An unwinnable war?

The Daily Mail has deployed its heavy weapon on the Afghan front today, rolling out Max Hastings to tell us, "Why Lance-Corporal Elson and our other 175 soldiers killed in an unwinnable war deserve better from this country."

L/Cpl Elson is the last but one, of seven, soldiers to be killed in Afghanistan within a week – killed by an IED. At least Hastings cuts though the cant, remarking that it is hard to find much heroic about being blown up by a mine, the fate of so many soldiers in Helmand.

IEDs, he writes, impact significantly upon morale. Most men cheerfully take their chances in firefights, where superior skills and equipment usually enable them to prevail. But it is a wretched business, to march or ride daily through the Afghan countryside, knowing that at any moment one might be blown to eternity without the smallest chance of averting fate.

Unfortunately, Hastings then repeats the corrosive manta which is so beloved of the MoD and much of the military, telling is that "No armoured vehicle is proof against mines containing up to 500lb of explosive, such as the Taliban now employ." He is actually wrong there, which is why we've put up that famous picture of the destroyed Cougar again. That is reputed to have taken a hit from a 300lb charge – and the crew walked away with very light injuries.

That is not, of course, 500lb, but the weight comparison is misleading, as the really big bombs the Taleban are using are made from agricultural fertiliser – helpfully provided by the Western aid agencies. As such, they have only about a third of the explosive force of TNT and other military explosives – of the type that hit the Cougar. Not always, but even the big bombs are survivable.

As much to the point, although some big bombs are used, they are still the exception – they are difficult to get to site, very difficult to bury and expose the emplacers to a much higher risk of detection. More typical is this example recounted by a "Gateshead soldier" Corporal Dan Henderson.

He was on a routine patrol in Helmand Province when he noticed a suspicious bump in a road frequently used by food and medical supply vehicles. And after inspecting the mound, a 20-kilo roadside bomb was discovered – "the kind which has claimed the lives of scores of our troops."

With no time to spare, Cpl Henderson and his unit sealed off the area, close to the town of Musa Qala, before calling in bomb disposal experts to destroy the device. "It was 20 kilos of homemade explosive – the sort of thing that could do some serious damage," said Henderson. "Even a heavily-armed vehicle could still be knocked a few feet in the air."

He then added: "An unarmed vehicle wouldn't stand a chance. A British convoy was due to move across the route that it happened to be on. The Taliban obviously had their own information."

Even at that level, a Viking would be ripped apart if the bomb was detonated in the right place, but a Mastiff, a Ridgeback – or any other vehicle designed on the same principles – would shrug it off. There may, nevertheless, be bombs that will defeat these protected vehicles, although none have killed anyone in a Mastiff yet.

But to argue that we should not use protected vehicles because "bigger bombs" can defeat them is akin to arguing that soldiers should not wear bullet-proof body armour because it will not defeat RPGs. Similarly, we can dispense with tanks and go to war on bicycles because even the heaviest tank can be knocked out by an anti-tank missile.

To my mind, these are the sort of issues we should be discussing – how to bring protected mobility into theatre so as to restore freedom of movement to the battlefield, not only for mounted operations but also for foot patrols.

Here, we see a link to a BBC TV report from Ian Pannell, describing how the Taleban use multiple IEDs to slow down the advance of British troops, who have to use hand-held nine detectors to clear the way before they can move into positions. This gives time for the Taleban to assemble their forces to mount an attack.


Yet, in their Bush War, the Rhodesians had the Pookie mine detection vehicle (illustrated above) – small enough and light enough to lead the way down tracks, to clear the way for advancing troops. Surely, thirty years on, it is not beyond the capability of our procurement geniuses in the MoD to come up with something similar?

The trouble is – as with the Clegg – we do not get that sort of debate. Clegg, for instance, talks about wanting more troops for the "take and hold" (aka "shake 'n' bake") strategy, without any discussion of the possibility that this might be fundamentally flawed, and can never work.

So it is with Hastings. There is a long whinge in which – in passing – he refers to Major Patrick Little, and cites his comment that, "All is not well in the British Army." But he does not develop the theme. Instead, he withdraws to his comfort zone by declaring that, "There is still supreme professionalism in the British Army, together with a cheerful willingness to accept the risks of a soldier's calling."

There is a growing climate of unrest and anger that they [the troops] are called upon to fight a costly war with inadequate resources, no Afghan gratitude and cynical indifference from the British Government, then declares the Hasting, deciding that "this Labour Government sent the British Army to fight and die in Afghanistan, and bears an absolute responsibility."

For all that, Hasting is "not one of those who favours quitting immediately." Afghanistan's collapse into anarchy could have a grave effect on Pakistan, he says. But, he avers, "the security situation is deteriorating, and those in charge are muddling. We must do Afghanistan differently or admit defeat and come home."

Yea ... alright Mr Hasting. We must do it differently. But how would you do it? Come to think of it Mr Clegg, how would you do it - apart from more European co-operation?

COMMENT THREAD

The great divide

In this topsy-turvey world, there seems to be another of those dividing lines emerging – those who are interested (and concerned) about the increasingly lethal campaign in Afghanistan and those who are determinedly ignoring it.

On the one side, for a change, is the British media, which has devoted an unprecedented amount of space and time to the campaign, with the tardy intervention of the Clegg, who at least has political antennae sensitive enough to realise that it is an issue which has some considerable public resonance.

Apart then from the occasional, formulaic intervention of Liam Fox, who has yet to decide whether he has anything useful to say, the running is being made by the government, with Ainsworth's keynote speech to Chatham House yesterday, and by an increasing number of military and ex-military commentators, as well as specialist journalists.

On the other hand, as far as the opposition goes, this seems to be a politics-free zone, and especially as far as the British political blogosphere is concerned. Although US and Canadian blogs are full of comment, one struggles to find anything but the occasional reference on the British side of the pond. It is odd that the MSM, so derided by the blogs, is making the running, while the blogosphere is opting out.

Clearly, though – from our readers' comments on the forum, and the hit-rate, there is significant interest. My publisher also tells me that Ministry of Defeat is "moving" after a slow start, further suggesting that there is real public concern over what has been a neglected issue.

We thus remain committed to running with the debate, although it is slightly unbalancing the blog, for which I apologise. This also means that other subjects are not getting the coverage they deserve, but we'll try and pick up on some of the news in the occasional round-up piece.

As the current torrent of coverage dies down, as and when, normal service – if there is such a thing on this blog – will be resumed.

COMMENT THREAD

Who's this "we", white man?

Politicians are rather good as invoking the w-word, usually to imply a consensus the does not always exist, or in a cynical attempt to enlist their audiences in their cause.

The Great Leader is an exponent of the art, which invoked some unusually strong invective from "us" – i.e., me – a little while back. Readers might possibly agree that "we've" mellowed a little since then – or become a little more cautious.

Another exponent of the art is the egregious Nick Clegg, full-time Europhile and part-time leader of a party which others call the Lib-Dims. He is in full flow in that supposedly Conservative newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, telling "us" that "We're asking our troops to do the impossible" in Afghanistan.

