The Lessons of Afghanistan?

The interview from General McChrystal, Commander of the US army and NATO forces in Afghanistan, in the magazine Rolling Stone showed his frustration and the gap growing between what the politicians want and what the military commanders want to do. I believe that he fully knew the consequences of such an act and wanted out. It also another sign of the values’ change compared to before, yet people expect the same results. Indeed, the lessons of the decolonisation, Viet-Nam and others have not been learnt. 

Does this gap between the two men shows the limit of the American war machine? It is obvious that if a developed army can win a battle against some partisans is not a trouble, winning the war against them is different. People at home do not want to hear about casualties but they still want to “win” the war. It is really odd because wars invariably involve casualties on both. It seems as if it was paradoxical. Interestingly many political figures such on both side the American political spectrum talk about winning the war and being patriotic and how they believe in freedom. Yet they have no trouble, imposing their own value on a different people leaving thousands of kilometers away from them. Is it the condition of winning the war? That’s not really democratic, it reminds me of the time of colony where western nations would “educate” other nations. The prime intention of letting people being master of their destiny is praiseworthy, however it is really hard to implement, let alone in a country prone to tribal war as it is a conflict between idea where education play a big role. The problem in this war is that the conditions of a victory are blurry. How are the strategists in the field supposed  to meet these requirements?

Then what can be the role of an army, how will it help a wannabe superpower to assert its influence and ambitions: I would think that this army wouldn't retaliate heavily, should be ready to take loss and reacting accordingly: no massive show of firepower, compassionate answer since political correctness is all over the place, rendering everything less natural and genuine. So are we back to Louis XV and the War of the Austrian Succession where France would be the peace maker of Europe while asking for nothing in return bar glory? However nowadays, soldier’s lives are much more valued this day making it hard to continue that kind of enlightened war.

And that is the trend as developed nations or at least western nations are less and less inclined to suffer human losses which make the exercise of war even harder. This will give the opportunity to others developing states to try the same: China in Africa, it is too early to get any lesson from its involvement there but it s not too glorious either, they benefited from an immaculate picture and used their own principles without adapting too much to the locals, it gets the job done but it doesn't make a country live if the workers are foreigners and do not integrate.

In conclusion, the role of an army shifted heavily toward a humanitarian pattern, it should rather defend and develop than attack and destroy, this is a frustrating position for the army now as they are being asked the double tasks of winning the war and bearing the brunt of the casualties while reorganising civil life.

I think that the Afghanistan war was started out of revenge and its goal was poorly designed. I do not put into question its motive and fully agree with it. However, the West and  chiefly the USA should have focused on continually eradicating Taliban leadership and their drug field without trying to get involved too much in the politics of this country not yet suited for democracy, instead they chose to achieve the impossible in spite of the previous lessons. Much easier said than achieved. And would have it been possible from a moral point of view? certainly not. However now, the coalition must go on.

-C

Tea Party

On Saturday, my hometown and current residence had a ‘Tea Party’. This new form of political activism that is argued to be rightist and fanatical and ignorant was not as the media has presented it. The rally was quite tame with vendors and information booths. People seemed friendly and open to promoting positive change not destruction. However, it appeared just like any political activism, politics. They are just as much a group trying to gain money and power, like any other. Republican candidates for example had tables to talk to prospective voters and appeal for their bid. One form just replaced another. The masks on the political machine are changing but the ‘tea party’ was begging for money just as any other party or candidate would. However, their message is clear that they are not a political party. Then why do they need money? They are peaceful protestors who sell t-shirts and take donations. I guess this money will be distributed to the homeless or the US Treasury or lobbyists asking for reduced government or someone’s pocket?

The event had booths around the periphery and the center had the rally with speakers and the audience which let out periodic cheers with the wave of an American flag. The core values (as printed in the event’s program) are fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. These are not radical in my opinion or out of line with a more conservative view of American government. So where does the opinion come from that these are radical conservatives?

The program also included the top ten disasters of Obamacare. I will outline them from the event program to provide a better glimpse into these disgruntled citizens’ distress with the new health care plans.

1. New spending grows the federal deficit
2. Bending the cost curve in the wrong direction (meaning increasing health care spending overall not decreasing it)
3. New taxes and mandates hinder economic growth
4. Regulations grow government control over health care
5. Expanding broken entitlement programs
6. Burdening state budgets (because it requires expansion of state run health programs)
7. Neglecting Medicare (the current health care safety net)
8. Creates discrimination against low income workers (incentive to avoid hiring workers from low income families)
9. Exchange eligibility creates inequality (unequal subsidies towards health care purchases)
10. Questions of constitutionality (requires all Americans to purchase health care, which extends congressional power)

From these I think there are some more significant points than others. Numbers 1, 4, and 10 are the most concerning to me. I feel that government regulation is necessary in certain cases and health care is one such thing (to an extent). Increasing power beyond constitutional restraint to control a market is against our principles on both economic and political levels.

