Defence

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

Friday

David Blackburn

Does Sarko deserve more credit than Cameron?

Just as the British press is venerating David Cameron in the aftermath of last night’s UN resolution, so too the French press is praising President Sarkozy. In fact, the whole administration is basking in his reflected glory. Le Figaro describes Sarkozy’s and Prime Minister François Fillon’s roles in obtaining the UN Resolution and preparing the French military for action; the Defence minister also receives a hearty appraisal. Even the Presidency’s determined adversaries have expressed more than grudging respect. The left-wing newspaper Libération applauds Foreign Minister (and grand old man of Gaullism) Alain Juppé’s success in bringing the fractious United Nations to resolution. In recent days, the paper has also reported

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Cameron’s sombre statement

David Cameron was calm, measured and far from messianic as he delivered his statement to the House on the coming action against Libya. He was keen to stress that last night’s resolution ‘excludes an occupation force of any part of Libyan territory.’ However, he did, in answer to a question from James Arbuthnot, agree that regime change was likely to be necessary to achieve the aims of the resolution.   Cameron said there would be a statement later today from international leaders and it seems that this will be an ultimatum to Gaddafi. If military action does follow, Cameron said that he had ‘some guarantees’ from Arab leaders that they

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

The UN decides to take “all necessary measures” against Gaddafi

“There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.” Perhaps it was the murderous threat contained within Gaddafi’s latest radio message that shocked the United Nations into action today — because shocked into action they have been. After sweating and toiling over the precise formulation of a resolution on Libya, the UN Security Council finally reached the voting stage this evening. And it has now voted 10-0 in favour of member states taking “all necessary measures … to protect civilian and populated areas, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” Brazil, India, China, Russia and — staggeringly — Germany all abstained. What this means, in practice,

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

Cameron’s principled stand over Libya

Slowly, David Cameron seems to be mutating into a hawk over Libya. I’ve been increasingly impressed with the way he has made the case for a no-fly zone – knowing that it is an unpopular cause outside of the Arab world. Since the evacuation chaos, which he apologised for, he has pretty much led calls for some form of military intervention to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people back into submission. He was laughed at to start with; accused of making it up on the hoof. But now the 22-nation Arab League backs this position, as does Sarko. It may have been messy at first – but that’s how these

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

The Arab League adds its weight to the calls for a no-fly zone

We’re pushing for a no-fly zone. France is pushing for a no-fly zone. And now the Arab League is pushing for a no-fly zone too. The news fresh out of Cairo is that the organisation has voted in favour of restricting airspace above Libya. It will now push the UN to do the same, which is a considerably more proactive than the stance it adopted earlier this week. While one vote doesn’t really seal anything, this is potentially a crucial moment. NATO has made regional support a key condition of a no-fly zone – and now it has it, officially. Those who have been sniffing around for alternatives to the

Thursday

Daniel Korski

Liberal hawks

From the moment David Cameron started agitating for a no fly-zone, he’s been looking for allies. France and Denmark look like they will support him, with Russia and India opposed and China perhaps willing to abstain at the United Nations. But what about closer to home, inside the coalition? Since the formation of the coalition, every policy has been tested by what will it do for relations between the parties? Oddly, however, there has been no such test about Libyan policy. Newspapers have not been writing about splits, differences and agreements. That may be because Lord Ashdown went on the Today Programme and voiced conditional support for a no-fly zone.

Wednesday

David Blackburn

The hunt for Hague’s mojo

All hands to the Defence Select Committee this afternoon, for questions about the nation’s security apparatus. Of course, most onlookers were not remotely interested in the answers. For them, this gathering was convened to see if William Hague might regain his “mojo“. He didn’t get the chance. This was Letwin Hour. Or Letwin’s Two Hours, to be precise. After a difficult fortnight for the government, the brain behind Cameron’s premiership high-jacked proceedings. In insouciant tones, he explained the manifold complexities of the government’s security policy to the committee. Real terms defence spending is likely to increase after the next spending round and Trident will be replaced; both are a response

Peter Hoskin

UN or not UN?

The garbled horror stories just keep on rolling out of Libya. According to the latest reports, Gaddafi’s troops have attacked the rebels in Zawiyah with redoubled violence and force. Aircraft, tanks, bombs, mortars – all have been used against the city and its people, with what one assumes are bloody results. As one resident puts it to Reuters, “Zawiyah as you knew it no longer exists.” It is unclear whether the rebels have now lost control there, but that is a strong possibility. Unsurprising, then, that the West is positioning itself to act. David Cameron, we are told, has been speaking with Barack Obama about the full spread of options