Thus does the Clegg artfully argue that it is time for a new strategy and fresh commitment to Afghanistan – without ever once spelling out what that strategy might be or, for that matter, offering any evidence that he might be capable of producing one, workable or not.

He starts his piece in typical populist style, telling us of his visit to Afghanistan last year where he too, like the rest of the self-important visitors, doubtless imbibed freely from the "lines-to-take book", coming away "hugely impressed" by the "professionalism and courage" of British troops – as if he was in a position to judge the former or witness the latter.

That is not to say that some did not display either or both characteristics, and that is not for us to dispute, but it is this formulaic phrasing that politicians so easily trot out that tends to jar – more so when other, more knowledgeable commentators are questioning the very professionalism that the Clegg so easily applauds.

On the basis of having then met Lt-Col Rupert Thorneloe, who helped organise his visit, the Clegg tells of his increased "admiration" after he and Trooper Joshua Hammond had been killed in a vehicle unable to withstand a roadside bomb. "We owe it to them to ensure their sacrifice is not in vain," the Clegg declares.

This and presumably other – unspecified - recent events, the Clegg tells us, have led him to question, "for the first time," whether we're going about things in the right way. One could ask, in that context, where he has been for the last three years – one answer being, not in any defence debate in the House.

But now, after three years of intensive operations, the Clegg is concerned that "we are simply not giving our troops the means to do their difficult job." So it is, he states: "We must not will the ends without being prepared to will the means." There's that "we" again, which quickly gets another airing when he tells us that "we" need to ask whether the Government has the will, strategy or tactics to do the job properly.

The Clegg's pre-eminent concern here is that, "If you send people to war, you must supply the resources they need ... ". He is "appalled" that so many of our soldiers have been killed because of inadequate equipment, and "disturbed" to hear from experts that we don't have enough forces to hold and rebuild territory once it has been won.

Now, it is here that the "we" really creates the problem because, if you assert that "we" are asking troops to do the impossible, it is helpful if we know who the "we" is. In the Clegg's book, this is actually the government, when it comes to the "inadequate equipment", specifically in this case, the Viking.

What this does not recognise, though is that the "we" is actually the Army. The Army does not regard the Viking as "inadequate". Far from it, it believes it to be a "success" and, as we have seen, staunchly defends it use, and the other high-mobility abominations such as the Jackal.

Ministers do not buy or permit the deployment of these death traps for the fun of it. They do so because Army "experts" advise them to procure them, and then they brief the ministers of the "line-to-take" when the body-bags start mounting up. And, as we have noted before, it is a very rare minister who will contradict the advice of his "experts".

Further, while the media has been pressing for better-protected vehicles, our best information – gleaned with considerably less resource than the Clegg – is that such vehicles could not have been used because of bridge weight limitations. The issue, therefore, is far more profound than one simply of inadequate vehicles, not least the dire performance of DFID in frittering away taxpayers' money on Ferris wheels and theme parks.

This one example, therefore, betrays the populist strategy of the Clegg. With inadequate vehicles currently in the media, the man is suddenly interested in inadequate vehicles. In fact, he is more interested in aligning himself with an apparently popular cause, the dividend being, not improved safety for British troops, but votes for his Lib-Dims.

Forever the opportunist, the deaths of Lt-Col Rupert Thorneloe and Trooper Joshua Hammond then give the Clegg the platform to argue for a "co ordinated political strategy". That, in the Clegg's opinion, has been affected by "Britain's lukewarm support for European co-operation in defence and security planning." For want of that co-operation, which has "contributed to the fragmented nature of operations", asserts the Clegg, "Our soldiers' lives are being thrown away ... ".

It is possible to get lower, but it would be hard to imagine a cheaper shot, especially when the drive for greater "European co-operation in defence and security planning" has been directly responsible for much of the inadequate equipment and shortages that the Army has experienced.

Worst of all though, the opportunist Clegg demonstrates that he has little idea of the full nature and extent of the problems affecting the Afghani campaign, some of those being an inadequate and failing Army leadership. That is no reflection of the soldiers and their junior officers, but a growing volume of informed opinion is pointing the figure at the higher levels of command.

We – and that is a real "we", not a political artefact, need politicians to grasp the nettle and say this in public, as ever more experts are saying, rather than indulge in cheap populism – and scoring political points - which will simply get more soldiers killed. Clearly, the Clegg is not the man for the task.

COMMENT THREAD

The situation is serious

One truly wonders whether Bob Ainsworth is aware of the cynicism with which his statement is greeted in informed circles when he blithely tells us that conditions are improving in Afghanistan, based on the "message" he got "in Afghanistan when I visited last week".

One recalls the then newly appointed defence secretary Des Bowne visiting Basra on 18 May 2006, when he declared, "Basra is calm and British forces are working hand in hand with their Iraqi and coalition partners. Suggestions that the city is, in someway, out of control are ridiculous." Two weeks later, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki announced a state of emergency in Basra, in a bid to contain the escalating violence.

Recalling also Stephen Grey's evidence to the Commons Defence Committee last week, one thus simply speculates how long the "lines-to-take book" was this time. The new defence secretary will have been told what he wanted to hear, and shown that which was convenient to show him, upon which basis he delivers the "upbeat" message that he was always going to deliver anyway – whether he had been to Afghanistan or not.

So taken with Grey's evidence was Jim Greenhalf that he was moved to write his own post on it, observing that much of what was said was worthy of the front page of The Sunday Times.

Anyhow, Ainsworth has delivered his own message to Chatham House today in a keynote speech which was delivered shortly after death of another soldier had been announced, the seventh in a week and the 176th to die since the start of operations in Afghanistan in 2001.

His response to those casualties is charted by The Daily Telegraph which tells us, "More British soldiers will be killed in Afghanistan and there is no end in sight to the campaign, Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary has warned." He adds, "Let us be under no illusion. The situation in Afghanistan is serious - and not yet decided. The way forward is hard and dangerous. More lives will be lost and our resolve will be tested."

So much of the rest of the speech is the usual FCO/MoD extruded verbal material that the only rational thing to do is to glide softly by, although there is some merit in comparing the defence secretary's views with the critique by Matt Waldman, who has some sensible and realistic things to say but, in other ways, is part of the problem.

Of special interest to this blog, however, is Ainsworth's frontal assault on the media criticism of the Viking and other poorly protected vehicles in theatre. "Every effort is being made to increase protection - such as the introduction of Mastiff and Ridgeback troop carriers, the improved armour on Viking and Jackal vehicles, and the more heavily armoured Warthog vehicles coming in 2010," he says, continuing with the "line-to-take" supplied by the military:

With this suite of vehicles military commanders will deploy their assets according to the tactical situation on the ground. But as we develop measures to counter a threat like IEDs, so our enemies adapt - for instance by building higher yield bombs to overcome heavier armour. So let us be clear, sacrificing manoeuvre for heavy armour in every circumstance is not the answer.

We are doing everything we can to counter the IED threat at source. Our forces are finding and diffusing these bombs. But tellingly, they are also concentrating on the networks and the people building them and supplying the technology, the parts and the know-how.

