Monday Video: Jammin' in the 'Stan

Some Brits getting their groove on in Afghanistan By: Brant

Video Coverage of Connections UK

By: Brant

RIP, Sir John Keegan

One of the world's foremost military historians, Sir John Keegan, has passed away.

The hip grew worse again, and he found himself taken back to hospital, encased in a plaster corset. This time he was not among children, but cheerful cockney veterans in a men’s ward of St Thomas’s, near Westminster Bridge. The Anglican chaplain taught him Greek; a polio victim coached him in French; and, thanks to a well-stocked library, Johnnie, as he was known there, was able to read much history and almost the entire works of Thomas Hardy.
On emerging from hospital two years later, his hip immobilised with a bone graft, Keegan won a place to read History at Oxford. But on going up to Balliol he developed TB again, and was away for another year while being treated with new drugs. He then returned, walking with a stick, to find himself among a highly talented intake, which included the future Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham, Northern Ireland Secretaries Patrick Mayhew and Peter Brooke, historian Keith Thomas, the Benedictine monk Daniel Rees, and the Prince of Wales’s Australian schoolmaster Michael Collins Persse.
Keegan was tutored in the Middle Ages by Richard Southern and in the 17th century by the Marxist Christopher Hill. Although there was no chance of a military career, he observed the confidence of those who had done National Service and decided to take “Military History and the Theory of War” as a special subject.
After a long tour of the battlefields of the American Civil War with his future brother-in-law Maurice Keen, the medieval historian, he returned home to find work writing political reports for the American embassy in London for two years, then obtained a post as a lecturer at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. It was Keegan’s first proper job.
The academy had some similarities with an Oxford college, including beautiful grounds and buildings as well as good company. But while Oxford encouraged debate, Keegan found himself, as a civilian, lecturing on Military History to motivate young men who were part of a chain of command, trained to accept orders.
The rebellious streak that lurked within him meant that he did not always find this easy; nevertheless, he discovered how liberal and open-minded the Army could be (as long as its core values were not undermined). It tolerated the Keegan family donkey, Emilia, which kept breaking into the student officers’ quiet room. But while writing half a dozen 40,000-word potboilers for “Ballantyne’s Illustrated History of the Violent Century”, he was constantly aware that neither he nor his charges had any personal experience of war.
As a result, his first major book, The Face of Battle (1976), asked: what is it like to be in a battle? Instead of adopting a commander’s perspective, seeing every conflict as an impersonal flow of causation, currents and tendencies in the way favoured by contemporary historians, Keegan concentrated on the experience of the common soldier.

By: Brant

Anniversary: War of 1812, Part 'Brit' of... uh, let's just say we ran out of Canadians

While the war war darn important for Canada, it wasn't much of a blip on the British radar.

The War of 1812 has been referred to as a victorious “Second War for Independence,” and used to define Canadian identity, but the British only remember 1812 as the year Napoleon marched to Moscow. This is not surprising. In British eyes, the conflict with America was an annoying sideshow. The Americans had stabbed them in the back while they, the British, were busy fighting a total war against the French Empire, directed by their most inveterate enemy. For a nation fighting Napoleon Bonaparte, James Madison was an annoying irrelevance. Consequently the American war would be fought with whatever money, manpower and naval force that could be spared, no more than seven percent of the total British military effort.

By: Brant

Drone War in AfPak Hurting the US?

UK's Telegraph has an interesting editorial about how the drone war in Afghanistan is destroying the West's reputation.
There's an extended article, but it wraps thus...

