The Bewilderness

A Century of War comes to an end (for now)

Be careful what you wish for. The Guardian's article on the army notes that we have withdrawn from Afghanistan, this may be the first year that the country has not waged conflict since 1914 (or 1707)...take your pick! A cautious Ministry of Defence has noted this vacation from war as a "strategic pause". 

Usually when such interregnums occur, the next war caused by a geopolitical surprise or some enterprising ally, usually intervenes. The Guardian makes great play with the notion that a more multicultural Britain is less inclined to go to war, especially in majority Muslin countries. Their simplistic glee at this withdrawal shines faintly through the article. Yet, there is no evidence that this is the case(One could argue that increased immigration and trouble leads to support for quelling sources of terrorism: the theory behind Iraq).

Professor Richard English, a historian at St Andrews University who studies war and terrorism, said that although many British Muslims had been greatly concerned that their country was waging war in Muslim countries, Britain's war-weariness was a more complex and extensive phenomenon.

"It may be that multiculturalism is a grace note or a second melody in there – I'm not sure that it's the main thing," he said. Instead, he believes war-weariness is focused on Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of what he described as "the dodgy bill of goods" that led to the former and the uncertain achievements of the latter.

"The decision in the House of Commons about Syria was really a decision about Iraq, but a few years late," he said.

English added that war-weariness was a cyclical affair. "It is always easy between conflicts to forget how nasty they are, and this amnesia is one of our worst enemies.

We are tired of war for a while.

An entente not yet cordiale

Whereas Russia may favour bellicose utterances in reaction to specific developments, the diplomatic events of recent weeks support a certain pratical warming towards the West. Some of this is propelled by necessity: the security of the winter Olympics at Sochi on the Black Sea and a tentative fear within the Russian elites that plunging fuel prices could jeopardise the hard-won financial stability of centralised Muscovy. Some of it may be shoring up the flanks. Russia does not require hostility from Europe when that alliances that have cemented relationships with China appear far more fragile under the troubles hitting China's maritime littoral. China is unpredictable in its associations.

If any country's relationships with Russia plunged to low depths then it was the United Kngdom. However, backchannels have been lit up for some years now and, like France, expanding co-operation is achieved through the defence industries. A treaty on co-operation (in non-sensitive technology) has been underway for some months. It should soon be signed.

These small steps indicate that Russia understands the fear of two armed camps and, wisely, does not wish to see conflict in East Asia pull other countries within its orbit. A multipolar world is to be welcomed but neutrality is becoming a natural option: Russia is a European power with interests in Asia; or an Asian power that extends to Europe. It just depends upon who is asking. 

When does the Commons have a vote on war?

Does Parliament now have a vote before soldiers are ever sent into action? This seems to be the argument of Anne Perkins. Would this override treaty obligations such as NATO?

The answer is surely negative. Specific interventions, subject or not to UN approval, may now require parliementary approval. Defending British territory or meeting treaty obligations are surely still the prerogative of the executive. Could one foresee the PM demanding a vote if Britain were invaded or if Article V of the NATO Charter was invoked?

Mapping this precedent will take some time and further wars.

A test of memory

Euractiv has an article on the proposed commemorations of the Great War within Europe. Noting that a shared history is one of the foundations for a demos, the European Commission's unwillingness to participate in these events proves a notable failure for the Project. However, it is politically astute.

The British commemorations will focus on memory and loss, the defining themes of the war for thirty years as the last of the few have passed away. If there is an ebbing tide of the 'just war' and the 'right thing to do', this will not ne questioned deeply under the current coalition. Euractive misdescribes this as a focus on victory. The French reaction is similar. For both countries, the conflict is bound up with notions of cultural identity and how communities were tested or split asunder.

For Germany, Austria and Italy, the war is almost forgotten. Some view the emphasis on the conflict in the West as a form of victors' justice. Others cannot focus on the start of their tragedy since the prologue proved a miserable commencement to greater disasters. And in Russia, the centenary is viewed as a path for resurrection and a chance to draw upon Tsarist, not Communist, antecedents:

Vladimir Putin's Russia, meanwhile, has seized on the chance to fan national pride, reviving the memory of a war it says was unjustly forgotten under the Soviet regime -- which today's Russian rulers accuse of bowing shamefully to Germany in 1917.

How we recall the war depends upon national experience and the final disposition of the war. Those countries that lost and suffered revolutionary upheaval displaced their grieving and forgot their dead. But where losses were borne by stable democracies and without political change, there was a groundswell of remembrance and the names of the dead can still be discerned in lichened village sculpture under cross or sword. 