~PB

To protect or not

The competition between Boeing and EADS/Northrop concerning the USAF tanker offer went to an end last week when Northrop decided to pull out. The whole story started back in 2004 after charges against Boeing were filed and some of its top executives fired as a result. The senator McCain wanted a fair competition on this contract. It was for EADS and Airbus a good opportunity to enter the US market and to diversify its production and source of income.  The contract is estimated at 35 billion dollars and is only the first part of 3 phases.

If EADS is a European company, the incorporation of Northrop, a Californian defence firm, was supposed to help with this negative image and it also planned to build a factory in the USA to manufacture the tankers based on a version of the civilian A330. On the other hand, Boeing would build its tanker, based on the smaller 767, in USA too; however it is arguable that the Boeing tanker would have an all American plane as most of its components are outsourced abroad.

This end of the competition is mainly due as what is seen as some form of protectionism by the USA in favouring Boeing. Indeed the first leg, in February 2008, of the competition was won by EADS/Northrop but Boeing protested that the plane of its rival was not conform, even though it was deemed better, to the contract. As a result the offer was remade and this time Northrop felt it had to pull out. Its CEO observed that this contract clearly favoured Boeing.

The EU commission threatened to bring the whole case in front of the WTO and the leaders of France and the United Kingdom Mr Sarkozy and Mr Brown, amongst others, showed their disapproval of such a behaviour especially since protectionism is “a policy that the USA usually warns other countries against.”

So what was the whole point of opening the competition to foreign companies? I could understand that the USA would keep their defence market closed, although they do not like to be put away on this basis abroad, but this opening of the competition showed that it was not the general feeling at the moment to do it this way. The EADS/Northrop joint venture would also create some jobs in the USA in a non-unioned company (Northrop) whereas Boeing is and thus is susceptible to strikes. Did the American leaders think that Boeing was so good at its business that no-one could do better than them and this competition was just a show for fair competition? It seems unlikely that the US leaders would be that naive. Is it favouritism from Obama as he was the former senator of Illinois and that Boeing has some of its offices in Chicago? That would be quite naive too.

However the facts remain that it is another feud between the EU and the USA in the trade sector.  This contract might have an influence on how the F35 JSF will happen. Indeed, it is overdue and its price still rising. If the USA does not act smoothly with its European allies, why should they expect them to continue to act in a polite manner? Even the United Kingdom, the best ally of the USA, is unhappy. Competition is rising everywhere in the world; I would not advocate starting a mini trade war between strong allies.

-C

Recently the decision by the fast food chain Quick in France to switch its entire menu to halal standard in some of its restaurants, notably in Roubaix, raised an outcry in France. The Anglo-Saxon press doesn’t seem to understand the French principle of laicité and look at this situation with its same condescending eye. However if the reaction of the Mayor of Roubaix to sue the chain for discrimination might seem a bit too much, it shows that such a decision by the restaurant is provoking an uncomfortable feeling. Arguing that going to a full halal menu because the Muslim population represents a major part of its customers is a poor argument. The whole problem is that if from a business point of view it does make sense, it does not mean that it is not discrimination against non-Muslim population.

Above all, the mistake of Quick is to take a decision incorporating a religious factor in a country that stand hard to its principle of secularity or laicité. It is obvious that from a marketing aspect it was a success but playing on that kind of conflicts won’t be beneficial in the long term as it will raise tensions between the different populations in France where climate is already unstable. It would have been certainly more diplomatic to offer a halal and a non halal menu especially if there is no difference on the taste of the meat.

Indeed, to an observer this conflict might seem trivial, however it directly attack one of the principle of the republic in a bad moment. It raises several legitimate questions: to what extent does the laicité need to be respected? Usually in France, religion isn’t a subject that it widely discussed as it is seen as something private and thus people feel a bit uncomfortable in the face of visible religious symbols that does not traditionally belong to France. I do not believe that it is because they are racist or intolerant. After all, there are a lot of different foreign communities living in France and being assimilated. On the other hand, how can a community be assimilated when it arrives in a different nation if it persists in keeping its traditions? There is nothing wrong in doing thing differently as long as it does not bother the others. Freedom is a right and must be welcomed nevertheless does it mean that I should have the freedom to do what I want to do and this even though it seem to annoy others?

-C

partnership or rivalry?

These last weeks had shown that the relationship between the USA and China was not as close at it had seemed to be but rather maybe just a convenient fling. In fact, following the Google charade this past month, the refusal of China to revaluate its currency, the Yuan, despite cries from the West, and the sale of weapons from the USA to Taiwan (worth $6,5 Billion) Chinese relationships have turned cold. As a result, the Asian giant decided to cut short all its military relations with the largest military power in the world. In addition, President Obama’s decision to see the spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, provoked another row with the Chinese—they do look favourably on foreign governments supporting the Buddhist leader. The behaviour of the Chinese government during the Copenhagen summit was also exemplary for its casualness and a major cause for its failure.

