopoly the US is playing, I'm a monkey's uncle.

Yesterday in the British Press, much was made of the Soviet, sorry, Russian threat to nuke Poland if it hosted American, sorry, NATO defensive missile systems.

THREAT TO NUKE POLAND... well, really? What the Ruskies are saying is not "if you allow these systems on your soil, we will nuke you", but rather "in the event of a war between NATO and Russia, we will attack military targets in Poland, which is a NATO member".

Well no shit? This is hardly a revelation. Yet to read many of the article headlines you would think it was a clear and present danger, which it clearly ain't. Move along, not much to see here.

That said, clearly what the Russian general said is a crude attempt to intimidate Poland, albeit politically and not actually by making a threat of imminent action. Also predictably it has stiffened already deep hostility to Russia across Central Europe. Good, it is probably exactly what Europe needed.

This is brutal but sadly true about Andrew Sullivan:

There was, in fact, hardly a bigger cheerleader for going to war with Iraq than Andrew Sullivan. And it won't do for him to invoke the defense that he was misled into the war because Saddam did not possess actual WMD. It's true that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD, as the Bush Administration, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, and many others believed, along with the intelligence agencies of virtually every nation on earth. In retrospect, we know that Saddam engaged in a massive effort to mislead the world into believing he had WMD. The obligation was on him to comply with U.N. resolutions. He did the opposite, and he paid for his deception (and his cruelties) with his life and the end of his regime.

It is fine for people to change their positions over time, either because of new evidence or because of an evolution in their own views. And almost everyone who has said anything about Iraq has gotten something wrong. But few people have changed their minds as dramatically and emphatically as Sullivan has over the last few years.

Absolutely. And I am not particularly convinced, either, by Sullivan's reply on his blog today, in which he argues thus:

I simply cannot pretend that what we've learned about them these past few years - and what I've learned about the Middle East and wider dimensions of the struggle against Jihadism - hasn't deeply affected my views. Just imagine if the press were to discover a major jail in Gori, occupied by the Russians, where hundreds of Georgians had been dragged in off the streets and tortured and abused? What if we discovered that the orders for this emanated from the Kremlin itself? And what if we had documentary evidence of the ghastliest forms of racist, dehumanizing, abusive practices against the vulnerable as the standard operating procedure of the Russian army - because the prisoners were suspected of resisting the occupying power? Pete Wehner belonged to the administration that did this. It seems to me that, in these circumstances, the question of moral equivalence becomes a live one. When an American president has violated two centuries of civilized norms, how could it not be, for any serious person with a conscience?

First of all, no-one, apart from the most deluded hawk, has or would deny that abuses have occurred, involving not just American but other Coalition forces. The point is that those abuses have in some cases already been punished. One can and should argue that the punishments could have been more severe, but that is a detail. As for the other stuff about "abusive" practices, Sullivan is frankly inviting ridicule to argue that the conditions at Gitmo rank on the sort of scale of horrors that have been inflicted on captured combatants in other campaigns, most notably those involving Soviet forces in the past, for instance. For all that one might be alarmed - as I am - about the willingness of some apologists for torture to argue for it, I certainly do not get the impression that it has been widely used or encouraged by the US and other administrations. Of course if that is the case, I might change my mind.

No. I am afraid that the critics of Sullivan have a strong point. His change of mind has been so dramatic, his use of language so heated, that it is easy to see why people who now are on the receiving end of his ire feel the guy has not been entirely honest about his switcheroo. After all, Bush's Big Government brand of conservatism that Sullivan finds so obnoxious - as I do -was hardly a secret even before 9/11, such as his flagrant abuse of free trade over steel tariffs, for instance.

As to Iraq, what did Sullivan - who is hardly an expert in military affairs - honestly expect would have happened when the invasion began: a squeaky-clean victory, an easy reconstruction and minimal violence? Hardly. To be sure, he was pretty quick to argue that the post-invasion phase needed larger forces, as McCain had argued at the time. And it is easy to see why those who argued that Saddam's removal from power was justified - as I did - felt angry about some of the errors made post-invasion. But let's be honest about this. If you back a war, you have to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences - bad shit can happen that you do not expect. To deny this is frankly to invite contempt.

Earlier this afternoon Perry and I had a lengthy editorial telephone discussion on the subject of Georgia. While we agreed broadly there was one area in which we had intense debate until I finally figured out how we were talking past each other.

The question is, how the hell did US intelligence assets miss the Russian Black Sea fleet movements? How did they miss the massive transport job of the troops and their logistical tail? They did not just materialize in position. It takes time and planning to make such moves. I will leave the detail of that to Perry as he seems to have been thinking about it in great detail.

My take is there is a limited amount of time available on the black satellites. The manpower and resources have been re-targeted on the Middle East. Orbits have been shifted to give maximal coverage in those areas of interest and experienced personnel have moved to 'where the action is'.

This is not to say Russia is being ignored. It is however a very big place and I am going to guess that the time between scanning particular areas has greatly lengthened. Russian troop movements are mainly rail based and with enough eyeballs and Cold War era periodic coverage one might hope to pick up changes in traffic patterns and notice "something is going on". But... this requires a certain periodicity in coverage. Changes in static positions like silos and strategic air bases are much easier to pick up even with occasional coverage. Dynamic changes, such as train and road movements are a different story. You have to have a satellite taking pictures at just the right time or often enough to pick up a signal just by chance.

This is what took Perry and I awhile to meet minds on: I have been thinking of this issue as a communications/information theory problem. How often do you have to sample an area to notice a change in the density of train traffic? I would posit it would have to be several times a week at the very least if the spike in traffic was huge and extended; if the spike were smaller and flatter you would need to sample daily or multiple times daily. You would have to do it at night and through clouds as well if you were to get a statistical value high enough to ring alarm bells. It is an issue of sampling rate versus the highest detectable signal frequency, pure and simple.

I doubt they have even been scanning large areas of Russia more than a few times a week (I suspect much less often) except in areas of nuclear strategic interest. They could easily miss large troop movements in a part of Russia which is not of great national interest to the United States.

Let the discussion begin. There is a lot of meat on this bone!

Since we are talking about South Africans (see my post below about cricket), ex-South African-now-American Kim du Toit, occasional commenter in these parts, says he dreams about getting one of these.

Kim's dreams are pretty scary.

The conduct of the British Army and the Ministry of Defence begins to crumble under the information leaked from the United States and Iraq. Unwilling to deal with the problems of security in Basra (and the potential damage of soldiers forced to patrol with inadequate equipment), British forces on the ground are alleged to have sought an accommodation with the Mahdi army militias in Basra and forsaken the city. They left the citizens of Basra at the mercy of fundamentalist thugs, whose torture and murder of innocent civilians was publicised in the following months.

The motives behind this accommodation are unclear. Justificatory references to success with the IRA and domesticating paramilitaries in a political process are evasive arguments for the accommodation. Equipment shortages are left unmentioned. More astonishing is the role of Des Browne, Secretary of State for Defence, whose permission was required before any British soldier could enter Basra. Whilst the Iraqi Army and US support staff put down the militias, the British authorities waited an unconscionable six days before they were willing to allow soldiers to enter the city. This was partially caused by the commander, Major-General Barney White-Spunner, who was away on a skiing holiday. This may be unfortunate timing but it does not lessen the air of ineptitude and scuttle that surrounds this whole affair.

The Guardian publicised the Ministry of Defence's rebuttal from unnamed officials, who stated that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Al-Maliki, used the Basra campaign to shore up his credibility at the expense of co-operation with the British. They did concede that they had come to an accommodation with the militias and that,

British defence officials today denied reports that a secret deal between Britain and the Shia militia the Mahdi army prevented UK forces from taking part in a major offensive in Basra earlier this year.

Under the terms of last year's accommodation, UK troops released suspected members of the militia in return for militia leaders ending their attacks.

Maliki was determined to weed out rebel units of the Mahdi army and criminal gangs. Local Iraqi forces and British troops had failed to do this, annoying the US and the Baghdad government, British officials now concede.

The level of political control that Labour politicians hold over individual deployments is difficult to gauge. Yet the delay and dithering over Basra, smells more of the Brown stuff than Browne's sauce.

Lasers for shooting down mortars bombs and missiles... sounds great and has potential to change battlefield quite fundamentally... if it actually works in practice out in the messy real world. Remember Patriot? Much cheered at the time but it turned out to be a wildly expensive but only occasionally effective weapon system designed to shoot down rather cheap and only occasionally effective Scuds.

I suppose it all comes down to it is this another a vastly costly to operate system designed to shoot down various cheap-as-chips weapon systems? I suppose time will tell because potentially this is revolutionary as battlefield lasers could eventually mean the end of a great many forms of indirect weapons. Potentially.

A new movie about the doings of special agents and local French Resistance folk in the days leading up to, and beyond, D-Day is out. I might go and see it - the reviews look quite good and the cast looks impressive. Lots of delicious French actresses - hardly difficult to turn down, really.

At the Imperial War Museum - always worth a visit if you have not been there - there is a section about the special forces that have operated before, during, and after WW2, such as the Long Range Desert Group, M16, the SAS, The Chindits (Burma), other forces in Malaysia, Northern Ireland, Aden, France, former Yugoslavia, Greece, etc. The displays are well done and there is loads of fascinating information about the ordeals of those involved, their lives, methods, equipment and roles in various campaigns. For all that I quite enjoyed the Ian Fleming exhibition in the same place, the real-life displays of derring-do by people who are often totally unknown to the broader public was in some ways far more impressive and actually rather moving. It was also, just to make a "point", clear that many of these operatives did not need the full benefits of a surveillance state to do their jobs. What was clear that the prime qualities of getting good intelligence are commonsense and a lot of guts.

A British court has ruled that there is a 'right to life' even under combat conditions and therefore the families of soldiers killed in action can sue the government for not providing suitable equipment.

In a blow to Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, a senior judge said troops in combat zones have a "right to life" at all times, even while under fire on the battlefield. The ground-breaking decision could lead to a flood of cases against the Ministry of Defence from relatives who believe the deaths of their loved ones were caused by poor quality kit.

As I have written before, it is deplorable that British soldiers are sent into action so poorly equipped when the state manages to find money for idiotic sports and 'cultural' expenditures. Yet I think this ruling is very dangerous unless it is very tightly defined to only cover equipment issues, and even then, I can hear the sound of cans opening and worms escaping. Inevitably this 'right to life at all times' means relatives will sue on the basis of operational military decisions if a decision causes the death of British soldiers.

Were I the government I would do whatever it takes to overturn such a notion and made sure this judgement does not lead to ever wider 'interpretation', as such things are wont to do. I am all for properly equipping Britain's soldiers but this is a potentially disastrous way to ensure that. Wars are, by their very nature, messy and imprecise things and the idea of having civil courts sticking their beaks in is a giant step towards making the military unable to function at all. Even from the perspective of rights and liberty, in a volunteer military clearly prior consent is present to be put in harm's way within the military context. This ruling has 'horrendous unintended consequences' written all over it.

The Royal Air Force marks its 90th birthday today. There will be a flypast over central London at 1pm, so if readers have a digital camera, keep it nearby.

... this guy needs to buy a cat and take some well deserved 'chill time' for, oh, the rest of his life maybe?

"So I got down with my back to the grenade and used my body as a shield. It was a case of either having four of us as fatalities or badly wounded - or one. I brought my legs up to my chest in the brace position and waited for the explosion."

The short version: he set off a booby-trap (the old tripwire/grenade shtick) in the middle of his patrol, jumped on the grenade and his body armour and the stuff in his backpack took the brunt of the explosion. Other than getting blown through the air, this Royal Marine walked away pretty much in one piece. Fortitude and insane luck are a very cool combination.

Let me offer the Lance Corporal a career suggestion: head back to civilian life and get a job doing endorsements for a certain backpack manufacturer.

Raising issues like non-intervenionist foreign policy on a site like this is a bit like poking a bear with a stick: potentially hazardous. In my recent item on WW2, the issue surfaced again of whether a viable foreign policy for a nation is the "Swiss model" (no, not that kind). I personally doubt it works for all nations, certainly not the largest ones with long, porous borders. But as I have praised tax havens recently, I am reminded of how the Swiss seem to cope very well thankyou outside a surpranational organisation like the EU or a military alliance like NATO. But is that country what economists call a "free rider" - taking advantage of the fact that other, bigger nations have done the heavy lifting in standing up to tyrants, etc?

I came across this temperately argued but brutal demolition of one of those books purporting to claim that we'd all be a jolly sight better off by letting that misunderstood Adolf H. chap do what he wanted in Europe and Russia and that Britain and those other warmongering Anglos should have minded their own business. The book in question is called Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization, and written by Nicholson Baker. The reviewer is Andy Ross.

Excerpt from the review:

"Mr. Baker seeks to rehabilitate the interpretation of World War II advanced by isolationists and appeasers in the 1930s. That interpretation was refuted by history itself. If it was necessary for the survival of civilization to stop Nazi Germany from dominating Europe - from replacing freedom with tyranny, suffocating culture and thought, inculcating racism and cruelty in future generations, depopulating Eastern Europe and turning it into German lebensraum, enslaving tens of millions of Poles and Russians, and exterminating European Jewry - then it was necessary to fight the war."

And:

"A book that can adduce Goebbels as an authority in order to vilify Churchill has clearly lost touch with all moral and intellectual bearings. No one who knows about World War II will take Human Smoke at all seriously".

Now, there are good books worth reading that debunk some of the myths of the war, such as that Churchill was a great strategist (he was not and made loads of mistakes), or that Roosevelt was the same (he was not, and unbelievably naive about Stalin), or that things should and could have been handled far better. There might even be a case for selling the "appeasement" line that we should have kept out of the war, at least early on, or bided our time. The trouble is, that most books I have come across selling the isolationist case, such as by John Charmley, for instance, fall down because they fail really to address how America and Britain could have realistically coped with a massive Russo-German fascist empire stretching from Vladivostok to Brest, murdering millions of non-Aryans, dominating international supply routes, and so on. Now of course, we have the benefit of hindsight. Churchill may not have known that Hitler was embarking on mass murder of European Jewry, although he was more alive to this threat than most politicians at the time. But Churchill had a pretty good idea that very ugly developments would accompany a Nazi empire, and of course had no illusions whatever about what would happen to Europe if Stalin's Russia conquered all of it.

