Afghanistan: ”Operation Moshtarak’, a decisive test’…

OPERATION MOSHTARAK

From the desk of MD

OPERATION MOSHTARAK, which means “together” in the Dari or Persian language, is primed to begin. The name strikes to the heart of how this operation will be conducted: NATO commanders have gone to great lengths in making clear that Afghan forces, alongside Western troops (American and British), will play a significant and prominent role in the operation to clear Taliban insurgents from the town of Marjah, the largest community in Helmand province under Taliban control.

NATO’s commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChyrstal, has said he wants the military operation, which will be the most significant in the country since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, to send a very clear signal that the Afghan government is intent on expanding control over its territory.

Related:

• Afghanistan: ‘Political settlement remains key’…
• Afghanistan: ‘A worthy cause’…
• Afghanistan: ‘Obama surge and withdrawal plan’…
• Afghanistan: ‘U.S. withdrawal policy’…
• Afghanistan: ‘War of words over resources requires resolution’…
• Afghanistan: ‘Policy, Politics and Generals’…
• Intelligence Briefing: ‘Overflow of military intelligence from drones’…

The operation is part of the new NATO strategy, driven by General McChyrstal, of building up the Afghan military presence and establishing security in large civilian centres. There is good judgement to this. The fact that NATO has been broadcasting this operation for weeks, and has not sought to prevent Taliban fighters from leaving Marjah, fits with the other strategic objective of splitting the less-committed insurgents off from the hardcore ring.

Some 4,000 British troops ready to join US and Afghan forces in 'Operation Moshtarak', an offensive that is intended to drive out the Taliban from Marjah, Helmand province -- Image Credit: AP

This strategy stands up to better scrutiny and is certainly smarter than the previous one of sporadic and erratic engagements with the Taliban, which were generally followed by a retreat to isolated bases. However, it is likely to come at a heavy price, as Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has pointed out. With two more British soldiers killed by a bomb in Helmand, taking the death toll in Afghanistan to that of the 1982 Falklands campaign, this operation – involving some 4,000 British troops – is likely to incur more casualties.

The risk of civilian deaths is also significant. Whilst thousands of residents of the Marjah area have been departing in haste after NATO airdropped warning leaflets, by no means have all fled. The concern, and one which has been expressed by the International Committee of the Red Cross, is that civilian lives will be put in the path of danger when NATO forces attempt to take control of a major civilian centre.

Troubling, as well, is the fact that the McChrystal plan is not certain to work. The NATO commander is aiming for something that has never before been achieved in Afghanistan. Throughout Afghanistan’s long and troubled history, insurgencies have always proved the victor over foreign forces. In some instances foreign forces had even more troops than this one, which opens up the daunting prospect of another Western failure. The whole strategy, too, is also reliant on the Afghan government, which over recent weeks and months has revealed itself as weak, incompetent and corrupt. In the most recent flagrant breach a district administrator in North West Afghanistan has been arrested and accused of selling government supplies for private gain and passing sensitive military intelligence to militants.

..

IN LARGE PART, the success of the operation will become dependant on convincing civilians that the government in Kabul will be better for them, rather than being controlled by the Taliban. The real litmus test for Operation Moshtarak, in terms of how successful it has been, will be looking at what happens in Marjah afterwards. The initial assault is only the means by which, hopefully, life will be bettered for those living in a region that has constantly been harangued by the Taliban warlords.

Yet, the clock will be ticking. When President Obama approved the McChrystal plan of an additional 30,000 American troops, late last year, he laid down a tight and robust timetable for the demonstration of progress. It will be a difficult task.

The McChrystal strategy, developed by a highly competent and able senior US military officer, should at least be given an opportunity to prove itself. General Stanley McChrystal is well versed and practiced in the art of counterinsurgency; his skills are likely to be monitored very closely during this phase as the US aims to keep its ‘2011 Drawdown’ on track. Undoubtedly, Marjah looks like it will become a major and decisive test.

..

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Iraq Inquiry: ‘Inner circle comes centre-stage’…

LOGISTICS & UNDERFUNDING

From the desk of MD

THIS WEEK, the Iraq Inquiry, was told that, in the run-up to the invasion, armed forces were starved of cash.

Former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, and the first Cabinet Minister in post at the time of the invasion to appear before the official inquiry, said the forces’ budget was underfunded for years prior to the war and had to rely on efficiency savings.

As a result, he said, the Ministry of Defence had to buy much of the equipment needed at the last minute through the system of “urgent operational requirements” (UORs).

Related:

• ‘Saturday Essay’ (16 Jan, 2010) viz. ‘Britain’s Iraq Inquiry: Questions for Tony Blair’
• Iraq Inquiry: ‘Access to yet unseen but vital documents’…
• Iraq Inquiry: ‘Blair’s justifying stance for a dubious war’
• Iraq: ‘Single inquiry called for over British abuse allegations’…

But Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose presence at the inquiry will be made shortly, refused to allow active preparations for war to begin until just five months before the invasion was launched because he did not want to undermine diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis through the United Nations.

Subsequently, some kit – such as desert combat fatigues and desert boots – failed to reach the front line in time for the start of the war in March 2003.

…Some got to theatre in time, some did not … There were certainly complaints about desert combats. Quite a lot of soldiers went into action in green combats and they didn’t like it … some soldiers did not have the right boots.

Mr. Hoon said that when he became defence secretary in 1999 there was a belief in the MoD that they had not received the cash they needed to fund the 1998 strategic defence review.

When he pressed the Treasury for additional funding, he was rebuffed.

…There was quite a strong feeling that it was not fully funded. Part of the way it was funded was by a commitment to serious efficiencies to the way existing equipment was used to release cash for some of the new acquisitions.

…I think everyone accepted that was a pretty challenging target.

…Certainly, in subsequent CSR (comprehensive spending review) programmes we asked for significantly more money than we eventually received.

Mr. Hoon said the MoD had to submit a list of UORs to the Treasury, which was finally approved on October 4, 2002.

By that time he and the chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, were becoming concerned that Mr. Blair had still not decided whether he wanted to deploy an Army division in support of the Americans, which would normally take six months to prepare for.

When they tried to press the PM for a decision so they could begin the necessary preparations, Mr. Hoon said they were told to “calm down”.

…When we went to meetings saying, ‘Look, you need to get on with this’, we were told ‘Calm down, you can’t get on with it while the diplomatic process is under way’.

… The argument I was given very clearly from the PM and the Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw) was that if we were seen to be overtly preparing for war, that would affect our ability to secure a UN Security Council resolution.

… Mike (Lord Boyce) and I went to meetings in September where we were both made very well aware of the attitude in Downing Street towards the requirements for minimising publicity and avoiding visibility of preparations.

… There was no doubt of the fact that we could not go out overtly and prepare.

..

Mr. Hoon admitted that some British troops in Iraq were left without enhanced combat body armour because of problems in tracking the distribution of equipment.

Some military units were given double the required sets of armour and some were provided with none, he said.

… Something like 36,000 sets were shipped to Iraq. From the lessons-learned process afterwards, one of the problems was that there was not a very effective tracking system once the containers were unloaded.

… I suspect probably what happened was that some units ended up with two lots of everything, and some units ended up with nothing. So the distribution on the ground in Iraq was not satisfactory.

Mr. Hoon told the inquiry he was told in September 2002 that enough enhanced combat body armour was available for all frontline forces.

..

INNER CIRCLE

GORDON BROWN, yesterday, said he had written to the chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, saying he would be happy to give evidence at “any time”.

The Prime Minister told MPs in the Commons of his letter as pressure mounted on him to give evidence ahead of the General Election, which must be held by June.

Mr. Brown said he would take direction from Sir John about when to appear.

Demands have been growing on the Prime Minister after he was accused of starving the armed forces of essential and much needed funds.

As noted, former defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told the inquiry earlier this week that the Treasury, under Mr. Brown as Chancellor, failed to fund the forces properly in the years before the conflict and slashed their budget after the invasion.

At Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQs), SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson said:

… The Chilcot Inquiry has heard that you were in the Iraq War inner circle and refused key payments for our troops on the frontline.

… Will you confirm that there is no impediment for you to seek a time to give evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry before the General Election?

Mr. Brown replied:

… This is, as I said, a matter for the Chilcot Inquiry. I have written to Sir John Chilcot and I have said to him that I am happy to give evidence at any time. I will take whatever advice he gives me about when he wishes me to appear.

… I am happy to give evidence about all the issues he puts forward and I am happy to satisfy the public about our Government’s commitment to the security of this country.

..

Last week Mr. Brown insisted he had “nothing to hide” after Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said the public were entitled to know before polling day of his role in the Government’s “most disastrous decision”.

Sir John has indicated hearings will not be held in the election run-up to allow the inquiry to stay outside party politics.

Former Number 10 spin doctor Alastair Campbell told the inquiry last week that Mr. Brown, who was then chancellor, was part of the “inner circle” of ministers and advisers Tony Blair consulted in private on Iraq.

