Britain’s Iraq Inquiry: What’s the Point?
Posted on 11. Mar, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
Hearings in Britain’s latest Iraq war inquiry were suspended this week and won’t resume until after the general election expected this May. Despite efforts to remain separate from party politics, the Chilcot Inquiry has generated much for the political gristmill. Among the most notable are claims by defense chiefs and ministers that Prime Minister Gordon Brown starved the armed forces of funds while he was Chancellor and blocked vital equipment orders – charges the Prime Minister has refuted.
British Paras in Basra 2003
With all the headlines, you’d think that the Chilcot inquiry was actually living up to its mandate and identifying lessons to be learned from the Iraq conflict. But the controversy surrounding equipment shortages is, sadly, nothing new. Anyone who has served in the British military can tell you that its chiefs have a long history of sending troops into battle without the proper kit. During the first Gulf War, my mates and I we were forced to improvise claymore defensive mines out of ice cream containers and dockyard confetti. We went on the ground with stripped down short wheelbase Land Rovers with gun mounts crudely welded on the back. We had to buy blankets and coats from locals to keep warm in what was arguably the coldest Iraqi winter in living memory.
That’s not to say that past mistakes in any way excuse the equipment shortages and budget tightening that compromised the safety of British troops serving in Iraq from 2003 and continue to jeopardize the lives of our brave soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. I find it outrageous for example, that Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup who was the deputy chief in charge of equipment for Iraq, had the nerve to go before the Chilcot Inquiry and complain that he didn’t have enough time to resource everything needed for the invasion. In my view, if Sir Jock really wanted to support the troops, he could have made a stand back then and resigned in protest to draw attention to the issue. The same goes for retired MoD boss Sir Kevin Tebbit who told the inquiry that Gordon Brown “guillotined” the defense budget back in 2003. Why didn’t Tebbit resign at the time?
Of course, all the after-the-fact naming and shaming begs the question, is the inquiry really worth resuming once the election is over? If it was about holding political and military leaders accountable for their decisions regarding Iraq, I would definitely see the merit in continuing hearings. But that’s not what the Chilcot Inquiry is about. In fact, it’s so limited, witnesses aren’t even testifying under oath.
Personally, I’d like to see an Iraq inquiry with teeth – a judicial inquiry with the power to punish those who misled the public and failed in their duty of care to the troops. An inquiry that delved into the role oil played in the decision to go to war would also be welcome. Barring that, I really don’t see the point in funding another round of hearings that won’t tell us anything we don’t already know and will fail to hold anyone to account. The money could be put to better use – such as reactively funding a military hospital for wounded troops or proactively buying equipment for the troops.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Nepali Minister Resigns
Posted on 10. Mar, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
Rijwan Ansari maintains he had to resign “on my moral ground. The security condition is deteriorating, and I couldn’t help improve the situation.”
But the minister of state home affairs didn’t stop there when he quit his post late Wednesday. While his boss, Home Minister Bhim Rawal, continued claiming to be working hard on a security plan, in the aftermath of several high-profile murders, Ansari called Rawal out for irresponsibility and ineffective use of Nepal’s police force.
“The entire police administration was used unilaterally and so law and order went on deteriorating,” reads the resignation letter, adding, “My sense of morality does not allow me to continue in my post when cases of murders, abduction and violence are rife.”
Ansari, Rawal and Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal are all from the same party – CPN UML. However, the prime minister wasn’t happy with Ansari after the latter publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with Rawal, saying that he wasn’t given any responsibility in the Ministry.
Rijwan Ansari
Ansari is the latest fall-out for the high-profile murders of two prominent media figures. Security Officials said that they are investigating about different groups, especially in the murder of media entrepreneur Arun Singhaniya.
But Ansari’s resignation has further created intra-party complications for the prime minister, at the time the Maoists have been demanding his resignation. And, there is now a lapse in the chain of command in the Home Ministry just as regional violence is increasing.
- Rajneesh Bhandari
Insurgents Target Media in Nepal
Posted on 09. Mar, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
The Maoists have joined the peace process (and the government) after a decade-long insurgency, but a growing number of armed groups have sprung up to take their place. The most recent target: the media.
Arun Singhaniya, owner of two main news outlets in the southern province of Janakpur, was shot three times at point blank range on March 1 while walking home from celebrations for the Holi festival. So far, 10 people have been arrested on suspicion of involvement in his murder, but the police have yet to file a claim.
Not all fun in the sun in the Terai
According to Nepal’s Home Ministry, there are more than one hundred armed groups in the Terai region, which includes Janakpur, on the Indian border. Human rights records show that there were 240 killings last year in the Terai, 89 of which remain unsolved.
Industrialists and entrepreneurs have started putting serious pressure on the government to improve the security situation. In a recent meeting, a group of businessmen warned Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal that the country’s main industries would fail if the violence continues.
In response, the prime minister promised to beef up security – especially in the Terai.