It is just about possible, I suppose, that Britain could have struggled on a bit as an independent nation next to such a monstrous empire - assuming we could have lived with an ounce of self-respect by leaving France and the rest in the lurch. As for America, it could, I suppose, have traded on with its southern neighbours, bits of Africa, Australasia and those scattered nations not under communist/fascist rule, but huge parts of the globe would be hostile, poor, nightmarish places. And I very much doubt that we would now be enjoying those fruits of a globalised trading environment that we unashamedly champion today on this blog.

Just came across some footage of a Dutch Apache helicopter gunship facilitating some interesting 'inter-civilisation dialogue' with a couple Talibs in Afghanistan.

I find myself watching YouTube more than TV these days.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the men and women who serve in the volunteer armed forces have been attacked on their own soil. There has been an attack on a recruitment office in the US. It is a sign of the times. In Peterborough, East Anglia, RAF personnel serving in such nearby bases as RAF Wittering have been abused, although it does not appear - yet - that any of the abuse has involved physical violence. As a result, force commanders are thinking of rescinding the idea of letting service personnel wear their uniforms while off-duty. Given that a chap traditionally liked to wear his uniform as a matter of pride, not to mention its wonderful women-attracting qualities (sorry if this offends PC readers), this is a poor state of affairs. I read this unpleasant story with a certain amount of personal interest as my father used to serve at Wittering with 23 Squadron, a fighter squadron that in the 1950s operated aircraft such as Venoms and more latterly, Phantoms and Harriers.

The identity of the abusers is not described. For all we know, they could be anti-war types, Islamists, or just local youths trying to impress their mates by "having a go" at folk in uniform. When I lived in Ipswich 15 years ago, there were always stories of how Army squaddies at Colchester, a nearby army town, were getting into scrapes with the locals. It was, however, much rarer for the US servicemen at RAF Bentwaters, Woodbridge, Mildenhall or Lakenheath to encounter problems, since overseas US guys tend to be more polite and let's face it, if you insulted an F-16 pilot after drinking too much Adnams ale in an Ipswich boozer, the chances are that the guy would order in a squadron of B-52s to nuke the place. At least I like to think that was always an option.

If you do not regularly read Michael Totten's Middle East Journal, you really are missing out on something you just do not see in the MSM. He delivers straightforward reportage not just of The Big Issues when they happen but of the mundane realities of what it is to be in the Slums of Fallujah with the USMC.

Lieutenant Lappe overheard our conversation. I think he was worried that I was getting nervous. "No one can lay down an IED anymore without somebody calling it in," he said.

Very revealing.

If you like his stuff as much as I do, consider dropping your mouse on his PayPal button and support truly independent journalism.

It is a widely accepted fact that one of the key ingredients to the Allies' victory over Nazi Germany and Japan in the Second World War was the ability to crack the Enigma codes used by these powers, and keep that code-breaking achievement a secret.

A question I'd like to put to Jon Snow, the chief news reader of Channel 4 news and usually a fairly cool-headed fellow, is whether he would have complied with any wartime requests to keep the Enigma achievement a secret, had he been a working journalist in the 1940s. Judging by his antics over the Prince Harry and Afghanistan episode, the answer to that question would be a no. It also makes me wonder whether anything on the scale of the Enigma code-breaking and its remaining a secret could be repeated now. Of course, the argument cuts both ways: in our more open world, it might also be harder for a country like Hitler's Germany to make its moves in the first place. (I admit that is a guess of mine, not a prediction). Even so, the implications for military secrecy, when it is something of vital importance in defeating an enemy, are troubling if the media outlets refuse to protect a secret for an agreed period of time. And libertarians, even the most ferocious opponents of censorship, need to realise that keeping military secrets is perfectly consistent with supporting armed forces necessary for the protection of even a minimal, nightwatchman state.

There may have been an element of PR in the whole Prince Harry kerfuffle, but he's already shown more balls than most of the folk who have sneered at him in some internet comments I have read. Come St George's Day this year, I will be very glad to hoist something alcoholic to the fellow. Well done him.

The Ministry of Defence is to be commended (not often I write that) for the way they have handled Prince Harry going to Afghanistan. Aware that knowledge of his presence would greatly increase the risk to him and those serving with him (killing a Royal Prince would be a propaganda coup for the Taliban), they hid the fact for ten weeks, which is no small feat in this day and age. Their tactic was to both appeal to reason and to in effect 'buy off' the highly competitive UK media by promising juicy photos of Harry if they kept their collective cakeholes shut whilst he was deployed... quite clever really and it is a credit to the wiser heads amongst the UK press that they could see there was no broader 'public interest' at stake here (quite the opposite in fact).

I am all for the media and new media reporting the news and in particular news that the powers-that-be might be discomforted by. However reporting a wartime operation detail likely to increase the chance particular group of serving soldiers will attacked by the enemy (namely revealing the presence of a political 'high value target' in the war zone) fall way outside acceptable behaviour. Even if you oppose the war, such behaviour suggest you are not so much against the war as actually on the other side. It is at the very least socially despicable and quite frankly giving aid to an enemy in wartime. Unsurprisingly that is something far beyond the ken of a dim bulb like that self-important idiotarian ass Jon Snow.

Matt Drudge and the German Newspapers were not the first to mention where Prince Harry had been deployed, that dubious 'honour' goes to the Australian publication New Idea, who have at least expressed regret that they blew Prince Harry's cover, suggesting they may be guilt of a lack of thought rather than callous disregard for someone's safety in a war zone. The MoD kept quiet when New Idea first broke the story, suggesting they rather sensibly assumed an Australian woman's magazine was probably not high on the reading list of many Muslim fundamentalists and indeed it took over a month for it to get picked up elsewhere. But the person who really moved this into wider circulation and got the story picked up globally was Matt Drudge. Although the Berliner Kurier and Bild also reported this, Drudge was at some point claiming this as an 'exclusive' and claiming the 'credit' for himself, so I will take him at his word and call him an honourless shit in that case.

I believe I mentioned this when the story about the World Trade Center steel first came out. I am sure most of our readers will appreciate the symbolism in this DOD press release:

The Navy will christen the newest San Antonio class amphibious transport dock ship New York (LPD 21) at 10 a.m. CST on Saturday, March 1, 2008, during a ceremony at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding facilities in New Orleans, La.

The ship is named New York in honor of the state, the city and the victims of Sept. 11, 2001. A unique characteristic of the ship is the use of 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center wreckage that was incorporated into the construction process. The steel was melted and formed to make the bow stem of the ship. Use of this steel symbolizes the spirit and resiliency of the people of New York. The official motto of New York is: "Never Forget."

And I will not. Not until the day the last Al Qaeda swings on a loose noose at Guantanamo or lies rotting in some forgotten mountain fastness with a precise hole drilled in the forehead of their sun-bleached skull.

One of London's top City financiers is lobbying to get a statue of Keith Park, one of the top RAF commanders during the Battle of Britain, put in Trafalgar Square. Park, a New Zealander, seems an excellent choice.

Park had the sort of qualities, according to reports, that I have come to associate with New Zealanders today: unassuming, sharp sense of humour and frequently tough as nails.

Private military security companies have expanded their remit in recent years, raked in higher profits from governments using their services and started to undertake campaigns to legitimate their newfound status.

There are pros and cons to using such companies in wartime, and there is a danger that core defence spending is reduced in favour of such companies, when we could do with some poor bloody infantry and a lot less Eurofighters or useless frigates.

Is it War on Want's role to really demand that the government act upon this? Their charitable remit is stated as anti-poverty in their press release, and it is unclear why forcing legislation through Parliament would do anything to reduce poverty or alleged human rights abuses by such companies:

The challenge, from the anti-poverty charity War on Want, follows mounting reports of human rights abuse by mercenaries employed by private military and security companies in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Last October guards working for British firm Erinys International opened fire on a taxi near Kirkuk, wounding three civilians. In September mercenaries from the American private military company Blackwater killed 17 Iraqi civilians. Earlier a video published on the internet showed mercenaries from UK-based Aegis Defence Services randomly shooting at civilian cars from the back of their vehicle on the road to Baghdad airport. War on Want, calling for legislation including a ban on mercenaries’ use in combat, cites hundreds of incidents which have involved guards from Aegis and another British firm ArmorGroup in shootings. In the first four months of 2007 mercenaries working for ArmorGroup were engaged in combat action 293 times. Aegis mercenaries have been involved in combat action 168 times in the last three years and have seen eight employees killed, according to its chief executive officer, Tim Spicer. Spicer broke a UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone with his former company Sandline International, and was jailed in Papua New Guinea for earlier activities.

The calls for 'democratic' control of the private security companies are accompanied by demands that they are not allowed a role in combat. That seems to defeat the point of employing mercenaries and avoids looking at the problem: what rules are required for policing the actions of the private security companies.

The problem of abuse is clear and extends to any party involved in a war zone. Such matters are best dealt with through contract, rules of engagement and local law. If local law is unable to police the activity of mercenaries in a meaningful sense, then self-regulation and internal discipline are second best. If that does not work, then ensure that they are subject to the laws of those who hired them.

War on Want is unable to think beyond the normal route of political control, UN transnational imposition and legislative fiat. Democratic control is a staging post on the road to the complete abolition of such companies. When one sees the allegations, one wonders what states, the icons of democratic justice, have not committed far worse crimes. And their press release gives the impression that their worst crime is to make money, an unpardonable sin for the ethical crusader:

Iraq has turned this commercial opportunity into a huge money spinner, with UK companies among those making a real killing. British companies increased profits from £320 million in 2003 to £1.8 billion in 2004. Estimates have suggested the total income for the private security sector worldwide has reached $80-100 billion a year. In 2006, UK company ArmorGroup saw revenues totalling $273 million. The company earned $133 million in Iraq that year. Aegis and ArmorGroup have won valuable contracts with the US and UK governments in recent months. Aegis has won a new contract with the Pentagon worth $475 million dollars over the next two years. The US Army has favoured the company for a second time, following its earlier $293 million contract from 2004. In 2007 ArmorGroup won the UK government’s £20 million annual contract for security services in Afghanistan. Ruth Tanner, senior campaigns officer at War on Want, said: “Despite increasing evidence on human rights abuse by private military companies in Iraq, the government has failed to act. This free for all cannot be allowed to continue. David Miliband must act on this mercenary crisis as an urgent priority.”

When companies appear unaccountable and their employees free to abuse whomever they like, then there is a role for law: but a charity rationalises this as an improvement in social justice or poverty to undertake a politicised crusade that will not aid anyone apart from the puffed up conscience of the socialist.

Michael Totten has a superb article up that compares the approach to counter-insurgency followed by Israel under the dismal Ehud Olmert, and that of the US in Iraq under General David Petraeus.

What Totten points out is that the policies promised by Barack Obama for Iraq (in essence remove the army and drop bombs on anyone who seems to be the Bad Guys) is essential the same as the demonstrably failed approach used by Ehud Olmert in Lebanon. Israel blew the crap out of Lebanon from the air and achieved precisely zero of its war aims.

Read the whole article.

If you do not read Michael Totten's blog regularly (and why the hell don't you? It is one of the best damn things on the internet!) then you may have missed this treasure.

And this comment is pretty good too:

This video proves that the surge has failed miserably. The Iraqis are running wild with their scissors and refuse to drink milk and wear seat belt. The pitiful American forces can't even muster the courage to summon insurgents to a shootout themselves. Instead, they have to order random drivers on the road as "human invitation cards". This is sickening.

Heh indeed.

There was an interesting but infuriating article in The Times by Simon Jenkins today where he describes the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. The shorter Jenkins is that things are not going very well. The crux of the problem is that Nato's force in Kabul is in shambles with the United States and the United Kingdom in disagreement over their basic strategy, the Canadians having had enough, and the Continental Europeans contributing more trouble then they are worth.

But what really struck my nerve with this article was the praise that Jenkins heaps on the Taleban adversaries. He describes them as the 'toughest fighters' on earth. I am admittedly not qualified to pass judgement on that score, but I would have to question the real fighting skill of men who are barely literate, fed or able to maintain basic hygiene. Given the disarray that NATO forces are in, and the difficulties that they are inflicting on themselves, it is no wonder that a numerically larger, motivated and home based insurgency is able to maintain a serious military challenge.

If the challenge posed by the Taleban is to be met by NATO or the government of Afghanistan, then NATO have to take this crisis seriously. The chances of this happening are approximately zero, of course, so the rational thing to do is to look forward to the day when the Taleban regain power in Afghanistan. Given the total bankruptcy of NATO's military strategy and the weakness of the United States, it is likely that terrorists will regain their safe haven in Central Asia in the medium term.

Such an outcome would be to the total discredit of Western political leadership. Had they committed a serious military effort to Afghanistan, and united behind a common strategy, Afghanistan would have settled down under corrupt but peaceful leadership years ago. But there is no evidence of any politician in the West taking Afghanistan seriously.

It is not widely known even in Australia that in 1808 the NSW Corps of the British Army deposed the Governor of New South Wales, William Bligh, in a coup. This is known as the 'Rum Rebellion', but it was not really about rum. Reading about it on Wikipedia, it is clear that Governor Bligh, a Captain in the Royal Navy, who had already endured the Mutiny on the Bounty, was not fit to govern a colony like New South Wales was at the start of the 19th Century.

For there were already free settlers in New South Wales at that time, and they wanted their rights and liberties as British subjects respected. Chief among them was John Macarthur. Michael Duffy writes about the rebellion and Macarthur's role in it here.

As for myself, since it is also Australia Day today, I am going to do the patriotic thing and toast my nation onwards- with good old Australian Rum.

The incident reported the other day of Iranian Pasdaran threatening the USN has produced an Iranian rebuttal of the US version of events.

Press TV said the video, released by Iran's Revolutionary Guards a day after the force dismissed the Pentagon video as fake, included a recording of what it said was the exchange between the two sides. Guards Brigadier General Ali Fadavi said Iran's boats had only approached the US ships to examine the registration numbers as they had been unreadable, Press TV said.

My take on this? The incident probably did happen but from what I have read, unlike the Iranian regular navy and the army, the Pasdaran only has tenuous control over its own people, who are more or less by definition religious nutters. The incident in question may well have horrified the powers-that-be in Iran as much as folks in the west. If I am correct, the possibility of a war due to an incident that neither Tehran nor Washington wants is a very real one. Maybe a good time to have a few Crude Oil call options tucked away if you have some spare cash.