And Mr. Hoon said this week that orders for vital new equipment – including helicopters which could have been used in the current conflict in Afghanistan – had to be cancelled as a result of Treasury cost-cutting.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said he hoped Mr. Brown’s letter would lead to the Prime Minister giving evidence before the General Election.

Mr. Clegg said:

… Gordon Brown must insist, on behalf of the British people, he appears at the inquiry before the election.

Meanwhile, the inquiry has also been told the claim that Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45-minutes was included to add “local colour” to the Government’s notorious Iraq dossier.

Sir David Omand, who was the Government’s security and intelligence co-ordinator, said that the way the dossier was produced to “make a case” for military action was a “big mistake”.

He said Tony Blair should not have been allowed to state in his foreword to the document that intelligence had shown “beyond doubt” that Iraq had WMD.

..

DIFFICULT

Jack Straw: ‘Invasion was my most difficult decision’

JACK STRAW stands accused of being “desperate” to distance himself from Tony Blair’s view that he would have sought to remove Saddam Hussein from power whatever it took.

Mr. Straw, the UK Justice Secretary – the first serving Cabinet minister to give evidence to the Iraq Inquiry – admitted that backing the invasion had been the “most difficult decision” of his life.

The minister, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, explained how, from when the former Prime Minister met George W Bush at the US President’s Texas ranch in April 2002, he had made clear Britain could not join a US-led military invasion without a proper UN mandate.

He said he was clear the American policy of regime change was “improper and self-evidently unlawful” and he would not have gone along with it.

Last month, however, Mr. Blair revealed how he would have sought to have taken Britain to war with Iraq even if had known there were no weapons of mass destruction. The then Prime Minister, who will give his evidence in 7-days time, made clear he would have simply used different arguments to justify it.

Mr. Straw, who appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry, Thursday 21 January, repeatedly appeared to suggest his views were at odds with Mr. Blair’s, saying while he owed the former PM his loyalty, they were “two different people”.

Asked to what degree his views differed from the ex-PM’s, the Secretary of State said the inquiry would have to ask Mr. Blair that. He also appeared to distance himself from letters written by Mr. Blair to Mr. Bush, in which – according to Alastair Campbell – he promised Britain would “be there” if it came to military action.

Questioned about one critical note that the ex-PM sent in July 2002, Mr. Straw said: “Would I have written the memorandum in the same way? Probably not because I am a different person.”

The Justice Secretary said he had “very reluctantly” come round to supporting the invasion but stressed how the case for action against Iraq was not based “on intelligence alone” but also on factors like Saddam’s history of using WMD and his defiance of the UN.

He admitted the claim in the Government’s deeply contentious intelligence document of September 2002, which, among other things, claimed Iraq’s WMD could be used within 45-minutes, had been “an error that has haunted us ever since”.

..

Mr. Straw revealed that he had presented Mr. Blair on the eve of the crunch Commons vote with an alternative plan should it have been lost. This included offering the Americans intelligence, logistical support and the use of the airbase on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

In a written statement to the inquiry panel, the Secretary of State pointed out how, as Foreign Secretary, his support for military action was crucial to the commitment of British troops.

… If I had refused that, the UK’s participation in the action would not have been possible. There would almost certainly have been no majority in Cabinet or in the Commons.

Ed Davy for the LibDems said Mr. Straw’s insistence that he used his “judgement” rather than solid proof of the existence of WMD was a weak defence of his role.

Mr. Davy added:

… It is clear he is desperate to distance himself from Tony Blair’s unrepentant belief he would have got rid of Saddam Hussein whatever it took.

..

• Monday, 25 January 2010

OPINION

THE INQUIRY into the Iraq War chaired by Sir John Chilcot has laboured under the charge it would become another whitewash, ever since the inquiry was announced. Sir John, who was perhaps stung by that criticism, gave swift notice of the seriousness by which he took his latest appointment. John Chilcot, a former civil servant, whose retirement from the civil service has been spent as a board member or chair of a long list of public bodies, insists that evidence should be heard in public, with an exception for secret intelligence. That stance differs substantially from other inquiries held into the Iraq war.

That was an important first step towards public accountability. Nonetheless, there is reasonable currency in the view that this inquiry will not add significantly to what we already know from the Hutton inquiry into the issues surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, the government scientist who apparently committed suicide, and the Butler inquiry which examined the intelligence used to justify the war.

That is why it is imperative that the members of the inner circle which collectively made the decision to go to war in 2003, especially Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, are subjected to close forensic and public questioning while the accounts of others involved, such as senior civil servants and members of the Cabinet, are still fresh in the memory.

Mr. Brown’s offer, late last week, to appear before the inquiry in advance of the General Election is welcome, even if it has been prompted by a calculation that it will be in his political interests to do so. The claims of Geoff Hoon, that the Treasury under Gordon Brown failed to fund the forces properly in the years before the conflict and then slashed the defence budget following the invasion, leaves the Prime Minister as the chief target for public anger over the failure to fully equip troops on the ground and provide sufficient helicopter back-up. Better helicopter support would have spared countless British lives that have instead been lost to ground incendiary devices.

…

THE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE from Sir Nicholas Macpherson, who was permanent secretary at the Treasury, that no request for essential military equipment for the 2003 invasion was turned down and that there had been an increase in MoD spending in 2002, adds confusion rather than clarity and adds impetus towards hearing Mr. Brown’s account.

..

SIR JOHN CHILCOT had originally envisaged that calling current cabinet members, in key roles, be delayed until after the election. His justifiable concern was that party politics might obfuscate the real issues requiring to be addressed. Care can be taken to avoid that by, for example, asking the right types of questions. The public has a right to know before polling day how the crucial decisions were made and on what basis Britain invaded Iraq.

Gordon Brown claims that he “has nothing to hide”. On that basis, then, he must be prepared

to give a full and honest account of the part he played, not only as Chancellor but as a member of that inner circle. It is an opportunity to put the rec

ord straight, once and for all.

..

• Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Des Browne, former defence secretary, admits concerns raised on helicopter numbers:

DES BROWNE, who was defence secretary between May 2006 and October 2008, appearing before the Chilcot Inquiry, said concerns were raised over the number of helicopters available to British forces even before the UK expanded its mission in Afghanistan.

Mr. Browne said that being able to move troops by air became even more important as the nature of the threat changed “dramatically”.

He said, though, that he did not “necessarily” accept that the shortage of helicopters led to greater use of lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers. He also admitted he found it difficult to come to terms with the deaths of British troops in Iraq.

Appearing before Sir John Chilcot, Monday, 25 January, he told the inquiry he had only been in the job for 24-hours when a Lynx helicopter was shot down over Basra, killing five UK personnel. He said:

…I hadn’t the benefit of military experience, which helps people to cope. I think at the strategic level I found it difficult personally to deal with the losses of our people in the operational theatre.

…I became focused, I think rightly, on our people and their families and on our support for them during the time that I had this awesome responsibility.

Inquiry panel member, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, asked Mr. Browne: “Would you accept that even before the commitments to Afghanistan, there was concern being expressed that we didn’t have enough helicopters to perform the military tasks that we had set for ourselves?”

Mr. Browne replied:

…Yes, there was concern being expressed.

… I recognised the increasing importance of helicopters from the point of view of secure transport.

… The more the nature of the risk adapted and changed – and it changed quite dramatically in the time that I was secretary of state – the more important it became for us to be able to move in the air.

A total of 179 British personnel died between the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the end of combat operations in April 2009.

Opposition politicians and families of troops killed in Snatch Land Rovers have criticised the use of the vehicles and questioned why more helicopters were not made available.

Mr. Browne said he and the Ministry of Defence made great efforts to get extra helicopters but it took time for them to be ready for use. John Hutton, who succeeded Mr. Browne as defence secretary, agreed that the shortage of helicopters had an impact on British operations in Iraq. He told the inquiry:

…The issue of helicopters was a factor in the campaign, and I don’t think there’s any point pretending otherwise.

…The military would certainly have liked more helicopters, and I think the politicians would have liked to have made them available – and did over a number of years make more helicopter ‘hours’ available.

…This is not a capability you can simply buy one day and the next day you’ve got it. It’s not like that.

..

• Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Jack Straw rejected advice on invasion. Contradiction of earlier evidence.

THE CHILCOT INQUIRY heard that Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary at the time Britain invaded Iraq, rejected the advice of his chief legal adviser that invading Iraq would be a “crime of aggression”.

Sir Michael Wood said he informed Mr. Straw that the invasion would be aggressive without a UN Security Council Resolution specifically authorising military action.

Sir Michael’s evidence contradicted evidence given by Jack Straw, last week, when the former foreign secretary said he had assured his opposite number in the U.S. that he was “entirely comfortable” with making the case for war.

The inquiry also heard that Downing Street had raised the prospect of going into Iraq to break up Saddam Hussein’s regime without “international legal authority” for the use of force. Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, was warned two months before the invasion that it would be illegal to go to war without United Nations authority.

Newly declassified Government documents showed the Attorney General at the time, Lord Goldsmith, was initially “pessimistic” that there was sufficient legal basis for military action.

