Dutch Army plans revisited

Tweet
Dear readers,

My girlfriend had a funny remark this morning about the Dutch armed forces. Apparently, the new defence budget of the Netherlands includes no replacement for its tanks or transport helicopters. She said: "what is the point of a modern army without tanks? They really should get rid of it completely if they can't do it seriously". I had to laugh but to give her the point.

I had read yesterday that its submarine forces (already reduced to three after the damages sustained by the 4th) would be scrapped too. At the same time, the Dutch Defence Ministry is reserving billions of dollar for the basic (non VTOL version) of the US made JSF. And anyone with a ounce of reason will think: WTF? Why buy an extremely expensive plane (the most expensive there is, in fact) to a non-European entity, undermining European defence? Why the version least useful for external intervention and force projection? Why on the other hand refuse to replace the materials actually useful in today's world affairs: submarines, helicopters and armour? I thought about it a little bit and no rationale reasoning came to me.

But then I realized there is a simple explanation: follow the money. The Dutch coalition is made of VVD and CDA (right wing, near to Dutch big money and business interests). Their own interest is not to improve the Dutch defence capabilities or the European coordination. Their interest is to fill in their pockets and the ones of their business friends. Search no further... I suspect that the US industrials (and particularly the ones making the JSF) are ranking highly amongst these friends.

Denuclearization

Dear readers,

The BBC reports that Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's chief, declared that NATO should retain nuclear capacities as long as there would be rogue regimes and terrorists threatening the Alliance. He added that such threats also made a serious anti-missile defense system all the more important.

While I completely agree with mister Rasmussen's second statement, the first one is, to say the least, debatable. The Danish former Minister is well aware of one of the reasons for this, the economic one. He addressed it in his comment, by mentioning that NATO should find a way of mutualizing the costs of such "deterrents". Denmark is indeed a member of NATO, and pays for its own expenses within the Alliance. However, very much like the Netherlands and most other NATO members (apart from France, the UK and the USA), Denmark enjoys the protection of the nuclear weapons of the three members who operates them, but without supporting any of the costs.

However, there is another reason to find mister Rasmussen comment slightly aloof. And it is the rational behind the deterrence issue. It is not very clear that nuclear weapons really were any deterrent at all, at least since the Cuban missile crisis. It is fairly obvious that even at the end of the Cold War, none of the sides was actually ready to use its nukes in a first strike against its opponent. A deterrent was thus unnecessary. Now that the Cold War is over, most states owning nukes are even less likely to use them. More importantly, Rasmussen is actually not referring to such states, but to "rogue countries and terrorist organisations". And that's where the logic is flawed. Rogue regimes and terrorist organisations are totally uninterested in deterrence. Terrorists can not be stopped or deterred by nukes. They are ready to die and bring as many people in death with them. They simply don't care about the possibility of a nuclear answer to their threat. Actually, they would very much enjoy it. Getting more civilian people killed in the bombing is simply bonus for them and their cause.

As for rogue states, it is maybe slightly more ambivalent. But who does mister Rasmussen mean by these? Well, it's quite obvious. He means the two who are openly hostile to NATO: Iran and North Korea. One could also argue about China and Pakistan, but these two countries are not more likely to use nukes in a first strike against NATO than the USSR was at the end of the Cold War. So what about Iran and North Korea? Well, I dare say that the deterrence of our own nukes against these regimes is near to zero. These are secretive and violent regimes which routinely kill, torture, persecute and oppress their own citizens. These are leaders who live under high protection, with deep bunkers ready to shelter them in case of an attack. They are very well aware that any strike (first or second) against them with NATO nukes would only hurt the very people the NATO cares about: their civilian population. In case of an attack, these leaders would of course already be in deep shelters, well protected against nuclear missiles.