The latest antics by the Iranian Pasdaran in the Strait of Hormuz doing their damnedest to get the USN to fire on them has me a tad baffled. In this era of near omnipresent video footage, the chance of this being a questionable 'Tonkin Gulf' incident is greatly reduced (so please, if you have Bush Derangement Syndrome, resist the urge to comment), therefore it does seem like this was a real action by the Iranians... so presumably they are doing this for a reason rather than some desire to get themselves shot full of holes just for the hell of it. But what reason is that exactly? Or even approximately?

So what is the upside for Iran in this in military or political terms? This is not a question I have an answer for. If they actually want to start a war, all that will take is a single Silkworm missile launch, so what is this idiocy setting out to achieve? Also whilst the USN clearly showed commendable restraint, I am astonished that they did not fire on the Pasdaran boats given the descriptions of what they did and given recent memories of what happened to the USS Cole.

I just heard that blogger and soldier Andrew Olmsted was killed in Iraq last Thursday. Very sad news indeed. I used to read him quite often back when he posted on his own blog, before DOD policy put a stop to that. I only knew him slightly (we exchanged a few e-mails) but he seemed like a great guy and he shared my long standing dislike of a certain left wing US blogger.

Heartfelt condolences to his family and friends.

With a little help from her friends, Japan has sent a loud and clear message to North Korea.

The interceptor fired by the JS Kongo knocked out the target warhead about 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean, said the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, which carried out the test together with the Japanese and U.S. navies.

Tokyo has invested heavily in missile defense since North Korea test-fired a long-range missile over northern Japan in 1998. It has installed missile tracking technology on several navy ships and has plans to equip them with interceptors.

The SM-3 is certainly a good enough interceptor to handle the appropriately named North Korean 'Nodong' ICBM. I say that because they seem to be as likely to fail as to get where they are going.

An article about the exploits of the Royal Anglian Regiment reminds us that the fighting in Afghanistan has been very sharp indeed: over six months the Royal Anglians suffered one hundred and forty four casualties (nine killed and one hundred and thirty five wounded), in return for one thousand Taliban killed (which according to the traditional 5:1 ratio which would probably be more accurate for the technologically unsophisticated Taliban, implies at least a further five thousand wounded).

Yet I cannot escape the feeling that the quality of the politics has gone a long way to undermining the quality of the military efforts. Why oh why are we trying to stop people in that poor country from growing the cash crop they have grown since time immemorial and thereby making enemies of people who just want to make money? And as paying people to not plant opium is a demonstrable waste of time, if the governments of the west are so keen to stop opium ending up on the streets of western cities, why not take the vast ocean of money wasted on odious subsidies to affluent western farmers in Europe and the USA, and instead just buy whatever opium the Afghan farmers can grow? At a stroke the Afghan economy is improved in the short term, distorting subsidies removed from western economies and Afghan farmers and warlords alike given a very good reason to maintain good relations with their western patrons (i.e. addict them to subsidies).

Just over 20 minutes from the time I am writing this, a quarter of a mile from my flat, people will line up around the Cenotaph, Whitehall, to commemorate the fallen. Wars involving our servicemen and women are being fought as I write. I leave aside for this post whether we should or not be fighting said wars, let us leave that for another time. There are various charities and organisations that people can support to help those who have suffered from their service as well as support the families left bereaved or in serious hardship.

My old man was a RAF navigator in the 1950s and he has several old squadron buddies who served in combat and could use a bit of help. So this is the charity I'll be supporting this year: the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund.

I was watching the Channel 4 news coverage of the state visit of the King of Saudi Arabia to Britain, when something I saw nearly made me fall off my chair laughing.

So what does the British Army band for the guard of honour strike up as The Man himself steps out of his limo to high-five Her Majesty?

The Darth Vader March from Star Wars (click on 'watch the report' to see for yourself). I kid you not.

Someone somewhere deserves a medal.

The Israeli raid on a Syrian target earlier this month has mostly faded from the news, but to my knowledge there has been no definitive report on exactly what was bombed. My own best guesses are either a big Hezbollah staging area or a Syrian nuclear weapons related facility, but my gut guesses and ten cents will buy you a cup of coffee if you have access to a TARDIS.

This item, by a former Jerusalem Post editor is about the best discussion I have run across.

What's beyond question is that something big went down on Sept. 6. Israeli sources had been telling me for months that their air force was intensively war-gaming attack scenarios against Syria; I assumed this was in anticipation of a second round of fighting with Hezbollah. On the morning of the raid, Israeli combat brigades in the northern Golan Heights went on high alert, reinforced by elite Maglan commando units. Most telling has been Israel's blanket censorship of the story - unprecedented in the experience of even the most veteran Israeli reporters - which has also been extended to its ordinarily hypertalkative politicians. In a country of open secrets, this is, for once, a closed one.

Read the article and make up your own mind.

Remembering one great Kiwi. On September 15, the Battle of Britain was won.

Some aviation eye candy.

In both the USA and UK, much of the debate about how to react to the military situation in Iraq really strikes me as really odd. If a person thinks the available facts indicate we are not doing well against the insurgents, surely the choices should be either:

1. Conclude the enemy will inevitably win and no military and political victory is feasible, therefore accept being defeated and get out completely as soon as possible
2. Conclude the enemy can be beaten, but not at an acceptable cost, so accept being defeated and get out completely as soon as possible
3. Conclude the enemy can be beaten and therefore reinforce to improve the military force levels (i.e. the 'Surge') in order to actually win

What does not make any sense to me is any talk of reducing force levels by a person who does not think we have either already won or already been irretrievably defeated... and the stated position of most politicos on both sides of the Atlantic is neither of those things.

Yet surely to argue for any reduction in military force levels in Iraq by anything less that 100% and to argue that things are not going well, is tantamount to saying you support a policy to make the allied military situation even worse.

The next time the Russian airforce tries to test the UK air defences (which seem to be working fine), perhaps the boys in grey-blue should paint a big sign on the side of the Typhoon fighters saying this: "The way to Harvey Nichols' jewellery department and Chelsea FC is that way, chaps".

Seriously, what the expletives deleted does Putin think he is trying to prove, exactly? It is not as if one of those "Bear" aircraft are state-of-the-art. Ironically, there has been a lot of criticism about the expense of the Eurofighter project - justifiably - but at least the RAF have a superb fighter. Let us hope they do not have to remind the Russians of what an outstanding force the RAF still is.

Correlli Barnett, a long-standing critic of the Coalition overthrow of Saddam's Ba'ath dictatorship, gives us this in this week's Spectator:

"In Saddam's strictly secular Iraq, al-Qa'eda and other forms of Islamist extremism were ruthlessly put down. Is it not plainer every month that we would all (including Iraqis) now be much better off if Saddam Hussein had been left in power,but under continued allied air surveillance?"

The regular trope that Saddam was a "strictly" secular leader won't wash. The "strictness" was in fact pretty variable. What is Barnett trying to say, that Hussein kept copies of the complete works of Voltaire and Richard Dawkins under his bed? Surely, to be serious, Saddam was capable and willing to use and invoke religion when it suited his purposes; I have no idea whether he thought there was a supreme being or not, but frankly, what consolation would it be to the tens, hundreds of thousands of people who were brutalised by his rule to be told that he was "strictly" secular? The Marsh Arabs, the Shiites, the Kurds and other groups may want to ask Mr Barnett what benefit they had from being oppressed by a "secular" ruler. Stalin was "strictly secular", as was Mao, at least as far as I know.

In fact, this argument is so silly that it got me wondering about what exactly is so marvellous about "strictly" secular regimes that cause havoc on a mass scale; Stalin's Russia, for example, with its attendant mass famines, the Gulag, and the rest, surely drives a stake through the notion that the absence of revealed religion automatically brings a better state of affairs. I am a lapsed Christian, and no admirer of much that goes under the name of religion (that's puttting it mildly, ed), but there are so many examples of evil, secular regimes, that it is hard to summon breath to point this rather obvious fact to someone like Barnett.

Then there is this claim that Iraqis and others would have been "much better off" with the old brute in power. That is frankly impossible to judge, and sitting here in the comfort of my apartment, is not one I feel fit to make, but then neither does Mr Barnett. I guess the henchmen who ran Saddam's torture chambers and his security services feel that their circumstances have taken a big turn for the worse; George Galloway and the various other lowlifes clearly may mourn his passing; arms dealers in the West, East and elsewhere may rue the missed orders and deals no longer struck (that includes Britain, I am ashamed to say), but if Barnett wants to make this claim with seriousness, he needs to weigh the costs of what is now happening in Iraq with the toll of the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, the gassing of villagers in northern Iraq, etc. And he needs to consider whether, and for how long, Saddam's regime could have lasted, even without sanctions, and what would have happened thereafter.

The other problem I have is Barnett's casually thrown-in comment about the Allied air surveillance - he means the "no-fly zones" in the north and south of Iraq. They cost money to enforce, there was exchange of fire between the airforces and the Iraqi forces on the ground (breaches of the 1991 Ceasfire, for those who bleat about the "illegal" invasion of 2003). It is naive to imagine those flights could have remained indefinitely, or have been enforceable beyond a certain point. Sooner or later, the air cover would have been reduced, leaving those in the north and the south to the tender mercies of Saddam's/his son's forces on the ground. Not a happy prospect.

There are good arguments to be made against the war: Saddam posed us no immediate threat; his armed forces were degraded after 1991 and there were more serious threats around which required more of our attention. There are also prudential grounds to avoid war if possible, starting with the old adage, which ought to be familiar to libertarians: the law of unintended consequences. I have found myself, more than once, rueing the entire enterprise as an object lesson in the folly of interventionism and chided myself from falling off the wagon in this respect. But the only problem is that I start getting those neo-con urges as soon as apologists for dictatorship like Barnett put pen to paper. The anti-war folk may have many arguments in their favour, but so many of them give me the creeps.

(Update: topic heading changed: this article has nothing to do with Korea!)

What I find so infuriating about the situation in Southern Iraq is that it was all so avoidable, and by that I do not mean by not getting involved in the first place. Clearly I was wrong to assume that just because the British government did the right thing helping with the ouster of Saddam Hussein, they would do what was needed to actually secure victory in the aftermath and focus Britain's resources on achieving military success against the Iranian based insurgents in their area of responsibility. Silly me.

What US generals see, however, is a close ally preparing to "cut and run", leaving behind a city in the grip of a power struggle between Shia militias that could determine the fate of the Iraqi government and the country as a whole. With signs of the surge yielding tentative progress in Baghdad, but at the cost of many American lives, there could scarcely be a worse time for a parting of the ways. Yet the US military has no doubt, despite what Gordon Brown claims, that the pullout is being driven by "the political situation at home in the UK".

A senior US officer familiar with Gen Petraeus's thinking said: "The short version is that the Brits have lost Basra, if indeed they ever had it. Britain is in a difficult spot because of the lack of political support at home, but for a long time - more than a year - they have not been engaged in Basra and have tried to avoid casualties.

"They did not have enough troops there even before they started cutting back. The situation is beyond their control.

It is not like Britain lacks the troops to send in order to apply the needed force to Basra and its environs. What exactly are the 23,000 British soldiers defending Rheindahlen, Saxony and Westphalia from at the moment? It is extraordinary that the standard response to things getting rough militarily these days is not to reinforce but rather to cut back in-theatre thereby increasing the pressure of those troops left behind... hardly an approach calculated to bring success.

I thought the one thing the damn state was capable of was waging wars, particularly ones of its own choosing. If it cannot even do that, what the hell use is it? Even less than I thought, and that is saying something.

The Russian airforce has recently resumed long range patrols, approaching the airspace of Britain and Diego Garcia... and I am pleased to say the correct response has come from the US State Department:

"If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again that's their decision," Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said. "That is a decision for them to take - it's interesting. We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union. It's a different era."

Amen. This is the comment I left on the Telegraph article:

Who cares? All this talk about the resurgence of Russian power is tosh. Just look at the numbers. Even with all their gas and oil, Russia has the same GDP as Italy (and Italy is not an economic monoculture based on what comes out of the ground). Compared to China, the EU and the USA, Russia is, strategically speaking, in the minor league. If the quasi-fascists who run Russia these days want to rattle their little sabre, strut around like Mussolini and pretend they matter, let them. The appropriate response to their antics? No response at all.

I think the murderous actions of the Russian secret service in London are far more worthy of harsh responses than the antics of their military. I suspect a reaction to these military flights consisting of broad indifference and maybe the odd embarrassed snicker is far more likely to enrage the Kremlin than shaking a sabre back at them. The Devil does not like to be mocked.

Paul Staines takes a very gloomy view of the situation in Britain's two wars

I take no pleasure in reporting this, but it seems to be going unsaid in the British press. British forces are painted, particularly by broadcasters, as having achieved a measure of success in Basra due to superior British peace-keeping techniques honed in Northern Ireland.

The truth is very different. To quote from a report;

Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.

The Washington Post reported a senior U.S. intelligence official yesterday saying that "The British have basically been defeated in the south".

The article went on to say that British forces

... are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as "surrounded like cowboys and Indians" by militia fighters. An airport base outside the city, where a regional U.S. Embassy office and Britain's remaining 5,500 troops are barricaded behind building-high sandbags, has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months.

In May Blair visited the Basra HQ and came under mortar attack - not a sign of pacification.

The head of the armed forces, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, told the BBC that success depends "upon what your interpretation of the mission was in the first place... I'm afraid people had, in many instances, unrealistic aspirations for Iraq, and for the south of Iraq." The reality is that once British forces exit Basra the fighting will escalate into a full-scale civil war: Mission failure.

This begs the question - what now is the plan in Afghanistan? They are a people who fought the Red Army and won. The Soviets were brutal and were still defeated. Is NATO going to match and exceed that brutality in pursuit of "victory"? Afghanistan should be monitored closely and elements that present a clear and present external danger should be eliminated. It is not the job of NATO to impose Western values by force as Rome's Imperial Armies once imposed Roman law.

Fresh from his humbling at the hands of Hillary Clinton and following on from a statement indicating his willingness to invade Pakistan, Barack Obama ladles on credence to the increasingly ubiquitous assertion that he's inexperienced:

I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance...involving civilians. Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.

Desperately wrong answer to (what should be) a deal-breaking question, Mr Obama. Sure, waving the threat of one's nuclear weapons capacity around like a pair of chopsticks in a cheap Chinese restaurant is not sensible, because it ultimately reduces that capacity's deterrent value - which is the only practical reason why a sane nation would field a nuclear arsenal in this world of other nations who also possess The Bomb. A wise leader does not even refer to his country's nuclear weapons capacity, because the widespread knowledge of that capacity speaks for itself more effectively than any politician could ever hope to.