Meanwhile, America refuses to apologise for killing 24 Pakistani servicemen in a botched ISAF operation. This is election year and Mr Obama, having apologised already over Koran-burning, may be nervous about a second apology, and has therefore confined himself to an expression of “regret”.
I am told by a number of credible sources that this refusal to behave decently – allied to dismay at the use of drones as the weapon of default in tribal areas – is the reason for the unusual decision of the US ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter, to step down after less than two years in his post. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – increasingly irrelevant and marginalised in an administration dominated by the partnership between Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defence, and Petraeus – has protested but been ignored.
We need a serious public debate on drones. They are still in their infancy, but have already changed the nature of warfare. The new technology points the way, within just a few decades, to a battlefield where soldiers never die or even risk their lives, and only alleged enemies of the state, their family members, and civilians die in combat – a world straight out of the mouse’s tale in Alice in Wonderland: “ 'I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury’, said cunning old Fury. 'I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.’ ” Justice as dealt out by drones cannot be reconciled with the rule of law which we say we wish to defend.
Supporters of drones – and they make up practically the entire respectable political establishment in Britain and the US – argue that they are indispensable in the fight against al-Qaeda. But plenty of very experienced voices have expressed profound qualms. The former army officer David Kilcullen, one of the architects of the 2007 Iraqi surge, has warned that drone attacks create more extremists than they eliminate. Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Britain’s former special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is equally adamant that drone attacks are horribly counter-productive because of the hatred they have started to generate: according to a recent poll, more than two thirds of Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy. Britain used to be popular and respected in this part of the world for our wisdom and decency. Now, thanks to our refusal to challenge American military doctrine, we are hated, too.

By: Brant

Argentina Marks Belgrano Anniversary

With the 30th anniversary of the Falklands ongoing, we're going to see commemorations on both sides, and right now, the Argentines are marking the anniversary of the sinking of the General Belgrano.

Argentina has held ceremonies to mark the 30th anniversary of the sinking of the warship General Belgrano during the Falklands War with the UK.

Survivors and relatives of the 323 crew who died gathered in Buenos Aires to mourn their loss.

President Cristina Fernandez reiterated Argentina's claim to the Falklands, which it calls Las Malvinas.

The Belgrano - a cruiser - was torpedoed by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror on 2 May 1982.

Its sinking remains one of the most controversial actions of the Falklands conflict.

image from Wikimedia

By: Brant

Anniversary: Falklands Invasion

30 years ago, the Argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands.

The Guardian has an excellent microsite covering the war, including this very nice interactive video.

Want to see what the Financial Times of London printed that day? Here's the PDF.

On April 1, 1982, the Washington Post ran this article.

Argentine Navy Faces British in Islands Dispute
BYLINE: By Leonard Downie Jr., Washington Post Foreign Service
SECTION: First Section; A21
LENGTH: 594 words
DATELINE: LONDON, March 31, 1982

Britain and Argentina are sending warships to the disputed Falkland Islands after their long-simmering feud over control of the sparsely populated territory erupted earlier this month into what the foreign ministers of both countries have described as a serious confrontation.
Without detailing the British naval force being sent to the islands, in the southern Atlantic off the tip of South America, Defense Secretary John Nott said today it would be adequate to defend British interests.
Nott said Britain still seeks a diplomatic solution but other officials said the crisis is being taken very seriously here. The confrontation has been called "potentially dangerous" by Britain's foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, and "grave and serious" by Argentine Foreign Minister Nicanor Costa Mendez.
Britain reportedly has ordered a nuclear-powered submarine and other vessels to join a Royal Navy ice patrol ship facing several Argentine warships in the vicinity of the Falklands. Argentina also is reportedly sending its only aircraft carrier. British destroyers and frigates in the Caribbean and at Gibraltar have been put on alert.
The current troubles began 11 days ago when a group of Argentine scrap metal dealers landed on remote South Georgia island, 800 miles east of the rest of the Falklands to dismantle an unused whaling station.
The Argentinians had a contract with the British owner of the whaling station and notified British officials in the Falklands of their intentions. But because they did not obtain advance immigration clearance and raised an Argentine flag after landing, according to the British, they were asked to leave.
All but 12 of the original 50 left, according to British officials and representatives here of the 1,800 residents of the Falklands, which have been occupied continuously by British settlers and their descendants since 1833.
The Argentine Foreign Ministry said Britain has no right to order the men off what it considers Argentine territory. Citing a brief occupation of the islands by Spain during the 18th century, Argentina has long claimed sovereignty over the Falklands, which they call the Malvinas.
The British ice-patrol ship Endurance, with some of the 36 Marines normally stationed in the Falklands, was sent to the whaling station to back up the British demand that the rest of the Argentinians leave.
Argentina responded with three warships and was reported yesterday to be sending more. Although British officials refuse to comment, it has been made known here that at least one British submarine capable of sinking surface warships is on its way to the Falklands, to be followed if necessary by large surface warships.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government has been accused by members of Parliament here of responding slowly to Argentina's military moves and crippling British preparedness for such emergencies by reducing the Navy's surface fleet.
Carrington said yesterday that intensive secret negotiations with Argentina had so far failed to resolve the dispute.
U.N.-sponsored negotiations begun in 1965 have made slow progress on competing British and Argentine claims, although agreements have been reached on trade, communications, educational and medical facilities and customs regulations for Falkland island residents.
Britain and Argentina have otherwise enjoyed close trade and other ties in the past. One of the Argentine destroyers deployed for the current confrontation is British-made and the Argentine aircraft carrier was bought from the British Navy.

