Over on his Middle East Blog , Marc Lynch asks whether the Iraq war will change how scholars study the Middle East. It’s a question he has been pondering for sometime since taking over as director of the Middle East Studies program at the Elliott School of International Affairs:
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.
July 30, 2009 at 10:44 am | More on North America, UK | Comments Off
Spotted in The Atlantic h/t Ryan G.
And others are joining in too… see RFE’s This Week on Facebook
July 29, 2009 at 12:21 pm | More on Off topic | Comments Off
Some knowledge of physics is, apparently, essential… more here
July 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm | More on Off topic | 1 Comment
Yesterday William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, gave a speech in London setting out what British foreign policy might look like under a Conservative government. Judging by the crowd at IISS , the pre-briefing before the speech, and bearing in mind the drought of Tory ideas on national security to date, this was an important moment for the Conservative Party – this was a blueprint.
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…
July 22, 2009 at 6:24 pm | More on UK | Comments Off
Interesting. 55 per cent of Chatham House members (and, one assumes, visitors to the website) believe the conflict in Afghanistan will become ‘another Vietnam’.
July 13, 2009 at 1:57 pm | More on Conflict and security | Comments Off
Andrew Mitchell, Shadow International Development Secretary on BBC News earlier :
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.
July 13, 2009 at 1:01 pm | More on Cooperation and coherence, UK | Comments Off
184 service personnel have died in Afghanistan since 2001. The tragic deaths of eight men who died last week in a single 24-hour period has brought the conflict home. Newspapers are abuzz with consternation and criticism. Newspapers have been awash with editorials setting out their respective views and ideas of what the UK and wider coalition should do. Below are the highlights.
Background:
The UK Af-Pak Strategy is here.
The US Af-Pak Strategy is here . (pdf)
ISAF ‘Missions and Mandate’ is here .
The Sunday Times believes the government needs to do two things on Afghanistan:
The first is to convey a clearer explanation of Britain’s war aims. Generalities such as those yesterday of David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that the troops are engaged in a battle for “the future of Britain”, are not good enough. Wars without a clear strategy are lost. And, second, even amid the fiscal mess, it is vital for the army to have the numbers and the equipment it needs. Otherwise the 184 will have given their lives in vain.
Meanwhile the FT argues that in the next two years, Britain will face questions over its future defence posture.
It must decide whether it can maintain effective counter-insurgency operations rather than investing in new naval and air assets. In the face of a public spending crisis, Britain must also decide whether it can afford its global role. But right now, Helmand is the issue. To lose 15 soldiers in two weeks is terrible. To discover at some future date that those soldiers died in a fight for territory that was subsequently surrendered back to the Taliban would be unthinkable.
For the Telegraph the issue is more simple:
We accept the national interest case for this operation; but popular support will be lost unless the Government can make a better fist than it has so far of explaining why so many young men are being killed thousands of miles from home. These are matters for which Mr Brown is directly and personally accountable; it is a responsibility he cannot shirk. It is not the case, either, that questioning the prosecution of the war is a betrayal of the troops who are fighting it. As the good people of Wootton Bassett show with tragic frequency, this country holds its combatants in great esteem. But does the Government? As things stand, the Prime Minister himself creates the impression that he fails to grasp what is happening in Helmand or how it could be put right. We will not easily forgive him or his administration for letting our Armed Forces down.
The Observer meanwhile suggests that the Government’s approach is a gamble:
We are fighting out of crude national self-interest, following a cold utilitarian logic: the war makes an al-Qaida atrocity less likely; the sacrifice in British lives abroad is worth the added security at home; 184 dead soldiers weighed up against the losses in an imagined 9/11-style attack. But much as the government might like to dress this up as strategy, it is simply a gamble. Unless there is a dramatic change in circumstances, the public will decide the stakes are too high. Lives saved by bringing soldiers home will seem a surer benefit than the unproven hypothesis of preventing terrorism with a war thousands of miles away. The government must prepare for that moment. The old justifications for intervention in Afghanistan are spent. If there are no others, the troops must come home.
This morning the Foreign Secretary argued that the Afghan strategy ‘is to make the UK safer ‘, Liam Fox said ‘any failures in Afghan policy must be rectified’ and Paddy Ashdown pointed out that ‘helicopters are not the heart of the problem in Afghanistan’.
Update: It’s worth listening to the interview with counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen on Radio 4 this morning. Best quote from the fantastic Evan Davis ‘a lot of complexity came out of the interview with David Kilcullen’. Listen here
Update 2: Hold on… Lord Owen has the answer:
If we are lucky, Afghanistan might develop a reasonably cohesive army and a tolerant, democratic government. That is surely a goal worth fighting for. But it will only come with more money and a shake-up of our political and military leadership.
July 13, 2009 at 10:20 am | More on Conflict and security, UK | 1 Comment
Following on from Alex’s post on DFID’s new white paper , the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has announced that it will be kicking off a root and branch review of Britain’s defence policy. The whizzo idea is to publish an interim Green Paper early in 2010.