Conversely, it is sheer lunacy for a US President (or hopeful) to declare that he will never press the button, because such statements completely undermine the deterrent value of these weapons. Mr Obama, if you are not running on a platform of nuclear disarmament, you never take the nuclear option off the table. Ever. You made a most elementary strategic blunder - you are not a suitable candidate for the role of U.S. Commander-in-Chief.

Classical liberal scholar, Randy Barnett has a long and excellent post (which I came across via Instapundit) spelling out some of the contradictions that occur when libertarians, be they minarchists, anarchists or more 'pragmatic' types, get into arguments about events like the war in Iraq (I have been called a lot of names, but hey, I can deal with branded a warmonger and a sappy peacenic, as has happened).

In particular, he notes something that some of us at Samizdata have observed many times, which is that for a certain kind of isolationist libertarian, they almost endow foreign, sovereign governments with the sort of respect that they never have for their own states. Barnett calls this the "Westphalian" attitude (derived from the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th Century which recognised sovereign state's boundaries in Europe at the end of the 30 Years' War). Barnett ends up by making a point that I would make, which is that judging the rightness or wrongness of certain wars cannot be done by simple recourse to a sort of Rothbardian non-initiation-of-force principle, even though that principle is mighty useful as a sort of discussion point (Rothbard is a hero of mine, notwithstanding certain problems I have with his specific views). Judging, for example, whether regime or thug X poses country Y an existential threat, and what to do about it, cannot be done simply by parroting a few principles. One has to judge the facts of the situation and ask questions such as, "is this war prudent"? or "Will it make threats to us worse rather than better?", or "What are the balance of risks?". Prudence, as the Greeks knew, is a virtue, although it seems at times a little unfashionable to point that out. With the benefit of hindsight, prudence might have led us to take a rather different view of what to do about Saddam, assuming we had to do anything other than deter him by threatening to nuke him out of existence (but then, that shows that acting in strict self defence can come at the cost of killing millions of innocent people, which is not exactly libertarian. Does this mean "strict" libertarians must be pacifists?).

Anyway, Barnett's essay is first class. For the more straightforward anti-war line out of the libertarian tradition, Gene Healy of the CATO Institute still has what I think is the best essay on the subject. It reads pretty well in the light of events. Both articles are pretty long so brew up plenty of coffee first.

But that wasn't quite his intention. He was attempting to declare a failure but accidentally got his facts right. On Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, a debate waged between Senators Jim Webb and Lindsay Graham resulted in the following statement by Senator Webb.

And with respect to al-Qaeda, quite frankly, al-Qaeda didn’t come to Iraq to try to destroy a democracy. That’s a very, very flimsy democracy there. We all recognize that. Al-Qaeda came to Iraq because the United States was in Iraq, and the people in al-Anbar are not aligning themselves with the United States. It’s “The enemy of the enemy is my friend.” This hasn’t been the Iraqi military, the national military that’s been taking out al-Qaeda. It’s been a redneck justice. It’s been these sectarian groups out there who don’t like al-Qaeda. And if we leave, they still will not like al-Qaeda.

His statement is right on so many points, it's more than a little heartening.

First, democracy or no, Al-Qaeda is in Iraq to attack the United States. Where would the Senator rather rather have them attack us? Second, he is correct that this is a case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." But in terms of Al-Qaeda, that is called aligning themselves with the United States. We share a common enemy and are fighting it together. That is all "ally" means. What is he expecting? Conversions? Third, al-Anbar is a Sunni province. al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Sunnis have been their support base. And now a major part of that support base is turning against al-Qaeda. The biggest sign of success is when we no longer need to count on the military solutions but rather, the support base itself turns against the terrorists. Yet he is bemoaning the absence of a military component to this accomplishment. Senator Webb has done us the favor of highlighting some outstanding signs of imminent success although it was rather ambitious of him to spin them the way he did. It is also difficult to reconcile his belief that this revolt by the support base is "redneck justice" with the following statement taken from his own website.

Looking at these [Viet Nam] examples, you come to a conclusion about the use of force in this situation. In my opinion, we need to articulate clearly that we do not have a quarrel with the Muslim world. But the part of the Muslim world that considers itself at war with us must be on notice. Who are these people? They are the ones conducting terrorist activities and those training and providing logistical support to them. All those people, in my opinion, should be fair game. Over time, we should see the people who are conducting this international campaign of terrorism being cut away from their support base. Many good people were cut away from the support base of the South Vietnamese government. I think there’s a direct parallel.

Senator Webb is delivering good news suggesting that resistance to terrorism may soon be strong enough for us to reduce support levels. But he sounds greatly disappointed that this resistance is at the grass roots, and not a military accomplishment. Why do I suspect that if it was a military accomplishment, he would be lamenting the absence of grass roots support?

Among the rank-upon-rank quangocrats and glorious anomalies of the Queen's birthday honours, I was struck by an example of the coyness that draws attention to itself:

OBE - William Anderson; Grade B2, Ministry of Defence; London.

No citation. No location. All other London awards carry the postal out-code (e.g. "SW1A", "W8") of the recipient or their office. Grade B2 is a junior executive grade, and one usually only gets an honour for being head of something, even in the civil service. This all stands out as odd.

So why do it? If Mr Anderson's work is too secret to mention, then it seems just a tad silly to go to great lengths not to mention it in this ostentatious way. It would have been easy to invent something boring that insiders would know to be a cover story (most fellow OBEs are getting the award for work in organisations no-one outside them will have heard of before). Or the honour itself could have been made secretly.

If you are not regularly reading Michael Yon, you are really missing out on something interesting.

I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This news makes me happy that I have no hopes for 'victory' in Iraq, beyond having a battlefield for European Islamists to go and die on far away from European and American cities.

Banning your own side from telling your side of a war is pretty dim, especially when the MSM is effectively scouting for the other side. It does not seem beyond the competency of the US armed forces to issue its bloggers with a "Do Tell" and "Don't Tell" list.

As for the pretext that bandwidth is the problem, it reminds me of the British grocery store in the 1960s that stopped stocking up on a certain brand of bread "because we keep running out..."

The tyrant of Baghdad is dead. His successors are dead. That's all that can be hoped for under the existing rules of engagement.

Depending on the deals, could we see personnel queuing up to be arrested by the Iranians so that they could subsequently sell their story?

- 'Lilotes'

It is all so clear to me now and I must say that I feel like such a fool for having been so taken in by the pantomime of 'co-operation' that was put on by our 15 naval personnel for the benefit of their Iranian captors and the wider world. Yes, I use the word 'pantomime' because what we all perceived to be a humiliating milquetoast submission was, in fact, a mere ploy to disguise a fiendishly brilliant plan to kill all the Iranian Guards by means of death from dehydration as a result of relentless and uncontrollable vomiting:

That was the last time Arthur saw Faye for six days as they were both put in solitary. Guards tried to make Faye crack by cruelly telling her she was the last of the 15 being held captive.

But, speaking of the moment they were reunited, he told how he wept and begged the 26-year-old for a hug. Arthur said: "I missed Topsy most of all. I really love her, as amumand a big sister. Not seeing her and not knowing if she was safe was one of the hardest parts of the whole thing.

"Then on the sixth day, when I was just about giving up hope, I was pulled from my bed in the early hours of the morning.

"They led me down a corridor and into a room, where I saw Topsy in a corner.

"I can't describe how that felt...just every emotion rolled into one. I ran up to her, threw my arms round her and cried like a baby.

"When I'd calmed down, she asked, 'Do you need another hug, a mother hug?' and I said, 'damn right'. She was just as pleased to see me because they'd told her I'd been sent home.

"Topsy said she'd always be there for me, to protect me and look after me.

Here endeth the lesson, Ahmedinejad. Those Iranian johnnies will never again make the mistake of underestimating the heroic professionalism and grim resolve of the Royal Navy.

Iran can called for the UK government to make a 'goodwill gesture' towards Iran in return for them freeing the fifteen naval personnel they abducted in Iraqi waters. This is entirely reasonable and the UK should respond by promising that if the Iranian government will keep control of the Pasdaran (a military organisation that relates to the regular Iranian military in a similar way to which the SA or SS related to the Wehrmacht), the UKGov will make sure that 'rogue elements' of the Royal Navy do not mine Iranian harbours or start torpedoing Iranian shipping.

Of course as Iranian weapons keep finding their way into Basra and killing British soldiers, perhaps a different sort of exchange is really needed. After all, as there are no shortage of internal opponents to the Iranian regime, surely it is well past time that UK weapons started turning up in the hands of Iranian anti-government elements as well... think of it as another way of furthering globalisation and international trade.

The British government has issued a formal apology for Britain's conduct during the Second World War.

Speaking from the House of Commons, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett described Britain's conduct in the 1939-1945 period as "shameful":

We recognise that British military aggression between the years of 1939 and 1945 led directly or indirectly to the deaths of many, many people in Europe, Asia, Africa and elsewhere. It is time to acknowledge this fact and to apologise for it.

The opposition Conservatives roundly condemned the Foreign Secretary's remarks as not going far enough and being "too little, too late". They urged the Government to issue a further apology for all the environmental damage inflicted on the world by British forces during the war and since.

In Germany, a spokesman for an association of SS veterans described the apology as "a good start".

It was deplorable that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people.

- Patricia Hewitt denounces Iranian treatment of a member of the fifteen captured British navy personnel. Is there a more perfect illustration of the misplaced priorities of Blair's Britain?

(Via Tim Blair, who notes "as always with such a blindingly stupid quote, be alert to the possibility it’s too stupid to be true." Perhaps regular Hewitt-watchers would not see the need for such caution.)

How should we assess Britain's success in its diplomatic efforts to release the hostages? Iran, more bellicose and intransigent, is now determined to use them as predigree prisoners for propaganda purposes and possibly put them on show-trials. The key to success is acquiring more levers to influence Iranian behaviour and exact a price for their actions.

Britain cannot bring military force to bear, due to the underfunding of our armed forces. We are unable to acquire a united diplomatic front following the debacle at the United Nations. Our sailers' plight will not be met with a range of new sanctions. At a meeting of foreign ministers in Europe, there was strong condemnation on the bogpaper press release that all such meetings issue. None of the Member States were willing to entertain the notion of real action: freezing export credit guarantees to Iran. Let us hear their reasons for turning their back on their ally:

EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but ruled out any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers.

France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.

Republicans in DC have rightly branded the government's dependence on international law and sanctions as "pathetic". Rightly, in this instance. The government prefers to maintain its reputation for upholding international law and ruling out other strategies that could exert greater influence in Iran, such as interdicting their oil trade. Blair's prissiness in holding the moral high ground is achieved by making all the right noises and going through the (bowel) motions. Yet, after the EU and the UN, the cupboard is bare. What next, Mr Blair?

Frequent commenter 'Old Jack Tar' has a rather different view than the one being offered up by the UK media regarding the conduct of some of the British naval personnel being held captive in Iran.

Ever since the capture by Iranian forces of fifteen British naval personnel, the UK news channels have been falling over themselves to praise female British sailor Faye Turney. I have heard her described as "professional" and "well trained" and "sensible".

Really? I beg to differ. From the moment they were captured they should have responded with NOTHING except "Name, rank and serial number". These people have a professional (and legal) requirement to keep their yaps shut and not give aid with their words to a clearly hostile foreign government.

Yet she appears to have written a 'heartfelt' letter home praising the 'kind' and 'warm' Iranians who kidnapped her at gunpoint, admitting the boarding party had strayed into Iranian waters, presumably in return for a kebab.

My equally ex-RN wife's remark upon seeing Turney on TV wearing a headscarf was "I would have thanked them for giving me something I could use to strangle one of the guards with when I eventually make my escape, but if they want me to wear it, well I would have told them exactly where they can..."

My good wife is a forthright person and decorum prevents me from finishing her remarks.

"Professional" and "well trained" my arse. Yet I have the sickening feeling this woman will be lionised when she is eventually released.

Regulars will know that this blog does not have a lot of time for political correctness. They will also know, however, that this blog does not also have a lot of time for racist bigots - or "race realists" as these creeps call themselves these days - either. As Ayn Rand once remarked, racism is the oldest form of collectivism. And like all forms of collectivism, it ignores the unique differences between individuals.

With that in mind, the resignation of this idiot was inevitable and wholly justified. I read the Telegraph comments and see that a lot of people defended the views of the Tory MP who said what he said. It makes me realise that I have as little sympathy for parts of the "right" as I do for a lot of the "left" as well. Non-white soldiers have put their lives on the line in the service of their comrades and their regiments. This MP would do well to remember that point.

Garbage In, Gospel Out

- William S. Lind, discussing the operational philosophy underpinning US military intelligence.

Only Blair could repackage scuttle as a political victory. The situation in the south of Iraq has worsened over the last few years as British troops have withdrawn from the main towns, leaving the local areas in the control of the Mahdi Army and the Shi'a militias, often under the influence of Iran. The Times reports that the main tasks assigned to the British Army: pacification and reconstruction, have not been achieved.

Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washing-ton, said the British move would simply hand more power to the Islamist groups backed by neighbouring Iran. “The British cuts will in many ways simply reflect the political reality that the British ‘lost’ the south more than a year ago,” he said.

Although there is no Sunni-Shia carnage to compare with Baghdad, the Shia-dominated south has been torn by a cutthroat internal competition for power that has turned bloody. Since August, both Diwaniyah and Amara have been convulsed by clashes between the mainly Shia Iraqi Army, and Sadr’s militia.

Unwilling to increase defence expenditure and recruitment, the government tried to hide behind a victory message whilst hoping to prevent the possible creation of a Shi'astan with a reduced force. Soldiers have done a sterling job under impossible political conditions, whilst stabbed in the back by the hypocrites in the Liberal Democrats. If the government cannot fulfil the security commitments that Blair undertook on our behalf, it should say so honourably and withdraw leaving the United States to hold the ring. If a hot war results from the Shi'a-Sunni tensions ensuing, Blair's legacy will stand out: defeat abroad, failure at home.

So I am reading the declassified summary of the National Intelligence Estimate(PDF) that everybody is talking about. While there are dissenting opinions in the classified version, the 3+ pages in the declassified summary are the conclusions that every contributing intelligence source agree on. The core problem is captured in the very first bulleted point; the point that is getting quoted in the news reports.

• Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate

How can so many learned people look at this and not understand the root of the problem immediately?

Democracy is the problem. Democracy = winner-take-all. Whether on the left or the right, politicians and pundits have been unanimous in couching our presence in Iraq in terms of "bringing democracy" like we have here in the United States. How can so many people be under the mistaken notion that we are a democratic republic? We are not. We are a constitutional republic. What MacArther and his staff understood while enforcing the Potsdam Declaration (perhaps even better than the Allied leaders did) was that we, the United States, are a republic governed by a constitution with some carefully limited democratic features. With that in mind, when the process foundered for building in Japan a new government adherent to the declaration's terms, he oversaw the construction of a constitution with strict limits on the power and reach of both the government and the majority of the population. We, the US, handed Japan a constitution on a platter.

The only hope for peace in Iraq is to stop calling for democracy, and instead call for, or dictate, a constitution that guarantees the rights of life, liberty and property. Only if that effort fails, should we pull out and resort to preventing the development of military capabilities by intermittent military hit and withdraw interventions.

To those who are not au fait with arcane Australian military procurement debates - and those that wish to be so - I present to you a rather fascinating discussion of the merits of the F-22 Raptor (a most superior bird) versus the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (which the Australian government has plumped for). And those that do not give a tinker's cuss about Australian defence procurement (hell, I do not blame you), I have some quite breathtaking footage of an Su-37 being put through its paces.

I believe this footage (also via Catallaxy) is of an Su-37 being exhibited at the Farnborough air show in the late 90s. Would not like to be facing this plane in a dogfight during daylight hours. According to the linked source, the Su-37 is not currently being manufactured for any particular client. Okay, Samizdata military talking heads - discuss!

If the report turn out to be true about the success of the US military attack in Somalia, that is good news indeed. It is being claimed that some of the people targeted were those responsible for the horrendous 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi in Kenya and Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, and 2002 atrocities on in Kenya against Kenyan and Israeli civilians. If those are the bastards who have indeed been killed then that is a cause for some satisfaction.

It is interesting that the attack, which took place in Somalia, has attracted praise from the Somali president, who is no friend of the Islamists. But rather more baffling is that the EU has criticised the attack, with a spokesman for EU development commissioner Louis Michel saying "Any incident of this kind is not helpful in the long term". I wonder how killing members of Al Qaeda is not 'helpful' in a fight against Al Qaeda?

In the latest body blow to the British Army, Scottish soldiers have been denied their heritage as the latest supply shortages hit the infantry.

The British army's decision to end its 150-year relationship with a kilt maker has left Scottish regiments with a shortage of dress kilt uniforms.

The 5,000 soldiers in the Royal Regiment of Scotland only have enough kilts for one out of every 15 men, The Daily Record of Glasgow reports.

Jeff Duncan, campaign manager for Reinstate Our Army Regiments, blamed Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"Mr. Blair promised they would get whatever was needed -- what they need is a change of government," he said.

This is a government that cannot provide basic equipment for its soldiers. Private Widdle would be shivering in the Khyber Pass but he would probably be dead, due to a lack of body armour.

The Daily Telegraph's Charles Moore has good and important things to say about how the Armed Forces are viewed these days in Britain. He cites several examples of how soldiers, sailors or airmen returning home from a tour of duty frequently feel completely unvalued, sometimes despised, by the home population.

To a certain extent, this has to be placed in historical context. Since the end of compulsory military service in the early 1960s and the end of the Cold War, the forces have shrunk, so a smaller proportion of us are likely to encounter people who are serving in the forces. I know a couple of people in the RAF and my father was a navigator in the 1950s - on aircaft with spiffing names like Meteors, Javelins and Venoms - but many of us do not. I wanted to follow my old man's footsteps but I developed a small defect in my eyesight in my late teens so the prospect of Johnathan Pearce at the controls of a Typhoon was zero (probably to much relief to you readers). The idea of having a career in the armed forces is something that occurs to very few of us these days. None of the youngsters I know would be remotely interested in joining up. The pay is not attractive compared with what one could earn in other walks of life and the whole catch of travelling around the world, meeting interesting people and subsequently killing them does not appeal to a generation that can backpack around the globe on a cheap flight anyway. And the killing stuff is clearly not popular. Maybe the impact of television, culture and politics has sapped the military ethos. This is a good thing mostly, but it clearly comes at a cost in the supply of motivated personnel.

Moore's article concludes with a plug for a very fine charity that helps support our services. Without apology, I recommend those so minded to donate something. May I also suggest this RAF Benevolent Fund site as a place that people can visit. Other branches of the forces have similar bodies looking after people who have served and now need some help.

These words of Rudyard Kipling, the great poet for the British Army, are nice:

"Troopin', troopin', give another cheer - Ere's to English women and a quart of English beer. The Colonel an' the Regiment an' all who've got to stay, Gaw's Mercy Strike 'em gentle! Whoop! w're goin' 'ome to-day. We're goin' 'ome, w're goin' 'ome, Our ship is at the shore, An' you must pack your 'aversack, For we won't come back no more. Ho, don't you grieve for me, My lovely Mary-Ann! For I'll marry you yit on a foup'ny bit As a time-expired man.

(From the poem, Troopin').

Following on from Johnathan Pearce's article yesterday, I see more and more articles in the media about the issue of Britain's military being asked to fight two wars without proper funding by a government which seem to know sweet FA about military affairs. Is this a sign that the issue is gaining some wider political traction? If so, I expect to see Dave Cameron suddenly develop an interest in military matters (perhaps a Tory spokesman will soon ask why the UK treasury has been skimping on military equipment funding and thus failing to fit more eco-friendly engine in the army's clapped out Warrior APCs).

Cynical? Moi?

As a minarchist (rather than an anarchist) I regard managing the military as one of the few legitimate roles of the state and thus find myself in the unfamiliar role of arguing for more tax money for a state endeavour... how weird is that?

EU Referendum has a long and detailed article on the problems the British Army is having with its equipment in the Middle East and the lessons that could and should be learned from other forces, such as the Canadians. The EU Ref. blog has become a regular read for me, and it specialises on two or three consistent themes and sticks to them solidly. You will not get closely-argued analysis of the armed forces like this unless you buy a specialist book or attend a lecture by military historians such as John Keegan. First class stuff all round.

There seems no end to the absurdity of US planners as to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan... surely the way to victory in all military conflicts is the unswerving pursuit of a single core objective (in this case the destruction of the Taliban and its power base) with ruthlessness and focus.

Yet what do we see? A demented conflation of the entirely justified war against the sponsors of the 9/11 attack on New York and Arlington, with the preposterous 'war on drugs'. At a stroke, attacking the income of Afghan farmers and warlords alike thereby more or less guaranteeing that these people will make common cause with the Taliban on the basis that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Yes indeed:

Miss Israel has been given permission not to carry her assault rifle during service in the Israeli army because she says it bruises her legs.

This has everything that a Samizdata quote of the day should have. It is about a beauty queen. It is not just something said by or about some dreary politician. Plus, guns are involved.

But: Is this decision evidence that Israel is going soft, or does it display a fine understand of the balance that must always be struck between the needs of national defence and the need not to damage that which is being defended?

Today is Remembrance Sunday, and outside Westminster Abbey there is a Field of Remembrance. The field's crop consists of young men, each commemorated by a wooden cross. I took photographs there last Thursday.

The most effective pictures for evoking what it all looked like were those which hinted at the sheer number of wooden crosses, which in their numbers of course only hinted in their turn at the number of young men killed in war in recent decades.

Who, I wonder, is that particular young man, who was, like me, taking photos? Probably, also like me, just going for an effective shot, rather than remembering anyone in particular. He is (as I later did in the exact same spot) photographing the backs of the crosses nearest to him. The nameless dead.

Other photographers focused tightly in on one particular name and one particular cross.

The oddest photograph I took that day was of a car number plate, on what looked like an official, government, chauffeur-driven Rolls.

At any other time, and with no poppies on the front, that would be a good laugh. But with poppies everywhere, it seemed very peculiar.

Here, alas, is another relevant BBC story.

This reports states that Britain's armed forces are considered to be below strength for the tasks they have been ordered to perform. Nothing very surprising about that, given that although Blair has been almost indecently keen to deploy troops, sailors and airmen to various theatres of operations, he has not backed this up with a corresponding deployment of resources.

As a minimal statist rather than an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, I accept that providing for the defence of this country is a basic task of the state, but that of course leaves wide open how exactly that task is carried out, by whom, and at what cost. Does it mean things like standing armies, or navies, or large airforces, or anti-missile batteries dotting the coasts? Does it mean an armed citizenry called upon to defend the nation at short notice? Does it mean getting into alliances with other powers to share this role, or focusing entirely on one's own resources?

It is Friday and we like a good debate ahead of the weekend. Let the comments fly! Try not to get hurt.

The occasions where I am prepared to wade in on the side of a bunch of a civil servants are as rare as hen's teeth but this one is truly no contest:

THE Ministry of Defence has banned Britain’s biggest commercial news broadcaster from frontline access to the nation’s forces, The Times has learnt.

In an unprecedented move that risks accusations of censorship, the Government has withdrawn co-operation from ITV News in warzones after accusing it of inaccurate and intrusive reports about the fate of wounded soldiers...

“As bad a hatchet-job as I’ve seen in years. Cheap shots all over the place, no context, no reasonable explanation..."

In other words, the standard operating procedure of the MSM. The stink is now so bad that it is finally getting in to some very lofty nostrils.

And the reason? Simple, the USA has banned Vegemite! I expect to see RAAF strikes on US targets by late this evening and Aussie SAS teams boarding US shipping and dumping cargoes of Skippy Peanut Butter into the sea.

More seriously, it is just preposterous that the state interferes in the most picayune aspects of life. Next time I am in the US I intend to smuggle a jar in disguised as Marmite and smear it over the door handles of the first US federal government building to see.

There is an excellent bit of reportage in The Guardian by James Meek, covering the experiences of British troops in Southern Afghanistan that gives a good troop's eye view of things.

One of the things that struck me, reading the comments on the recent thread about the casualty toll in Iraq, the North Korean bomb test, and the ongoing debate about what to do about Islamist terror, is what are countries doing to defend against missile attacks, including nuclear ones? When George Bush was first elected in 2000 (whatever Michael Moore might claim), he made a great deal of play about missile defence and the ABM Treaty. Now I may have missed something, but anti-missile defence, as a topic, seems to have gone a bit quiet. But surely, if North Korea has the bomb, with Iran not far behind, then anti-missile defence ought to be one of the top priorities for defence planners.

Even if you are a paleo-libertarian who thinks defence policy rules out any form of pre-emption, you presumably - unless you are a pacifist - embrace technologies to ward off attacks. So it seems to me to be a bit strange that we have not had more discussion about what countries should be doing in this area, and the pros and cons of the technologies involved. (There may have course have been a lot of discussion, but it has been out of the media spotlight, for various reasons).

Some old thoughts of mine about the merits and perils of pre-emption. Here is a book about what a defence policy that is really about self-defence might look like, via the Independent Institute.

I love the Science Museum in London, and there is another good reason to go there: it has an exhibition about the Spitfire fighter aircraft. Here is a nice review of it at the Social Affairs Unit blog.

Do not believe the nonsense about how the RAF was not essential to preventing an invasion of Britain in 1940. It was vital, and it seems morally right somehow that the aircraft that helped to nail the Luftwaffe was not just a brilliant piece of engineering, but also drop-dead gorgeous.

Who would not sympathise with injured soldiers, forced to endure poor conditions and MRSA at Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham. Now one has been threatened by a local Muslim:

On one occasion a member of the Parachute Regiment, still dressed in his combat uniform after being evacuated from Afghanistan, was accosted by a Muslim over the British involvement in the country.

Soldiers are concerned about their safety. In such matters, one expects the usual response from government: a statement that refuses to acknowledge the problem and masks neglect:

The Ministry of Defence, which said that it had no record of threatening incidents, indicated that there was a military security presence at the hospital and it co-operated closely with local police.

A MoD spokesman said there was "appropriate security" at Selly Oak for the 11 servicemen currently being treated.

We know where they would like to end up:

Soldiers on operations say they would rather receive a more serious injury and go to the top American military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, than end up in a NHS hospital.

They now half jokingly refer to getting "a Boche rather than a Blighty" in reference to the wounds that would send them home. Ramstein has an outstanding unit for brain surgery, and neurological intensive care beds in Britain are in short supply. "The blokes see it that if you are unlucky you get wounded and go to the UK at the mercy of the NHS, but if you get a head wound you get sent to Ramstein in Germany where the US has an outstanding medical facility," said an officer serving in Afghanistan.

"It also does not do morale much good knowing that within 18 hours of being wounded you could wake up in a NHS hospital with a mental health patient on one side and an incontinent geriatric on the other."

The black humour of the British Tommy! No wonder New Labour hates them.

UK military authorities are claiming the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan has been 'tactically defeated', which can mean quite a variety of different things. Certainly the accounts of what has been going on there indicate bloody hard fighting down to bayonet range on occasion and given the lack of resources at their disposal, any significant victory against the casualty insensitive Taliban reflects rather well on the British Army.

Now if only the UK government would get rid of some of the many utterly pointless government departments, say for starters the Department of Trade and Industry and the truly preposterous Department of Culture, Media and Sport), we could spend more on the military and still reduce the level of taxation. Well, one can wish...

"What was going through your head during that second engagement?" a journalist asks me at a press conference the next day.
"A rocket-propelled grenade," I say.
- Private Johnson Beharry VC

I must admit my heart sank when I heard that a remake of the classic, and creepy UK film, The Wicker Man, was coming out. We seem to have a lot of remakes at the moment, prompting thoughts that Hollywood has run dry on creative ideas. I sympathise up to a point with this. The remake of the old Michael Caine/Noel Coward caper, the Italian Job, was an amusing piece of film but not a patch on the original. Flight of the Phoenix was good, but not as good as the original, etc. And yet and yet....the Thomas Crown Affair, starring Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo and Denis Leary, was excellent, in fact an improvement in certain ways on the original, which starred the great Steve McQueen.