The next day, as Argentina invaded, the New York Times led with this one.

ARGENTINA SEIZES FALKLAND ISLANDS; BRITISH SHIPS MOVE
BYLINE: By WILLIAM BORDERS, Special to the New York Times
SECTION: Section 1; Page 1, Column 5; Foreign Desk
LENGTH: 1006 words
DATELINE: LONDON, April 2

Reacting with dismay and indignation to the invasion of the Falkland Islands, Britain broke off diplomatic relations with Argentina today and warned that it was taking appropriate military measures to assert ''our rights under international law.''
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher summoned the Cabinet into an early morning crisis session, with defense chiefs present, and they met again for an hour this evening. Tonight some warships were en route to the Falklands, and a naval task force was put on immediate readiness for operations, the Government said. An emergency Commons debate was scheduled for Saturday morning, the first weekend session of Parliament since the Suez crisis of 1956.

Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary, said, ''Her Majesty's Government totally condemns this unprovoked aggression, which is in flagrant disregard of the appeal by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the president of the Security Council.''

Amusement Turns to Anger
The wry amusement with which the whole Falklands affair had been viewed here during its two weeks in the public notice was suddenly overtaken by anger at the abrupt Argentine action, coupled with a nostalgic yearning for the proud old days of empire.
But it was unclear tonight just what the British could do about the invasion, or how serious any military response would be. That, presumably, was the central question at the two emergency Cabinet meetings today, as it will be in the parliamentary debate Saturday.
The 1,800 Falkland Islanders, most of them British, are in danger of the humiliation of surrender to the Argentinian dictatorship, one Member of Parliament declared during the tumultuous debate this afternoon. Another, criticizing the Government's reaction as weak, said, ''Our words should match our deeds and be forthright in the extreme.''
But officials admitted privately that, short of war, there was little that they could do to reassert sovereignty over the islands, which Britain and Argentina have disputed for about 150 years. And even the military options were limited by the fact that the Falklands are 8,000 miles away - at least a week's sailing distance from the closest British ships. The islands are only a few hundred miles off the coast of Argentina.
Military sources here also said that there was a small group of three or four frigates and destroyers in the South Atlantic, but it was not clear how far away from the Falklands they were or whether the British would order them into action. There were also reports that airborne troops were being readied here, but those reports could not be confirmed, and in any case it was not clear where the troops would land.
Defense Secretary John Nott said tonight that a ''substantial number of Royal Navy ships'' were ordered to the Falklands several days ago, but he declined to say when they would arrive. He said the naval task force being prepared in British waters was substantial, but he declined to be more specific. He said it had not been given orders to sail. There were unconfirmed reports that two aircraft carriers, the Hermes and the Invincible, were preparing to put out to sea from Portsmouth, and that the sailors' Easter leave had been canceled.
On the advice of the Government, British Caledonian Airways suspended its commercial flights to Argentina. Another measure of the intensity of feeling was that Argentine diplomats here were given only until next Thursday to leave the country.

Argentine Action Condemned
In Brussels, foreign ministers of the 10 Common Market countries condemned the Argentine action, calling for an immediate withdrawal from the islands, and the council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization expressed deep concern. Diplomats said that an attack on the Falklands would not involve NATO militarily, because the islands lie beyond the Tropic of Cancer, which is the geographical limit of the treaty area.
In the Commons debate this morning, the Government was roundly criticized for not having begun its military build-up two weeks ago, when the crisis began. The total British military strength in the islands is a contingent of about 80 Royal Marines, commanded by a major, stationed at Stanley.
Asked at a news conference today whether those men had been given orders to surrender, the Defense Secretary replied: ''The British never give orders to anyone to surrender. I would have assumed no member of the British armed services surrenders.''

