Uncategorized

There is a very important, long-standing convention agreed between the Treasury and Government Departments that is currently under question. In the past, whenever an unexpected crisis hits the country, the extra costs to the Departments on top of programmed activity is paid out of the Government Reserve. Examples since 2000 include the Foot and Mouth epidemic (which did for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Avian Flu and of course, Covid (Department of Health and Social Care).

In the case of the Ministry of Defence, the costs of the deployed operations to Iraq and Afghanistan were both picked up by the Treasury. This money alleviated the MoD at a very tricky time because we had effectively ran out of money for programmed activity in 2004. The Army benefitted in many ways, for example the specialist armoured vehicle fleet was completely upgraded between 2005 and 2010, thanks to this reserve fund.

The current costs of Britain’s military contribution to the war in the Middle East are the latest example of the use of the Treasury’s reserve…but they don’t like it. The official government line that we are only involved in defensive operations is a half-truth as it is designed to placate the many “Stop The War” groups that have emerged in the past few years. The truth is that the Permanent Joint Headqaurters is a hive of activity organising the maritime, air, land and special forces capabilities that are deployed in the Theatre of Operations. Some of these capabilities that have been neglected since they were pulled out of Afghanistan are now being upgraded with new technology through Urgent Operational Requirements that are incredibly expensive.

These extra costs have distorted the picture for the SDR and as a result the Treasury is trying to claw back money from the MoD, rather than dig into the reserve. Hence the unusual intervention from Lord Robertson this week. The real question is: why isn’t the Media reporting this?

When I was six years old, I spent much time playing board-games with my best friend, who went on to win the coveted “Financial Journalist of the Year Award in the City of London. Our favourite game was a strategy game of diplomacy, conflict and conquest named Risk, which required six players to form alliances, in order to capture territories and eventually take over the world. Inevitably, the six players were whittled down to my friend and I, who could never quite defeat each other and so, more often than not it ended in a draw.

At the time of the Cold War, Risk replicated the duality of a World dominated by the USSR and USA. Today, Globalisation has provided economic opportunities for regional powers to shed their obsequience and establish true independence. So why have Russia and America launched unpopular wars against very large independent countries, which are only benefitting their main economic rival? The simple answer is medium-range missiles, natural resources and allies. In the case of Putin, his red lines have always been: Preventing Kyiv from allowing NATO to build missile bases within range of Moscow; natural resources in the Donetsk; and Ukraine’s control of the Russian outlet into the Black Sea. Strangely, America’s red lines are similar: missiles that can reach Israel (with or without nuclear warheads); Iran’s key allies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis); and Tehran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz.

So after the failed diplomacy in Islamabad, the US President is again following Putin’s strategy by reverting to containment with a beefed-up blockade and an enormous amount of propaganda, in order to reinforce Israel’s Red Lines. In this high powered game of Risk, it does seem that America and Russia are using the same strategy, but that they are being outflanked by the third player, XI Jinping, because China has just become the number one car seller in the UK.

As I looked at the Markets’ reaction to the news on Tuesday that a ceasefire had been agreed between Iran and the USA, I thought about Kenneth Wolstenholme’s famous quote at the 1966 World Cup Final: “They Think It’s All Over…”.

However as the truth emerged, I was reminded of three months in 1978, when I drove from Fort Lauderdale to San Francisco in a beaten up Mercury Montego. As I travelled along I-10 listening to an 8-track and FM Radio, I first heard the late Chris Rea’s brilliant single, Fool (if you think it’s over). It’s haunting tune and catchy lyrics are so apposite today because we can all see that it will not take much for the Air Attacks in the Middle East to return: no compromise; no diplomacy; no cultural understanding, no trust.

For ordinary people, there is plenty that we can do to mitigate the effects of a resumption of war in the Gulf, or an attack by Russia in the Baltics. However, what is of greater concern is the continued lack of understanding by the Media of the need to galvanise Britain into preparing for the worst. It really is time to bring back National Service and a sense of duty to the country.

The question I wish to ask the US President after his expletive outburst today is: did the Pentagon warn you about the probable consequences of following Israel’s lead and waging war on the 17th largest country in the World?

I know that ever since the Iraq War, the US military has developed an outstanding Red Teaming capability. This is the art of applying independent, structured critical thinking…from a variety of perspectives, to challenge assumptions and fully explore alternative outcomes, in order to reduce risks and increase opportunities. I led a Red Team for Force Development work in 2011, before deploying to Libya and was given access to the results of a Washington Think Tank’s analysis and the US modelling of a war with Iran. I know how excellent the Fort Leavenworth team is and I am certain they will have learned lessons from Russia’s failure to defeat Ukraine and identified the most predictable outcomes before launching Operation Epic Fury on 28 February.

History has repeatedly shown us that Air Power alone will not win a war and denigrating your opponents as “rats” and “cowards” only serves to stiffen their resolve. So now that Washington has failed to overturn the Iranian regime and win the war in the timeline they set out, what are the ramifications? First, the US military is embroiled in another unwinnable war in the Middle East. Second, due to the impact on World trade, commerce and financial markets, the USA has lost many of its friends and allies. Third, the USA has lost its reputation as Global Leader of the Rules Based World Order and handed China and Russia an enormous boost as a result of their aggression.