I suspect the problem is that when we first see a film, or read a novel, we intend to invest a certain amount emotionally in the experience if is a good one. I can imagine the howls of outrage if someone tries to remake Casablanca, or the African Queen, say. One of the problems of course is that remakes can remove elements deemed politically incorrect. The original Italian Job, for example, took a poke at the older incarnation of the EU, known at the time as the Common Market; it also made fun of Italian crooks and security services, while it also celebrated a sort of camp Britishness and had the wonderful character, Professer Peach, as played by Benny Hill (his character had a penchant for very large women).

Even so, I resist the urge if I can to get snooty about remakes. Peter Jackson, the maestro behind Lord of the Rings, is planning to bring out a new version of the classic war movie, The Dambusters, using modern computer technology to portray how 617 Squadron breached a number of German dams during the war. Jackson is no PC bore and seems determined to pay his respects to the heroisim of the RAF. I am definitely looking forward to the film when it comes out.

In the original movie, the RAF leader Guy Gibson has a black labrador, called Nigger. I will be interested to know if that rather un-PC fact is airbrushed out. Also, it being the 1940s, most of the aircrew should smoke cigarettes like chimneys. Will they be forced to stub out the habit to preserve the sensibilities of 21st Century viewers?

Well shall see.

Report here stating that Israel's response to Hizbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers took Hizbollah by surprise, particularly the extent and ferocity of the IDF action, according to a Hiz deputy leader.

Given the determination of Israel's armed forces to defend the tiny Jewish state over the years against a host of enemies, why some terrorist organisation like Hizbollah should be surprised is, frankly, surprising. In any event, this interview may suggest that Israel's campaign to hammer Hizobollah may not be quite the debacle that some commentators have supposed. The jury is still out on the future of the current Israel administration, however.

If Israel really does accept and implement a ceasefire on Monday, it will have accepted the worst of all possible worlds. If it agrees to an end to the fighting which does not disarm Hezbollah, or even push it behind the Litani River, and does not get a third party force capable of fighting Hezbollah into Southern Lebanon, it would be fair to say Israel has achieved none of its war aims whatsoever. In short, Hezbollah will have won and we will soon be seeing celebrations in the streets across the Islamic world to that effect.

The primary Israeli method of attack, a series of destructive operational level¹ air strikes against Lebanon's infrastructure, only made sense if it was intended to isolate the enemy and dislocate its logistics as an adjunct to a massive and robust attack on the ground with a significant portion of its formidable army, with the intention at crushing Hezbollah as military force.

Otherwise, what was the point of the non-tactical strikes? As Hezbollah already had large numbers of artillery rockets deployed as organic supply with its front line units (demonstrably so), the air interdiction only made sense if Israel was planning an extended campaign for as long as it took to destroy Hezbollah, which means preventing Hezbollah's resupply. Why else blow power-stations, fuel depots, bridges, roads and runways deep into the country rather than just strike tactical targets where Hezbollah is deployed? Bringing the Lebanese transportation system to a standstill was surely done to stop movement of supply so that as Hezbollah formations expended their munitions (a process that would increase as more units were engaged directly by the Israeli army), they would quickly become much less effective due to logistic dislocation. This is 'Air Interdiction 101', the sort of thing military planners have understood since 'Operation Strangle' in Italy in 1944.

But what Israel has done so far is a robust air offensive in support of little more than a series of limited objective raids with only a small fraction of the army. This has not only failed (unsurprisingly) to destroy Hezbollah, it has failed to even displace them far enough back onto Lebanon to prevent them firing rockets into Haifa on an almost daily basis throughout this campaign.

And now, having killed a great many people but still leaving a large number of Hezbollah fighters very much alive and still in possession of both their Katyushas and the positions from which to fire them, the Israeli government plans to stop? Having weathered what Israel threw at them (but not what the Israelis inexplicably failed to throw at them), Hezbollah can, quite justifiably, claim victory and greatly enhance their stature simply by virtue of Israel failed to gain any of its publicly stated war aim.

Can anyone tell me what the hell the Israeli government is thinking?

¹ = I would argue that the attacks against Lebanon's infrastructure were 'operational' (i.e. above tactical but below strategic). A 'strategic' attack would need to be against the supply terminals, which is to say targets in Syria or Iran. I realise this is an arcane issue of military semantics

...of the Bush administration's war on terror by Bill Quick. I find very little to disagree with.

A few excerpts, below the break, for those who need to be convinced to Read the Whole Thing.

Mr. Quick reflects my frustration that we have not been serious with fighting this war. I am not quite sure I can agree with him that we are worse off for having pursued this war because we have done so in a weak-kneed, half-assed way, but we certainly have not done what we could to exterminate the Islamofascist threat, and we are rapidly approaching the day when we will be worse off because it will be a nuclear-armed Islamofascist threat.

I vividly remember on the afternoon of 9/11, I told one of my law partners that I had no doubt that we would see nuclear weapons used before this thing was done. Sadly, five years on, I see no reason to withdraw that prediction.

As succinct and comprehensible a statement as I have seen of why military intervention in Iraq (and elsewhere) is essential to exterminating militant Islamofascism:

[T]he most effective strategy, in fact, the only proven effective strategy, available for waging and winning the war against Islamist fundamentalist terrorism: It would be necessary for us to destroy the regimes that sponsored, armed, trained, supported, protected, and used these Islamist terror organizations. Just as the seemingly ubiquitous communist "revolutionary fronts" all over the world seemed to dry up overnight with the destruction of their sponsor, the Soviet communist regime, removing the regimes in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, and elsewhere that similarly succored a host of Islamist terror organizations would both give us a clear-cut, straightforward strategy, and also give us the standards by which victory would be measured: the destruction of those regimes would signal victory.

His verdict on Bush:

The first administration of the first century of the American Third Millennium will, in my estimation, be remembered as one of the biggest failures of that century. Bush's great failure was, not invading Iraq, but not weathering the adversity that followed through acts of real leadership, and then pressing on with the necessary military destruction of the other regimes he, himself, named as most dangerous five years ago.

A number of bookshops in Britain seem to be selling reproductions of the advisory books that were given to Allied servicemen readying for D-Day in 1944 and for U.S. Army Air Force personnel arriving in Britain in 1942. I bought a copy of the latter and it is, in its way, a wonderful snapshot of how Britain was viewed by Americans more than 60 years ago and makes me wonder if many of the descriptions could still apply. The book is called Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain. Here's a couple of paragraphs:

"A British woman officer or non-commissioned officer can – and often does – give orders to a man private. The men obey smartly and know it is no shame. For British women have proven themselves in this way... Now you know why British soldiers respect the women in uniform. When you see a girl in khaki or air-force blue with a bit of ribbon on her tunic – remember she didn't get it for knitting more socks than anyone else in Ipswich."

"Do not be offender if Britishers do not pay as full respects to national or regimental colours as Americans do. The British do not treat the flag as such an important symbol as we do. But they pay more frequent respect to their national anthem. In peace or war "God Save the King" (to the same tune as "Our America") is played at the conclusion of all public gatherings such as theatre performances. The British consider it bad form not to stand at attention, even if it means missing the last bus. If you are in ahurry, leave before the national anthem is played. That's considered alright."

The book is printed from the original typescript that was used by the War Department in the States. Some of the descriptions now may strike us as a sort of cozy, simplified portrayal, but actually I was rather impressed by the strenuous efforts of the author(s) to describe the privations of a nation at war, its habits, differences and qualities (I love its descriptions of attitudes to sport). It also struck me that the US authorities clearly felt it was necessary to take steps to educate servicemen and women a bit about the people they would be meeting as allies in the war against Hitler. While those who have reprinted the book may think they are making some sort of clever-dick post-modernist point by re-issuing these things, I find them rather moving.

By coincidence, on the same day that I bought the book, I drove up to see friends in Cambridgeshire. About a few miles away from the house of my friends, I passed by a rather neat row of hedges, screening a rather fine little white-washed building. The Stars and Stripes were flying from a masthead. I slowed down and realised that it was one of the cemeteries to commemorate the U.S. aircrews who flew hundreds of missions from the flatlands of East Anglia in aircraft such as B-17 Flying Fortresses or P-51 Mustangs. There were hundreds of such airbases, some of which are now either just strips of busted concrete in a wheatfield, although a few preserved airfields remain, complete with the old control towers and huts. On my father's farm in Suffolk we used to find the odd .50 shell case that had been ejected from a passing aircraft. Chuck Yeager, the legendary U.S. Mustang fighter jock and test pilot, flew from Leiston, a few miles away from my old home.

Some of the men who lie in the soil of Cambridgeshire probably had read that guidebook and wondered about the country they were operating from all those years ago. At a time when cheap anti-American bromides fill up the airwaves and newsprint, it is no bad thing to reflect on the debt we 'Britishers' owe to those who came over to this island in 1942. May they all rest in peace.

Here is a link to a Getty image with the following information:

Caption: Tyre, LEBANON: Rockets fired from Israel are seen falling in the outskirts of the southern Lebanese port city of Tyre, 06 August 2006. Israel's army will carry on fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon until two soldiers, whose capture sparked the conflict last month, are returned, its ambassador to Washington said today. AFP PHOTO/SAMUEL ARANDA (Photo credit should read SAMUEL ARANDA/AFP/Getty Images)
Copyright: 2006 AFP
By/Title: SAMUEL ARANDA/Stringer
Date Created: 6 Aug 2006 12:00 AM
City, State, Country: Tyre, -, Lebanon
Credit: AFP/Getty Images
Collection: AFP
Source: AFP
Date Submitted: 6 Aug 2006 10:44 AM

Take a look and tell me what you think and although I do not claim to be an 'artillery expert', my interpretation of what that image shows is outgoing rockets (i.e. Hezbollah firing at Israel) rather than incoming rockets (i.e. Israel firing on Tyre). My reasoning is as follows... firstly the rockets are burning, suggesting launch rather than impact, secondly the back-blast is visible slightly behind the location of what I take to be the launcher rather than an impact area.

Alternative explanation: the rockets were fired by an Israeli aircraft just out-of-shot (hence rockets are still burning) and are indeed incoming fire. The reason I doubt that is the rockets seem to be producing a large signature suggesting they are long range artillery rockets (i.e. Katyusha) rather than free flight aircraft rockets (which are much smaller, do not produce such impressive flames and whose rockets burn out very quickly)

Why am I interested? Because presumably the stringer, Samuel Aranda, saw this incident (i.e. could clearly see in which direction the rockets were flying) and presumably also created the caption. Is it in fact the truth?

I wrote to Getty images asking for clarification but have received no reply yet. If there are any artillery experts out there I would be keen to hear what they think. As I have said, I am not an expert on the subject but I am sure there must be some folks out there who can confirm either that the caption is most likely correct and I am mistaken, or my interpretation is the more plausible one.

Update 1: Take a look at this image of outgoing Katyusha rockets.

Update 2: Getty have corrected the caption and now admit it was outgoing Hezbollah fire.

Following from my post here, which produced a lot of heated comments (including, I am sorry to say, a few from yours truly), and Perry's 'proportionality' post yesterday, it might be worth taking a few minutes to read this long but worthwhile essay by Christopher Hitchens. Hitch writes about the Allied bombing offensive of the Second World War, the obliteration of cities like Dresden, Hamburg and the subsequent - and controversial - vilification of Bomber Command leader Arthur Harris. I will not try to summarise what Hitchens has to say, which revolves around a new book by English writer A.C. Grayling, but here is a bit towards the end to give some of the flavour:

However, if we are to be allowed alternative historical courses and speculations, there is a "moral" that Grayling overlooks. What if the RAF had been in good enough shape to inflict "terror" on Berlin in the fall of 1939? What if the United States had determined to strike the Imperial Japanese Navy first? What if the League of Nations had decided to stand by the Spanish Republic and Abyssinia, and had pounded Franco's and Mussolini's armies before they could get off the mark?

Those who oppose violence on principle are called pacifists. Those who oppose it until its use is too little and too late, or too much and too late, should be called casuists. Those who try to resist their own despotisms, and who appeal in vain to lazy democracies who are also among the potential victims, and who welcome the eventual arrival of the bombs and planes--I am thinking of some courageous Serbian and Iraqi democrats--should be called our allies now, and in Europe should have been our allies no later than 1933.

Moral crisis is the vile residue of moral cowardice, and Grayling has fully proved this without quite intending to do so. His book is a treatise, not on the dubiety of the retributive, but on the urgency and integrity of the "preemptive."

On a personal note, it enrages me how the area bombing of German towns, for example, was denounced by people with the wisdom of hindsight, although it should be noted that the bombing was questioned at the time and not just by lily-livered peaceniks. As a son of an RAF navigator, I also have to recognise that in Britain, a country isolated in the early years of the war, having lost Singapore, Trobuk, fighting a terrible campaign to avoid starvation against U-boats, that the bombing of German towns and cities was seen as a vital way to hit back. Hitchens does not mention another very good reason: the bombing tied up hundreds of Luftwaffe aircraft that would otherwise have been deployed on the Eastern front, and forced the Nazis to tie up a lot of manpower and material to deal with air attacks.

Where does all this take us to what is going on in the Middle East now? To repeat a point made in my previous article, countries like Israel are entitled to do what is necessary to prevent their own extinction. For to be clear about this: Hizbollah and their backers want Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth. So it is only right that the country should do what is deemed necessary to prevent its destruction, even if that involves loss of civilian life. But I make no apologies for re-stating my revulsion at those who claim that there is "no such thing as an innocent civilian" in order to justify use of massive military force. There are plenty of good arguments for using massive force, however awful, but dehumanising millions of victims beforehand by claiming "Muslims are all alike," or whatever, is not one of them.

Commentators who have been lambasting Israel for reacting 'disproportionately' in its military reaction to Hezbollah strike me as making a mistake as to what 'proportionality' really means within the context of a war. If a man hiding behind a wall fires a rifle at you, proportionality does not mean you must only fire a rifle back at them... it means you should only attack them with enough force to kill the enemy hiding behind a wall, which may well mean returning fire with a 120mm tank round or a 500 kg HE bomb. A nuclear warhead would be 'disproportionate'.

I would argue that Just War Theory's notions for 'proportionality' only makes sense as meaning proportional to the imperative of effectively attacking a legitimate target, not proportional to a legitimate target's specific actions.