We are getting inside the production process - some in the military call this approach 'getting left of the bang'. When we target the bomb makers and take out the capacity to produce, we cut the threat. Getting left of the bang will save lives - of our troops - and of the Afghans themselves.

This is part of a sustained counter-offensive which has also seen a formal attempt at rebuttal by the Ministry of Defeat, which once again falsely frames the debate as one between protection and mobility, as favoured by the BBC. This is not a ministry that its prepared to learn lessons. Rather it is one that will invest its resources in supporting its existing decisions, however wrong they might be, for want of acknowledging any error whatsoever.

Similarly, Ainsworth is not prepared to admit that which Waldman accuses the government – of miss-spending or wasting aid – not that he could since that involves attacking the FCO and DFID (which we must now learn to call UKAID). Instead, he cites the UK's non-military aid, amounting to £740m since 2001, with a further £500m is planned to 2013. We wonder whether he is aware of the Ferris wheel so generously provided by the British taxpayer, and how that fits in with this general scheme.

What immediately strikes one, however, is the disparity of spending on the military, with over £3 billion in the last three years and £3.5 billion forecast for this current financial year. If the military effort was directed towards civil aid, one might see a wholly different situation in Afghanistan than we see today.

It is rather odd, therefore, that Ainsworth concludes his speech by warning "us" to be under no illusion. "The situation in Afghanistan is serious ... " he repeats. One is tempted to ask: who is this "us", white man? The illusion rests with the secretary of state ... whose policy is not dissimilar to this bridge in the region, which has yet to have the attention of western aid officials. But then, Ferris wheels are so much more useful.

COMMENT THREAD

Looks like October 2

Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach has told the Dáil that the second Irish referendum will take place on October 2. Propaganda, masquerading as misleading information has already begun or, rather, it never stopped.

RTÉ News informs us that

The campaign was marked by a complex No campaign which raised some issues that did not form part of the Treaty.

Following that vote, the Government put in train an analysis of the reasons the document was voted down.

Arising from that research, pressure was put on the other EU members to accommodate Irish voters' concerns, in order to allow for a second vote with a better chance of success.

A two-day EU summit last month agreed to legally binding guarantees on the application of the Treaty in Ireland.

I'd say every single one of those statements is economical with the truth, especially that notion of legally binding guarantees. Even officially they do not become legally binding until the next treaty, whenever that might happen.

The BBC, not to be outdone in the economical with the truth stakes, also tells us about those guarantees, adding for good measure that the Lisbon Treaty was "aimed at streamlining EU institutions". I suppose abolition of parliamentary democracy does streamline institutions.

If the Irish vote no, presumably the colleagues will go through another exercise of having a dialogue with the people, possibly led by someone other than the Fluffy Commissar. Then they will have another IGC (or two or three, on past showing) and come up with another treaty. This time they might not let the Irish vote on it either.

If the Irish vote yes then it is up to President Klaus to hold his pen firmly above the paper and not sign the treaty. (There is also the question of what kind of legislation will be required in Germany.) If the Conservatives are serious about their opposition to the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty (stop sniggering at the back), they will follow our advice and ask President Klaus to hold that pen aloft, in order to give Britain a chance to vote in that referendum that will surely happen under a Conservative government.

At the heart of the evil

Offered by Watts up with that, this telling passage:

The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can't really get a handle on.

The problem though is that climate "predictions" derived from computer models are not so much predictions as mechanisms of control – a means by which pre-existing agendas, such as global governance, can be realised.

"Climate change" is not a matter of science – it is one hundred percent politics, dressed up as science. Which is why, of course, the politicians (in the UK and elsewhere) do not want to talk about it.

Meanwhile, Andrew Alexander in The Daily Mail offers his own "take" on the issue, referring to the "warmists' semi-religious fervour," likening them to "medieval preachers, proclaiming to baying crowds that the end of the word is nigh." Hysteria is the real threat, not global warming, he says.

As we sit here in unseasonable cold weather, succumbing to the temptation to switch the central heating back on, we reflect that this is only "weather" and the cooling trend must be a figment of our imagination.

But we are slightly cheered by the difficulty being experienced
by G8 leaders at their summit today in central Italy. Hoping to stitch up a deal which can be presented triumphantly to the Copenhagen climate fest at the end of the year, they are also having to deal with the realities of a recession and the massive cost of climate "control" measures, which are set to drive us back into the economic dark ages.

Representatives from China and India, we are told, are creating the blockage, refusing to agree to a draft statement agreeing that global temperatures should not be permitted to rise more than 2°C. Given that the global average is actually declining, that should not present a problem but, such is the fantasy world in which our politicians live, that the idea that mankind can control the climate still holds sway in their feeble brains.

Then, however, they are only the front men. Behind the scenes, as always, there are darker forces at play, and they will have their way. It is getting warmer ... that is what you have been told. You shall believe it!

COMMENT THREAD

That's something, I suppose

In response to Lord Stoddart's written question about the euro and a possible referendum, HMG said:

The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains unchanged. As stated by the previous Chancellor in October 1997, “whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree”.

Not sure what those last four words mean. The people are unlikely all to agree. So, if there is merely a sizeable majority, will there be another referendum in order to achieve a unanimity? And what happens if HMG decides that the euro is a very different euro from the original?

Me no understand

Ambrose has an alarming (or alarmist) story in The Daily Telegraph today telling us that the EU is "considering a voting structure for its new apparatus of financial regulation that would make it almost impossible for Britain to block measures, even if they pose a major threat to the City of London."

We are thus told that the commission is mulling a simple majority system (SMV), making it far harder for the UK to mount a "blocking minority" with like-minded allies. Malta or Slovenia would have the same voting weight on financial regulation as Britain, the world's banking capital.

On the face of it, this does not seem possible, as voting procedures are defined in the treaty and cannot be changed willy-nilly by the commission, or anyone else. But it is not at all clear from the story as to the context in which this system is supposed to apply.

However, Ambrose tells me that the commission hopes to use the procedures within the technical committees for the three new regulatory authorities, which of course is a devious piece of Monnet salami tactics. The regulators, therefore, will be able to impose their rule over the heads of the British government – if this procedure is approved.

In fact, says Ambrose, it makes little difference whether it is QMV or SMV. The key moment was when the member states agreed to binding EU powers at the Ecofin meeting in May and then at the June summit. That entailed the transfer of ultimate control over the City from London to Brussels. The rest is detail.

That, in many ways, defines the EU – submerged in technical detail and complexity which lacks clarity and defies understanding. However, we are also told that, "The City is very seriously concerned about this," which is no bad thing. If the money men are seriously worried about the depredations of the EU, then we might see some increased resistance to the evil empire and more pressure on the Conservative Party.

On this, though, it would be unwise to rely. City financiers, in our experience, tend to be extraordinarily naïve when it comes to dealing with the EU, believing they are dealing with a rational organisation with which it is possible to have sensible negotiations. They will learn in time, but not before the City has largely been destroyed by a welter of regulation and procedures that no one understands and which are too complex to report in a popular newspaper.