However, the Terai is a vast, rural area of jungles and plain, and the prime minister has had security issues in his own capital.
Barely a month ago, another prominent media figure, Nepali cable TV magnate Jamim Shah, was gunned down in broad daylight in a rich and “safe” neighborhood in Kathmandu, allegedly by Indian gangsters.
Indian newspapers have regularly accused Shah’s TV channels and newspapers of propagating anti-Indian sentiment. Shah was shot dead on February 7—which, according to the Nepali astrological calendar, is supposed to be among the luckiest days of the year for marriage ceremonies.
- Rajneesh Bhandari
What Special Relationship?
Posted on 04. Mar, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Uncategorized, War on Terror
The sense of betrayal throughout Britain is palpable. With the dispute over oil drilling rights in the South Atlantic heating up, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed Argentina a major diplomatic victory this week by encouraging Britain to discuss the future of The Falkland Islands. Britain has long maintained that there should be no negotiations on The Falklands unless the islands’ three thousand inhabitants ask for them – which they haven’t. The islanders wish to remain British.
I for one could not be more outraged by Washington’s indulgence of Argentina’s sabre rattling. For me, the 1982 Falklands War feels like it happened only yesterday. I’m proud to have been part of the task force sent there. I still mourn mates resting at the bottom of the South Atlantic who lost their lives in The Falklands. Today, at the age of 55, I’m well up for putting on a military uniform and going back to fight for my country if that’s what it comes to. I’m sure there are thousands of Brits who feel the same way.
Of course, back in the 1980s, Britain’s armed forces were in a position to react to a crisis thousands of miles away. Today, it’s a different story. Having expended vast amounts of blood and treasure fighting America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we are poorly positioned to mount a task force to defend British interests. With plans to gut the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to pay for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, our ability to react to challenges to our sovereignty will be compromised further still.
Having stood ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with America the very least the US could have done for Britain is remain neutral on The Falklands. By moving off the sidelines and against British interests, the US has laid bare just how one-sided the ‘special relationship’ is between our two countries. For years, the British government has done whatever the Yanks have asked and we’ve paid a high price for our loyalty. Not only have our brave soldiers been killed and wounded and our financial resources depleted; our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has fueled a wave of homegrown terrorism that will likely plague Britain for decades to come.
I don’t blame the Obama administration for doing what it feels is necessary to protect US interests in South America. The United States is being pragmatic. Britain should heed the example. It’s time the British goverment reassessed the special relationship and stopped acting as if our armed forces exist solely to promote American foreign policy. Because as the latest row over The Falklands has shown, when it comes to defending our sovereign territory, Britain may have to do it alone.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
So an Airplane Walks Into a Bar…
Posted on 01. Mar, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Environment, Uncategorized
Bio-jetfuel takes to the skies as airplanes explore alternative energy sources like camelina and jatropha. However, all this innovation comes with a steep price tag: food. Someone has to grow all those useful fuel crops, and it’s falling to third world farmers to shoulder the burden while production of edible foodstuffs declines accordingly. With most of the affected population unlikely to enjoy the benefits of green air travel, who will? The answer: Goldman Sachs.
Read the latest on bio-jetfuel in this episode of “A Minute of Your Time.”
A Blast in the Proxy War
Posted on 26. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
Two longtime Afghanistan hands, Elizabeth Rubin and Bob Shepherd, have told us repeatedly about the struggle between Pakistan and India playing out on the field of Afghanistan. And, by all accounts, the three suicide bombings today in Kabul targeted Indian nationals.
Two of the explosions occurred at guesthouses for Indians working in Afghanistan, and a Taliban spokesman told Al Jazeera that the goal had been to strike at the “enemies of Afghanistan from among the foreign Indians.”
So what does this mean as the US steps up its involvement?
Well, for one thing, as Bob Shepherd tells us today, “It would appear as several steps back from the exit strategy if McChrystal has to put troops back into securing Kabul again.
No Love for India
“It makes the flag raising on the dot on the landscape of Marjah look very insignificant when NATO have nothing to do with securing the capital.”
The Pakistani government, as we know, has been working with the US to track down—and successfully so—Taliban members. Additionally, only yesterday, the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India met, for the first time since the Mumbai bombing. “The attack looks to have more to do with [that] meeting, given the amount of Indian deaths in the attacks and Indian managed establishments that were hit,” Shepherd points out.
The Taliban—and others—have a vested interest in keeping up tensions. For one thing, more trouble between Pakistan and India means less heat on them. Seven out of 15 members of Mullah Omar’s branch of the Taliban have been captured by Pakistan in the past few weeks.
- Michele Mitchell
How to Start a Restaurant
Posted on 26. Feb, 2010 by admin in Economy, Middle Class Crunch, Uncategorized
The economic crisis has caused a lot of businesses to close their doors, but it hasn’t been all bad.