Mr. Straw, however, urged Lord Goldsmith to change his view, warning against overtly “dogmatic legal advice”. The Attorney General eventually ruled the invasion of Iraq was lawful.

..

EVEN while the negotiations were underway in October 2002 on Security Council Resolution 1441, which required Iraq to give up its supposed weapons of mass destruction, Sir Michael said he was being asked about the consequences of invading without legal authority:

…This was a rather curious request and I am still not entirely sure what the purpose was. I think it was to send off to No. 10 and it did go to No. 10, who said: ‘why has this been put in writing?’ is my recollection.

Following the passing of 1441 in November 2002, Lord Goldsmith expressed concern to Mr. Straw that it was being seen in Government as the legal justification for military action.

A note of a telephone conversation between the two men on November 12 recorded:

…The attorney had mentioned the ‘Chinese whispers’ that had come to his attention in this regard, which suggested that he took an optimistic view of the legal position that would obtain if such a situation arose, whereas he was in fact pessimistic as to whether there would be a sound legal basis in such a situation for the use of force against Iraq.

Lord Goldsmith added that Jonathan Powell, Mr. Blair’s chief of staff, had indicated that No. 10 was “under no illusion” as to his views on the issue.

Sir Michael Wood said initially it was made clear that he should not come down on one side or the other, but in January 2003 he took issue with Mr. Straw over his assertion that it would still be possible to take action, even if they failed to get a second resolution authorising war. In a memo to Jack Straw, Sir Michael wrote:

…To use force without Security Council authority would amount to a crime of aggression.

Jack Straw replied:

…I note your advice but do not accept it.

..

• Thursday, 28 January 2010

GOLDSMITH

LORD GOLDSMITH gave the go-ahead, or “green-light”, to invade Iraq just two days after he had met with senior officials in George W Bush’s government, the Chilcot inquiry has heard.

The former Attorney General said that until February 2003 – one month before the military strike against Baghdad – he had warned and briefed Tony Blair, then prime minister, that ‘specific United Nations approval’ for the move would be needed before the military could go into the country.

Despite that, Lord Goldsmith changed his mind after he flew to Washington DC for talks with US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and US State Department legal adviser Will Taft:

…I did reach the view then – and still am of the opinion – that it was lawful. I stand by that advice. It was an opinion that I reached independently, having considered all the arguments and the evidence and that was my genuine view.

Lord Goldsmith added that despite having recommended that a second UN resolution would have been the “safest course”, he did not hesitate to issue a straightforward statement on the eve of invasion that military action was lawful.

He said his earlier opinion was “overly cautious” but strongly denied that he had been asked by Mr. Blair to change it.

He told the hearing he first raised his concerns about the legality of military action with Mr. Blair in July 2002 – well before the Prime Minister had talks with President Bush.

Lord Goldsmith added:

… I did it of my own volition. I wasn’t asked for it. I don’t frankly think it was terribly welcome.

When the Security Council passed resolution 1441, requiring Saddam Hussein to give up his supposed weapons of mass destruction, Lord Goldsmith said it was not a sufficient basis for the use of force.

..

AS military personnel made final preparations on January 14, 2003, Lord Goldsmith presented a draft legal opinion to Mr. Blair advising him that a further Security Council resolution would be required if Britain was to join the US invasion. The Prime Minister, he said, replied: “I understand your advice is your advice.”

Lord Goldsmith added that he interpreted that as the Prime Minister’s acceptance he had to abide by his opinion.

Lord Goldsmith said a meeting with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the UN, on January 23 helped to ‘sway his opinion’ that the wording of 1441 could in itself justify military action.

This stance appears to have cemented after talks with Mr. Taft and Ms. Rice on February 10. He said that had made it clear that President Bush’s one “red line” in the negotiations on 1441 was that they should not “concede a veto” to the French on military action, something they were adamant had not happened.

…It was hard to believe that, given what I had been told about the one red line that President Bush had, that all these experienced lawyers and negotiators in the United States could actually have stumbled into doing the one thing they had been told must not happen.

He now concluded there was a “reasonable case” for the invasion without a second UN resolution.

Earlier in his evidence, Lord Goldsmith said that he did not agree with the Government’s decision that “certain documents are not to be declassified” for the inquiry. The chairman, Sir John Chilcot, said: “We share your frustration.”

The papers and documents are thought to relate to his advice to the government. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the inquiry would have access to all the papers, but would not necessarily make them public.

..

• Tuesday, 02 February 2010

MILITARY CHIEFS

SENIOR military chiefs in Britain threatened to resign in protest at defence cuts a year after the Iraq invasion of March 2003 – the inquiry heard, Monday 01 February.

General Lord Walker of Aldringham, then head of the armed forces, said military chiefs “drew a line” halfway down a list of projects facing the axe and warned the Treasury, headed by Gordon Brown, to go no further.

Military brass at the Ministry of Defence, he said, were not happy with any of the cuts, pointing out there was a ‘38% shortfall’ in ‘helicopter availability’ at the time.

General Lord Walker also said that military commanders were “anxious” about the ‘legality’ of the Iraq war until Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, gave clear advice that it would be lawful.

In recent days the inquiry heard evidence from former defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, that the Treasury failed to fund the forces properly in the three years before the conflict and then slashed their budget after the invasion.

General Lord Walker said things came to a head in the public spending round in early 2004, when the Treasury set military chiefs tough targets in their budget:

…There was indeed a list of stuff that we were having to make decisions about and I think we drew a line somewhere halfway down the page, and said: ‘If you go any further than that you will probably have to look for a new set of chiefs’.

The former head of the armed forces confirmed that helicopters were included in the list but were “above the line”. He said:

…It makes it sound as if we were happy with what was above the line. We weren’t happy with any of it.

The inquiry also heard that ministers were warned of a “serious risk” the military would not have all the equipment it needed to invade Iraq because of the ‘rush’ to war in 2003.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the current head of the armed forces, said:

…The problem, of course, was that we simply didn’t have enough time, as it turned out, to do everything we needed to do before the operation started.

Sir Jock said it would have made a “significant difference” if the military had been given the six months considered necessary to prepare for a large deployment; they had just four months.

..

AT the time of the invasion, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup was deputy chief of the defence staff (equipment). Problems were singled out with the supply of enough combat body armour, desert combats and boots for frontline troops.

The shortage of body armour was blamed for the death of tank commander Sergeant Steven Roberts, 33, one of the first British soldiers killed in Iraq.

Voicing concerns to politicians about the tight timescale before the invasion, and given the evidence heard previously that planning for the war was hampered by concerns that public preparations could damage diplomatic negotiations, Sir Jock said:

…We made it absolutely clear to ministers that if we were not allowed to engage with industry – and that was the critical element – we could take these no further and that there was a serious risk that they would not all be delivered by the assumed start of operations.

Sir Jock admitted that military chiefs were “very nervous” about overstretching British forces when the Government decided to deploy extra troops to southern Afghanistan in January 2006.

…There was absolutely this concern about the overlap between Iraq and Afghanistan, and the doubt whether we would actually be able to reduce in Iraq quite as quickly as we were planning at that time.

..

• Friday, 05 February 2010

‘Gordon Brown “guillotined” Iraq budget’

THIS WEEK defence chiefs told the Chilcot inquiry that they had to cut projects for helicopters, warships and spy planes after Gordon Brown “guillotined” their budget.

The former top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence spoke of the “crisis period” when Mr. Brown as Chancellor suddenly slashed military spending six months after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Sir Kevin Tebbit said the MoD had to launch an “across-the-board major savings exercise” after the Treasury imposed “arbitrary” cuts.

He said that such sweeping cuts affected projects including helicopters, the Nimrod fleet, Royal Navy destroyers, frigates, minesweepers and patrol vessels, Challenger tanks, AS 90 artillery and RAF Jaguar aircraft. The number of Armed Forces personnel and civil servants were also reduced by the MoD.

Sir Kevin, who was MoD permanent secretary from 1998 to 2005, stressed that defence chiefs saved resources needed for Iraq but admitted that the cuts had a long-term impact:

…I was running essentially a crisis budget rather than one with sufficient resources to be able to plan as coherently, as well for the long term, as we would have liked.

This claim was also cited by Conservative leader, David Cameron, at Prime Minister Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday, which resulted in stormy exchanges in the House of Commons.

Sir Kevin hit back at the evidence of Treasury permanent secretary Sir Nicholas Macpherson that military spending was increasing by 9% a year when Mr. Brown stepped in.

Last month, Sir Nicholas told the inquiry:

…That had to be pulled back. That meant that the MoD couldn’t spend as much as it would have liked. But had it stuck to the cash figures in the original settlement, that situation wouldn’t have arisen.

Sir Kevin pointed out that in 2002 the budgets of the Department of Transport and the Department for International Development rose by 12% and 8% respectively.

…

A NEWLY DECLASSIFIED document released on Wednesday 03 Feb (2010) shows that defence chiefs warned that sending extra troops to Afghanistan while the UK was still committed in Iraq would lead to “some pain and grief.”

