The US and its political crisis

An American friend was deeply concerned by the current political radicalisation her country is experiencing. She specifically mentioned President Trump’s passing references to a possible postponement of the November elections. And there was also a question about the role the military could play if the President would decide to go ahead with such major decision.

I answered as follows.

I do not think he can change the electoral rules unless there is a major event such as an internal rebellion or an external war. The military will follow the existing rules. I do not see them supporting a wild and lawless Trump. He might try a trick or two, including something about the impossibility of a proper postal vote in a situation of public health calamity, but that would not be enough to mobilize enough support within the military, the security agencies, and his own party.

I recognise that the general atmosphere is not good and that many extremists do support him. They are blind and ferocious in that support. That should certainly be a matter to be worried about. But I do not think they can go far in terms of disturbing the electoral process. That said, I also believe that the country is living a profoundly serious crisis. And it is more divided than ever. Politically and socially. It requires a complete change in the political discourse and a new type of leadership, more inclusive and more responsive to the existing dramatic inequalities.

Fighting for a changed approach to security in conflict zones

Following what I wrote yesterday about the national armies in some of the Sahelian countries – that their low operational capacity is one of the key problems, on top of their human rights shortcomings and other serious governance issues – I was reminded by a friend of the example of Somalia. The international community, including European resources, have been engaged in the country for a long time with little results. Billions have been spent and many lives lost. However, the terrorists are all over, including in the capital city. And the national army, that we all have trained and keep repeating is essential to solve the insecurity threats, has a fighting capacity that is estimated at 8%. That means that almost everyone in the army is not prepared to fight an asymmetric war and cannot collect the intelligence needed to crush the terrorist cells. Or, there are two fundamental dimensions of any stabilisation project. They are not enough but if they do not happen nothing else can be achieved.

That’s why I keep repeating that we must look at these matters with frankness and be clear about what is going on and what needs to change. If we fail to do it, if we keep pretending and talk niceties, we will keep investing in the sand of those vast deserts. We will be wasting resources and lives. And we will be undermining the credibility of the international institutions and other players that are operating in such contexts. Can’t we find the courage to shift our approach?

One step in the right direction

The Iranian leadership has shown restraint. The attack against two military camps that accommodate deployed American service men was surgical, in order to avoid an escalation of the situation at this stage. That was a wise move. The American leadership responded to it with wisdom as well.

That could be seen as encouraging. However, it is too early to draw any definitive conclusion. One thing is the direct response from the Iranian military and political establishment, another is the way irregular groups can act as part of the feud.

The fact of the matter is that Iran cannot engage in conventional conflict with the US. Its military budget is a tiny grain of sand when compared with the US. Washington spends in about 9 days what the Iranians budget for a full year. We are therefore talking about two different worlds. For the tiny player, the options are clear: either play
 it down or make use of non-conventional means, which are cheap and can be very impactful. I really hope the Iranians will choose the first option. Much better for them and all of us.

New approaches to the Armed Forces

This week, we were engaged in a discussion about the future shape and configuration of the armed forces in contexts such as those we find in Europe. The starting point was that tomorrow’s defence will be very different in terms of means and personnel from what we have seen in the past. We should not be preparing for future conflicts the same way we have been doing during the last twenty years or so. Tensions and hostilities will be much more complex than they have been in the past.

I will not go into the details of the discussion this time. I just want to mention that one of the issues was about the participation of the armed forces in domestic security patrolling. Something we saw in recent years in France, above all, but also in Belgium and elsewhere, soldiers walking side by side with the Police – or on their one, no Police personnel being around – in the streets and shopping malls of our cities.

This remains a major point of disputation. I am not in favour. I do not think military personnel should be doing routine patrols that are very much within Police’s territory, unless there is a special emergency. But several senior military officers are for it. And some politicians as well, for reasons that have more to do with political gain than with increased levels of security.

The debate is not closed.

The politicians and the armed forces

In the “old Europe”, from France to Germany and through the Benelux, the public opinion is very divided regarding the possible increase in military budgets. Half of the citizens agree with the increase; the other half is not convinced. 

This situation places the governments in a very delicate position. They are stuck. And they have not managed to address the security and defence issues with the right words. Politicians in several European countries are not clear about the military. Therefore, many people understand the need for more money to be spent with the police services, with the prisons. But they are not sure about the role of the armed forces.

