Defence

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

Fox letter: storm in a fair trade, biodegradable cup

David Cameron probably let out a sigh when he was informed that yet another letter from Liam Fox had been leaked to the press. And when the Defence Secretary called No 10, as he undoubtedly did, to do his now-familiar Captain Renault routine, the Prime Minister can be excused for feeling a little frustrated. For the debates that have occurred in consequence miss a number of key points. The PM believes in overseas development – believes it is right, believes it is useful. No doubt he may find it useful to “decontaminate” the Tories but would not have been willing to spend 0.7 percent of GDP for something he did

Monday

James Forsyth

Leak shows that Fox objects to plans to spend more on overseas development

A second letter from the Defence Secretary to the Prime Minister has leaked out. Tomorrow’s Times reports on a note that Liam Fox sent to the Prime Minister opposing the government’s plan to legislate for Britain to spend 0.7 percent of gross national income on overseas development aid. It won’t come as a huge surprise to anyone that Dr Fox is sceptical of aid spending. But for another letter from him to the PM to reach the press will further strain relations between the MoD and Downing Street. There will be those in the Cameron circle who think that it is not a coincidence that both of the missives that have leaked out have

Sunday

Matt Cavanagh

How to fix the National Security Council

The National Security Council was a sound idea. But it has disappointed, both inside and outside Whitehall. The Ministry of Defence has complained that it “failed to give strategic direction”. Among previous supporters in the media, Con Coughlin has commented sourly that “all it has achieved so far is the replacement of Blair’s much-derided ‘sofa government’ with a new, back-of-the-envelope approach”. James Kirkup was even driven to ask “What exactly is the point of it?” Where did things go wrong? First, it seems that more effort went into spinning it to the media — it was a ‘War Cabinet’ to Sun readers, an end to ‘sofa government’ to those disaffected

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

Back to the start on a military covenant

I suppose you could call it an O-turn. First, the Prime Minister declared, in a speech aboard HMS Ark Royal last year, that a new military covenant would be enshrined “into the law of our land.” Then, there seemed to be a U-turn, with the government committing only to review the covenant annually, not to lend it legal force. Yet, now, a U-turn on the U-turn, with the news that it will be etched into the staute books after all. The defence minister Andrew Robathan tells today’s Telegraph that, “we are putting the military covenant on a statutory basis for the first time.” The formal announcement is expected in the

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

The Dame departs

Pauline Neville-Jones was a first. She was one of the first women in the Foreign Office to climb the department’s male-dominated ladder, serving as Lord Tugendhat’s chef de cabinet at the European Commission, obtaining the coveted post of Political Director and eventually becoming JIC Chairman. She led the British delegation at the Dayton Peace Accords and she probably thought she would be the first British National Security Adviser. But it was not to be. Her usefulness to the Prime Minister seems to have been mainly in opposition, where she could add a voice of knowledge to a Shadow Cabinet with very little governmental experience. The Tory Green Paper on National

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

Pakistan responds

The covers of our newspapers are emblazoned with Bin Laden this morning — but it is an article in a US newspaper that really catches the eye. Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, has written an op-ed for the Washington Post that defends his country’s role in the struggle against Al-Qaeda. It’s a defence that has four components. 1) Sympathy: “Pakistan … joins the other targets of al-Qaeda in our satisfaction that the source of the greatest evil of the new millennium has been silenced.” 2) Credit-sharing: “We in Pakistan take some satisfaction that our early assistance in identifying an al-Qaeda courier ultimately led to this day.” 3) Defiance: “Pakistan has

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

An honest plea? Or a cynical gambit?

I was planning on collating today’s sunny newspaper covers for Coffee House — but Tim Montgomerie has beaten me to it. So let’s, instead, turn our attention away from the Royal Wedding, and on to Libya. A striking thing has happened there this morning: Gaddafi has called for a ceasefire, and for negotiations between his regime and NATO. Although the murderous leader’s television address was shot through with the usual defiant rhetoric — “No one can force me to leave my country and no one can tell me not to fight for my country,” he bellowed — it also included some concessionary passages. “Let us negotiate,” was one of them.

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

Why Gitmo ought to be closed

It is hard to feel anything but nauseous when reading the Guardian’s continuing special report on Guantanamo Bay, which started yesterday. The paper has released hundreds of classified files which were obtained last year by Wikileaks, including detainee assessments prepared between 2002 and 2009 to summarise what the government knew about each detainee — and they do not paint a pretty picture. Some detainees are clearly guilty as sin. But others seem to have been caught in the crosshairs of conflict. One example seems to be Abdul Badr Mannan, who was arrested in Pakistan and turned over to US forces in the belief that he was affiliated with al-Qaeda. According

Friday

David Blackburn

Oh what a lovely war

The triumvirate of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have presented a united front to NATO and the Arab League and said there will be no respite in Libya. Writing to the Times (£), they say: ‘Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.’ They also add that to leave Gaddafi in power would be an ‘unconscionable betrayal’, a marked shift in emphasis. It’s rousing stuff, designed to twist reluctant arms at the NATO summit in Berlin. However, as former ambassador to Tripoli Oliver Miles suggests, this letter is unlikely to be

Monday

Daniel Korski

Can Nato cope in Libya?

Just because Nicolas Sarkozy believes something does not make it untrue. The French president was adamant that Nato shouldn’t take over the Libya campaign. He preferred to run an ad hoc coalition of the willing. Britain, however, was keen for the alliance to take control of a mission that seemed too loosely-organised. Once the United States decided to fade into the background of the military operation, the impetus for a switch to Nato grew. A few weeks into the transfer, people are beginning to wonder whether President Sarkozy was right in the first place. According to yesterday’s Sunday Times, Nato is doing what it did in Bosnia: blocking the rebels

Friday

David Blackburn

How might the MoD get round its spending settlement?