In particular, “pinch points” involving helicopter support, specialist intelligence and medical provision would remain for longer than had been hoped, said a letter sent to former defence secretary Dr. John Reid.

Sir Kevin voiced concerns that the military would be “overstretched” if UK forces were deployed to Helmand province.

He told the inquiry:

…I was apprehensive and felt that this could be a mission too far and I made my concerns known to my planning staff and to the chiefs of staff.

But, Mr. Reid, who was defence secretary when British troops were sent to Helmand in 2006, said he believed the military could cope. He told the inquiry:

…I think we were stretched, we were taut. But my military advice is we’re not overstretched.

Mr. Reid attacked the claims of former international development secretary Clare Short that the Cabinet was not allowed to question Lord Goldsmith, then the attorney general, about his advice that the war was legal.

On Tuesday, 02 Feb, Ms. Short told the inquiry that she was “jeered at” to be quiet by other ministers when she tried to ask Lord Goldsmith a question.

John Reid said:

…Everyone was allowed to speak at these meetings. I don’t recognise some descriptions of some of the least quiescent of my colleagues claiming to have been rendered quiescent.

..

• Tuesday, 09 February 2010

Jack Straw denies ignoring Iraq war legal advice

JACK STRAW hit back, yesterday, in his second appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry, at claims that he ignored legal advice that the Iraq war would be unlawful without further United Nations backing.

He insisted he gave serious attention to a warning from his former senior legal adviser, Sir Michael Wood, that the conflict would be a “crime of aggression” unless Britain achieved another UN Security Council resolution.

The Chilcot Inquiry into the war has heard that Mr Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time of the 2003 invasion, rejected Sir Michael’s advice.

But Mr Straw said in a statement to the inquiry that it would be a “fundamentally flawed” system if ministers were obliged to accept all the legal advice they received.

He wrote:

…Far from ‘ignoring’ this advice, as has been suggested publicly, I read Sir Michael’s minute with great care and gave it the serious attention it deserved…So much so that I thought I owed him a formal and personal written response rather than simply having a conversation with him.

The inquiry has heard that Sir Michael, former senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office, took issue with Mr Straw in January 2003 over his assertion in a meeting with US vice-president Dick Cheney that Britain would still be “OK” if it failed to get a second resolution.

He wrote to the then-foreign secretary in a memo:

…To use force without Security Council authority would amount to a crime of aggression.

Mr Straw replied:

…I note your advice but I do not accept it.

Sir Michael told the inquiry:

…He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.

…When he had been at the Home Office, he had often been advised things were unlawful but he had gone ahead anyway and won in the courts.

Sir Michael’s deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned in protest at the war, said the Foreign Office lawyers were united in their belief of the need for a second resolution.

Mr Straw took issue with Sir Michael’s claim in his memo that there was “no doubt” that the UK could not lawfully use force against Iraq without a further Security Council decision.

He wrote in his statement:

…There was of course no doubt about the illegality of self-defence, overwhelming humanitarian necessity, or regime change per se, as a basis for military action and no one was suggesting the contrary.

…But there was doubt about the position … This was at the heart of the debate on lawfulness.

He went on:

…It would surely be a novel, and fundamentally flawed, constitutional doctrine that a minister was bound to accept any advice offered to him/her by a department’s legal adviser as determinative of an issue if there were reasonable grounds for taking a contrary view.

…Such a doctrine would wholly undermine the principle of personal ministerial responsibility and give inappropriate power to a department’s legal advisers.

Mr Straw also acknowledged none of the matters he dealt with while home secretary compared to the “potential gravity” of the decision about whether to take military action against Iraq.

Mr Straw said Sir Michael had given “contradictory” legal advice – noting in an earlier memorandum that there were two possible views on whether military action was lawful without a further Security Council resolution.

…The legal advice he offered, frankly, was contradictory and I think I was entitled to raise that.

Mr Straw acknowledged he was not an international lawyer – as Ms Wilmshurst had pointed out – but said he believed his close involvement in the negotiations which led to the passing of resolution 1441 in November 2002 meant that he was able to take a view on whether it offered sufficient authorisation for the use of force.

…Yes, I am not an international lawyer but I was able to bring something to the party, which was an intense knowledge of the negotiating history.

…My view from having been involved in the negotiations line-by-line, word-by-word, comma-by-comma, was that there was an overwhelming argument that 1441 required a second stage but not a second resolution.

He said it had always been the case that the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, would have to rule on whether military action was legal and until he did, the question would be open to doubt.

…The final decision on the lawfulness of military action was one that was going to be taken by the attorney general and the attorney general alone.

…Where I disagreed with him (Sir Michael) was that he had the right over and above the attorney general to say what was or was not lawful.

…In the absence of a decision by the attorney general, there had to be doubt. That was what I thought to be strange.

Mr Straw said negotiations for 1441 would not have been so drawn-out and hard-fought if Britain and America had not been seeking to avoid needing another resolution.

A resolution that required a further UN decision would effectively have given Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein two final chances, he told the inquiry.

Mr Straw said:

…If what we had been negotiating was a resolution which required a second resolution, the negotiations would have been over in a week.

…There has to be a reason why these negotiations began in late September and went on intensively night and day for six weeks.

…And the reason was that because of the Americans’ so-called red line, and indeed our own, that we believed that Saddam had had enough final opportunities.

..

/…

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

(Philosophical) Theme for February: ‘A strategy for success’…

BRIDGING A STRATEGY

FOR the month of February, the intention has been in launching a journal based on philosophical idioms. This journal will run for the full month of February, with entries added each day. A considerable amount of work has been pulled together on this theme over the past 6 weeks, to which I believe readers may well be interested in deliberations currently being prepared for publication. A sidebar notice, on this site, was posted prior to this journal becoming active.

- Due to the length of this journal it will be necessary to break the script by reducing the content on the front page. To activate the journal in full simply click where the text breaks, “Read More”.

QUOTATION

“No horse gets anywhere till he’s harnessed; no steam or gas drives anything until it’s confined; no Niagara ever turned anything into light or power until it is tunnelled, no life ever grows great until focused, dedicated and disciplined.”

[Harry Emerson Fosdick, 1878 - 1969]

 

A MEDITATION FOR THE MONTH

Take time to work – it is the price of success.
Take time to think – it is the source of power.
Take time to play – it is the secret of perpetual youth.
Take time to read – it is the foundation of wisdom.
Take time to be friendly – it is the road to happiness.
Take time to dream – it is hitching your wagon to a star.
Take time to love and be loved – it is the privilege of the Gods.
Take time to look around – the day is too short to be selfish.
Take time to laugh – it is the music of the soul.

[An Old Irish Prayer]

A PROMISE

“Commit everything you do to the Lord. Trust him to help you do it and he will.”

[Psalm 37:5]

..

• February 1, 2009

WHY HAVE A STRATEGY?  (1)

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.” (Lao-tzu, 6th century B.C)

.. 

To have a strategy is like going on a journey. On a journey you need to know:

- Where you’re going;

- Your means of transport, and

- The route you’ll take.

Most successful people have a clear strategy for their life. One such person was Robert Dick Wilson who was professor of Semitic Philology at Princeton Theological Seminary. As a student he decided he had 45 years left to achieve something with his life.

He divided his life up into three segments of 15 years. For the first 15 years he would study languages; he became conversant in 26 different languages during that time. He later knew 45 languages and dialects.

For the second 15 years, he spent studying Biblical texts in the original languages. The final 15, he spent writing his findings.

Q: Do you have a clear plan for your life?

Military: ‘RAF Puma’s’…

Two RAF Puma's fly side-by-side in readiness for combat operations (Image: Mark Dowe 2009)

Iraq: ‘Single inquiry called for over British abuse allegations’…

ABUSE CLAIMS

From the desk of MD

A SENIOR JUDGE has told ministers to consider opening an independent inquiry into all allegations of abuse made by Iraqi civilians against the British Army. The move could lead to the biggest investigation into military malpractice ever heard in Britain.

Mr. Justice Silbert, in a note written to counsel acting for Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has told the Government:

… My provisional view is that I am uncertain what is to be gained by the Secretary of State continuing to contest these claims for investigation.

The judge, who is responsible for the management of claims before the court, says he is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer of hearing 46 outstanding individual cases, and the likely impact this would have on the resources of the High Court. It is estimated that the cases will take a decade to go through the courts at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer and warns that not holding an independent single inquiry could lead to a “further waste of valuable court time”.

Related:

• Iraq Inquiry: ‘Inner circle comes centre-stage’…

Mr. Justice Silber says the Ministry of Defence has already shown itself to be “unable to give proper disclosure” in the case of the Battle of Danny Boy in 2004 in southern Iraq, where it is alleged that British soldiers murdered Iraqi civilians.

The judge’s note emerged at the same time as the Government was served with the first claim of abuse brought by an Iraqi woman.

Samahir Abbas Hashim, (32), six months pregnant at the time of the alleged assault, claims she was so badly beaten by soldiers that she lost her baby.