Gunbattles Reported
Asked if he meant by that that the marines had engaged in combat, he said he did not know, since the Government here had not been in contact with Stanley since early this morning.
Broadcasts from two amateur radio operators in the Falklands, monitored by other so-called hams in Britain, reported that there had been gunbattles around Stanley at about dawn. According to one of them, the Argentine invading party consisted of an aircraft carrier and four other ships.
One of the amateur broadcasters said that the Argentines had taken over the Cable and Wireless station, preventing normal communications, and that they were now broadcasting in Spanish on the local radio. He said that the capital was fairly calm this afternoon but that helicopters were hovering overhead and troops were searching houses, presumably looking for radio sets.
The residents of the Falklands, most of whom are sheep farmers, voted in a referendum last year to stay British. They speak with British accents, and drink and play darts in pubs that would look right at home here. Their present plight touches a very sensitive nerve in a nation still growing accustomed to its newly lessened role in the world.

Oh yeah, and the Argentinians are opening a Falklands museum.

By: Brant

Falklands Row Expands to Other Nations

Preu has cancelled a visit by a UK warship.

Britain's Foreign Office expressed regret on Tuesday that Peru cancelled a visit by a Royal Navy frigate in a show of support for Argentina over the contested Falkland Islands.
"HMS Montrose was scheduled to make a short visit to Peru as part of a routine deployment to the region. This was agreed as an act of friendship and cooperation between Peru and the UK," a spokesman in London said.
"Ship visits are a sovereign decision for states, but we regret that Peru has revoked its previous agreement to this visit.

By: Brant

Arming Vichy France?

An interesting archival moment uncovered by the BBC...

A British general kept Winston Churchill and Free French leader Charles De Gaulle in the dark about a top secret 1942 plan to arm Vichy France, recently discovered documents reveal.

Both Churchill and De Gaulle had made clear their contempt for Marshall Petain's regime, which controlled a large part of France thanks to a deal struck with Hitler.

Relations between Britain and France had been strained since July 1940, when Churchill, who was determined to stop French ships falling into German hands, ordered the Royal Navy to sink several French war ships off the coast of Algeria - 1,300 French sailors lost their lives in the action.

In retaliation, a furious Vichy not only broke off diplomatic relations with London but also bombed Gibraltar.

In December 1941, Winston Churchill made clear his distaste for the supposedly neutral Vichy regime and its often enthusiastic collaboration with Hitler.


Later, Vichy voluntarily deported Jews to Germany.

Charles De Gaulle was equally contemptuous. Vichy's leaders had accused him of being a traitor when he fled to London after the fall of France. At the time, Marshal Petain, a hero of World War I, was a more popular figure in France - many saw him as having shielded Vichy from the worst excesses of Hitler's forces and saved the region from German occupation.

By: Brant

h/t Rex @ PaxSims

An Excellent Comparison of Falklands Situations

The BBC has a well-constructed chart of details comparing the situation in 1982 and today in the Falklands. It's not kind to the Argies. It's not slagging them, just laying out the facts.
Part of the info shows the difference in garrisons on the islands:

By: Brant

Covert UK Ops on the Ground in Libya

Mark Urban (no known relation to Keith) has a great article about the UK's covert actions on the ground during the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

The first significant involvement of British forces inside Libya was a rescue mission mounted just a couple of weeks after the rising against Gaddafi broke out. On 3 March, Royal Air Force C130 aircraft were sent to a desert airstrip at Zilla in the south of the country to rescue expatriate oil workers. Many had been threatened by gunmen and bandits.

This airlift of 150 foreigners, including about 20 Britons, to Valletta airport in Malta went smoothly, despite one of the aircraft being hit by ground fire soon after taking off.

Accompanying the flights were about two dozen men from C Squadron of the Special Boat Service (SBS), who helped secure the landing zone. It was a short-term and discreet intervention that saved the workers from risk of abduction or murder, and caused little debate in Whitehall.

OK, so not bad. But after another debacle (read the article - amazing these guys dorked up that bad) the straightjacket went on the ROE.