Any which way though, even if it is not this issue in particular which does the damage, the one constant is that we are going to get shafted, with the City shackled by a ball and chain of perverse regulation. When it happens, we will probably not even realise how it is has been done. A thought thus occurs that between the Taleban and the EU as enemies, the former are possibly preferable. At least we can shoot the Taleban.

COMMENT THREAD

Collective security

Just as we thought we could get back to (semi-) normal, after a rush of defence stories, up pops, to almost everyone's surprise, a government announcement that it will, after all, have a defence review – but not until after the next election, with a Green Paper to be produced in the autumn.

For all that, the media has been obsessed with the Michael Jackson funeral. The BBC (and others) have been running it wall-to-wall, matched in print by the celebrity-obsessed Telegraph, leaving coverage of the much more important issue extremely sparse.

But if in the real world, we have to consider such ugly things as wars, The Times and The Daily Mail visit the fantasy world of al Gore, who was visiting Oxford (having flown to the UK in his private jet), to invoke the Churchillian spirit in the "battle" against climate change.

Never mind that there are real battles going on – we do not need al Gore's pathetic attempt to turn his failing religion into a crisis. And, to give it its due, it is The Times which affords most space to the real world issue of "defence of the realm", even giving that title to its leader.

Needless to say, the paper rehearses issues which are probably familiar to us all, including the fate of the nuclear deterrent and Trident. Its analysis piece, however – written by Michael Evans - is striking in its depth and perception. He writes:

What is now needed is a ruthless approach to defence. If expenditure is not set to rise, Britain’s Armed Forces can no longer do everything and be everywhere. Investment should focus on the capabilities and platforms which can best be used in the future to contribute significantly to multinational, probably US-led, efforts. Britain does not always have to be the second-biggest troop provider in an international force — as it is in Afghanistan. This country has been punching above its weight for too long.

The leader, as you might imagine, reflects this view, offering the advice that we should stop thinking of ourselves as a global power, able to run a major military effort independently, and think in terms of "collective security" – working with allies. But it also cautions against scaling back commitments in line with changed threats and budgetary constraints.

It wants to keep Britain's independent nuclear deterrent – noting that the economic dividends from scrapping it would be slight, and the damage to Britain's defence capability substantial. Also, the paper asserts, a defence review cannot, be a substitute for a searching examination of how the Treasury is financing the war in Afghanistan. Welsh Guards who are in harm's way today cannot wait till 2010. They must have adequate equipment now, it says.

The Independent and The Guardian seemingly cannot be bothered to report on the government's announcement, in line with the Telegraph which, instead, hands over space to Liam Fox, allowing him to proclaim: "There's a war on - someone tell Labour."

That really is a little bit rich, considering how little input we have had from the Conservatives on the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. But we must suspend judgement, it seems and simply accept that "the next Tory government will carry out a proper review of our defence needs."

At the next election, there will be real choice, claims Fox. We can change to the principled realism of the Conservatives, or continue with the discredited cynicism and failure of Labour. Oddly, he says this will be "a stark choice" but, for defence in particular, a crucial one. He may be right, but not in the way he thinks.

The wooden spoon, however, goes to Sky News with a web report that still cannot distinguish between a Snatch and a Wimik, with defence correspondent Geoff Meade telling us that "30 British lives were lost in Afghanistan and Iraq" in Snatches "because the car was not strong enough to protect troops against small arms fire, petrol bombs and shrapnel." This is a man to whom we do not even need to listen, much less take seriously.

What no-one seem to be watching though is the European dimension. On 6 July, the UK and France released a declaration on defence and security following the UK-French Summit in Evian – which most of us did not even realise was happening.

It covers Afghanistan, piracy off the coast of Somalia, Kosovo, the Middle East Peace Process, DRC and mutual support overseas, with an agreement on procedures to make use of facilities at each other's overseas bases if required.

There was also a British-French cooperation initiative on European carrier group interoperability, launched in London in March 2008. This is now "well on track", and this is to be backed by joint training and sharing of best practice on helicopter operations.

St Malo this is not, but there is still a commitment to the European Security and Defence Policy, which will be strengthened if and when the constitutional Lisbon treaty is ratified. But, while the two countries "recognise the importance of flexible and rapidly deployable forces, including EU Battlegroups and the NATO Response Force," there is no real meat.

The threat is still there, but the delivery is not. The Times has a view on "collective security" and the Europeans have their view. We doubt whether a strategic review will settle the question – the Taleban might have a bigger say in the matter. As for Gore ... not wanted on voyage.

COMMENT THREAD

He is going

Something like two years after appointed to be the best brain in Parliament on international affairs, Lord Malloch-Brown (formerly interference runner for SecGen Kofi Annan and George Soros's bestest friend) is leaving at the end of this month.

We have recorded his various misleading and downright dishonest responses to questions about matters international on many occasions. We have written about his curious past experience, high opinion of himself and interesting housing arrangements.

So, is he leaving to spend more time with his family or with past friends?

A paradise lost?

One of the reasons, we are told, why Lt-Col Thorneloe and his driver Trooper Joshua Hammond could not have travelled in a better-protected Mastiff and instead were killed in a fatally vulnerable Viking was that the bridge network across the Shamalan canal, where the fighting is at its heaviest, was in poor repair and too weak to bear the weight of the heavier vehicle.

The Ministry of Defeat has now released a picture of one of the bridges (above) and simple inspection confirms the poor state. If the other bridges spanning the canal are in anything like a similar condition, then it is not at all surprising that the 23-ton Mastiff could not be used.

One would have thought, therefore, that the bridge network would have been a high priority for redevelopment funding, contributing not only tactical mobility for the Army and the Afghan security forces but also the local population who need a better network to move their equipment and goods.

But that is to reckon without those geniuses in the Department for International Development. Although they have been extremely busy in the Shamalan canal area, they have had slightly different priorities on which to spend British taxpayers' hard-earned cash.

To the utter bemusement of the local Afghanis, DFID has invested no less than £420,000 on a f****** leisure park for Women, complete, you will be pleased to know with a f****** Ferris wheel – (pictured below).

Called Bolan Park, when it was completed just over a year ago, it had "puzzled residents" asking why so much money was being spent on leisure when the most pressing problem – security – was getting worse by the day. Said Amir Mohammad, 44, "If the international community wants our country to be prosperous, they should first worry about peace and security. Then we can have parks."


As to the idea of a park for women, Mohammad Zaher stated the obvious: "The problem is that men are not accustomed to going to parks along with their women. And they won't let women go on their own." Abdul Halek, 22, agreed. "Although our house is very close to this park, we will never let our women go there," he said. "This park will be only for men."

Gul Mohammad, 35, a farmer, had a more pressing reason why women – or anyone else for that matter – would not use the park. He said, "For two years now, there have been remote-controlled explosions on the main Bolan road. I think mines will be laid in this park. That will keep people from going there."

But those brave chaps from DFID nevertheless persevered, trilling away that the nearly 20 acres would provide fresh air, fountains, flowers, picnic areas and recreational facilities for Lashkar Gah's estimated 100,000 people.