At 2am, on 21 June 2006, Mrs. Hashim says she was sleeping with her children on the roof of her home in Al-Zubayr, Basra. Her husband was sleeping downstairs.

She alleges she awoke to the sound of a large explosion which blasted open the front door of her house and heard British soldiers running inside, shortly after. Some of them pinned her husband to the ground while others rushed to the roof top where she had been sleeping. Mrs. Hashim says she was frightened and rushed to protect her youngest child. At this point, she declares, a female British soldier kicked her in the back. As a result, she says, she suffered a miscarriage the next day.

Lawyers acting for Mrs. Hashim have written to the Ministry of Defence claiming that her case is clear evidence of “systematic and gratuitous abuse and degradation of Iraqi women by British forces”. Further allegations have been made in eight other cases brought by husbands and relatives of women who say they have been assaulted. The allegations include claims that British troops subjected Iraqi prisoners to rape, sexual humiliation and torture.

Public Interest Lawyers, a firm which is representing 66 Iraqis in 46 separate cases, argues that the Government must hold a single inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in south-eastern Iraq.

…There are so many cases and so many have so much in common – similar allegations at similar facilities, often involving the same people. We can’t have these dragged out over 10 or 15 years. This is the only rational option.

..

TWO public inquiries have already been launched. The first, into the death of hotel worker, Baha Mousa, (26), in British military custody in September 2003, began hearing evidence last July. It is looking specifically at how ‘prisoner-handling techniques’ banned by the Government in 1972 – including hooding, food and water deprivation and painful “stress positions” – came to be used in Iraq.

And, in November, the Ministry of Defence announced details of a second inquiry into allegations that Hamid Al-Sweady, (19), and up to 19 other Iraqis were unlawfully killed and others ill-treated at a British base in May 2004 after the Battle of Danny Boy.

Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, has so far resisted calls for a public inquiry into the treatment of detainees by British forces. However, an MoD spokesperson said that Government lawyers were actively looking at complying with the wishes of the Iraqis.

On the claim being made by Mrs. Hashim, Mr. Rammell said:

… The MoD recently received a letter alleging the abuse of an Iraqi woman, but has not yet been given any evidence. Abuse allegations are thoroughly investigated, as this one will be, and – where proven – those responsible are punished. However, these are allegations and must not be taken as fact.

..

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘The heart of the gospel is here’…

GALATIANS

…Clearly no-one is justified before God by the law, because ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ [Galatians 3:1]

Teaching from Scotland

‘GALATIANS’ the sixteenth-century theologian Martin Luther once said ‘is my Katie.’ She was his wife and this letter was his love. He lavished his attention upon it. Galatians focused entirely on the central truth, forgotten by much of Christendom and which was then being rediscovered.

It asks the most important question a person can ever ask: what do I have to do, in practical terms, to gain a right relationship with God? Paul’s answer is simple: nothing. Admitting there is nothing you can do and putting your faith in Christ, as the one who has already done for you everything that is necessary, is all you need.

This is an answer few human beings except selfish spongers can accept easily. We value our independence and our ability to look after ourselves. When we become dependant on others we feel worthless.

Teachings for Sunday 07 February 2010 are given from the the New Testament Book of Galatians.

The Galatians certainly found it hard to accept. They wanted to work their passage to the kingdom of God, to pay their entrance fee into heaven. On his visit Paul had explained that the price had been paid already: they just had to get on board. But as soon as he left they developed a set of regulations (including male circumcision) which they insisted must be kept by anyone wishing to remain right with God.

That, Paul claims, is ‘another gospel’, a denial of what Jesus had done and the apostles had taught. So after a lengthy resume of his own credentials as a reliable teacher, he explains again what it means to be ‘justified by faith’.

It is the heart of the New Testament gospel, whatever Christian tradition you come from or whatever emphasis of Christian living you espouse. By understanding it, rejoicing it and applying it to your worship and daily living, you will be able to enjoy the privilege of developing a personal relationship with the living God.

That explains Paul’s passion in Galatians. For him, as for Luther, this concept was his true love.

..

The Lord taught us to pray together, saying:

THE LORD’S PRAYER

OUR Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.

Amen.

[St Matthew 6:9-13]

..

Dedication:

• Ancient Irish Hymn, “Be Thou My Vision”

HYMN LYRICS: ‘BE THOU MY VISION’

Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.

Be Thou my Wisdom, and Thou my true Word;
I ever with Thee and Thou with me, Lord;
Thou my great Father, I Thy true son;
Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.

Be Thou my battle Shield, Sword for the fight;
Be Thou my Dignity, Thou my Delight;
Thou my soul’s Shelter, Thou my high Tower:
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.

Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise,
Thou mine Inheritance, now and always:
Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my Treasure Thou art.

High King of Heaven, my victory won,
May I reach Heaven’s joys, O bright Heaven’s Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all.

[Ancient Irish, 8th Century]

..

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

Never Forget: ‘Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland’…

'Never Forget': People attend ceremonies marking the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau Nazi death camp in Poland -- Image Credit: Janek Skarzynski

James Blunt: ‘Goodbye my lover’…

– James Blunt performing ‘Goodbye My Lover’, live in concert at the BBC.

..

James Blunt’s Military Service

BLUNT was an officer in the Life Guards, a cavalry regiment of the British Army, and served under NATO in Kosovo during the conflict in 1999. While posted to Kosovo, Blunt was introduced to the work of Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders). Since then, Blunt has supported MSF by holding meet-and-greet auctions at many of his concerts.

As the British Army sponsored his university education, Blunt was obliged to serve a minimum of four years in the armed forces. James stated on an interview in his back to bedlam sessions that he chose to join the military as “his Father was pushing for it, so that Blunt could obtain a secure work placement and income”. Blunt trained at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. He was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Life Guards, a unit of the Household Cavalry, where he rose to the rank of Captain. One of his first assignments was to British Army Training Unit Suffield in Alberta, Canada, where his squadron was posted for six months in 1998 to act as the opposing army in combat training exercises.

In 1999, he served as an armoured reconnaissance officer in the NATO deployment in Kosovo. Initially assigned to reconnaissance of the Macedonia-Yugoslavia border, Blunt and his unit worked ahead of the front lines directing forces and targeting Serb positions for the NATO bombing campaign. He led the first squadron of troops to enter Pristina, and was the first British officer to enter the Kosovo capital. His unit was given the assignment of securing the Pristina airport in advance of the 30,000-strong peacekeeping force; the Russian army had moved in and taken control of the airport before his unit’s arrival. As the first officer on the scene, Blunt shared a part in the difficult task of addressing the potentially violent international incident. There were less intense moments during Blunt’s Kosovo assignment, however. Blunt had brought along his guitar, strapped to the outside of his tank. At some places, the peacekeepers would share a meal with hospitable locals, and Blunt would perform. It was while on duty there that he wrote the song “No Bravery”.

A keen skier, Blunt captained the Household Cavalry Alpine Ski Team in Verbier, Switzerland, eventually becoming champion skier of the entire Royal Armoured Corps. He had extended his military service in November 2000, and after an intensive six-month army riding course was posted to the Household Cavalry Mounted- Regiment in London, England. During this posting, Blunt was interviewed about his responsibilities on the television programme “Girls on Top”, a series highlighting unusual career choices. He stood a guard at the coffin of the Queen Mother during the days of her lying in State and was part of the funeral procession on 9 April 2002. Blunt finally left the army on 1 October 2002 having served six years.

Iraq Inquiry: ‘Blair’s justifying stance for a dubious war’

BLAIR & THE CHILCOT INQUIRY

From the desk of MD

TONY BLAIR’S attendance at the Chilcot inquiry, Friday 29 January, was unprecedented. Never before has a Prime Minister been questioned in such detail and in open public about the process leading up to the decision to go to war, the most momentous a leader could ever take. Not only his decision but also the conduct of its aftermath sent Mr. Blair’s evidence reverberating around the world.

Related:

• Iraq Inquiry: ‘Inner circle comes centre-stage’…

There is no-doubt, though, that Mr. Blair’s testimony will have disappointed a British public which remains divided and at angst over the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Justification remained the tenor of the former prime minister’s six hours of evidence and it proved wearisome for those seeking honest answers on the complex key questions at the heart of the case for war.

Central to the argument was whether the intention was ‘regime change’ rather than the supposedly dismantling of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), despite public and official anxiety that an invasion on that basis would be unlawful and, in particular, whether that policy was pursued as a result of an undertaking given to President George W Bush at a private meeting at his Texas ranch in 2002.

Despite Sir John Chilcot’s panel having established new and important information about the legal advice leading up to war in recent days, it failed to pin down Mr. Blair to specific questions. Ambiguity remains. He was “with” President Bush in 2002 but only if Saddam Hussein failed to comply with United Nations resolutions. He used the same argument and defence in attempting to justify the answer he gave in a recent television interview that he would still have thought it right in ousting Saddam, even if it had been known that he did not have WMD, saying this was “in no sense a change of position”.