When half a dozen British officers arrived at a seaside hotel in Benghazi at the beginning of April, they were unarmed and their role was strictly limited. They had been told to help the NTC set up a nascent defence ministry, located in a commandeered factory on the outskirts of the city.

The first and most basic task of the advisory team was to get the various bands of Libyan fighters roaring around in armed pick-up trucks under some sort of central co-ordination. As reporters had discovered, most of these men had little idea of what they were doing, and soon panicked if they thought Col Gaddafi's forces were attacking or outflanking them.

There were a number of legal issues preventing them giving more help. Some Whitehall lawyers argued that any type of presence on the ground was problematic. Legal doubts were raised about arming the NTC or targeting Col Gaddafi.

Once the air operation was put on a proper Nato footing, these issues became even more vexed, insiders say, with the alliance saying it would not accept men on the ground "directing air strikes" in a way that some newspapers, even in late spring, were speculating was already happening.

The British government's desire to achieve the overthrow of Gaddafi while accommodating the legal sensitivities registered by various Whitehall departments led to some frustration among those who were meant to make the policy work.

This is the kind of news story you can see growing into a complete book, and an interesting one at that.

By: Brant

Anniversary: Battle of Ashdown

Today marks the anniversary of the Battle of Ashdown in 871.


View Larger Map

A brief synopsis of the Battle of Ashdown from about.com

Riding to the top of Blowingstone Hill (Kingstone Lisle), Alfred made use of an ancient perforated sarsen stone. Known as the "Blowing Stone," it was capable of producing a loud, booming sound when blown into correctly. With the signal sent out across the downs, he rode to a hill-fort near Ashdown House to gather his men, while Ethelred's men rallied at nearby Hardwell Camp. Uniting their forces, Ethelred and Alfred learned that the Danes had encamped at nearby Uffington Castle. On the morning of January 8, 871, both forces marched out and formed for battle on the plain of Ashdown.

Though both armies were in place, neither appeared eager to open the battle. It was during this lull that Ethelred, against Alfred's wishes, departed the field to attend church services at nearby Aston. Unwilling to return until the service was finished, he left Alfred in command. Assessing the situation, Alfred realized that the Danes had occupied a superior position on higher ground. Seeing that they would have to attack first or be defeated, Alfred ordered the Saxons forward. Charging, the Saxon shield wall collided with the Danes and battle commenced.

Clashing near a lone, gnarled thorn tree, the two sides inflicted heavy casualties in the melee that ensued. Among those struck down was Bagsecg as well as five of his earls. With their losses mounting and one of their kings dead, the Danes fled the field and returned to Reading.

By: Brant

Another Argie Provocation in the Falklands?

The Telegraph calls it a "blockade" but it's hardly that. Still, the Argies are obviously trying to push England's buttons - again.

Argentina has launched a naval campaign to isolate the Falkland Islands that has seen it detain Spanish fishing vessels on suspicion of breaking the country’s “blockade” of the seas around the British territories.

Argentine patrol vessels have boarded 12 Spanish boats, operating under fishing licences issued by the Falkland Islands, for operating “illegally” in disputed waters in recent weeks.

Argentine patrol commanders carrying out interceptions near the South American coast told Spanish captains they were in violation of Argentina’s “legal” blockade of sea channels to the Falklands.

The warning has been backed up in a letter to Aetinape, the Spanish fishing vessels association from the Argentine embassy in Madrid warning boats in the area that “Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and adjoining maritime spaces are an integral part of the Argentine territory.”

The confrontation strategy targetting foreign boats marks an escalation of tensions in seas that Duke of Cambridge, a Flight Lieutenant with the RAF, is set to patrol during a tour of duty last year.

The Duke is to be deployed to the Falklands next February as part of a routine training duties. Commanders would face the dilemma of despatching the Royal to take part in an operations to monitor or contain the Argentine challenge.

By: Brant

BUB: Pakistan

So Pakistan - described by The Atlantic as The Ally From Hell - is claiming that NATO troops ignored its pleas during the cross-border attack that killed 24 people.

The NATO airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers lasted almost two hours and continued even after Pakistani commanders had pleaded with coalition forces to stop, the army claimed Monday in charges that could further inflame anger in Pakistan.