As for the IEDs that have been killing "Our Boys" – many of them now home-made using agricultural fertiliser - the aid agencies thought about that as well. Very helpfully this season, they have supplied the Taleban Afghani farmers with a total of 4,749 metric tons, conveniently packaged in 25-kilogram bags.

With such wonderful, intelligent support from our gifted civil servants, we cannot possibly lose the war in Afghanistan. We can look forward to moving from triumph to triumph, allowing the Afghani citizens to revel in their paradises of fresh air, fountains, flowers, picnic areas and recreational facilities provided so generously by British taxpayers.

COMMENT THREAD

Moonbat squeaks ...

... about non-democratic Regional Development Agencies. But only because they are subsidising carbon-emitting commercial airlines. He thinks that is disgraceful.

Oddly enough though, he doesn't seem to be bothered about the amount of money they are spending on climate change.

Democracy, it seems, is a one-way street.

COMMENT THREAD

Bubbling ...

We are not the only ones who think there is trouble brewing. There is a mood in this nation of ours ... you can't measure it but, outside the Westminster bubble, you can feel it.

Of course, The Great Leader also predicted it recently although he just had to put a party political spin on it. Would that he knew – not that he would ever admit it – he is part of the problem.

COMMENT THREAD

A parody of reality

The latest news from Afghanistan is of a third soldier being killed yesterday, making five in less than a week and bringing the total to 174 dead. The latest casualty is another from the Welsh Guards, killed while on foot by a "contact explosion". He was taking part in a "deliberate operation" near Gereshk, as part of Operation Panthers Claw.

Given the intensity of operations and the hazards of war, it is inevitable that we are seeing a spike in the casualty rate and, to put it in perspective, the current losses are modest compared with most other campaigns.

We are told, of course, that in war, "risks must be taken" - usually by the people who are not taking them. But that risk must be balanced by the rewards. If the operation in Afghanistan was succeeding, with progress towards a stable, peaceful and prosperous country – with our expenditure of blood and treasure really making the difference – then we could concede that it has been worth it.

Not so, says Stephen Grey, freelance journalist and author of the bestselling book Snakebite, who recently gave evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on the "Comprehensive Approach" – the supposedly co-ordinated inter-agency system which is tasked with bringing peace and re-development to Afghanistan.

"We owe it to all those that are sacrificing themselves in Helmand, to be brutally frank about what is going on there and what is going wrong," Grey tells the Committee, "because it is only with that frankness that I think certain things can be put right."

One admires his optimism as he then goes on to declare that, "From the perspective of those on the ground, I think the Comprehensive Approach has largely been a parody of reality. In some ways the failure to get that right has done as much to stir up conflict and cause what is happening as it has to bring peace to Afghanistan, which surely is the ultimate objective there."

Taking a measured look at that statement, Grey is telling us that the upsurge of violence in Helmand province is a result of our presence there, and that, in effect, the 174 lives lost, the hundreds more injured and the expenditure to date – over £3 billion on the military effort alone – has achieved precisely nothing. In fact, it has made matters worse.

Stephen's full evidence can be read here and needs to be read carefully by anyone who wishes to gain a greater understanding of what is going on out there.

So inadequate and ill-co-ordinated are our efforts that, according to a soldier who has e-mailed Grey with his views, the sentiment that most accurately summarises our efforts is "a sense of total lack of delivery of promises." The view is that "very little of what is talked about is actually being put into practice."

"All we really did," says this soldier, "was to fight and kill the Taliban." He adds: "The numbers are staggering, and why is that? Because we are good at it, structured for it and resourced for it, but that should not be the centre of gravity of our efforts."

Indeed it should not be the centre of gravity of our efforts and one remedy that Grey offers is "roads". More specifically, he says:

... there are ways of tailoring development projects so that they can be both doable in terms of advancing security and development, for example, road building. Roads are much more difficult to completely destroy than a new clinic, for example. They both enhance security and they boost the economy, allowing people, for example, to take legitimate crops to market as well as allowing a much more efficient security deployment.

Grey also suggests that much of the development effort must be militarised. "The military need to have the people that can do this side of the work," he says.

As to the official information coming out of theatre, Grey recalls his experience in Iraq when soldiers were being briefed for the visit of the Prime Minister. They were choosing junior officers, certainly young soldiers, who would be in line to talk to the Prime Minister and what they should tell him. The "lines-to-take book" had got up to 130 pages.

The whole thing to Grey seemed completely circular - basically politicians going out to be told what they wanted to hear. Officials disseminate an "almost a professional optimism" to politicians "which is not borne out by the private opinions of many of the same people that make these public statements."

Finally, for those who would wish to make partisan political points out of this situation, Grey gives them plenty of material. With so many different agencies at work (not), the strategic commander of all UK agencies is the Prime Minister. "There is no other place where it comes together," he says. "So there was no-one in charge apart from the Prime Minister ... and [he] has got other things on his mind." That is the real problem, Grey states.

He concludes that, "Britain's interests need to be combined into one role, an ambassador that combines the role of both military commander and civil commander." If such a person exists, he has yet to emerge but, unless he (or she) does – and soon – others may conclude that Britain's interests are best served by departing as rapidly as possible. At least then, we would not be making the situation worse.

COMMENT THREAD

Intensely political

With two more British soldiers killed today, there is every indication that the defence debate raging in today's newspapers is about to ramp up a notch, especially as one of the reported casualties is a soldier from The Light Dragoons, who was killed by an IED. The Light Dragoons are known to operate Jackals and a recent Dragoon casualty, L/Cpl Nigel Moffet, was also killed in a Jackal.

According to The Times, however, the Light Dragoons soldier was killed by an explosion while he was on foot and the other soldier, from the Mercian Regiment, died when he was hit during a rocket-propelled grenade attack against his Scorpion (sic) armoured reconnaissance vehicle. That does not sound right – the Mercians do not operate Scorpions (which were withdrawn in 1994), while the Dragoons actually operate Scimitars. There may be a mix-up here.

Anyhow, despite the intensity of that debate in the media, as we have observed several times in the last few days, it really is quite remarkable how the political classes have opted out. For once, the MSM has its finger on the pulse but go to the British political blogosphere and you would hardly be aware of the controversy. Other matters are of more concern.

Peter Hitchens has a thing or two to say about this, and the Conservatives in particular, which rather puts contemporary party politics into perspective – hence the picture. While the Tories and their blogging claque indulge in their own obsessions, the world goes on without them.

Hitchens himself expresses his frustration about the response to Lt-Col Thorneloe's death and the use of "unsafe" Vikings, asking why it is that the Opposition has not demanded a proper debate about it. But then, as we have noted, the Tories – along with Labour and the rest of the MPs - don't "do" defence any more, along with "Europe", immigration and many other issues.

The trouble is that, in leaving the debate to the media, you get the sort of editorial we see in The Sunday Telegraph, telling us that "Frontline troops must now be a spending priority". This frames the debate in a way that neither government nor opposition politicians would prefer.

With pressure on public spending, like never before, the last thing the Tories will want when they take over the administration next year is to be confronted with the prospect of increased defence spending – and exactly the same complaints of "underfunding" that they have been flinging at Labour.

