Uncategorized

There have always been rules of war, but the modern codification of how States treat their enemy’s casualties and prisoners dates to the Hague and Geneva conventions convened around the turn of the 20th century. In America, there was also the Lieber Code, which addressed ethical issues such as summary executions during the Civil War.

After 9/11, there was a re-think about how the laws of war applied in a conflict involving non-state actors, who did not play by the rules. The British Army was deeply involved in this ethical debate about morality in asymmetric war and military interventions. Three of the key issues were: the use of torture, assassination and nuclear weapons.

Part of the argument to abide by the rules is based on the premise that if you break the rules, your enemy will do the same; a good example of this is the bombing of civilian targets in World War II, which was a policy started by Hitler, but ultimately used by all the main belligerents. In the current Middle East conflicts, one can think of the targeting of medical facilities, which is against international law, but is being perpetrated by the current protagonists. Interestingly, in world war II the assassination of state leaders was never used by the Allies or Axis Powers.

There are three legal justifications for going to war: self-defence; a treaty obligation (e.g. NATO article 5), and a United Nations Security Council Resolution (e.g. to prevent genocide). The dilemma for the United States in the next two weeks is somehow to justify entering the war with Iran legally and deciding whether it will abide by the rules of war (there is a difference between jus ad bello and jus in bello). What is at stake is America’s acknowledged position as the leader of the Free World and the Rules Based International Order.

Tomorrow, I will discuss the consequences of hybrid war.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Washington was intent on striking Al Qaida in Afghanistan immediately. At the time the Pentagon was in chaos due to the strike of American Airlines 77; however, there was a very strong relationship between the British Army officer in charge of commitments in the Ministry of Defence and his US counterpart. As a result we were invited to submit a paper that travelled over with the Prime Minister, who joined the US President a week after what is still the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed against British people.

The one big idea that came from London in the immediate aftermath was to build a coalition, rather than going alone as some Washington Hawks were suggesting. You can see this important contribution reading between the lines of the White House Press Secretary’s announcement in the George Bush archives https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-9.html

At the time, we estimated that it would take at least twenty years to reintegrate Afghanistan into the international community, but that was before the Bush administration decided to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq.

The same dilemma that faced George Bush after 9/11 (and Barack Obama ten years later over Libya) is now facing President Trump. To succeed in the war with Iran, the USA needs a strong international coalition, but the reality now is very different to September 2001, when the whole world sympathised with America. The past three months has been characterised as a time when the USA has treated its allies with total disrespect, so it will probably take more than two weeks to build a new alliance from those who live by the Rules.

The one thing I have always admired American planners for is their attention to mathematics. I am sure there are people right now working out the casualty rates and percentages for various options, including assassination. Tomorrow, I will discuss the challenges of this approach and how it was viewed after 9/11.

A Successful Coalition of the Willing

It is interesting to hear that Trump’s advisors are split about US involvement in Israel’s war with Iran.

Important people are weighing the consequences as their predecessors did when the Bush Administration was thinking about invading the 17th largest country in the world in 2006. At that time, the idea was to launch a simultaneous pincer movement from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the US Forces never established firm launch pads for their ground forces, so it didn’t happen.

The idea now is to use Air Power and rely on the population to overthrow the regime. It is not just the Israelis who are trying to persuade the US to become involved in this war. There is a large Iranian diaspora based in Washington suggesting that the conditions are right for revolution, just as there were respected Iraqi and Libyan voices in 2001 and 2011, who claimed that regime change was easy and told the Americans that they would be welcomed if they overthrew Saddam Hussein and the Brotherly Leader.

These people are wrong. There may well be members of the intelligentsia in Teheran who hope for democracy and freedom, but the vast majority of the 92 Million Shias are not ready to welcome the USA and would defend their country as they did during the Iran-Iraq war, which cost over 1 million lives in the 1980s. The Iranian army’s strategy would no doubt be similar to the tactics that resulted in the ignominious US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. And their maritime tactics would be similar – using small craft and willing martyrs to sabotage the Gulf Oil Wells and disrupt the unwieldy western tankers transiting the 6-mile-wide traffic lane around Hormuz.