More and more, China has been seen as reacting in a capricious way. The media has been justifying this reaction because of the weight of the Communist state in the world economy. The Chinese for example, had enough power to cancel a visit to Europe last year because Nicolas Sarkozy, possessing at the time the presidency of the EU, was scheduled to meet the Dalai Lama. They further have the power to intrude in African affairs. The Chinese are not anymore largely welcomed in Africa by the locals as they can arguably be charged with exploiting African natural resources. (Claims, however, none too different from those made towards Europeans in Africa or even Americans in the Middle East). This lead Jack Straw to compared their actions to neo-colonialism, comment that he had to apologize for, of course.
These events seem to show that China is willing to prove the world that it is a force to be reckoned with. That is a fair request, however, how long will they be provoking the other nations? Indeed, China might be powerful but it suffers many problems internally and is heavily dependent on its exports and rely on a undervalued currency. It would probably not be wise for them to continue this behaviour and whether they possess the first population in the world doesn’t make them able to behave like nouveaux riches.

-C

A new nuclear nation

On the 9 February, Iran was supposed to start its production of enriched uranium for medical purpose. It has been reported that Iran set out a plan to begin enriching its stockpile to 20-percent purity, news reports said. That is high enough for use in the medical reactor but significantly lower than the 90 percent levels needed for weapons. The worry is that any effort to produce 20-percent enriched uranium would put the country in a position to produce weapons-grade uranium in a comparatively short time, nuclear experts say.

So it is possible to deduce from this information that Iran is starting to develop a nuclear industry that would be more powerful than it should be. Does this mean that its program will go further? Obviously this is a million dollar question but it is fair to say that the Islamic Republic is trying to see what the limits of the West tolerance are. Ahmadinejad claims that Iran does not need the bomb but it would be naive to believe the man on his word especially after his bold statements notably toward Israel and its presence on the map.
France, Russia and the United States of America pushed for more sanctions on Iran at the UN council. It is noteworthy to observe that Russia, often opposed to sanctions to Iran, is getting worried by the Iranian actions.

In the nuclear world, Iran is surrounded by Russia, India, Pakistan and Israel; does this mean that as a result Iran need to get some nuclear capabilities because it feels threatened? By extension every country in the world should get it as Kenneth Waltz advocated. I believe that it would be a mistake to allow any new country to get the nuclear weapons, not because my country owns it and is capable of sending them anywhere in the world. The spread of these devices would at the same time increase the chance that somewhere a nuclear war would start. In addition, following the principle that the nuclear weapon is a weapon of the big powers, it would mean that any nations with a nuclear weapon could check any others thus creating a chaos in the world hierarchy. Indeed, no one would really like to start a war in which they would lose too much. I for one believe that Iran should not get it because it would motivate more nations to try to get it and also because it would raise tensions in the Middle East and god knows what might happen there. It is also possible that Tehran might not use it all like Pakistan, India or Israel but I would personally feel safer if they just did not have it.

Francafrique? Still on?

In 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy pledged to end the Francafrique network that was linking the government of France to various dictatorships in Africa. In exchange for various services, generally in the form of military help, the various rulers of the old French colonies would allow French companies to benefit from advantageous contracts when it came to exploit the rich African lands. In addition, the elites from the French government would receive nice royalties. This corruption has been characteristic of the relations between France and its African allies for the past 40 years. What has happened now three years after his election?
This rupture with the past was further emphasised in 2008 when Jean-Marie Bockel, the French minister for overseas aid, declared that he wanted to sign the death warrant for Francafrique. Unfortunately for him, his declarations scared some African leaders and he was quickly replaced by Alain Joyandet. In fact, Sarkozy did not need someone knowledgeable on the question of development but someone capable of following directives and able to act as a business man defending the interests of the Republic. This is a huge shift compared to his declaration.

In November 2009, the New York Times was recapitulating the different actions that were suspect to the eyes of observers. In September 2009, Ali Bongo, the son of the late Omar Bongo, was elected at the head of the Gabon and perpetuating the rule of his family. This election, that was suspected to be rigged, was fully backed by the Elysées.
In October, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, the general who staged a coup in the desert nation of Mauritania was also backed by the French capital; and in Niger, President Mamadou Tandja who locked opposition figures and managed to maintain himself in power for longer than he should , can also count on the support of Paris.
Furthermore In July, President Sarkozy cordially received the president of Cameroon, Paul Biya, who has been in power since 1982 and has removed presidential term limits last year. Mr. Sarkozy praised the country as a “pole of moderation.”
Yet, in France everything that has been noted by the NYT is only objected by the media that do not carry a lot of weight. Although everybody is aware of these practices, nothing seems to be done in order to change this cycle as it coincides with the economic sphere of France and stopping these relations would likely result in the fall of some national industrial champions. It is possible to think that Nicolas Sarkozy genuinely wanted to remove this circle of influence. However, the power of corruption that the African leaders wield is enough to provide contracts to French multinationals and force any leaders on their sides. Nevertheless after three years of his presidency, Mr Sarkozy did not manage to apply his promise.
However a lot of factors are to be taken into account. First, the advantages that France takes as a beneficiary of the resources and largess of the African countries. On the other hand, these African regimes are not developed enough to defend themselves and assure stability on much on their internal than external affairs. The recent case of China being a new favourite of African leaders shows that they can barely control and develop their country (or rather continent) on their own. This vicious circle is likely to continue for Africa. The nationality of their protectors does not really matter as long as they bring money and weapons to sustain their authority. And last but not least, the greed of certain rulers, if not all, is not to be excluded from the equation.