Had the Tories got their wits about them, there is plenty of evidence in the MoD of waste and miss-directed spending, sufficient for them to argue that defence effects could be achieved with little or no extra spending, and even with a modest reduction.

However, having opted out of the debate, the way is left clear for The Sunday Telegraph to argue that the purchase of the weapons and vehicles that "those serving on the front line need and demand – must not merely be maintained. It must be increased." Anything less, the paper says, "would be a criminal failure to honour the responsibility politicians have to the men and women they order into battle."

In the Observer, we see a similar line taken, with Henry Porter asserting that, "The soldiers give all, while the politicians starve them of cash". And, with The Times yesterday also equating equipment shortfalls with lack of cash, offering the strap, "Money is scarce but there is no excuse for conducting a battle with inadequate equipment," the terms of the debate are being set outside the control of the politicians.

That is the bizarre aspect of this whole issue – politics without politicians, the latter having vacated the field. They, as well as our troops and ourselves, will be the losers.

COMMENT THREAD

They should not have died

I am sorry if it offends – and it certainly does upset some of the military types, and the "consultants" and designers responsible for the Viking and the decision to deploy it to Afghanistan – but, on the basis of all the evidence we have, Booker and I both have come to the conclusion that Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe and Trooper Joshua Hammond should not have died.

More on Defence of the Realm.

Another break ...

... from the real news. First reaction to Sarah Palin's resignation announcement over on Your Freedom and Ours. A victory (if only temporary, I suspect) for the political establishment that does not tolerate real outsiders. Well, sometimes it is forced to tolerate them and that is what I hope will happen here.

Oh yes, happy Independence Day to all our American readers.

In the media

Read this and then read this. Now read the offering from The Times and wonder.

Looking at the bigger picture, Matthew Parris reckons we can't win, while Tim Collins, on a narrower front, writes about Rupert Thorneloe and ventures that this was war. "Things like this happen, and often they are flukes," he says.

We beg to differ. We all accept that, in war, soldiers die. What is not acceptable is unnecessary deaths - deaths which could have been avoided with a modicum of care and forethought.

In Aden in the 60s, British forces were issued with mine/IED protected vehicles. In the 70s, the Rhodesians developed a range of such vehicles and saved many lives. In Bosnia, the designs were used by British troops. In Iraq, US forces developed a greater range of such vehicles, which reduced IED casualties by 80 percent.

Col Thorneloe's death was not a "fluke" - it was a duff piece of kit called the Viking, that was not armoured against an underbelly threat. It should never have been allowed into theatre. Our military vehicle designers, the MoD and the military have sat on their hands for nigh on 30 years, ignoring the mine/IED threat.

This is the result - 35 percent of our dead in Afghanistan have occurred in poorly-protected vehicles. In the one properly designed vehicle we have out there, the death rate has been nil. Go figure.

Rarely has the death of one soldier invoked such an intensity of comment – and never in recent times. Ainsworth has been forced to defend the MoD's position, insisting that British forces in Afghanistan were "better equipped than they have ever been". Many are not entirely convinced.

In one thing, therefore, we were absolutely right, suggesting that Col Thorneloe's death was "a major incident with huge political ramifications". Our earlier pessimism about the behaviour of the media was perhaps unwarranted, although it is largely The Times making the running. It was The Daily Telegraph that made the running yesterday.

The Times has Michael Evans reporting that Thorneloe's death "reignites equipment row" – although he is falling for the MoD line that the Viking was adequate when it was introduced to theatre – which it never was – and accepts uncritically the idea that the Warthog replacement will resolve the problem. It will not.

In another piece, Deborah Haynes compares US performance with the British in delivering MRAPs to theatre - 12,000 as opposed to Britain's 235. She does not go into why that is the case, and why the British Army is so reluctant to embrace mine/blast protected vehicles. Exploring that might give her (and her readers) some real insight into what is going on.

Instead - and in both pieces - Liam Fox is quoted. In the first, he is blaming the lack of helicopters on Mr Brown’s refusal to supply adequate funds for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan when he was Chancellor. "Gordon Brown denied the Armed Forces the funds they needed," he declares. As always, little Liam has never sussed the real story.

In the second piece, he asks, "Why is it that other countries are able to give their armed forces what they need, when they need it and where they need it, but under the current Government we are unable to do the same?" His answer to his own question is not recorded.

Fox, therefore, is offering the usual, low-grade, formulaic stuff but, even then, he is on his own - other than renta-mouth Mercer who, like Fox, is complaining of shortage of funds. But then, the Tories have never been able to get their heads round the fact that this is not about money. Their stance is politically maladroit and illogical. It is in their interests to find cheaper ways of doing things as they will not be able to throw money at the problems. They are setting themselves up for a fall,

Nevertheless, the lack of focused opposition does not entirely surprise us. Nor does the lack of engagement in the political blogosphere. When we see this, however, we suspect they have lost it.

I don't know what is more worrying – the piece itself, or that there are 197 comments (at the time of writing). If this is in any way indicative of the future under a Tory administration, our troops would be well advised to look for a quick exit.

COMMENT THREAD

More ...

... on Defence of the Realm. What a bizarre media we have!

Goodness me, people resign?

Some light relief for our readers while the boss concentrates on the really important news of the day. But it seems that in some countries highly placed officials resign after being accused of misusing public money.

The chap in question is The Director of the Spanish Secret Service, CNI, Alberto Sáiz, who resigned after several weeks of revelations and claims about him in the press, led by newspaper El Mundo.

There are some entertaining aspects to the story:

The paper printed a list of claims saying that Sáiz had made private use of the CNI facilities, including international hunting and fishing trips, and used his post to help family and friends.

When the revelations about him surfaced in the press he was then accused of using sophisticated lie detector equipment against his own agents in an attempt to track down the leaks to the press.

I wonder why some of our people, politicians and officials have not thought of those "sophisticated lie detectors". Or, perhaps, they did and they do not work any more than the less sophisticated thumb screws do.

The Times has some details on the accusations.

COMMENT THREAD

Time to get this sorted

With the recent deaths of Lt-Col Thorneloe and Trp Joshua Hammond, the number of service personnel killed in Afghanistan by mine strikes and IEDs while riding in poorly protected vehicles rises to 49 by our estimate.

With 140 KIA, that amounts to 35 percent of deaths due to enemy action (or accidental minestrikes from legacy mines). Perhaps twice as many service personnel have suffered very serious injuries, losing in total 150 or thereabouts skilled personnel. Without taking into account the huge financial costs, the Military cannot afford this unnecessary attrition.

More on Defence of the Realm.

How the media blew it

I first heard that there had been another IED strike on a Viking early Wednesday evening, long before there was any media coverage. This was from Thomas Harding of The Daily Telegraph, who told me two soldiers had been killed, and more injured.

At that time, we did not know that Lt-Col Rupert Thorneloe had been killed. Thus, to us, there was only one story – another example of men being killed in the perilously inadequate Viking, so lightly armoured that it is incapable of resisting even a minor IED hit under the belly or tracks.