There is another very big consideration for Washington to ponder, which I will discuss in my next blog tomorrow.

The Vulnerable Point

I retain several presentations given to me by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies when I was a member of the Middle East Peace Process Working Group on Arms Control and Security Co-operation at the time of the Arab Spring. Two pictures from these lengthy assessments are of particular interest when considering the current conflict between Israel and Iran. The first is a comment about the consequences of a war between Iran and Israel and the USA. The second is a pictorial layout of the gas and oil fields in the Gulf, which would be vulnerable to attack.

We all understand what has tipped the balance and why Israel has begun a new war in the Middle East. However, these pictures demonstrate that the knowledge about the Iranian nuclear capability was widely understood twenty years ago. They also show what is at stake and why America kept a lid on the potential conflict for the past two decades. By starting this new war, the unpopular Israeli government is gambling on President Trump coming to their assistance and the Sunni Gulf States siding against their Shia neighbour, but this plays straight into the scenario for the start of World War III.

In the meantime, I attended a British Army event this week, when they confirmed that Britain could no longer deploy a meaningful land component to the front. To protect our troops, we must rebuild the structures that ensure individuals are not treated like gun fodder and used to the best of their capabilities because these may be needed sooner rather than later.

In many ways, modern war has reverted to old war. The Tsars’ Russian Empire was built by leaning on their neighbours’ walls until they collapsed and then slowly assimilating the populations into the Mother country.

The Ukraine battlefield today is no longer dominated by tanks, but by all-seeing drones loaded with precision munitions and controlled from safe areas behind the front line. The effect has been to shift the balance from manoeuvre to attrition, (as happened in France in 1914). This has had the effect of Russia returning to her old, tried and trusted way of fighting with an extended trench line stretching for hundreds of miles.

In the First World War, it took four years to develop the tank to the level that it could alter the equilibrium in Flanders and allow visionaries to find a way to shorten the war and so reduce casualties. What we need today is a similar breakthrough in technology with a new type of protection, which harnesses the electromagnetic spectrum to repel the drones and allow ground vehicles the freedom to manoeuvre. Could this be a useful task for Elon Musk, now he is no longer welcome in the White House?

A British Mark V Tank Used By White Russians In Archangel

Following in the footsteps of HRH The Prince of Wales, I visited Estonia, which has been part of NATO’s front line with Russia for 21 years. The country formed a deep partnership with the British Army in Afghanistan and I was fortunate to have an outstanding Estonian Colonel as my deputy in Baghdad. He cut his teeth as a young officer in the Red Army, so I learned a lot from him about the way the Russian army works.

Eleven years ago, the threat of invasion from Russia was high, but the deployment of British troops near to Tartu has helped to prevent the same thing that happened to Ukraine. During my visit, the Royal Engineers contingent had their roulement and it was good to see them wearing their uniforms proudly in public.

Inevitably tourist numbers are down, but as a result the capital, Tallinn, with its champagne air and fantastic UNESCO listed Old Town, is not too busy. Very sensibly, the country has played down the eras when it was ruled by Russia, Poland, Sweden and Germany and prefers to celebrate its medieval, Hanseatic heritage, when it was a highly successful, independent Baltic trading port.

There is still a strong Russian influence here (not as much as Lithuania), but there is also plenty of evidence to show where the country’s sympathies now lie. We must not lose sight of the fact that Putin still has plans to invade this country, so we need to keep supporting it.

Stop The War Protest In Tallinn

Film production inevitably changed during the Second World War with governments taking a greater interest in what was portrayed to the public. A typical British example was “In which We Serve” directed by a young David Lean and starring that titan of entertainment, Noel Coward. In Hollywood, American films were lighter and more distracting than their British counterparts, with musicals such as “Anchors Aweigh”, starring Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly being put forward for Academy Awards.