Most of the questions put to Mr. Blair allowed him to answer with a question in turn. The impression given was that the effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were conflated in proving the danger posed by the Iraqi despot, despite there being no evidence of links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al-Qaeda, the perpetrators behind the 9/11 atrocity. The only common ground they share is mutual antipathy towards the West. Blair’s insistence that there was no real difference between wanting regime change and wanting Iraq to disarm allowed him to frequently counter the panel’s questions with his own. “Where would we be in 2010 if Saddam were still in place?” became a recurring theme. Hardly rhetorical. It became a deliberate device to allow him to repeat the mantra: “It was better to remove him from office and I genuinely believe the world is safer as a result.”

Yet, didn’t that future projection by Mr. Blair place more of an onus on him to account for the failure to ensure security in the aftermath of the invasion? Under questioning, he acknowledged that the focus on how to deal with issues caused by the conflict failed to foresee that removing the Iraqi tyrant would result in Al-Qaeda and Iran provoking insurgency.

The lessons Tony Blair thought should be taken from this ghastly episode were largely political and procedural. No reference, how preparation, in hindsight, should have been better. The infamous claim that WMD could be launched in 45-minutes should have referred explicitly to battlefield weapons and munitions, is a definite point in question.

Mr. Blair offered no signs of contrition other than to say he was sorry that his decision had turned out to be so “divisive”. No regret. Given the opportunity he had in expressing some remorse, Mr. Blair returned to his central stance that the ‘world was improved by the removal of Saddam from power’.

Equally contemptuous of public opinion and, perhaps, even more worrying is Mr. Blair’s continued use of scare tactics in his “what if?” defence. That was the basis in which a highly dubious war was indicted; Mr. Blair can hardly be out of the dock.

..

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘Ask God for wisdom’…

JAMES

JAMES writes to the early church, stressing the importance of a life lived in devotion to God. Believing in the right things is not enough – followers of Jesus must also live according to their faith. But this is no easy task and James reassures his readers that help is available.

…If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you. But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. [James 1:5-6]

..

© MD 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Girls Aloud: ‘Jump’…

Iraq Inquiry: ‘Access to yet unseen but vital documents’…

CHILCOT

From the desk of MD

JUST as Sir John Chilcot was starting to uncover the truth about the political process leading to the Iraq war of March 2003, the withholding of vital documents threatens to reduce the credibility of the inquiry. Evidence given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, yesterday, established that he did not give unequivocal advice that military action would be legal until three days before the bombing of Baghdad. His deposition made the absence of some documents, recording what advice was given and when, frustrating. Such papers included the draft legal advice the attorney general presented to the Prime Minister on January 14, 2003, in which he said the war would be illegal; and legal opinion given on March 7, in which he said a “reasonable case” could be made for launching an attack without further UN support. But he warned that British ministers and troops could face legal action (“war crimes”) over the invasion.

Related:

• Iraq Inquiry: ‘Inner circle comes centre-stage’…
• ‘Saturday Essay’ (16 Jan, 2010) viz. ‘Britain’s Iraq Inquiry: Questions for Tony Blair’

This leaves the answers to the key questions of how and why he completed an astonishing 11^th hour u-turn that is supported only by his verbal account. The open public acknowledgement by both Lord Goldsmith and Sir John of the difficulty of not being able to refer to these documents in detail puts a new onus on the Cabinet Office to release as much information as possible before the appearance of Tony Blair on Friday 29 January.

Lord Goldsmith’s meeting with senior US officials and lawyers, including Condoleezza Rice, that February led him to conclude his initial advice to Mr. Blair had been “overly cautious”. He vigorously rebutted the allegation he had been “leaned on” by government officials. Yet, his account of the lead-up to his official change of mind leaves the inescapable conclusion that the “green light” from the chief law officer was the fig leaf that made military action acceptable.

Until March 7, legal advice, not only from the attorney general’s office, but also, as the inquiry established this week, from the Foreign Office, was that, without a second UN resolution, war against Iraq could be deemed an “illegal act of aggression”. This, then, became the background against which the decision to go to war was taken, although only the final advice from Lord Goldsmith was put before the cabinet.

This leaves a number of unanswered questions about the timing of Mr. Blair’s belief in the overwhelming case for invasion, and makes the publication of letters between him and President George W Bush essential.

With Sir John having extricated so much previously unknown information from civil servants and politicians at the centre of the most contentious decision of British foreign policy in recent times, it is imperative that Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry be allowed to complete its task without impediment. Failure, now, to declassify vital documents and papers can only lead to suspicion of whitewash and disengagement with politics. The British public deserve to be told the whole truth.

..

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘Be prepared for trials’…

LESSONS FROM HISTORY

Teaching from Scotland

MAXIMILIAN KOLBE was a Polish Franciscan friar. He founded a monastery in Japan during the 1930s and during the Second World War he sheltered polish refugees, many of them Jewish. He was arrested by the Gestapo and imprisoned in Auschwitz. In July 1941, ten men from his barracks were selected to be starved to death and Maximilian volunteered to take the place of one of them. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, Kolbe and three others were still alive and he was finally murdered with an injection of carbolic acid. He is one of ten twentieth-century martyrs depicted above the Great Door of Westminster Abbey in London.

…You must be prepared for periods of darkness, anxiety, doubts, fears, of temptations that are sometimes very, very insistent, of sufferings of the body and, what is a hundred times more painful, of the soul. For if there were nothing to bear, for what would you go to Heaven? If there were no trials, there would be no struggle. Without a struggle, victory would be impossible, and without victory, there is no crown, no reward … So be prepared from now on for everything. [Maximilian Kolbe (1894-1941)]

..

© MD 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Geri Halliwell: ‘It’s Raining Men’…

World Affairs: ‘Is America failing Haiti?’…

THE UNITED STATES, HAITI AND HISTORY

From the desk of MD

AMERICA’S RESPONSE to the Haiti Earthquake has been very different to that in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005 with equal and deadly might. In both cases, though, very little aid arrived at the time it was most needed and, in the case of Port-au-Prince, when people trapped under collapsed buildings were still alive. When the promise of foreign rescue teams does eventually arrive with its heavy lifting gear it will be all too late. Many Haitians scrambling for life are building roadblocks and chicanes with fallen masonry and dead bodies.

The congruency, between New Orleans and Port-au-Prince, is the same official terrifying level of looting and pilferage by local people. The first outside help to arrive was in the shape of armed troops. The United States currently has in transit some 3,500 soldiers, 2,200 marines and 300 medical personnel on their way to Haiti.

Looting was always going to be an inevitability. With shops closed or flattened by the quake, this is the only way for people to get food and water; Haiti remains one of the poorest countries in the world. In 1994, the last time US troops landed there, testimony reveals that local people systematically tore apart police stations – taking wood, pipes and even ripping nails out of the walls: sudden and frequent cries of alarm from those looting a top floor flat above a police station as they discovered that they could not get back down to the ground because the entire wooden staircase had been chopped up and stolen.

Haitians are often admired for their courage, endurance, dignity and originality. They often manage to avoid despair in the face of the most crushing disasters, or any prospect that their lives will get better. Though Haiti is violent and politically unstable, their culture – notably their painting and music – is among the most interesting and vibrant in the world.

It has become disheartening to hear many commentators rushing to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake to give such misleading and, at times, even racist explanations of why Haitians are so impoverished and destitute, living in shanty towns with a poor and minimal health service, little electricity supply, insufficient clean water and roads that are like river beds.

…

The economic and social state of Haiti has not happened by accident: the 19^th century, a period in which the Haitians staged a successful slave revolt against French plantation owners, was difficult for the colonial powers to accept; the country was occupied by US marines between 1915-1934; between 1957 and 1986 the US supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc, fearful that they might be replaced by a regime sympathetic to revolutionary Cuba next door.

A popular and charismatic priest, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was overthrown by a military coup in 1991, although restored again with US help in 1994. Yet, the Americans were always suspicious of any sign of radicalism from Aristide for the poor and outcast and kept tight reigns on him. Tolerated by President Bill Clinton, Aristide was treated as a pariah by the administration of George W Bush which systematically undermined him over three years leading to a successful rebellion in 2004. That was led by local gangsters acting on behalf of a kleptocratric Haitian elite and supported by members of the Republic Party in the US.

With so much time and effort levied at criticising President Bush over his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, his equally culpable actions in Haiti never attracted condemnation. But if the country is a failed state today, then American actions over the years have a lot to do with it.

…

HAITI is partly run by the UN, if it is run by anybody at all. Haitians are now paying the price for this feeble and corrupt government structure witnessed by the fact that there is nobody to co-ordinate the most rudimentary relief and rescue efforts on this latest disaster. The weakness of this structure is exacerbated as aid is funnelled through foreign NGOs. A justification purported for this is that less of the money being donated in aid is likely to be stolen, but this does not mean that much of it is reaching where it is intended, i.e. the Haitian poor. “Skimming” money in the form of “overheads”, particularly where an NGO or aid agency takes 50% of receipt monies, is a situation that shouldn’t be tolerated. Money-flows require clear and transparent monitors.