As the details of Thorneloe's death came in the following morning, to us the tenor of the story did not change. In fact, it reinforced the line and made it both more tragic and more outrageous. Although every death counts, there is still something special about a senior officer – and a very highly regarded one at that – being killed. The utter, devastating waste of life, arising from this useless vehicle, was very much in our minds.

Harding's story reflected that outrage. On the other hand, Newton Dunn who went out early breaking the embargo to claim an "exclusive" for The Sun, focuses on the claimed "massive hidden bomb" rather than the vulnerability of the Viking.

Michael Evans, who has previously written about the Viking, followed up with a piece in The Times. He thus wrote of "the rising number of deaths among soldiers travelling in Vikings, which are driven by the Royal Marine Armoured Support Group" and of the "growing concern to the troops in Helmand."

From there, however, it went downhill. The story was then covered by The Daily Mail which focused mainly on the fact that Thorneloe was the highest ranking casualty since the Falklands.

Initially, The Guardian pasted in a Press Association release, which made no mention of the Viking. On its own though, the Press Association offers another piece, with the headline, "Commanding officer shot in Helmand". This is picked up, uncritically by hundreds of local papers throughout the land, not a brain cell between them as they paste it into their websites.

Needless to say, the vehicle was only briefly mentioned by the BBC, without comment. Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent of The Independent also fails to pick up the thread.

Then The Guardian followed up with a piece by Richard Norton-Taylor. He, like Newton Dunn, retailed a description of a "huge bomb" that shattered the armoured Viking tracked vehicle. This time though, that detail came from a "defence official", reflecting the MoD's determination to "talk up" the size of the IED in order to divert attention from the weakness of the Viking. Even in death, politics plays its part.

Here, The Daily Express excels itself. Col Thorneloe, it tells us, was travelling in a tracked Viking armoured vehicle when it was hit by a blast from an IED. Then, trotting out pure, undiluted MoD-ese, it tells us, "The Vikings have been given extra armour but nothing can guarantee protection if a bomb is big enough."

With the news out, the MoD posted some details of the incident itself.

We are told that the two soldiers were killed by an explosion whilst on convoy along the Shamalan Canal, near Lashkar Gah. Travelling in a Viking, Lt Col Thorneloe had left the Battle Group Headquarters on a resupply convoy so that he could visit his men. At 1520hrs local time an IED was detonated under this vehicle. Lt Col Thorneloe and Tpr Hammond were killed by the blast.

The rest of the lengthy post is taken up with eulogies, the text forming the bulk of the copy used by the media, drowning the limited operational detail.

The Times follows this line. Despite Michael Evans offering critical detail of the Viking, his newspaper offers a "commentary" by Crispin Black discussing how "Rupert Thorneloe's death will affect Welsh Guardsmen deeply", with not a word about the manner of his untimely death.

In a second piece, Tom Coghlan offered his reflections of Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, the man, and then another piece where he described an earlier ambush on a Viking supply convoy, completely missing the point. How the MoD must love him. We will review this piece separately.

James Blitz of the Financial Times came in with his own piece. By now, the MoD was briefing freely and the focus again was entirely on the "commanding officer" aspect of the death. The MoD was cited as saying that only six Army COs have died on operations in command of their units since 1948.

There was no reference at all to the Viking. This, and its extreme vulnerability to IEDs, was gradually being filtered out of the narrative as the "damage limitation" mechanisms went to work.

Reuters had its staff reporter Peter Griffiths write up the story. He also failed to include details of the Viking. This report will be reproduced in thousands of MSM reports.

So it was that, progressively, an "inconvenient truth" was buried. The Viking has been written out of the script, and with it the dire role of the MoD in providing completely inadequate equipment. Unable to see beyond the narrow confines of a story and lacking the imagination and skills to report the real story, the media pack has sold the pass. Of the blogs though, at least A Tangled Web got the point.

But when men (and women) continue to die, who will share the blame? Not the media, of course. They just report the news.

COMMENT THREAD

Welsh Guards CO killed

Recorded by Thomas Harding of The Daily Telegraph, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe (pictured on patrol), CO of the 1st Bttn Welsh Guards, has been killed in Afghanistan by an IED.

He is the first CO to be killed in action since the death of Lt-Col H Jones of the 2nd Bttn the Parachute Regiment in 1982 at Goose Green in the Falklands War and the highest-ranking British Army officer to be killed in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Thornloe's death comes less than two weeks after the death of Major Sean Birchall, also of the Welsh Guards. He is the third Welsh Guards officer to be killed on the current roulement, with Lt Mark Evison killed on 12 May after sustaining injuries whilst on patrol outside Check Point Haji Alem in Helmand.

The first bare details were reported early Wednesday afternoon by AFP, which released details of an incident in which a bomb blast (IED) had killed two and wounded six in southern Afghanistan, bringing to 158 the number of international soldiers to lose their lives in Afghanistan this year.

It took until mid-morning today for the MoD publicly to confirm what has been known to the media since yesterday – that they were two of ours, "one soldier from 1st Bttn Welsh Guards and the other from 2nd Royal Tank Regiment."

The MoD website, however, makes no mention of Lt-Col Thorneloe or of the injured – although two were very seriously injured, one of whom is "critical". No other names have yet been given, in accordance with normal practice. Tpr Joshua Hammond of the 2 Royal Tank Regiment has now been named. He was, presumably, the driver.

This, according to The Daily Telegraph and others, brings the number of British personnel killed since the start of operations in October 2001 to 171. The explosion, we are told, happened whilst on a deliberate operation near Lashkar Gah, the media informing us that they were taking part in Operation Panther's Claw.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Lt-Col Thorneloe, with the others, was riding in a Viking as it was negotiating a canal crossing. The explosion took out the rear compartment of this articulated vehicle, as well as the tractor. That would bring to eight the number of troops killed in Vikings, with Thorneloe the most senior, regarded as a "high flier" and former aide to defence secretary Des Browne.

If the unverified details are correct, then they would seem to reinforce the intelligence coming out of theatre that the Taleban are resorting progressively to much larger IEDs. However, such information as is available suggests this was not a massive bomb, and possibly survivable in a MRAP such as the Mastiff.

With the known vulnerability of the Viking, and its scheduled replacement, the use of this vehicle was supposed to have been restricted. With such a high-profile death, this may bring into focus the use of this tragically vulnerable vehicle, and call into question the entire MoD protected vehicle policy.

Note: Release of Lt-Col Thorneloe's name was originally embargoed until 10pm this evening, but The Sun has now published details on its web site. We have, therefore, now decided to publish our own post.

COMMENT THREAD

Watch the video ...

Then read the script on Watts up with that. Warming? What warming?

Details to follow ...

Two British soldiers were killed and six injured in a bomb blast in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today, via The Times.

A "big bomb" is said to have struck a combat vehicle carrying British troops close to Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, yesterday. Everyone in the vehicle was killed or injured. Next of kin have been informed. The two dead soldiers were from 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, respectively.

We have learned that this is a major incident with huge political ramifications, but details have been embargoed until 10pm to allow the next of kin time more time before the news breaks. This blog is respecting that embargo and offers our greatest sympathy. We will publish more at 10pm or sooner if the embargo is broken.