Luis Morales saw an an opportunity in the crisis. With two fellow investors, he decided to open the first modern pan-Asian restaurant in San Jose, Costa Rica. Called Gan-Bei – which means “Cheers” in Chinese – the restaurant is the one place that serves fortune cookies in all of Costa Rica. So if you’re in San Jose and want to hear your fortune, go to Gan-Bei!
We recently spoke with Morales about the trials and tribulations of starting a business.
http://www.vimeo.com/9759667
The Rules of Engagement vs. Hearts & Minds
Posted on 25. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
This week, General Stanley McChrystal apologized to the Afghan people and personally to President Karzai after at least 27 civilians were killed by a NATO airstrike in the southern Province of Uruzgan. To his credit, General McChrystal has taken concrete steps to limit civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Since becoming commander of coalition forces, he has tightened the rules of engagement to restrict the use of artillery attacks and airstrikes. These measures were definitely needed. But I would like to see General McChrystal go even further.
Admittedly, General McChrytal has a tough balancing act. Limiting the rules of engagement, especially in an insurgency, makes it harder for the troops on the ground to pursue the enemy. But the devastating impact of civilian causalities on the coalition’s objectives cannot be overstated. Afghanistan is unquestionably a media-led war and an incident like the one in Uruzgan can easily overshadow weeks of restrained operations by coalition forces. Every time a civilian is killed inadvertently by NATO forces it is a public relations victory for the Taliban and other militant groups.
Not Winning Hearts and Minds
For the better part of this conflict, coalition troops have been spread thin on the ground and artillery attacks and airstrikes have been used to compensate whenever they get into trouble. But the cost of using these blunt instruments is proving too dear, especially in a conflict where the enemy uses civilians as human shields (a time honoured terrorist tactic). I fought my first insurgency at the age of 17 and continued fighting them throughout my twenty-three year military career. I can’t imagine what would have happened if the British military had whacked a missile into a Belfast estate because an IRA member had fired on a patrol or was believed to be hiding in a house. Such tactics would have obliterated any chance of a peaceful resolution to ‘the troubles’.
Afghanistan is a messy conflict and the Taliban will always nestle among innocents. But NATO must hold itself to the highest possible standards by doing everything in its power to avoid civilian deaths. Airpower in Afghanistan should be restricted to mobility and surveillance purposes only. To compensate for the loss of airstrikes, NATO should concentrate its forces in specific areas to achieve its objectives. No more leaving the troops to battle against extraordinary odds because they’re spread out like butter.
Restricting the rules of engagement further could very well draw out the conflict even more. But unless it wins the battle for hearts and minds, NATO’s war in Afghanistan will never end.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Suck it, Congress!
Posted on 23. Feb, 2010 by admin in Economy, Middle Class Crunch, Uncategorized
The Iwig family knew they’d run out of time to save their dairy – the bank was ready to foreclose, emergency funds promised by the federal government were slow in coming, and their congresswoman wasn’t returning their calls. So they played the last card they had: their community.
Check out the latest “Political Graffiti” episode, featuring the conclusion of the battle to save the Iwig family farm.
Laurel and Tim Iwig: Bring It On
Falkland Feud
Posted on 19. Feb, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Environment, Uncategorized
At this moment, the UK is sending a deep-sea oil drilling platform over to the Falkland Islands, and the Argentineans don’t like it one bit. The government has arrested a ship bringing in supplies, and it has even passed a law that all ships sailing to the Falklands through its waters need a special permit.
The Falkland sovereignty question goes back decades. Britain and Argentina fought a war over the islands in the early 1980’s. Argentina lost, and the issue, not surprisingly, still stings.
The last two Argentinean administrations have aggressively pursued new negotiations. In 2007, then-president Nestor Kirchner unilaterally scrapped an agreement with the UK to share fishing rights and the proceeds of oil discovered in Falkland waters.
The recent flare up of tensions isn’t really about the Falklands’ sovereignty; it’s about money. Geologists estimate that up to 60 billion barrels of oil could lie in the seabed around the islands. It’s no secret what a difference the extra revenue could make to Argentina’s rapidly deteriorating finances.
60 billion barrels and it's all ours!
Some argue that current president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is using the Falkland question to stir up nationalist sentiments to divert attention away from the country’s large international debt. Thirteen billion dollars of Argentina’s international debt matures this year and economists predict a budget shortfall of up to $7 billion.
But is Argentina acting in its own interest? No. The country stands to gain tremendously from a large oil boom. The Falklands – populated by a mere 3,000 people – don’t have anywhere near enough man-power, infrastructure or space to helm a large drilling and extraction operation (and neither do the islanders want to).
There’s a lot of room for Argentina and the UK to work together. Argentina would be the natural choice to land oil on the mainland. In this high priced energy environment, even a couple hundred thousand barrels a day of oil could plug a significant part of Argentina’s budget deficit. However, if the UK doesn’t see a good partner in Argentina, it could easily opt for Brazil as a viable alternative.
If it wants to capitalize on any oil windfall, Argentina needs to find another way to manage relations with England and its island neighbor.
- Ed Head