A refreshing characteristic of soldiers is that they do not generally spin. It is not part of their training. It is therefore all the more frustrating that those on the front line of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush's "war on terror" -- a dangerously misleading term -- cannot say publicly what they really think.
That is left to ex-generals. Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the UK defense staff, has repeatedly warned ministers about the dangers of giving the public misleading information and failing to plan properly for military operations.
"We need to face facts that things are very serious," he told the Daily Telegraph in London last week in reference to Iraq and Afghanistan. "It is reprehensible that our politicians are hiding behind the generals."
There are few more experienced former generals than Sir Rupert Smith, the commander of the UK's armored division in the first Gulf war, and of UN forces in Bosnia and British forces in Northern Ireland. His book, The Utility of Force, which should be compulsory reading in 10 Downing Street as well as the UK Ministry of Defense, has just been published in paperback.
Conflict and combat may exist all around the world, he writes, but "war no longer exists." War, that is, as commonly perceived -- as a battle between men and machinery and a decisive event in solving international disputes.
Speaking to the Guardian last week, Smith delivered a devastating assessment of the Blair legacy. By following the US since Sept. 11, the British government had actually helped to promote "the strategies of provocation and propaganda of the deed" -- the strategies of al-Qaeda.
"We've helped by playing to the cards of the opponent," he said.
Moreover, the US and Britain had attacked their own stated objectives by "trampling" on the rule of law and human rights, and weakening alliances.
Britain had contributed to "destabilizing at the very least Iraq, and arguably the [whole] region of the Gulf," Smith added.
In Afghanistan, the UK was "in grave danger of making an enemy where there was none before."
Blair was jeopardizing the nation's security by undermining its defenses while provoking a new enemy, he argued.
Smith is not scoring partisan points. Former, even current, generals do not see the world through such political spectacles, any more than members of the security and intelligence agencies who warned Blair before the invasion of Iraq that such a move would increase the threat to Britain of terrorist attacks. Such damning criticism of Blair's rhetoric and policies is the result of objective analysis by supreme pragmatists.
They say that, constitutionally, it is not their role to confront the elected prime minister over policy, even when it is a dangerous failure.
His courtiers stay silent. Perversely, most members of parliament have shown reluctance to challenge ministers on their "war on terror."
So Blair carries on, blinded by an absolute belief in the righteousness of his cause, playing party politics with national security, notably over his claims that the police and intelligence agencies were supporting his case for increasingly draconian anti-terror laws.
Blair got no comfort from a source whose support he may have expected he could rely on.
"The most salient impact of the Iraq intervention," the rarely controversial London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) notes in its latest annual survey, is that, as perceived by European governments, "it has reinforced [Osama] bin Laden's narrative depicting the United States and its allies as seeking to establish Western hegemony in the Arab and wider Muslim world, to loot Islam's oil, and to support Israel against its largely Muslim neighbors."
Moreover, Western intelligence agencies agree that Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a training ground for "jihadist" terrorists.
The IISS adds: "Iraq confirmed and intensified the jihadist narrative of Muslim humiliation and subjugation by presenting the acute antagonism of Americans killing Arabs, and offering the possibility of a triumphant moment when a Muslim can kill an American in battle."
The extent to which the Blair's successor as British prime minister will have to strike a new partnership with Bush, the IISS points out, will depend on the timing of Blair's handover.
"The Iraq war is identified in Britain so personally with Blair that the next leader, even if a member of the same party, will be able to leave an enormous amount of domestic political baggage behind," it says.
What is surprising, it adds, about both the British electorate and Britain's international partners, is "how little they know about [Blair's expected successor] Gordon Brown."
Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor.
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Since the end of the Cold War, the US-China espionage battle has arguably become the largest on Earth. Spying on China is vital for the US, as China’s growing military and technological capabilities pose direct challenges to its interests, especially in defending Taiwan and maintaining security in the Indo-Pacific. Intelligence gathering helps the US counter Chinese aggression, stay ahead of threats and safeguard not only its own security, but also the stability of global trade routes. Unchecked Chinese expansion could destabilize the region and have far-reaching global consequences. In recent years, spying on China has become increasingly difficult for the US
RSS