Are these unintended consequences, or acceptable collateral in the thinking of President Trump and his cronies? His demeanour this week suggests the former, so perhaps it is time for him to call in the Red Team because he obviously hasn’t listened to them so far!

From A CSIS Briefing Fifteen Years Ago

The media coverage of the announcement that His Royal Highness King Charles will visit Washington at the end of April and meet the US President focused on two issues. The first was the UK-US diplomatic relationship in the context of the botched regime-change mission in the Middle East and the second was whether the king would meet Prince Henry, who now lives in America. To my mind, they missed the most important point, which is that our king is also monarch of the largest country in North America.

I know something of Canada having researched their military contribution in World War I, met First Nation Cree, canoed down the Athabasca river, hitch-hiked through the Rocky mountains and manoeuvred tanks around the Alberta prairie. I also worked with many of their peacekeepers and had a detachment of their outstanding soldiers under command in Bosnia 30 years ago. Canada is a magnificent land with friendly people and unlimited resources. It is also a vital member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as, together with Denmark’s Greenland, it flanks the waters west of Iceland. The country has a distinguished Prime Minister, who has led his government with great distinction for the past 12 months.

We all know that behind the scenes of State Visits there are detailed discussions as an agenda is formulated which suits both sides. No doubt, the one in April will be tactful and diplomatic; however, just this once, it would be wonderful to know that the king will also represent Canada and ensure Washington understands that we value our loyal, reliable and authentic relationship with them because they follow the Rule-Based International Order.

Suffield – 1982

The military warning against metaphorically catching your hand in the mangle is attributed by some to the Chief of Defence Staff in 2001, when he was advising the Prime Minister about British involvement in Afghanistan. However, nine years earlier, General Sir Peter Inge had coined the term when he was Chief of the General Staff and had to advise the Government about a potential British Army deployment to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The term is particularly apt at the moment with the war in the Gulf widening and escalating and no end in sight despite the bullish words in Washington. I have worked with the Pentagon and I am certain their considered advice about Iran’s military capability would have been comprehensive. The source of the underestimation in terms of enemy response, cultural strength and regime endurance comes from an out-of-touch diaspora and sycophantic elite.

The war is at a critical point with a potential US Marine landing this week (in the tradition of Derna in 1805). Will it be like Libya in March 2011 when France said the operation would be over in a matter of weeks, but it took more than eight months? Or will it end in humiliation like Vietnam and Afghanistan? Either way, we have already gone past the time when the World would have said it was the right course of action because the only winners now are authoritarian regimes like China and Russia.

Language in war is very important! I am always amazed how one side in a conflict can fall into the trap of motivating their enemy with foolish words. In World War II, when the British and Australian forces were besieged in Tobruk, Hitler’s apologist, William Joyce, also known as Lord Haw Haw, taunted the Garrison on the radio by asking: “When are you going to come out of your holes, you rats of Tobruk?” With this trite comment, he gave the disparate groups a sense of shared identity and stiffened their resolve, ensuring they forgot about their fleas and lice, diarrhoea and constipation. Not only did the Desert Rats become a legendary army, but the defenders of Tobruk withstood a greater number of air attacks than London during the Blitz and also inflicted the first defeat on the previously invincible German Blitzkrieg.

At the opposite end of the telescope, there are many wise sages who offer sensible advice to politicians. One whose work was used in London after 9/11 was the 19th century Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, who wrote: “The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins.” The question in March 2026 is have we removed a tyrant, or created a million martyrs?

In my first book, I revealed what the UK contributed to American thinking after 9/11 (the worst ever terrorist attack on British people). The most important intervention was to delay the US military attacks in Afghanistan until Washington had built a multi-national coalition, similar to those constructed for the Korean War and the Liberation of Kuwait. This was not an easy task.

It certainly helped our cause that the North Atlantic Council declared that 9/11 was a breach of Article 5, treating it as an attack against all Members. In solidarity, the United Nations had also adopted Resolution 1368, calling on all States to bring to justice the perpetrators of the horrific attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. However, it still needed a huge amount of shuttle diplomacy and creative thinking to develop an agreed strategy.

In the discussions at the highest level in London, there was a tension between the advocates of “strategic patience” and those who were keen to “attack first and ask questions afterwards”. This was replicated in Washington where the hawkish Donald Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense disagreed with Colin Powell’s State Department. When the Prime Minister and a bevy of senior military officers travelled to Washington 10 days after the event, he managed to sway the argument in favour of building a coalition. We then had a frantic week when all the British Ambassadors were given the task of persuading foreign governments to make a contribution to the campaign. To my mind, the resulting coalition is one of the great diplomatic successes of world history. It stood firm until Washington pulled the plug 20 years later and should be used as a teaching example on International Relations university degrees.