Diana Hsieh, a hardline objectivist of the Big-O variety, thinks libertarians like Tom Palmer, whom she cites in an article on her Noodlefood site here, are losing their nerve if they worry about attacks on civilian targets in places like Beirut. She writes:

Obviously, wars cannot be fought without harm to civilian populations. Governments and their militaries do not exist in some separate dimension from civilians, such that they might be uniquely targeted by an invading force. Enemy governments are thoroughly integrated into the territory over which they rule, depending upon its wealth, hospitals, roads, factories, trains, farms, ports, industry, people, and more. That's why quickly and decisively eliminating the threat posed by an enemy nation cannot but require the bombing of so-called "civilian" targets.

Moreover, without active support and/or tacit submission from a majority of the civilian population, no government could maintain its grip on power. That's why the vast majority of the population of an aggressive enemy nation are not morally innocent bystanders. The sometimes-awful luck of genuine innocents in wartime, such as young children or active dissidents, is a terrible tragedy. However, the party responsible is not the nation defending itself but rather all those who made such a defense necessary, particularly the countrymen of the innocents complicit in or supportive of the aggression of their nation.

I am very troubled by that last paragraph. Hsieh seems to be saying that civilians in a country that is led by a brutal government are, unless they do everything to rebel, more or less complicit in the crimes of that government. Therefore, they have little or no excuse to complain if bombs come raining down on their homes.

This way of reasoning involves, by an ironic twist, to a sort of collectivist "guilt" shared across a whole populace. If a family living say, in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany have not actively sought to overthrow those governments, then they are somehow not terribly deserving of our compassion (Hsieh, to be fair, seems to exempt children and one or two other groups from this).

I entirely defend Israel's right to do what is necessary to defend itself from terror groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, and alas, its actions may lead, inevitably, to the loss of civilian life. I consider myself pretty much pro-Israeli and have nothing but contempt for the bogus moral equivalence drawn in certain parts of the media between the actions of the Israeli armed forces and terror groups. But I have a real problem with the line of argument presented here by Hsieh. The ends do not always justify the means, and as moral agents, it is surely right to minimise loss of innocent life as far as possible if that can be done. For consider this: if the western powers had really thrown off all moral constraints about foreign populations in the recent past, then much of the Middle East would be a radioactive wasteland.

The Hezbollah missiles landing on civilians deep within Israel change everything. I would suspect that the Syrians and Iranians who have supplied Hezbollah with the weapons to effectively attack Israel's cities will soon find Israel's fury directed against them directly. If we start seeing chemical or even radiological warheads, which are by no means beyond possibility, the Israeli reaction scarecely bears thinking about.

Will the US and UK get dragged in? Well given that Syria and Iran are both also integral to the insurgency against the US and UK in Iraq, it may well be in the interests of the allies to strip away the fiction that these nations are not a key enabler of their woes in Iraq. A wider Middle Eastern war would open all manner of options against the manufacturers and suppliers of the weapons killing US and UK forces. The upside/downside could be considerable. Roll the dice.

Pondering putting your spare cash onto petroleum futures? You had better do it quick.

The Israeli state appears to be doing the same thing that the British state does when it accidentally shoots the wrong person. The latest horror in which a Palestinian family were hit by a shell whilst on a beach is a case in point. The Israeli military is now claiming that it was not a naval shell that had caused the unintended deaths but rather some unexplained mine or old buried shell in the sand which just happened to go off at or about the same time as an Israeli gunboat was shelling a terrorist target in the Gaza strip.

Well that story is coming unravelled and it is a marvel that they thought any reasonable person would believe that during a bombardment from the sea over the heads of the innocent victims, this explosion just 'happened' by complete coincidence.

Any critical observer should realise that the Israeli military had no interest in killing the hapless Palestinians who died when one of their rounds went short, so why not admit it was a terrible error and move on?

All concocting fairy tales does is confirm the prejudices of those who see the official Israeli line as being fundamentally untrustworthy. Hamas and their useful idiots in the west will not believe anything done by the Israeli state is not done out of pure malevolence regardless of the facts, so they can be ignored. Israel's ethno-nationalist cheerleading squad will just assume anything Israel does under any circumstances is completely justified regardless of the facts, so they too can be ignored. However between those two poles of mindless unreason exists a large group of people who tend to judge things on the basis of 'reasonableness' and the likely facts.

What the Israeli military spokesman should have said was: "Whilst firing on a legitimate terrorist target, one of our shells went short. It is unclear if this was due to a firing error or a defective round, and as a result some innocent bystanders were killed. We are truly sorry that happened and we wish like hell that the sons of bitches we really were trying to kill did not keep putting us in the position of having to do things like this".

Mistakes happen and in war, mistakes cost lives. Admit the truth and move on because in the long run it actually helps your cause if people have reason to believe what you say.

Tim Blair is one of the first bloggers to note the killing of Abu Musab Zarqawi - the target of an American bombing raid. I feel a little ghoulish celebrating the death of anyone, however this is brilliant news. Zarqawi's untouchability had grown into a legend; he represented an on-the-ground inspiration for many would-be jihadis. Many touted him as the true head of al-Qaeda, vital in his position and leading from the front - in contrast to Osama bin Laden - the largely sidelined nominal leader. The removal of this valuable piece from the game is a major coup for American forces.

UPDATE : Iraqi blog IraqTheModel claims

Zarqawi's identity was confirmed through his fingerprints.

Reports of his death seem a lot more unequivocal this time, as opposed to earlier claims that turned out to be false. The man is almost certainly dead.

Ok, now this is both cool and a bit wierd.

US Army Generals have been much discussed lately, and not for the right reasons. For the most part, discussion has been based on the criticism of US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, by a faction of recently retired officers who have lost confidence in his handling of the insurgency. Discussion has taken two tacks- firstly the etiquiette of senior officers criticising their political superiors, and then the actual merits or otherwise of Rumsfeld. I haven't been following recent events in Iraq that closely. However for a good description of the case for the prosecution (of Rusmfeld) The Belgravia Despatch has been all over the story.

However, my ruminations were triggered by a story in the Daily Telegraph where American commanders have been criticised for their style and operational methods by British Brigadier Alan Sharpe. There is a long and not entirely honourable tradition of British officers looking down on US Army commanders, going back to the Second World War if not earlier, motived partly by the different traditions of the two Armies, and partly by envy. However, after thinking about this story, I think the thrust of British views on the US Army might have a point.

Since the Second World War, the British Army has changed radically. It has changed from being a force which was designed to defeat an enemy army on a battlefield to a force designed as often as not to keep the peace, and to use military means to create a political climate in which a political solution can be used to solve disputed issues. This means that there has been a great deal of change in the way in which the British Army operates. The United States Army, however, has not changed in this way. It remains designed mostly to defeat an enemy army in battle. It is frighteningly good at this job, as witnessed by the mauling it gave the Iraqi Army in the invasion of 2003. However it is not so good at being a force that uses military means to create the desired political climate.

This is not to be critical of the US Army. It is simply a rumination about why the British Army is perceived as being better then the US Army at one particular style of military operations. The British Army has evolved in this way because it suits the strategic requirements of the United Kingdom to do so. However, in the long term, it is likely that the US Army is going to be increasingly involved in Iraq style counter-insurgencies. If the US political establishment continues to require the US Army to serve as a sort of 'firefighting' role in strategic hotspots around the world, then we might see the US Army evolve into a force with an operating ethos more in the style of the British Army.

I was talking to a civil engineer friend of mine today. I asked him what he knew about the vulnerability of underground facilities, such as those rumoured to be under construction in Iran as part of their nuclear programme. He told me that one does not need to go that deep underground to make such facilities impervious even to a surface level nuclear strike. The flipside is that once you get inside the underground caverns, it is fairly simple to demolish them. If Iran's nuclear programme is made up of significant subterranean facilities, any effort to end the programme using military means will require a ground offensive of some kind. A concerted air offensive is not going to be enough - bodies on the ground will be necessary to infiltrate and destroy the facilities.

Assuming the intelligence about Iran's underground laboratories is correct, thoroughly disarming Iran will require more than the easy solution we saw used against Serbia in 1998/99. It remains to be seen whether the United States has the stomach for another ground war in the Middle East - a war they would probably fight alone or in concert with Israel as a (very) junior partner. Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that some are questioning American resolve on the issue. Unfortunately, the possibility of Iran successfully acquiring nuclear weapons is far from remote.

Sometimes people are shown ink blots in the hope of finding clues as to their mental characteristics. If the ink blots remind you of the 'wrong' things then you may have problems.

However, a different form of "ink blot madness" has been doing the rounds for some time: The ink blot strategy.

The ink blot strategy holds that the British won in Malaya (now Malaysia and the independent city state of Singapore) not by killing, capturing or driving out the communists, but by taking bits of Malaya and making life "so good" in these bits that people "did not want to fight the British any more" and then expanding these bits "like ink blots". By copying this strategy we can all win in Iraq - or so it is claimed.

There are various problems with this idea. Firstly it is not what the British army did in Malaya - whatever some people may say they did. In reality the men went out and fought the enemy (in the jungle or elsewhere). Certainly there were 'protected villages' and so on, but Malaya was a fight (it was not a welfare project).

Further the British did not give vast amounts of aid to Malaya. Britain did not have this sort of money to give away in the early 1950's and it would not have really improved economic life anyway (more on that below). In so far as economic life did improve in Malaya during the "Emergency" British aid was not the real reason.

And, of course, the (mostly ethnic Chinese) communists in Malays were not fighting for "better socio-economic conditions" anyway - they were fighting for communism (hint, that is why they were called 'communists'). Try asking someone who knows something about Vietnam how all the welfare statism there did not make the VC or NVA vanish (nor was 'support' for them among civilians based upon poor social or economic conditions, such support was based on terror - you helped the communists or you and your family would be killed)

How can someone be so plain daft as to suppose that the reason someone becomes a suicide bomber in Iraq (whether they are from Iraq or from outside) is because they turned on the light one day and it did not go on. "Oh if only the electricity and the water supply worked better, then I would not strap a lot of explosives to myself and go blow up a bus full of school children".

Also physics teaches us that it is less difficult to destroy that to create. The terrorists left undisturbed (under the ink blot strategy) in 'their' bits of Iraq will find it less difficult to come in and blow things up in 'ink blot land' than the U.S. Army (or anyone else) will find it to build nice services.

The ink blots will not 'spread, they will shrink. Going on the defensive is sign that one has no real will to win - and would mean that soldiers being killed would be dying for nothing (as the poltical choice to give up had already been made - sound familar?).

Then there is the assumption that government can make the lives of people Iraq "so good they will not fight", it is not just that the terrorists are fighting because they would like nicer 'public services' (which is absurd), but the whole idea that the government can make so many millions of people have such happy lives.

One does not have to a libertarian to see the absurdity of this idea. The government can not (for example) make the lives of Compton in greater Los Angeles. "So good they will not want to fight" (after so many decades of welfare schemes and 'urban renewal' schemes) - so how is going to that in Iraq?

Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, the 'ink blot strategy' is stupid. And whoever the military officers and politicans who are behind may be, it is time they shut up. If the war is justified then fighting should continue (i.e. the enemy, especially the leadership, should be hunted down and killed or caputured), and if the war is not justified then the troops should come home.

But there is no 'socio-economic road' to victory.

U.S.-based libertarian blogger Jim Henley is none too impressed with the latest story in the Weekly Standard by one of its correspondents, Stephen F. Hayes, to the effect that there are loads of documents proving that Saddam's Iraq trained thousands of Islamic terrorists. Hayes has been mining this particular seam for years. He recently published a book focusing on the alleged terror link to Saddam.

I am not quite as skeptical as Henley is about the credibility of what Hayes says(Jim does a great line in snarkiness). At the very least, if Hayes is half right, then it does rather undermine one of the standard tropes of the opponents of the war: Saddam was not in cahoots with radical Islamic terror, no way, nothing to look at here folks, etc. In any event, it would be good if all the documents that Hayes talks about could be put into the public domain so we can nail down this controversy once and for all.

This story seems to be making the rounds...

The US military said Wednesday it was investigating a report carried on an Australian television network that claimed American soldiers in Afghanistan burned the bodies of two Taliban fighters and then used the action to taunt other Islamic militants

...and my response is why oh why is this news? Just to state the obvious, the Taliban bodies in question were dead prior to being burned, so who cares?

I guess is that if they had not burned those bodies, the same people making a big deal of this would be penning articles with the title:

US forces start epidemic in Afghanistan!

As for this being an 'affront to Islam', if the object was to 'smoke out' the enemy by enraging them, again... so what? The job of US forces is to KILL members of the Taliban and I fail to see why it is unacceptable to outrage their sensibilities and perhaps even hurt their feeling prior to punching them full of 5.56mm holes.

I have no idea how events in Iraq will eventually play out. I fervently hope that this tortured country can move to a more peaceful direction but the current violence and mayhem makes such a prospect seem pretty distant. One thing that has always struck me is how Saddam has never gotten sufficient blame for bringing the current mayhem on to his own country. So it is interesting to read this smart passage by Russell Roberts over at the Cafe Hayek blog:

I don't understand how the failure to find weapons of mass destruction makes the war unjustified. It's not like Bush made up the idea of WMD. Saddam Hussein is the guy you ought to be mad at. Saddam Hussein acted as if he had or was working on nuclear capability. He's the guy who employed nuclear scientists. He's the guy who convinced the UN that he wanted nukes. He's the guy who resisted weapons inspections. He's the guy who said you can look over here but not over there. Why did he do all these things? Either because he actually had nuclear capability or was close to it, or because he wanted to fool people into thinking he was more important than he was. He managed to fool Bill Clinton, the United Nations, George Bush and Israel into thinking he had a desire for WMD. It appears now to have been something of a ruse. Probably. Should Bush have ignored the behavior of Saddam on the grounds that the whole thing was probably a hoax to enhance his self-image? I don't think so. That certainly turned out to be a mistake with Osama. His talk wasn't cheap.

Exactly. 20/20 hindsight is all very well, but it is not much use in making credible foreign policy.

If the Iraqi local administration in Basra was, as claimed, about to hand over a pair of captured SAS under-cover soldiers that were in their custody to a hostile militia, then it seems that the escalation of tension and violence in Basra should be escalated further... by the British army.

Lesson One of occupying a country has to be to let any local administration know that it is the occupying army that is ultimately in control. The logic is clear: if we are there until Iraq (or whatever comes after the break-up of a unitary Iraq) has been sufficiently stabilised, then we must expect the army to use force to stabilise things, and that is a euphemism for being willing to kill people who oppose that process or interfere with military operations. If the local administration has indeed been infiltrated by enemies with antithetical aims who are cooperating with the enemy, then politics is probably not the answer at this juncture, force is. Unmake the local administration and replace it with another one at bayonet point. Show people in Iraq that some options are simply not on the menu. This is not a normal functioning civil society and should not be treated as one, any more than post-war West Germany was until acceptable institutions were in place to allow it to function as a viable post-totalitarian nation.