Maduro's days

The Venezuela standoff goes on. Time plays against Nicolás Maduro. He sees what remains of his authority being eroded with the passing of the days. He knows that, I believe, and is certainly preparing a heavy-handed response. And that’s the main danger at this stage: serious loss of lives.

Maduro also understands that the current context is different and not very favourable to him. The opposition is united. They have a charismatic and widely accepted leader. There is regional and international support to the new leader. Moreover, the regional rapport of forces is no longer what it used to be: now there is Bolsonaro next door, and the countries of the region are against him, except for Mexico, Cuba and Bolivia. And there has been a serious deterioration of the hardships most of the population is confronted with. The circumstances are playing against Maduro.

But he is still in the Miraflores Presidential Palace. And he has the support of his generals and admirals. That is important. The question is about the support of the lower ranking officers within the armed forces. That’s one of the keys to unlock the crisis.

Turkey: a major shock

The fast moving circumstances in Turkey are now a major headache for that country´s Western allies. Actually, it is more accurate to say that today´s situation is causing a massive shock in our leading circles. Our leaders cannot believe their eyes. They see a level of revenge that is just unacceptable. And they also see that the key institutions of Turkey are under a very serious attack. That starts with the Armed Forces, which are now extremely fragile, confused, frightened and humiliated. That´s certainly not good at all for a country that is located in an extremely complex and dangerous region of the world. And we can expect more complications in the days to come.

The Armed Forces and the humanitarian response

I wrote yesterday that the response to the typhoon disaster in the Philippines calls for a deep involvement of the Armed Forces, both from the country and from outside – US, Australian, Malaysian, Indonesian, etc. The magnitude of the logistical challenges, particularly airlifting of assistance, can only be met by means available within the military. No civilian humanitarian organisation, including the UN, can gather the operational means it takes to bring food and shelter to the large number of victims, some of them in very remote areas.

Some of my humanitarian friends do not like the idea of having the soldiers implicated in humanitarian operations. And a couple of them told me they had serious issues with my post of yesterday. But my answer is very simple: this an extreme situation that fully justifies a very close collaboration between the humanitarian agencies and the Armed Forces. Thousands of lives are at stake and need urgent help. They can only get it if the cooperation takes place. No doubt about it.

And we have no time to waste on doctrinal issues. This is a time to move fast and effectively. 

Egypt and Turkey

During his time in office, Morsi developed a close relationship with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey. This political alliance has certainly raised many eyebrows within the leadership of the Egyptian Armed Forces. They were very much aware of the treatment reserved by Erdogan and his party to the Turkish generals and admirals and they could foresee the same kind of fate befalling on them, sooner or later. For many undecided top officers this growing proximity between Cairo and the party in power in Ankara became reason enough to convince them that inaction was no option. It would be rather a fatal mistake. 

Chadian army in Mali

Chad has sent an initial military contingent to join the West African force that will be deployed in Mali. The Chadian Foreign Minister, Moussa Faki, has also announced that his government would be ready to make available up to 2,000 soldiers for the Malian campaign, if necessary. That would make the Chadian contribution the largest. In any case, it is good news. The National Army of Chad (ANT) is probably the most capable in the region. Only Nigeria compares to it.

ANT was a ragtag assortment of armed men up to 2008. After the rebel incursion of January-February 2008, that brought the Sudanese-sponsored guerrilla groups up the doors of the presidential palace in N’Djamena and has shaken deeply the regime, President Idriss Déby decided to extensively re-organise the armed forces. Some very tough decisions in terms of command and control, discipline and training were taken then. The truth of the matter is that by May 2009 the forces had changed. They could then easily contain another rebel incursion and show a degree of professionalism that was unknown.

In addition, ANT is very much used to operating in terrains that are very similar to Northern Mali. They will feel at home.

The real challenge will be their coordination with the other forces. The Nigerian general that will be the overall operations commander of the West African intervention will have to show serious leadership qualities.

A reference report on Cyber Security

The Commons Defence Committee of the UK's Parliament just released its report on Defence and Cyber-Security. It is a document that should be read carefully. 

In the report it is said the cyber threat to UK security could evolve at "almost unimaginable speed". The Committee questions whether the Government has the capacity to deal with it.

It is available at the following sites:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/106/106.pdf

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/106/106vw.pdf