Somehow, there's a limit to how bad I can feel about this, given that Pakistan has been ignoring pleas - and outright countering attempts - to close their border to tribal fighters hiding behind and arbitrary line on the map. At some point, when you've got the Pakistani ISI shutting down peace talks because "their" Taliban aren't invited, you start worrying less and less about how "allied" the guys across the wire are.

All this is coming on the heels of a "Memogate" scandal that revealed some interesting Pakistani splits in policy.

Publication of a secret memo asking Washington for help reining in the Pakistani military further ignited a scandal Friday threatening Pakistan's U.S. ambassador and exposing the rift between its shaky government and the country's powerful generals.
The ambassador, Husain Haqqani, has denied having anything to do with a memo delivered to the U.S. military chief asking for help with the military because of the domestic turmoil triggered by the U.S. raid that killed al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden.
The "memogate" scandal is adding to pressures on the already deeply unpopular government. Some analysts have speculated that President Asif Ali Zardari himself could be in danger if charges that he signed off on the memo gain traction.
"The target is not me, the target is President Zardari and Pakistani democracy," Haqqani said.
Though Pakistan has a civilian president, the military retains vast political and economic power. It has ruled Pakistan, directly or indirectly, for most of its six-decade existence, and fiercely resisted attempts by civilian leaders to curb its role.
Haqqani is alleged to have written a memo to Adm. Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military officer at the time, asking for his assistance in installing a "new security team" in Islamabad that would be friendly to Washington.

... and resulted in the naming of a new envoy to the US.

Pakistan appointed a democracy activist who has faced militant death threats as its new ambassador to the United States on Wednesday, moving quickly to replace the old envoy who resigned after upsetting the country's powerful military in a scandal dubbed "memo-gate."
Sherry Rehman will likely be well-received in Washington, though she will have a tough task representing Pakistan amid widespread suspicion in the U.S. that nuclear-armed Pakistan is not a sincere ally in the fight against Islamist extremists.
"We all have to forge a progressive, dynamic Pakistan out of the ashes that are often left to us by the fire of terrorism, by the fire of extremism," Rehman said during a speech Wednesday.
The 50-year-old former information minister is an important and respected player in Pakistan's ruling party and a vocal proponent of civilian supremacy in the country. She resigned her post in March 2009 amid controversy over whether President Asif Ali Zardari had ordered cable operators to block a private TV channel that had been critical of him — an allegation he denied.

However, any wedges in Pakistani political life are likely going to get papered over in the unanimous shouting down of NATO over the shooting.

Now Pakistan is saying they're going to "permanently" close their borders to NATO.

The announcement came as the Pakistan army claimed the attack lasted almost two hours and continued even after commanders at the bases pleaded with coalition forces to stop.
Closing the crossings will choke off almost half of all supplies destined for the Nato-led force — including British troops.
Accounts still differ about what happened in the early hours of Saturday when American aircraft attacked two border posts inside Pakistan.
But the fallout is clear: a deep diplomatic crisis threatening co-operation against Taliban and al-Qaeda militants.
Pakistan immediately shut its borders to convoys taking fuel and supplies to forces in Afghanistan and says it is reviewing all military and diplomatic ties with the US and Nato.

The excellent Defence and Freedom has a thought-provoking on "A minor border incident", but one that fails in it's comparison because there are several significant parallels unaccounted for - such as the supposed-allied-yet-double-dealing nature of one of the main actors.

By: Brant

Random Friday Wargaming: Rebels from the Empire

A one-page game of a fake British colonial revolt, Rebels from the Empire is a part of the One Page Wars series



Someone give it a spin and drop some knowledge on us!


Master links/images from Boardgamegeek.com; message boards linked to Consimworld. Other links to the actual game pages...


By: Brant

Ooops! Off-Limits Ordnance Orgy

The Pakistani national arms company was shut down at a UK expo after ads for cluster bombs were found among their materials.