Since November 2007 think tanks have been arguing for a review of defence policy. The latest think tank to join the bandwagon – IPPR – has, it seems, finally tipped the balance. But before everyone congratulates themselves on this first tentative step – bear in mind that the power now rests with the MoD.
With the announcement of a green paper they can now start to ask searching questions of those individuals and organisations who have been calling for a defence review. To aid them in this task the MoD should, at the very least, hold seminars with each of the think tanks that have focused on this issue – to date: Chatham House , Demos , IPPR (Global Change Team) and RUSI .Perhaps even do a roadshow across the UK?
At the moment the terms of the debate aren’t clear – nor is the fundamental question a green paper would seek to answer – perhaps a good starting place might be: What is defence for in the twenty first century?
As will become increasingly apparent there are no straightforward answers to this question – not least because this is really a debate about Britain’s place in the world… and that’s a different story.
July 7, 2009 at 10:56 am | More on UK | Comments Off
Last year I highlighted a particularly depressing and lightweight evidence session held by the Defence Select Committee on national security and resilience. This session has been well and truly surpassed by the following evidence session. Sean O’Neill, Crime Editor at The Times describes the scene from the committee room:
So hard being an MP these days, so much to remember. Where did I put the receipt for those silk cushions? What’s the name of that moat-cleaning firm again? There’s hardly any time to get oneself ready for the dreary day-to-day stuff like, say, the appearance of SOCA’s big cheeses before the Home Affairs Select Committee. So we were treated this morning to the usual string of half-baked, ll-prepared questions without anyone landing a glove on Sir Stephen Lander and Bill Hughes. Best of all was – “These Afghan money-launderers, Sir Stephen, were they British?”.
In the midst of it all, your humble correspondent (who has written the odd story about SOCA) was referred to as Sam while SOCA’s chairman was variously called Mr Lander and even Saint Stephen. Meanwhile, the confused picture of organised crime in Britain emerged even more confused. SOCA, it seems, is happy with ACPO’s assessment of 2,800 criminal gangs active in the UK but it prefers to use its own figure of 4,000 individuals involved in organised crime. Even by our maths that’s fewer than two people in every gang.
June 26, 2009 at 9:49 am | More on UK | Comments Off
Like you I am eagerly awaiting HMG’s national security strategy update set for this Thursday and next week’s IPPR report on national security.* Both publications have been making their way round Whitehall in the last few weeks – both are excellent pieces of work. But I’m a concerned. In a ‘gem’ of a comment piece today Philip Stephens suggests that:
‘Safeguarding national security may be the first duty of government, but it seems the least said the better before the general election…’ ‘When it comes to defence, we are greeted with a conspiracy of silence…’
This is true up to a point (a General Election hasn’t yet been formally called – so once the firing gun is sounded it’s every security soundbite for themselves) but there is something else – I don’t think the two reports are actually going to catalyse the debate on national security parties should be having. By the looks of it we’re only going to discuss one aspect: defence. For example:
The IPPR report enunciates the multiple challenges – from a fast-shifting geopolitical landscape and widespread state failure to nuclear proliferation and jihadi terrorism – that should be preoccupying political leaders. It looks beyond conventional external threats to the risks flowing from climate change, energy shortages and domestic radicalism. Britain will not have much use here for fast jets and nuclear submarines.
Well quite.
Is it really sensible to focus solely on defence? It’s an obvious line of attack for think tanks – and where Lords Ashdown and Robertson feel most comfortable – but I would suggest there are more important issues that need to be discussed in this fast-shifting geopolitical landscape. And lest we forget two of the three main political parties have already gone on record committing to a strategic defence review if they are in Government (I’d suggest the Labour manifesto will also include a promise of one too).
Finally I can’t believe that Britain’s European woes will be solved by simply strengthening the European arm of NATO – after all as Stephens says himself:
Strong relations with Washington will depend increasingly on what Europe, rather than simply Britain, brings to the security table.
This issue is where we need to pitch the debate on national security – it is utterly pointless to talk about platforms (carriers, tanks, planes) if there is no sense of strategic direction, no reasoning behind why we favour closer (or distant) European cooperation, or what the special relationship actually means in practice. Britain’s role needs to be better articulated – until then we will lurch from one policy issue to the next… and that’s not going to help anyone.
*Updated
Update Two: Here’s a good example from the Spectator of how the defence debate is going to go in the next few days – a set of complex issues, relationships and decisions boiled down to an overly simplistic, and crass argument:
This country faces a moment of decision: we either properly fund and equip our armed forces or we retreat from our role on the world stage. If the Conservative party believes that this country should be more than just a peace-keeping nation, then it will have to be prepared to increase defence spending.
Update 3: From The Times today: The Army can’t soldier on without more men Very observant, but somewhat out of step with news that Army chiefs have drawn up emergency plans to cope with an unprecedented recruitment surge following the collapse of Britain’s jobs market.
June 23, 2009 at 1:56 pm | More on Global system, UK | 1 Comment
Delicious
Rss
Twitter - David Steven