If Britain's government ever wants to extract its forces at some point in the future without leaving behind something almost as bad as what was there before, it needs to be ruthless and none too squeamish. If this is a revelation to the UK government, I cannot imagine what it was thinking when this whole process started. When the decision to use force is made, use it effectively and resolutely, giving the Army the resources and support it needs to prevail... or if Tony Blair is not willing to do that, he had no business using force in the first place. What else was he expecting?

It is splendid news that the trapped Russian submariners have been rescued from the dreadful fate that overtook the Kursk a few years ago. Fortunately the Russians did not stand on their pride as they did the last time they suffered a sub-aquatic disaster. This time they seem to have fairly quickly accepted the help that was offered to them by many navies around the world.

Although the Royal Navy's robotic sub was the prime mover of this rescue, it was really a very international effort with the USA and Japan providing vital assistance in the rescue. Hopefully this more enlightened approach by the Russian government and military authorities admitting they could not effect the rescue themselves is a sign of institutional change at the top, but the cynic in me wonders if it was not just a domestic political calculation that the embarrassment at having to have their submariners rescued by Western naval personnel represented less political damage than another scene on the television of angry family members on the dockside grieving over their dead sons.

The oldest "mini-aircraft carrier" used by Britain's Royal Navy, HMS Invincible, is being retired from service. The vessel, from which Sea Harrier jets can operate - as well as helicopters - is more than 20 years old and was used in the Falklands War, among other theatres of operation.

As I said a while back, I have no ideological issue one way or the other about the exact composition of our armed forces, which must change with the times and respond to different threats to this country. Coming from a bit of a navy family myself and being an enthusiast over our island's naval history, I am nevertheless the first to realise that sentiment must not trump hard calculation when it comes to manning our defences. But it bothers me that our navy has been reduced to a level that makes independent military action by this country a logistical impossibility. It is probably quite unlikely that we could mount a Falklands-style operation on our own again. The present government wants, so it is reported, to build two new massive carriers but as is usually the case in these matters, the likely date of construction seems to stretch into the horizon, rather like the prospect of England beating Australia at cricket.

In an age when we fret about islamofascist psychos letting off bombs on the Tube, it may be tempting to think that the Senior Service's role is little more than to patrol the coasts and put on commemorations about the Battle of Trafalgar. How complacent that would be. Given that we are an island nation, still reliant on shipping for a huge amount of our economic and physical wellbeing, such an attitude is fraught with danger. We could run the risk of cutting the fleet so hard that we lose the inner core of skilled men and women needed for the service.

With the exception of anarcho-capitalists, even the most hardcore classical liberal realises that defence is a baseline requirement for a proper state. And for an island nation like Britain with a long coastline, that means having a workable navy.

Piracy in the Straits of Malacca has been a serious problem for many years now and shipping companies have grown tired of waiting for governments in the region to do something effective to stamp it out.

So they are hiring private companies to do it instead. Sounds like an exciting line of work.

Whilst watching the BBC news' report about the horrific terrorist attacks against Shi'ite civilians in Iraq, I was astonished to hear the following uttered:

Ominously, there are increasing calls for locals to take up arms and defend their communities.

Excuse me? These poor people have just had the centre of their community blown out and many people killed but the desire to defend themselves is denounced by the BBC as... ominous? It might tell you something about what is happening in Iraq but it also tells you quite a lot about the mindset at the BBC.

It seems to me that locals taking up arms to defend themselves against terrorism directly are exactly what the USA should be encouraging whole heartedly. The fact is that people will start doing so regardless of the wishes of the USA if the security situation continues to deteriorate, so not only would it be pointless to try and stop them, why not make a virtue of necessity and show that the occupying powers welcome Iraqis becoming more self-reliant and willing to confront these murdering bastards themselves?

Iraqi territorial para-militaries could be quite an asset fighting the insurgency precisely because they are not going to be centrally directed, at least to some extent. Counter-insurgency by its nature relies on more than just firepower, which the US has in abundance. It also relies on local knowledge and a willingness to be ruthless, something pissed-off locals could certainly provide. The idea that Al Qaeda can only be fought in Iraq 'top down' (i.e. directed from Washington using US and Iraqi government forces) is probably a mistake, so arming the people who are taking the brunt of the attacks seems a pretty sensible way to go.

USAF personnel in the UK have been told to stay out of London because of the bombings. Sorry but this is not just a propaganda gift to the enemy, it is just plain daft.

Firstly, the US was not the target of these bombs, Londoners were. Secondly, London is always full of American visitors and US military folk do not really stand out from the crowd all that much. In fact Americans are probably more likely to form identifiable 'target clusters' in the rural communities around the US bases in the UK.

It was a terrible atrocity but we have seen it all before in London at the hands of the IRA, so please, telling US service personnel to avoid London is foolish and plays to the often held stereotype of Americans as easily scared by such incidents. Methinks USAF people are made of sterner stuff and more than capable of assessing the risks for themselves.

Yours truly, my fiancee plus regular Samizdata commenter Julian Taylor, have returned from a fine and patriotic day out in Portsmouth for the "International Festival of the Sea", an event which at its core commemorates the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. Trafalgar in fact was fought in October, but the organisers are no doubt exploiting what passes for the English summer to put on all manner of events for sailing nuts like myself.

There has already been a fair amount of media coverage of the events linked to the Trafalgar bicentennial, although arguably the BBC has underclubbed its coverage, giving more attention it seems to Wimbledon tennis and the Live8 music event. For anyone who wants to know the human cost of defending this nation's liberties, however, understanding what Lord Nelson and his forces achieved is important. As an island nation, our livelihood is crucially dependent on our peaceable enjoyment of the high seas.

For more than 100 years after Nelson crushed the Franco-Spanish forces off Cadiz, the Royal Navy dominated the world's oceans, enjoying a naval mastery to an extent not seen until the modern U.S. navy and its vast carrier fleets. Nelson instilled in the Senior Service an esprit de corps, a sense of confidence that was to carry on until the First World War, at which point Germany and Japan began to challenge Britain's mastery.

There are many excellent studies of Nelson's life and achievements, and I would recommend in particular Alan Schom's study of the countdown to Trafalgar, which gives credit not just to Norfolk's most famous son but also many of the other actors of the time, who ensured that the Royal Navy was raised to a high pitch of excellence. Tom Pocock's biography of Nelson is also a rattling good read of this brilliant, occasionally vain and charismatic man.

Samizdata readers may remember my article about this amazing little battle. It clearly showed what happens when irregulars ambush real soldiers.

With great pleasure I now report a follow up to the story: three members of this fine bunch, Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein and Spc. Jason Mikhave have been awarded the Silver Star.

Well done and congratulations guys!

As a young kid I remember all those old war films portraying the various RAF air raids on Nazi-held targets like the Ruhr dams or the Norwegian heavy-water plants. The daring achievements of 617 squadron (The Dambusters, as they became known) are part of the folklore of military aviation history. I wonder how many people, however, have heard of a raid that probably helped save the world, at least temporarily, from a serious nuclear threat? I am talking about the bombing of Saddam's nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981 by the Israeli Air Force.

In a recently published book, Roger W. Claire recounts the tale of how an elite group of pilots trained for the raid that hit the nuclear plant, recording along the way Saddam's massive programme to build a facility able to produce the materials for nukes. Even though the F-16 planes used in the raid are a light-year away in sophistication from the Lancaster or Mosquito bombers employed in WW2 raids, the pilots still endured terrific strains on mind and body in carrying out the missions deep inside hostile territory, knowing they faced a high chance of not returning.

Israel's bombing of the nuclear facility drew worldwide condemnation at the time from governments including that of Ronald Reagan, which seems monumentally ironic now. Indeed vice president Dick Cheney was later to thank the Israeli government during the 1991 Gulf War for the raid.

What does this story say about pre-emption as a doctrine? Strict supporters of international law might argue that what the IAF did was illegal, that a sovereign nation like Iraq was entitled to develop weapons and unless there was demonstrable proof of malign intent, no such action would be justified. It remains a point of debate among libertarians, including scribes for this blog.

But it is clear to me, in my view, from reading this and other accounts, that Saddam, both from his actions and his own rhetoric, intended to use nukes to intimidate his neighbours into surrendering territory and the threat posed to Israel from a man fancying himself as a pan-Arab leader was no myth. It was real.

The actions of the Israeli Air Force have not gotten the praise they deserve, in my view. In considering what might have been, it is worth quoting at length from the following influential book by Kenneth M. Pollack:

Although the alternatives are considerably more costly, deterrence is the riskiest of all the policy options available to the United States. We would be betting that we could deter a man who has proven to be hard (at times impossible) to deter and who seems to believe that if he possessed nuclear weapons, it is the United States that would be deterred... The use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world would be terrible. Their use on the Persian Gulf oil fields; against Tel Aviv, Ankara, Riyadh, or another regional city; or against U.S. military forces in the region is unimaginable... Beyond this, Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons has the potential to push the world into a second Great Depression while killing millions of people.
The Threatening Storm, 2002

The above quotation helped turn yours truly, a formerly fairly isolationist type of libertarian, into a reluctant supporter of the pre-emption doctrine embraced by George W. Bush. Although the failure to find WMDs in Iraq has shown that Saddam's threat was not imminent - though possibly inevitable - there can be no doubt that the monster harboured a long desire to get and develop a substantial nuclear weapons programme which would have had incalculable consequences.

The British Army is making a new regiment operational with a dedicated anti-terrorist mission in mind, called the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. Much of the manpower will come from 2 Para bn and 14 Intelligence coy:

CGS statement 1st April

The SRR will draw personnel from existing capabilities and recruit new volunteers, both male and female, from serving members of the Armed Forces where necessary. Officers are keen to recruit those of Middle Eastern or Mediterranean appearance, as well as Muslims and members of ethnic minorities. Priority at recruitment must be given to those able to infiltrate or blend in with Islamic terror groups, rather than to their fitness or fighting capabilities.

There has been chatter about the unit from irrepressible insiders since the middle of last year (the name Reconnaissance and Surveillance Regiment was mooted) but the firm news is hitting the mainstream media now that the unit is going operational.

The badge seems to me to be referencing the Artists' Rifles insignia, which seems appropriate give the Artists' Rifles special forces lineage.

It is late but I simply must share this tale with you.

The MP's crossed the kill zone and then turned up an access road at a right angle to the ASR and next to the field full of enemy fighters. The three vehicles, carrying nine MPs and one medic, stopped in a line on the dirt access road and flanked the enemy positions with plunging fire from the .50 cal and the SAW machinegun (Squad Automatic Weapon). In front of them, was a line of seven sedans, with all their doors and trunk lids open, the getaway cars and the lone two story house off on their left.

The battle results are described later:

Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24 heavily armed enemy, wounded 6 (two later died), and captured one unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, 6x RPG launchers w/ 16 rockets, 13x RPK machineguns, 3x PKM machineguns, 40 hand grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-rd AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts of 2500 rds of PK ammo.

The story has probably been covered in the US. We all know how knowledgeable most journalists are about military matters... so read a real battle report. It is really quite an awesome little vignette. It shows just how good our military folk are at their job.

One of the current controversies around the war on terror is how to treat the prisoners. Dale Franks at the excellent Questions and Observations blog gets it pretty much right, I think.

My preferred method of dealing with these terror prisoners would be to get two captains and a major together as a tribunal, declare them to be unlawful combatants, and put them in front of a firing squad. Now, maybe, because we're nice guys, we could let them know that if any of them give us verifiable, useful information, then we'll commute their sentences, and won't shoot them. Otherwise, however, it's a blindfold and a last cigarette for the lot of 'em.

The difference of course, is that doing so would be legal. It would be part of the accepted customs of warfare that have been generally agreed upon for over a century. Torturing or beating them to death, without even the convenient fiction of legality, is not.

I found very little to quibble with in his excellent essay on the subject.

This story does not inspire a lot of confidence in the current Coalition effectiveness of dealing with islamists and sundry Baathist dead-enders in Iraq.

Some 22 people have been killed and many more wounded after a rocket attack on a U.S. military base in the northern town of Mosul. A grim day. Now, call me a pajama strategist, but I wonder whether it ought to be possible to make some use of the tremendous technological advantages of America's modern army in defending soldiers against such attacks on their own military encampments. No, I am not going to make the mistake of supposing that we can create the 'perfect' military. I am aware that all organisations, even relatively well-run ones, have their weak spots, and that includes the armed forces of the West. But it does stick in the craw that a group of servicemen having a meal can end up being killed by a bunch of insurgents running around with a few rocket launchers a few thousand yards off.

I have been looking around a few websites for possible enlightenment on what can be done. DefenceTech blog gives some insight into how ordinary servicemen and women are improvising their own techniques, including piecemeal bits of engineering, to make their vehicles and equipment less vulnerable to attack. It goes to show that crushing the insurgents is not just about the fancy stuff like flying an Apache helicopter. Improvisation has its part to play.

As an aside, it makes me wonder how those critics beating up Donald Rumsfeld at the moment would have written about the calibre of F. D. Roosevelt's defence chiefs 50 years ago, during the Battle of the Ardennes, better known as the Battle of the Bulge. Andrew Sullivan might have been calling for Eishenhower's head on a stick by now.

December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbour attack.

The image says it all.

I hear the term "Anglosphere" as meaning that there is some community of the English-speaking nations on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. But when I come across this site, I feel like I am living in a foreign country to Americans.

Trying to list all the reasons why Adopt a Sniper is definitely not an English website would take hours. And that is a shame.

[via Instapundit]

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row by row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard among the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe;
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If yea break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

- John McCrae

In my office today in the City, at 11 o'clock, on the 11th of November, hundreds of us switched off our phones, stilled our keyboards, took our eyes off our spreadsheets, and marked two minutes' silence for the men and women killed in defence of this country.

A lot is written about what Poppy Day ought to mean, but for me, the son of a former RAF aircraft navigator, cousin-in-law of a fine member of the US Air Force and descendant of two Royal Navy commanders, the meaning is very clear. I would not now be able to blog my inconsequential libertarian thoughts without the sacrifices made by others. It is as simple as that.