If they would threaten NATO, nukes would certainly not be the answer to the threat they pose. So mister Rasmussen, don't bother about the cost of NATO nukes. These costs could be much better used in the building of a common missile defence system. This is actually the only good idea that ever came from the former US Bush administration. NATO should stick to it and spend its money where it is really needed: in protecting its citizens against bombs, not in threatening other civilians with its own.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Dear readers,

If the Senate hearings of Sonia Sotomayor weren't in full proceedings, the other piece of news which would be on top of the US and not just international press would be the new Cheney scandal. Apparently, Dick Cheney would have prevented or delayed disclosure of a CIA program to send assassination teams against specific Al Qaeda targets. The whole problem is not the killings, from a legal point of view, but the hiding of the program from the Congress Intelligence Committee. I am not going down this road, because it is frankly of little interest (except if it leads to a Cheney indictment, but I am not holding my breath).

What I am more interested about are the assassinations themselves. First, a bit of irony... Since when did the CIA stop killing people? I mean the right people in the wrong place... or the other way around. ;-) I mean, what is their usefulness if they can't blow up a couple of self designated bad guys (and a bunch of civilians in the process)? You see, the problem is that the CIA switched from a traditional ground operational procedure (practised by nearly all countries and secret services on the planet, regardless of the regime) to the quasi exclusive use of drones. The unmanned aircraft went to be seen as the panacea when in need of safe removal of an annoying terrorist / freedom fighter / politician and so on. This led to the nearly daily use of MQ-1 Predator and later MQ-9 Reaper drones on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, in Yemen and in Iraq (and probably a couple of other places).

However, and apparently (if we must believe Leon Panetta, the current CIA chief), the "new" assassination program began just after 9/11. Although the CIA is covering itself by saying it was never made operational, one can legitimately have some doubts. What could have taken them eight years? I know the US intelligence community is in dire need of Middle-East specialists, Arabic speakers and so on, but still, it took less time for the NASA to put someone on the moon... And it is not like you need these guys to be in constant contact with the enemy either.

Other countries, as I mentioned, have done this for decades: the Russians had and still use special units and killers abroad, while the French have killed or attempted killing their enemies abroad, when deemed feasible. The United Kingdom SAS assassination squad became famous when they slaughtered a couple of unarmed IRA operatives in Spain in broad daylight. The Mossad revenge killing of PLO terrorists after the Munich Olympics has been made a movie. So why not the USA? I suspect there is a certain reluctance in the USA (despite the extreme violence of its society itself) to engage into what the American mentality considers dirty stuff. It's like sex on TV, swearing in children programs or showing tits at the Super Bowl: you just don't do it. After Second World War, the USA were even in the process of dismantling all their war time intelligence operations (not just the special force units), such as the OSS, before the reality of the Cold War pushed them to create the CIA.

Anyway, I personally believe that murder is always unethical. However, I consider (but I would be happy to be proven otherwise) that politics, especially international one, can not be entirely ethical. It is a sad fact of humanity that some people are such remorseless killers that they would wage war on the most peaceful states, only to make their point, kill, rape and genocide, just name it... Most of these are of the ideological type, which means there is simply no reasoning them at all. In the long term, they will get back at you. This is why most decent countries (including the liberal democracies) have used assassination as a latest resort, usually to avoid more carnage. It is not considered pretty, it is not considered honourable and neither is it considered moral. But it is a lesser evil, one you carefully plan to be able to staunchly deny it later.

I think it could have saved a lot of trouble to the USA and the entire world, if this CIA program had been implemented a bit more seriously (providing that the necessary legal information of the Congress had taken place). Instead of invading Iraq (probably the stupidest adventure ever attempted by the USA and UK) or dragging into lengthy and costly operations in Afghanistan, a series of killings, based on sound intelligence, could have improved the situation tremendously. And even if it wouldn't have helped, at least it should have been tried, before engaging in a double war with hundreds of thousands of victims on all sides.

In comparison, I will let you with this little piece of French nastiness in Pakistan. I know all parties involved have denied anything of the like, but the fact is that a couple of Pakistani admirals have been knee capped and the fact is also that the ISI has been known to play for both sides for at least 20 years. The fact is also that French services are known to absolutely always avenge their guys, a way or another. The Syrians learned it the hard way in the Bekaa in the 80's. You don't make war in tutu...

European marine defence

Dear readers,

As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.

The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.

The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.

Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.

Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.

These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.

I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...