Not Foxy enough

Justanothernobody.

Fox is a great man, but he remains utterly obsessed by Russia - and little else - much to the determent of Britain's defence needs.
In private conversations at our Club he's regularly talked up the Russian threat and at the launch party of yet another 'Conservative Friends of...' group last year it seemed that he was using his speech to declare that World War 3 needed to be fought against the Ruskies.

There should be little doubt about what an extremely talented politician Dr Fox is, but he's a man with the wrong vision, at the wrong time, in the wrong department.

He needs moving.

Fergus Pickerting

Yeah, give Fox the Home Office. Britain can't afford a foreign policy and can't afford a defence capability. I suggest we go along with the USA (nice chaps) rather than the EU (nasty foreign cjaps) but explain that for the present we are FLAT BROKE. In five years maybe we can prance about on the WORLD STAGE but for the moment... and we could do with Mr Fox the non-posh at the Home Office. That guy Grayling is a bit of a nob (in the immortal words of the great and good Matthew Hoggart), though he was speaking of Blair of course. And a job somewhere for David Davis. EU minister perhaps? Butall this world stage stuff. Naw, leave it out.

Chuck Unsworth

Fox is undoubtedly clever, but no bruiser. I doubt he's tough enough for a job which requires an unending and implacable hatred of the enemy.

Next, define The Enemy.

Vince Crawley

>>Should NATO take over the US-led AFRICOM to undertake operations e.g. in Africa?<<

Couple of things. First, U.S. Africa Command is a U.S. organization, one of six geographic regional HQs around the world, to coordinate military-to-military engagement with partner nations. NATO could create an Africa-focused sub-HQ, but it could not take over a U.S. mission that is not even associated with NATO.

Second, it's not clear how a European-led multilateral organization would be accepted by Africans, even if they were offered membership approaching a NATO-like Article-5 status. Their strong preference for collective security is with African-led institutions such as the African Union's Peace and Security Council.

Vince Crawley
U.S. Africa Command Public Affairs
www.africom.mil

strapworld

Dr Liam Fox shows that he is a great strategic thinker. At last we have a politician willing to speak what people do not wish to hear.

Of course Dr Fox is so right to warn about Russia. Muslim fundamentalism will be open battles on the streets of our land created by the incredibly lax policies of this Labour Administration. That is a scenario to look forward to.

But Russia will be looking at the EU and the threat such a large body will make to it and could decide on an early invasion of the EU.

Just think about it. With the fourth rate politicians at the helm of the EU, with France and Germany dithering and Italy and Spain in denial etc. There would be no immediate or united front against the Russians. Yes both France and the UK have the nuclear deterrent but they would have been put out of action by the Russians on day two. Justanothernobody should consider that his thinking was rife, throughout, Europe, over the threat from Germany in the thirties.

Can we learn anything?

roman lee

That russia will eventually take action against europe is on the high side of probable, greed and pride will be two reasons but the main reason will be revenge against germany for there disgusting behaviour in the war. they will strike as soon as they perceive the threat of the usa to fight for what is to growing feeling in parts of the american upper echelons that europe is not worth the massive amounts of money and effort. given that might be the situation the tories are right to consider removing the troops from germany as they are to small in number to do anything and there mission as holding forces until the cavalry comes from the usa would be rendered futile. the europeans like germany should be using there troops in afghanistan to get some real training in warfare done in the event of this scenario coming about. but then again they will be alright after dark iam sure the russians will stop at dusk just for them. health and safety rules will save them?

Daniel Korski

Dear Vince

I am well aware of what AFFRICOM is. But there are still doubts about its utility and transferring a US military entity into a NATO set-up would not be a first. Think ISAF. Whether AFIRCOM is currently associated with NATO or not is neither here nor there.

You ask whether Africans would accept a European-led multilateral organization. The fact that AFRICOM is based in Stuttgart and could not find a basing location on the continent it focuses on shows that a US-led organization is not particularly accepted either.

NATO may have a European as its civilian head, but has an American in the highest military post and in many respects dominates the alliance. To describe it meerely as “European-led” is stretching it.

Finally, my point is not that NATO should look for work in Africa. I am actually quite conservative about what I think NATO should be doing. But my point is that there are a range of security/development challenges in Africa, which directly impact the US and Europe whether through migration, drug trafficking or terrorism.

To deal with many of these challenges, particularly in the SAHEL, the West will need to re-think its assistance programmes. That includes how the West supports the development of effective and accountable security institutions. For a whole range of reasons, I am not convinced AFRICOM will provide an effective answer to this multidimensional challenge however many FSOs take up residence in Stuttgart. I therefore think it far better for the US to cut its losses, re-think its concept and join in with allies to develop a more multilateral solution, which can partner more effectively with local authorities and the multilateral institutions that have been created (AU, ECOWAS, SADC etc)

Vince Crawley

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

One thing to be mindful of is that the early criticism of AFRICOM stemmed from a misunderstanding among many that it represented a NATO-like collective security organization that nations could opt-in or opt-out. According to this misunderstanding, those opting-in would gain a closer relationship with the U.S. at the expense of sovereignty and undermining the African Union Peace and Security Council. Now that we've been in existence more than two years, with near constant engagement in Africa, our role is well understood and accepted by African leadership.

The cautionary tale here is that a multilateral security initiative as you suggest should have thorough discussion with African leadership from the outset.

With regard to our not being in Africa, we do have several dozen program officers and liaisons living and working across the continent, mainly assigend to U.S. Embassy teams. One of the complications of any larger presence in Africa would be the fact that selecting a headquarters site would mean picking a single nation out of the more than 50 nations in Africa, and our mandate is work work with nearly all of them. Thus, being in Germany does have advantages. It is a short connecting flight from a direct flight to nearly every African capital. Germany also has the communications and community infrastructure for a major American government organization. After all, half our staff is civilian, and the majority of our personnel have school-aged children. The international communities within nealry all African capitals would have difficulty absorbing the influx of several hundred American families.

There obviously would be advantages to having more of our people living and working in Africa. But that would have to take place on the time scale of potential host nations, not on a U.S.-dictated time scale.

Regards,
Vince Crawley
U.S. Africa Command Public Affairs