Many of the smaller NGOs and government aid programmes are run by able and selfless people. Others, often the larger ones, are little more than rackets, highly remunerative for those who run them. The evidence in places like Kabul and Baghdad, for instance, are astonishing examples of how little the costly endeavours of American aid agencies have accomplished. Foreign consultants in Kabul often receive up to $500,000 a year, in a country where 43 per cent of the population tries to live on less than a dollar a day. Looting is rife, mostly orchestrated and carried out by private enterprises; the wastage of aid is sky high and can be described nothing other than as being scandalous.

Such a rate of incidence does not bode well for Haitians hoping for relief in the short term or for a better life in the long run. The only way this could happen is if the Haitians have a legitimate state capable of providing for the needs of its people. The US military, the bureaucracy of the UN or foreign NGOs are never going to do this in Haiti or anywhere else.

..

AMERICANS often ask why it is that their occupation of Germany and Japan in 1945 succeeded so well but more than half a century later in Iraq and Afghanistan it has been so disastrous. The answer is that it was not the US which restored their countries to economic viability but the efficient German and Japanese machineries of state. Where those mechanisms were weak, as in Italy, the US occupation relied with disastrous results on corrupt and incompetent local elites. Much in the same way as is being done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti.

…

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘A nation is born’…

EXODUS

The LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness … Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and forth generation. [Exodus 34: 6, 7)

Teaching from Scotland

APART from the life and death of Jesus Christ, probably no part of the Bible is so well known as the story of the exodus. Moses’ cry, ‘Let my people go’, has captured the imagination of any who have struggled against various forms of oppression.

But this is much more than a story of political liberation. Like most of the Bible’s history books, it is narrowly focused and it is concerned to teach rather than merely to inform. It begins the saga of the Israelite nation found in the Old Testament and vividly illustrates God’s character as saviour.

Exodus concentrates on the traumatic events of the plaques in Egypt and the first few weeks of life in the desert. Central to it is the covenant between God and the Israelites, spelt out on its human side in the Ten Commandments and applied by numerous social and religious laws. It is expressed by the worship centred on the Tabernacle, which is described in 12 of the book’s 40 chapters.

It introduces later readers to a holy God whose character is expressed in his name, and who sets exacting standards for his people. He is seen to be Lord of history, a reliable guide and a righteous judge. He is not to be treated lightly but is to be worshipped with care. Above all, he is presented as a faithful God fully able and willing to keep the many promises he makes.

..

The Bible contains a number of black holes – periods in which little is recorded. Exodus 1 reveals such a period, the 400 years between Joseph’s arrival in Egypt and Moses’ birth there. The Hebrews have multiplied and been enslaved. Of their religion, culture and lifestyle we know almost nothing. But one thing is certain: they had not been forgotten by God (3:7).

His ongoing kindness was evident in small ways, smiling through the pain and suffering (1:20, 21). His care is seen in protecting the infant Moses and arranging his Egyptian education which prepared him for his confrontation with Pharaoh and his enunciation of Israelite law.

Teachings for Sunday 17 January 2010 are given from the the Old Testament Book of Exodus.

Another blank is the half-century (Acts 7:23 with Exodus 7:7 suggests 40 years) when Moses is a murderer on the run. He sees the plight of the Hebrews with strong emotion and perhaps he is already dimly aware of his calling to lead them. He leaps into action before God’s appointed time, and has to seek asylum where he learns at first hand what it means to be an alien like his compatriots (2:11-22).

Exodus shows that God sometimes chooses people who have been written off by others. And that he makes his servants serve long and apparently pointless apprenticeships until they may consider that their opportunity to serve him is gone for ever.

Shorn of self-confidence, so timid that he pleads for a spokesman (4:13-17; 6:28-7:7), Moses was now ready to trust God completely and to receive a new revelation of him (3:1-6).

His story offers hope to those who think they have missed opportunities for God. It also warns those who grow impatient with God or question his call because of their limitations. Moses walks onto the Bible’s stage as a spiritual giant, because he has been growing spiritually for 80 quiet years.

..

The Lord taught us to pray together, saying:

THE LORD’S PRAYER

OUR Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.

 

Amen.

[St Matthew 6:9-13]

..

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

Alphaville: ‘Big in Japan’…

Intelligence Briefing: ‘Overflow of military intelligence from drones’…

INTELLIGENCE FROM DRONES

From the desk of MD

MILITARY DRONES, the remote-controlled spy planes, frequently used in Afghanistan, are now producing so much video intelligence that analysts are finding it difficult to keep up.

Air Force drones collected nearly three times as much video related intelligence over Afghanistan and Iraq last year as they did in 2007 – believed to be in the region of 24-years’ worth if watched continuously. That volume is expected to multiply still in the coming years as drones start using multiple reflex cameras that can shoot in many directions.

Young military analysts watch every second of the footage as it is streamed to Langley Air Force Base and to other intelligence centres. They are able to quickly disseminate warnings about insurgents and the planting of roadside bombs to troop commanders in the field.

Military officials perceive great potential in using the archives of video collected by drones for later analysis, like searching and identifying patterns of insurgent activity. To date, though, only a tiny fraction of the stored video has been retrieved for such intelligence purposes.

To tap the potential of video archiving, military units – continually mindful of the post 9/11 criticism that government agencies focused too heavily on collecting data without enough tools to spot patterns – are turning to the media and television industry to learn, better, how to quickly share video clips (like, how replay clips are played during a football match) and, how, to display a mix of data in ways that make analysis faster and easier.

The Air Force is even testing some of the splashier techniques used by broadcasters, like the ‘telestrator’. Such use of technology could be used to warn troops about a threatening vehicle or circle a compound that a drone should attack. Currently, soldiers and troops on the ground are accessing a system that is similar to tuning into a football game without all the graphics. It’s nothing more than just a raw video; commanders on the ground require knowing more precisely what the score and picture is.

The demand for the Predator and Reaper drones has surged since the terror attacks in 2001, and they have become one of the most critical weapons for hunting insurgent leaders and protecting allied forces.

The military relies on the video to catch insurgents burying roadside bombs and to find their houses or weapons caches. Most commanders are now reluctant to send a convoy down a road without an armed drone watching over it.

As well as the military and special forces deploying hundreds of smaller surveillance drones, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also uses drones to collect intelligence before mounting missile strikes against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Despite some of the handicaps with current technology, Air Force officials, who take the lead in analysing videos from Iraq and Afghanistan, have managed to keep up with the most urgent assignments. They are able to correlate the video data with clues in still images and can intercept phone conversations that can then be used to build a fuller picture of the most immediate threats.

But as the Obama administration sends more troops to Afghanistan, the task of monitoring the video is only going to grow more challenging.

Instead of carrying just one camera, some of the drones will soon be able to record in 10 directions at once, 30 by 2011, and as many as 65 after that. The system could soon be swimming in sensors and drowning in data.

The Air Force will have to funnel many of these new feeds directly to ground troops to keep them from overwhelming intelligence centres. It is currently working more closely with field commanders to identify the most important targets; further analysts will be recruited to help handle the growing volume of data.

..

THE UNITED STATES has started installing a new $500-million computer system, which will allow the Air Force to start using some of the television techniques and send out automatic alerts when hot information comes in, complete with highlight clips and even text and graphics. It is generally believed that if automation can provide a cue for troops it would make for better and productive use of their time, and would help the military significantly in achieving their objectives. The military acknowledges that, in many ways, it is just catching up to features that have long been familiar to users of YouTube or Google.

The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, an authority that assists the Air Force to analyse videos, says drones proliferate so quickly and admit they didn’t have very much experience using them.

However, Raytheon, the company that designed the new computer system, has said that the Air Force has moved much more quickly than other intelligence agencies to create networks in which the data could be shared more easily. Anecdotally, it points to how drone videos have been relayed to the United States and Europe for analysis for more than a decade. Raytheon insists that the newly adapted system will help speed the process of information sharing. The company says the system will also tag basic data, like the geographic coordinates, to enable officials throughout the military to call up videos for further study.

The biggest timesaver would be to automatically scan the video for trucks and armed militia; but, that software is not yet available. The military is likely to run into the same problem that the broadcast industry has in trying to pick out football players swarming on a tackle.

Tagging and the use of telestrators will help enormously. Harried officers in the field, for instance, will soon be able to simply circle the images on their handheld video-receivers of trucks or individuals they want the drones to follow.

It is also noted that drones often shoot grey-toned video with infrared cameras that is harder to decipher than colour shots. When force is potentially involved, this places limitations on what automated systems are permitted to do. Somebody will still be needed who’s trained and is accountable in recognising the difference between a woman, a child or someone who’s carrying a weapon. The best tools for that, undoubtedly, are still the eyeball and human brain.

..

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Haiti: ‘Effects of Quake’…

'Coming to Terms' -- A woman walks among the debris in Port-au-Prince surveying the wreckage. About a third of Haiti's population, or 3 million people, have been affected by the earthquake. Image Credit: Gregory Bull / AP

..

