Military

William Hague has had a good war. He began poorly, as the FCO struggled to evacuate Britons from Libya. But since then, the Foreign Secretary has showed deft diplomatic skill and leadership. The FCO has been focused on Libya and every able-bodied person has been drafted into duty, with diplomats now running the operation in No 10, and the Cabinet Office. On the Today programme, the Foreign Secretary batted away the idea, much loved by realists and pessimists, that because Britain did not know, with forensic detail, how exactly the intervention would end, it should not have become involved. There are many mountains still to climb. European governments need to

The American academic and foreign policy realist Stephen Walt has put an interesting idea on his blog: would re-introducing the draft make America less interventionist? Perhaps it would, and perhaps there’s a good case to be made for doing the same in Britain. Calling for a return to conscription might sound like a silly right-wing trope, but it makes sense from an anti-war perspective: we might be less eager to send our soldiers to fight and die in distant conflicts if there were the slightest possibility that we might have to go, too. I’m not sure I agree, though. It’s not as if national service prevented war in the past.

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

The op-ed by David Cameron and his Qatari counterpart Hamed Bin Jassem in the run-up to the London conference received very little play in the UK media. That’s a shame because it set out, anew, the reasons for the Libyan intervention, which are already at risk of being lost in the debate about ways, means and exits. ‘Yesterday, reports reached us of fresh attacks on the people of Misurata. Snipers are gunning people down in the street. Food, water and electricity supplies have been cut off. Ghaddafi and his regime are continuing to carry out acts of appalling brutality and cruelty, in clear and flagrant breach of the UN Resolution.

The lack of weaponry is not the only problem plaguing the Libyan rebel forces. Their disordered retreat reveals that they need training, better organisation and in-theatre liaison and support. From what I saw, the Transitional Council is very well organised politically, but there is a general lack of military cohesion. Youthful volunteers and self-armed families are fighting alongside ex-loyalists. (There also seems to be a significant Muslim Brotherhood/Islamist presence, though the Council has detained a number of Al Qaeda associates.) Communications are poor because the rebels rely on mobile phones, which rarely work on the front. NATO has now taken over the air and naval mission, but it will struggle

Nothing would help the international campaign against Colonel Gaddafi as much as the Egyptian military — and therefore Egypt — swinging in behind the UN-authorised effort. It would be one of the few things that would make the Libyan dictator worry and could push fence-sitting loyalists towards the rebel cause. Materially, it could also be important; with the Libyan resistance reluctant to receive Nato help, Egypt could be very helpful as a conduit for weapons, intelligence and even on-the-ground military support. A post-combat mission would also be greatly aided by Egyptian involvement or leadership. Unfortunately, after a few days in Cairo, I think it is more likely that Colonel Gaddafi