The Ministry of Defence is Whitehall’s last monolith. Charged with the nation’s defence, it is powerful enough to challenge the Treasury. As Pete notes, there are signs that it’s trying to defer (if not avoid) the cuts laid out the punishing strategic defence and security review. It has many ways of doing this. Obviously it can use political pressure because troops are deployed in Afghanistan and Libya. But there’s also a neat accounting step that allows the MoD can transfer costs directly to the Treasury. You may recall that the Budget contained a £700m increase for ‘single use military expenditure’ (SUME) in 2011-2012. SUME does not appear as capital spending

Peter Hoskin

More demands on George Osborne

Is the defence budget the most chaotic in all Whitehall? George Osborne said as much last October — and he’s still dealing with its hellish intricacies now. The main problem, as so often in military matters, is one of overcommitment. Thanks to various accounting ruses on Labour’s part, large parts of the MoD’s costs were hidden in the long grass of the future. It was buy now, pay later — with Brown doing the buying bit, and the coalition doing the paying. The number that William Hague put on it last year was £38 billion. The MoD was spending £38 billion more, over this decade, than had been budgeted. Even

Monday

David Blackburn

17,000 servicemen to go

The MoD has released its plan for redundancies. The numbers and plan were leaked at the weekend, but here are some details: 1) There will be 17,000 redundancies – 7,000 from the army and 5,000 each from navy and RAF. The first tranche will be notified by commanding officers in September 2011. 2) Some of the reductions are expected to be achieved through not filling vacancies and slowing recruitment, but it is estimated that 11,000 jobs will be lost by April 2015. 3) This is a compulsory programme, but the MoD hopes that the majority of losses can be met through volunteers. Volunteers will serve a 6-month notice period, non-volunteers

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

Obama sketches out the limits to American involvement in Libya

There was one aspect of Barack Obama’s Big Speech on Libya last night that was particularly curious: for a President who is trying to downplay American involvement in this conflict, he sure went in for good bit of self-aggrandisement. The amount of references to his and his government’s “leadership” — as in, “At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution” — was really quite striking, at least to these ears. I suppose it’s all about mollifying those voices who argue that the US Pres hasn’t done enough, quickly enough. But it’s hardly going to endear him to

Sunday

Daniel Korski

The government should acknowledge Israeli restraint

With NATO planes circling above Libya, Saudi troops quashing protests in Bahrain, and troops killing civilians in Syria and Yemen, there has been little attention paid to Israel. But Israel has recently been the victim of a series of violent attacks. More than 30 people were injured in a bombing in Jerusalem, and Islamic Jihad’s military wing, the Al-Quds Brigade, has fired mortars and rockets into Israel for days on end. The attacks suggest that Hamas is, once again, struggling to rein in other terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad. Some IDF commanders fear a descent into chaos in Gaza. In the face of the onslaught, however, the Israeli government has

Friday

Daniel Korski

Libya has shown the government the virtue of a multilateral approach

The Libya intervention has already turned the international kaleidoscope, showing new and remarkable patterns. It has seen China acquiesce to a no-fly zone, and the West in alliance with the Arab League. Nobody thought that was likely 6 months ago. It has also changed reputations. Nicolas Sarkozy may win re-election on the back of the war. William Hague, who had a bad revolution, is having a good war.   The government has become more multilateralist, as opposed to the kind of bilateralism it espoused when it took office. Nearly a year ago, it sent a clear message to the FCO — bilateral ties would matter, multilateral ties less so. Now,

Peter Hoskin

Now the questions are Nato’s to answer

Now, at least, we know: Nato will be taking charge of the no-fly zone that has been erected around Libya. And we might even welcome the news. As soon as the Americans made it clear that this was not their conflict to command, a new leadership arrangement was always going to be required — and Nato were the obvious choice. The only real barriers to their assumption of power have been French enthusiasm and Turkish reluctance, but they now appear to have been reconciled. In so far as this has clarified the next steps in Libya, it is a good thing. But confusion remains, and in wholesale quantities. It’s not

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

Ending Cameron’s War

The coalition is now in danger of coming unstuck — not because of failure, but because of its success. It needs to urgently decide how to run itself and what its aims are. Before it runs out of targets. Neither is easy to do. The US may want to handover control of the mission but there is not really anyone they can transfer authority to. NATO is being blocked from assuming control, the EU does not have the wherewithal — its naval mission off Somalia’s coast is already run out of Permanent Joint Headquarters in north London — and the UK and France would struggle to run the mission, either

Monday

James Forsyth

Targeting Gaddafi

The press is currently making great play of an apparent difference between General Richard and Liam Fox on whether or not Gaddafi can be targeted. The whole debate flags up one of the absurdities of international legal convention. If it is legitimate to hit a Libyan tank crew moving on Benghazi, why it is not legitimate to target the person who is ultimately giving these orders?     Given the whole nature of the Libyan state, the fastest — and, I would say, most humane — way to end this conflict would be to kill Gaddafi. Anne-Marie Slaughter, until recently the head of policy planning at the State Department, argued

Peter Hoskin

Obama’s nervousness makes life difficult for him and his allies

Gingerly, gingerly — that’s how the Americans are approaching the presentational battle over Libya, if not the actual campaign itself. There is no bombast in the official broadcasts from Washington, nor categorical intent. Instead we have Robert Gates emphasising, as he did yesterday evening, that the US will soon handover “primary responsibility” for the mission to us or the French. Or there’s Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying that “potentially one outcome” is for Gaddafi to stay in power (see video above). The idea of regime change, or of deeper US involvement, is being downplayed all round. What’s clear, perhaps even understandable, is that Obama