Defence & Security Equipment international (DSEi) permanently shut down the Pakistan Ordnance Factory (POF) stand and Pakistan’s Defence Export Promotion Organisation Pavilion after promotional material was found on both containing references to cluster bombs at the London expo.
A DSEi statement said that promotional material was found containing references, which on closer inspection were found to be in breach of UK Government Export Controls and the exhibitions own contractual requirements.
The statement posted on the DSEi website further read that the British Government fully supported the decision by DSEi to close the stand and the Pavilion.
The Pakistani arms companies were found distributing brochures bearing advertisement for banned cluster bombs at the expo.

By: Brant

Stuck Between the EU and a Hard Place

So you're the EU's "foreign minister"... and you are supposed to represent the organization... but the organization is taking an action that your own government opposes... and now the EU is telling you to make an end run around your own government to implement an EU policy... Man, I'll bet the Baroness never expected these sorts of headaches for what was originally deemed a largely ceremonial position.

The "big five" has told the EU foreign minister that she must set up a European "Operational HQ" by any means necessary, including a legal mechanism, created by the Lisbon Treaty that bypasses a British veto.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, threatened in July to veto a proposed military HQ to "command and control" troops, including British forces, taking part in EU operations, such as the current antipiracy naval force off the coast of Somalia.
But in a confidential letter, dated September 2, foreign ministers from the five countries create a powerful alliance against an isolated Britain by pledging their "strong political will to continue" as a "matter of urgency".
"France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain remain at your disposal to support your work in this regard," says the letter to Lady Ashton, seen by The Daily Telegraph.
"We believe it remains the most comprehensive basis for further work on all the issues: capabilities, including civil-military planning and conduct capability, battle groups and EU/Nato relations."

By: Brant

Brit Think-Tank Looking Forward

British think-tank RUSI has some interesting thoughts on "The End of Twentieth-Century Warfare".

The great power wars of the twenty-first century will be fought by special forces: specialised in combat against pirates, terrorists and global criminal networks; in focused search and rescue and search and destroy missions; and in civilian protection units capable of disabling but not destroying an enemy. They will be fought by cyber-warriors, skilled in manipulating unmanned weapons and in deterring and responding to system-wide cyber-attacks. And they will be fought in multilateral coalitions aimed at stopping the wars that criminal governments wage against their own people and bringing individual leaders and their coterie of high-level supporters to justice.

Many readers will shake their heads and think how short is historical memory. 'Never again' has as little impact on the decisions to mobilise armies as it does on the decisions to stop genocide. Reasons always exist to send in the troops; it is just that war-weary, broke, frustrated Americans confronted with their crumbling domestic human and physical infrastructure have temporarily forgotten or forsworn them. Perhaps. But as two American military officers argue compellingly in a twenty-first­ century sequel to George Kennan's 'Long Telegram' (the X article), the world's greatest military power, near the height of its military dominance, is confronting a world in which control is giving way to credible influence (Mr Y, 'A National Strategic Narrative', 2011). No country, however mighty, can direct or determine global outcomes (it never could, but the illusion was good enough for government work). The best it can hope reflections on the 9/11 decade for is to influence others - governments and societies alike - in shaping events and adapting to a continuous stream of changing challenges. In this world we will not 'win wars'. We will have an assortment of civilian and military tools to increase our chances of turning looming bad outcomes into good - or at least better - outcomes.

By: Brant

Anniversary: London Bombings

Today's anniversary is not a happy one in England, as we commemorate the 7/7 London Bombings from 2005.

It takes an American to give us a good perspective on how terrorism sympathies have grown over the years.

In addition, our current phone hacking scandal with the News of the World tabloid has now enveloped the families of 7/7 victims, according to current Scotland Yard investigations.

By: Widow 6-7

Anniversary: Falkland Islands Victory

29 years ago today, the Argentine voices on the Falklands surrendered, essentially ending the Falklands War. The anniversary is likely to commemorated with a variety of muted celebrations in England. In Argentina, probably not so much. Read Wikipedia's account here, which actually isn't too bad. Meanwhile, the Admiral who commanded the naval forces in that war, Admiral Sandy Woodward, says that there's no way the UK could accomplish the same thing today.

Want to game it?
Play Lock'n'Load's RIng of HIlls at the tactical level, or Where There is Discord at the operational level.

And Tim Spicer's autobiography includes some compelling chapters about his time in the Scots Guards fighting in the Falklands, where he was a battalion operations officer.

By: Brant