Graduate programs in political science and Middle East Studies have already begun to see a steady flow of applicants back from Iraq (including, among many others, my research assistant from last year). I expect that over the next decade, this will turn into a flood as smart, young veterans look to put their experiences into a broader perspective and to apply their hard-won granular knowledge to broader academic and policy problems.  (And not only military veterans — there are plenty of civilians, contractors, and NGO workers who have worked in Iraq as well.) Most will pursue MA degrees, while some percentage will decide to continue on to a PhD I think this an unequivocally good thing — and I wonder if people have given serious thought to how it might change the field of Middle East studies.

It’s a fascinating question and one that we in London should be thinking about -  identifying the young up-and-coming MA/PhD students and helping them find their way into think tanks, NGOs and government service.

It reminds me of a story I have been told by numerous military folk about a  young lance corporal on his Junior Command Course in Brecon. The story goes that a senior NCO was giving a lecture on counterinsurgency and spent much of his time describing the campaigns in Malaya, Oman and Northern Ireland. During the Q&A session the young lance corporal put his hand up and asked the senior NCO a question about Afghanistan and Iraq. The senior NCO couldn’t answer the question – his only experience, he said, was  in Northern Ireland, so he asked the assembled group who had had experience in Afghanistan and Iraq – almost everyone raised their hands… soon the senior NCO was listening to tactics learnt in the fields of Helmand and from the streets of Basra.

Afghanistan and Iraq have had a profound impact on the British Armed Services – men and women in their twenties and early thirties have been deployed seven or eight times which, in turn,  is having a major impact on the culture of the armed forces. A generation of young officers and NCOs who have fought in Helmand and Southern Iraq now look up to their seniors (Staff Sergeants/ Lt Col’s* above) who’s only experience of warfare and conflict resolution may have been on the training fields of Germany, Canada or Thetford. It’s crucial therefore that the armed forces suck this experience up, promote those individuals who have proven themselves on the ground and not stifle innovation and change as new strategies and tactics are learnt and taken on -  in other words and as Paul Cornish describes not let the armed forces melt into strategic decay by failing to adapt, learn and move forward. As Thomas Friedman argues in a recent op-ed:

All those deployments have left us with a deep cadre of officers with experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, now running both wars  …  They know every mistake that has been made, been told every lie, saw their own soldiers killed by stupidity, figured out solutions and built relationships with insurgents, sheikhs and imams on the ground that have given the best of them a granular understanding of the “real” Middle East that would rival any Middle East studies professor.

The Ministry of Defence has kicked off a strategic defence review. It would be a fascinating experiment and potentially hugely valuable exercise if the three services could identify a handful of experienced Officers and NCOs to write their own paper on the future of the armed forces – with a view of publishing it in one of the many defence academic journals – or even run a one day conference where they present their views…

Inside the military Generation Y has reservoirs of experience and knowledge to tap into. Senior Commanders should openly embrace this potential and allow these ideas and discussions to take place. The old guard’s time is nearly over. May be it’s time to hand over the controls.

* Senior Commanders are being deployed into theatre – the point here is that their collective experience is less and arguably less helpful than the experience of those junior NCOs / officers who have yo yo’d backwards and forwards between the UK and Iraq and Afghanistan and will become the next generation of leaders.

Spotted in The Atlantic h/t Ryan G.

And others are joining in too… see RFE’s This Week on Facebook

Some knowledge of physics is, apparently, essential… more here

So you might have expected the speech to ruffle a few feathers, go further than David Cameron’s Liberal conservatism speech in Islamabad, even set out a new vision or concept that might spark further debate and yet… it wasn’t to be. The speech provoked no more than a whimper from the papers: The FT highlighted the opposition plans to downgrade EU ties , The Guardian asked whether the Tories have a real foreign policy? Reuters felt the Conservatives were arguing for a less interventionist Britain while The Daily Telegraph led with news that the Conservatives wouldn’t shrink from tough defence decisions. Finally, the Chief Foreign Commentator of The Times felt the speech ‘strikes a realistic tone on Britain’s place in the world ‘ and awarded the shadow foreign secretary 6/10 and a silver star.

Using Global Dashboard’s in-house foreign policy speech check-list everything was here:
Call for a National Security Council Check
Quote David Kilcullen Check
Describe the world as uncertain Check
Reference state failure, terrorism, changing nature of conflict (in that order) Check
Describe effects of climate change on failing states Check
Argue that the EU should be enlarged to include the Balkans and Turkey but leave out how the UK would influence a larger European Union Check
Call for reform of international institutions Check

In his conclusion William Hague said:

My argument today has been that it will become more difficult over time for Britain to exert on world affairs the influence which we are used to… to do so will be to act not only in our national interest but in the enlightened national interest…  for we have a responsibility to others as well as ourselves. Britain will not disengage from trying to shape global events. In trying to create and maintain a more peaceful world we will always be at the forefront. But we will so position and prepare ourselves that if the skies darken and new storms arise we will be ready for them.

Tony Blair said something similar when he was PM, Gordon Brown too. Paddy Ashdown and George Robertson argued along similar lines recently. In other words, British foreign policy looks like it will head on precisely the same course as the previous decade, which for internationalists and interventionists is no bad thing.

Yet the issue at the heart of Hague’s speech was the lack of drive or ambition – the idea, implicit in his speech, that nations can only ever respond to events – never instigate change.

Finally there was one curious passage that stood out and which I think was the most interesting part of the Shadow Foreign Secretary speech. Tucked away was the following:

The citizens of Britain have always been restless in trying to improve the wider world and global in our outlook.

That is a pretty bold statement. But I wonder how true it is, especially when polling indicates the public appetite for adventures overseas isn’t that strong and there are signs that the downturn is beginning to undermine previously strong public support for aid. It also contrasts with something that Tony Blair argued three years ago, when he argued that:

The British people are reluctant global citizens. We must make them confident ones.

Which is it – are we Brits restless in trying to improve the wider world or reluctant global citizens? Was it that the British public had had enough of Blair’s role on the international stage or that Blair wanted the UK to become a truly global hub – for business – innovation -  influence on the world stage but never succeeded.  Judging by this speech today William Hague has decided that Britain’s best approach is to drift – after all it will be in our national interest…

We will have a national security council under a Conservative government which will ensure all these different departments and all these different activities are wired in closely together.

Sure – it’s the wiring that’s the issue.