For the only lesson from the Great War that we still observe for our citizen soldiers is recited in the Ode of Remembrance:  "We shall remember them!" "Lest we forget!" 

A word used out of place

It is hard to see where Michael Adebolajo is going with his testimony. He denies murder (presumably as a soldier is not a victim). He cites qualities of honour and courage, but ran his victim down and then tried to cut his head off (which he justified as a humane act to end Lee Rigby's pain). This man pleads "Not Guilty".

By his own account, he had no hesitation in killing a soldier and used the Islamic religion as a justification for his action. Yet, if it were not for jihad, would Michael Adebolajo have ever thought that evil actions were justified. He dared compare himself with Lee Rigby, a perverse and reverse Stockholm syndrome where moral equivalence with the murdered victim is sought to salve the crime.

Let those who agree with him (and there are many) open up in public. How can they justify his action? 

 

From NATO to neutrality: Mitteleuropa's path in the 21st century

Germany's actions become more contorted in their reaction to the revelations of spying. It appears that the British embassy has undertaken surveillance of Berlin. No doubt this has been taking place since the beginning of the Cold War with various permutations. As the Telegraph article notes, the Russian embassy is only one street away (and I wonder where the French embassy is).

The German Foreign Ministry has called in British embassy staff in Berlin for an explanation. If they do extend this path of displeasure and create further difficulties with the 'Five Eyes', this will represent a further turn towards neutrality in Mitteleuropa; a turn noted in Atlanticist capitals and a further reminder that NATO remains in form, but that trust in collective action must further diminish. 

The drone revolution nobbles Nimrod

There are plenty of blogs that drone about the rise of UAVs and their impact upon defence forces. With straitened budgets and increased capabilities, Philip Hammond's announcement that Nimrods would not be replaced by manned aircraft was unsurprising. This has left a gap in Britain's ability to maintain submarine surveillance around our coasts in the short-term. Critics of the Nimrod programme's cancellation were quick to point this out (though they were quieter about the mishandling of the entire upgrade programme: another Ministry of Disaster special). 

Whilst Hammond clearly acknowledged the gap in capabilities, he anticipated a new generation of drones that would achieve more than NImrod at lower cost and less risk to the crew. No doubt further programmes will be cut as the drone revolution begins to take effect.

The thick red line

The BAE Systems- EADS merger always invited scepticism in its goals and impact. The complex slew of profit, politicians and national interest set a very high bar. Yet, gratifying to hear that a red line for Britain was executive control. 

Robots continue to colonise war

Britain is developing its own autonomous robotic systems for war: alongside another forty-six countries. Two unmanned aerial vehicles are utilised: the Mantis for surveillance and the Predator for missile attacks. In development are unmanned ground vehicles: Pointer (a tracked single robot), Raider (a reconfigurable vehicle) and Wraith (a stealth tank). The MOD Developments, Doctrines and Concepts Centre is examining the ethics of robots in warfare though the pressures of competition will no doubt overcome their squeamishness.

More detail is provided by an article in The Engineer. The focus on controls, leaving humans in the loop, remains operationally an ethically key. Moving from a single controlled vehicle to swarms of UAVs or UGVs means that the machines are operating with far more autonomy and the debate centres upon rules of engagement, target identification and, presumably, an 'off switch'. There isn't one.

When it comes to more complex missions, however, the concept of a robot running an artificial-intelligence system is,[Professor of robotics at the University of Sheffield, Noel] Sharkey thinks, unlikely. ’You need human reasoning behind it. You can’t put the Geneva Convention into a computer; it isn’t specified for a computer and it contains ambiguity and apparent contradictions that need human reasoning to make sense of. We have no idea how reasoning works or even where it comes from.’

Perhaps Sharkey is right and there is a role for human engagement due to the shortcomings of artificial intelligence. Yet, it was not so long ago, that the fantasies of Terminator remained on celluloid, not in the dreams of engineers. Yet, as defence budgets shrink, robots are cheaper than humans and never sleep.Their role will only increase.

 

Joint Security

The United States and the United Kingdom have used the opportunity of President Obama's visit to launch a new initiative in security co-operation: a National Security Board. It is not clear why the initiative has been stepped up. Perhaps it is due to Cameron's establishment of a National Security Council, aligning institutions with Washington's structure allowing direct co-ordination. Or perhaps, the divisions over Libya were due to tactical misunderstandings, not political differences.

Whatever the motive, it is doubtful that this new body will keep the strong differences between the two nations from occasionally surfacing. Nevertheless, an emphasis upon cybersecurity, suggests that Britain faces strong attacks from Russia and China in this field - just as much as the United States does. Will the rest of the Anglosphere observe, perhaps join?