In the animation world, Walt Disney’s films struggled to make money because he lost the European market. Even Bambi, which premiered in London on 8 August 1942, did not perform as well as hoped and so Walt decided to make propaganda films. His first foray was “Victory Through Air Power”, which was released on 17 July 1943. Many officials were seduced by the theories portrayed in this film, which led to some pretty drastic attacks on places such as Dresden and Hiroshima. However, although Air Power shortened World War II and is still being used today in places such as Ukraine and Gaza, it cannot solve a conflict because decisions are made by people on the ground, not those sitting in armchairs thousands of miles away.

I am looking forward to giving my talk about the end of World War II in Sussex this week. There is so much material, it will be hard to keep focused, but I do wish to dedicate the time to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice, including the last men to be awarded the Victoria Cross and commemorate all those who contributed to the war effort.

There are many lessons from the immediate aftermath of Victory in Europe. The United States and Russia emerged from the war as the two most powerful nations of the globe. The big three (Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin) had already met at Tehran and Yalta to carve out the new world order and set up the international monetary system and the United Nations. However, by the end of the third UK, USA, USSR conference, held at Potsdam between 17 July and 2 August 1945, neither Churchill nor Roosevelt were leading their countries.

Under Stalin’s dictatorship, there were many victims of Yalta (including the Cossacks) and this reneging of his commitments as much as anything caused the Alliance to break up and the Cold War to begin.

American and Russian Soldiers make friends on the banks of the Elbe at Torgau – 25 April 1945

There was a marked difference this week between the inclusive commemorations marking VE Day in London and the military triumphalism of Putin’s Victory Parade in Moscow. The main focus in London was on the respectful Thanksgiving and Remembrance Service in Westminster Abbey, supported by processions, tea-parties and concerts, involving ordinary people around the country. This contrasted vividly with the Russian march-past of tanks, artillery, rockets and nuclear missiles. One was celebrating peace in Europe, the other was glorifying war.

Having lost most of my friends and relations who served during the War, it was especially enjoyable to catch up with a lady who is 101 years old and served as a FANY (First Aid Nursing Yeomanry). She allowed me to use her husband’s papers for my book Liberating Libya because he served with the Long Range Desert Group and led his regiment into the Battle of El Alamein in 1942. She also had a fascinating time during the War, which is briefly summarised in this week’s Hampshire Chronicle. We had a chuckle about the article, which she said was all wrong (including the spelling of her name). And of course, she pointed out that it was incorrect to write that 8th May was the end of the War because the ferocious fighting in the Far East continued until Japan’s surrender on 14th August.

The first week of May is always time of eager anticipation for a Summer Season filled with friendship and entertainment. This year is different. Earlier in the year, there was a glimmer of hope in the wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, but as JD Vance said this week the war in Ukraine “is not going to end any time soon”. With Israel calling up its reserves for a new assault and the first attacks on Port Sudan occurring this week, it is no wonder that voters around the World are looking for “safe pairs of hands” to democratically govern their countries.

Global instability and worldwide insecurity confront us like Scylla and Charybdis facing Odysseus on his epic journey home from Troy. For many people in Britain, this is a difficult time and perhaps this is the reason that the Media is making such a fuss about the 80th anniversary of VE Day. However, we have to remember that this is a commemoration rather than a coronation and that although 8th May was a reason for the Allied countries to celebrate, it was not the end of combat. In fact, 208 Commonwealth personnel died on that day in places as far afield as the Balkans, Germany, Czech Republic, Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Gaza, Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Myanmar, where 14th Army’s intense fighting carried on until August.

The 80th anniversary extravaganza begins on 5 May with a procession to Buckingham Palace similar to the one in which my mother marched 80 years ago. Displays, tea parties, tributes and concerts carry on until Thursday, with the annual Cavalry Memorial Parade in Hyde Park rounding off the spectacle. It is all a bit strange for those of us who served in the Armed Forces and remember the words of Winston Churchill: In war: Resolution, in defeat: Defiance, in victory: Magnanimity, in peace: Good Will.

VE Day Procession 8 May 1945 – Approaching Buckingham Palace