COMMENT THREAD

The Baroness Kinnock in place

There she was, our Glenys, in her place as Minister for Europe, answering or, rather avoiding, questions about the second Irish referendum as to the manner born. Apart from being economical with the truth about the Irish government not being bullied or pressurized into that second referendum, she gave no explanation at all as to why it is needed. After all, the people of Ireland have spoken.

Another point she omitted to explain, despite being asked by the Lord Pearson of Rannoch is what happens if there is no Accession Treaty either with Croatia or Iceland, the latter country not having applied for membership yet. Or if there is a treaty in the near future, how near is it and what happens to those "legal guarantees" in the meantime?

No doubt, the Baroness Kinnock (any sign of Master Kinnock following mummy and daddy into the House of Lords?) intends to go on as she has started.

COMMENT THREAD

Crap and fade

Read the post here and follow the link. Likewise here. One can only marvel at the fact that there is a political debate, even if we support the losing side.

In the UK, of course, we already have crap and fade. It is called the European Trading Scheme (ETS). No debate here ... another example of how the EU completely emasculates political discourse. Instead, our MPs are rushing through a Bill further to emasculate their own powers. In Brussels, the issue du jour is whether to keep José thingy on as commission president.

You can understand why so many people find US politics more interesting than our own. Weep while you can.

COMMENT THREAD

A small cheer

One small clause in the Bill to establish a statutory code of conduct for MPs' has been defeated - by three votes, including John Reid and Margaret Beckett.

The clause sought to make statements by MPs in the House subject to actions in the courts, threatening the centuries-old Parliamentary privilege that affords MPs immunity from prosecution for defamation.

It is a victory, but a small victory, but not enough ... and since so few people now listen to what MPs say in the House, one can hardly believe it matters.

COMMENT THREAD

Green dole

While the stupidity of president Obama continues to break new records, one would struggle for find anything more facile than his claim that his obsession with global warming will create millions of new green jobs and so spur the US economy toward recovery.

Now, even Reuters is beginning to notice, offering a details of a Spanish report which rather confounds Obama's enthusiasm for Spain as an example to follow.

The report is produced by economics professor Juan Carlos of the University of Madrid, who has found that for every green job "created" by the Spanish government, an average of 2.2 other jobs have been destroyed. And, of those fabulous green jobs, only 1 in 10 was permanent.

"Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the US should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created," writes professor Gabriel Calzada in an introduction to the study.

"The study's results demonstrate how such 'green jobs' policy clearly hinders Spain's way out of the current economic crisis, even while US politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil," Calzada writes.

However, Reuters has found a way of dismissing this inconvenient truth, relying on a Wall Street Journal clog which notes that Calzada, as the founder of a libertarian think tank, "might not be completely objective" – as against railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri, of course, who is totally objective.

COMMENT THREAD

This is politics

We've known for a long time that we've got the focus of this blog wrong, wasting our time on issues like global warming, immigration, defence, the EU and other, sundry trivial matters. We should follow in the footsteps of the Great Leader and concentrate on the important things.

COMMENT THREAD

Twice as much for less protection

With the results of the closely-fought M-ATV contract to supply off-road protected vehicles to the US armed forces in Afghanistan being announced yesterday, US Armed Forces are to get their protected vehicles for Afghanistan at half the cost paid by the British MoD, which has selected one of the unsuccessful bidders.

This is another classic example of MoD waste, strengthening the argument that throwing money at defence is not going to solve its structural problems.

Sadly, this message is not percolating into the general consciousness. In The Daily Telegraph letters column today, for instance, we get Philip Congdon, writing from La Bastide d'Engras, Gard, France, opining that, "the real problem is profligate spending on a myriad public-funded schemes, many of which have wasted billions of pounds and achieved nothing."

He is, rightly, referring to the enormous waste in the public sector generally, and it is certainly an argument that, had so much money not been wasted, defence could have been better funded.

However, up front in the ranks of waste is the MoD. Over term, we have identified billions than have been poured down the drain for little or no effect. Thus, while a case can be made for more defence spending, the more important issue is to improve the spending performance of the MoD. Otherwise, we are just throwing good money after bad.

More on Defence of the Realm.

Toxic leadership

The Army has problems, according to Thomas Harding. Associated Press via The Guardian picks the same theme. Our "take" on the situation is on Defence of the Realm.

Meanwhile, The Guardian offers its "take" on the Army's latest glorious triumph.

COMMENT THREAD

Strategic thinking?

.... there are other, potentially greater, threats to the security of the nation than the distant prospect of an invasion by an unidentified superpower, or an attack by a rogue nuclear state. The consequences of climate change in terms of water supply, mass migration and unrest in parts of the world on which we rely for energy constitute just as great an existential threat as existed during the Cold War.

That is the view of the world's favourite newspaper. The source of this tosh, however, is the IPPR - 147 pages of it. They'll be rolling out the European Climate Change Corps next.

UKNDA believes the IPPR authors are "barking up the wrong tree". The IPPR recommends a move away from Britain's traditional focus on the alliance with the USA, towards a Europe-centred Defence policy. "We must continue to stand alongside America - that is absolutely fundamental ... It would be sheer folly to retreat to the role of European bit-player, heavily reliant on France and Germany," says UKNDA. We could hardly disagree.

COMMENT THREAD

An accident waiting to happen

The Times is reporting that Airbus is expected to face calls to ground its worldwide fleet of long-range airliners today when French accident investigators issue their first account of what caused Air France Flight 447 to crash off Brazil on 1 June.

It is believed that the accident bureau will report that faulty speed data and electronics were the main problem in the disaster that killed 228 people.

Last weekend, the US National Transportation Safety Board, began looking into two incidents in which Airbus A330s flying from the US suffered critical episodes apparently similar to that of AF447 but, crucially, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – which is the lead safety authority on this type - is now likely to be asked why it had never taken action to remedy trouble that was well known with the Airbus 330 and 340 series.

"EASA has a legal and moral obligation to get to the bottom of this problem now. If there is a defective system and the aircraft is unsafe then it should be grounded, " says James Healy-Pratt of Stewarts Law in London. The firm, which specialises in aviation, is representing the families of 20 of the victims of flight 447.

Airbus first reported problems with the pitot tubes in 1994, it emerged this week. The company advised remedies, but no mandatory action was taken.

One wonders, of course, whether things might have been different if an Airbus had not been involved, and whether EASA is too close to this European industry. There were, for instance, dark reports in 2005 about EASA suppressing safety concerns about the A-380.

The following year, the House of Commons Transport Committee produced a coruscating report, condemning the EASA, calling it an "accident waiting to happen", and advising the British government not to transfer more power to it.

In the 367-page report, committee chairwoman (the late) Gwyneth Dunwoody said that EASA, which became operational in 2003, had failed to coordinate safety regulation across Europe and threatened air safety in the UK. EASA's "lamentable problems of governance, management and resources," the report adds, "must not be allowed to compromise aviation safety in the UK in any way".

Now the accident has happened, who is going to do an inquiry on EASA?

COMMENT THREAD