Related:

• Haiti: ‘Port-au-Prince devastated by earthquake’…

Haiti: ‘Port-au-Prince devastated by earthquake’…

HAITI EARTHQUAKE

From the desk of MD

YESTERDAY, the capital of Haiti, Port-au-Prince, suffered a devastating earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale. Much of the city was flattened to bare rubble; at least hundreds, if not thousands of people have been killed. The country is desperately poor, the most impoverished nation in the western world, and densely populated. Most of the 2-million residents of the capital city are squeezed into tin-roof hamlets that are perched on steep ravines, shacks that are extremely vulnerable to collapse.

• New York Times: ‘Updates on the Rescue Effort in Haiti‘
• DEC Haiti Earthquake Appeal
• Newsweek (Jan 14, 2010): “Haiti’s Health: From Bad To Worse”

…(Haiti keyquote): In the next few days, doctors will have to deal with an influx of patients—and a lack of supplies—to keep casualties to a minimum.

• CBS News (17 Jan, 2010) “Violence in Haiti Hindering Aid Work“

Because telephone and other lines of communications were knocked out little reliable information was immediately available. The UN reported that many of their staff in the country were missing and that much of the mission’s building, a five storeys high complex, was destroyed. The initial tremor struck for some 40 seconds shortly before five in the afternoon, with an epicentre 10-miles southwest of the capital and a mere 6-miles underground, leading to severe shaking at the surface. The tremor was the strongest in the Hispaniola region since 1946 and was felt as far away as eastern Cuba. A series of powerful aftershocks followed the first tremor.

…(Haiti keyquote): The priority in the coming hours must be rescue, medical care and emergency feeding.

Scenes of devastation in Haiti: A dazed woman carries her young child. Thousands with nowhere to go were forced on to the streets of Port-au-Prince.

The island of Hispaniola, territory that is shared by Haiti and the Dominican Republic, sits on a tiny tectonic plate squeezed between the North American and Caribbean ones. Seismologists say the island is vulnerable to infrequent but violent earthquakes. Haiti, as the world has come to know, is used to natural disasters; hurricanes regularly batter the country. It is also known (with) constantly trying to cope with endemic political instability and violence. Haiti is a dysfunctional state and is certainly ill equipped to provide anything more than minimal emergency aid. It will rely heavily on external help in responding to this latest crisis.

…(Haiti keyquote): UN and aid agencies, who know Haiti well because of four hurricanes that struck the country last year, have warned that they faced a “major logistic challenge” in getting essential relief to survivors.

..

THE QUAKE has wrought indiscriminate destruction. The magnificent rotunda of Haiti’s presidential palace collapsed although the president, Rene Preval, is reported as being safe. Rubble has been pouring into the streets, hampering rescue efforts by aid and emergency workers trying to reach people trapped under heavy masonry and bricks. Screams have filled the air. The only illumination as night fell came from fires near the shoreline, from burning buildings and from torches, although the light was obscured by a cloud of dust and smoke that hung over the city.

The outside world has responded quickly. Within hours of the quake, countries in the region were preparing to deliver aid. The United States dispatched a hospital ship and other craft to Haiti; the Inter-American Development Bank said it would provide $200,000 in immediate emergency help; and, foreign assistance has been promised including £6-million from Britain that will encompass humanitarian assistance. The World Bank reported its offices destroyed but said a team would be sent to the country to start the recovery plan. Mexico’s government said it would be sending a search-and-rescue team, as well as doctors specialising in wounds from structural collapses. A peacekeeping force of some 9,000, led by Brazil, if it is able to function, is likely to be called upon to preserve order and by preventing pilferage and looting, common problems in awe struck regions after such occurrences.

… (Haiti keyquote): Haiti’s emergency will continue long after the last survivor has been lifted from the rubble. Millions will need help for years. Some outside will object that decades of foreign aid has achieved little except to enrich a few of the politicians.

..

Related:

• Guardian Data Blog, ‘All the deadliest earthquakes since 1900, including coordinates‘
• Photography: Haiti: ‘Effects of Quake’…

..

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

..

GUARDIAN EDITORIAL

• Friday, 15 January 2010, ”Haiti: Disaster beyond magnitude”

It is all too easy, seeing the appalling scenes from Port-au-Prince yesterday, to forget America’s historic debt to Haiti, scene of the first successful slave revolt, which defined the destiny of Africans in the New World. The establishment of the first black independent state had tangible consequences. It denied Napoleon his foothold in the Caribbean and led him to sell New Orleans and the Louisiana territories to Jefferson. But, for as long as anyone can remember, Haiti has been treated as a basket case where corruption, gang violence and natural disaster combine to drag the country backwards. Now an earthquake may have killed up to 50,000, and rendered 3 million homeless. No one can prevent shallow earthquakes, but the consequences of this one have been made catastrophic by Haiti’s condition.

The French saddled the nation with debt, the Americans with cheap rice imports in the 1980s; 98% of the land has been deforested, destroying watersheds, creating soil erosion and impoverishing agriculture. Self-serving Haitian elites have just spent three months getting rid of Michèle Pierre-Louis, the first effective prime minister the country has had for years. The roots of the rural exodus and exponential growth of jerry-built shanty towns lie deep, but as the first arriving international aid teams looked round in desperation yesterday for the flickering signs of a functioning state, it was brutally clear why they were not going to find any. The policemen were too busy rescuing and burying their own families to patrol the streets. Even if the physical symbols of state, like the buildings of the presidency and parliament, had stood their ground, it is doubtful what help they could have given to their own people. The institutions they represent have never been far from collapse. Before Tuesday’s 20 seconds of unbearable shaking, natural disasters had resulted in over 18,400 deaths between 2001 and 2007, and four storms and hurricanes in September 2008 carried away another 1,000. In other words, Haiti is not just the unluckiest country on the planet. This rate of mortality is anything but natural, particularly if you compare it to Cuba’s record in dealing with a similar procession of killer storms and floods.

Too many untested claims have been made about the capacity to build states around the world. But Haiti is surely one failed state on Washington’s doorstep that US power is in a unique position to help right now. Haiti requires not just a massive international relief operation, with bodies piling up in the streets and fresh water a scarcer commodity in Port-au-Prince than money. It requires a sustained, long-term international effort to get its flattened institutions functioning. Too often in the past after such disasters, international relief has filled the void of a functioning state, and when the spotlight of the world’s attention moves on, so too has the focus blurred. This time has to be different.

Maintaining law and order will be an immediate priority. The longer millions of survivors wait in the streets for help to come, the more likely it is that despair will turn to rage and ­Haitians will take matters into their own hands. Gang violence was curbed in Cité Soleil, the biggest urban slum, only after a concerted effort at arresting the gang leaders was made between the police and the UN mission. But it was never eradicated in other slums like Bel Air and Martissant, and it does not take much, as the food riots in 2008 revealed, to spark fresh waves of unrest. Barack Obama, the former president Bill Clinton and the secretary of state Hillary Clinton all know Haiti well. For them, it is not a far-off exotic land. When the president said yesterday that America will stand by the ­people of Haiti in their hour of need, announcing a $100m aid package and dispatching an aircraft carrier and relief ships, there was every reason to believe him. But this has to be a commitment which if necessary lasts years.

Environment: ‘Can the aviation industry ever be green?’…

AVIATION

CUTTING emissions on the scale required to meet carbon targets means big changes in either how, or how much, we fly. Roger East sees an industry in need of radical innovation and asks, can it go fast – and far – enough? From Green Futures, part of the Guardian Environment Network

…

BRITAIN can meet its stretching emissions reduction targets and still keep flying. That, at least, is the view of Ed Miliband, the UK’s Energy and climate change secretary, echoed in a report by the Committee on Climate Change. How? By holding aviation emissions no higher than their current level – and cutting the carbon from everything else we do by 90%.

It sounds ambitious. But such is our addiction to flight that many believe it’s more feasible – not least politically – to make deeper cuts in non-aviation sources than to accept being earthbound. The climate change committee has floated the idea of introducing flying allowances as one way of keeping aviation growth to an acceptable 60% by 2050 (as opposed to the Government’s estimate of 200%).

Even so, just keeping emissions static will be a huge challenge to the airline industry. It has always reckoned on rising passenger numbers, and demand reduction isn’t really in its lexicon. Hit by a recessionary blip, airlines have been warning business customers off teleconferencing in favour of the virtues of face-to-face meetings. Yet at the same time, they have been trumpeting a commitment to the ten year goal of “carbon neutral growth” announced by the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

On the surface, it’s a contradiction in terms. So how might aviation try to square the circle?

The simplest way to cut carbon is to cut fuel use. US commercial airlines alone burn about 50 million gallons of kerosene (the main aviation fuel) every day. Any reduction, of course, kicks right through to the bottom line in cost savings. So the industry has a vested interest in finding ways to cut consumption – all the more so, as concerns over ‘peak oil’ loom.

There’d be a further incentive if governments grasped the nettle and started taxing aviation fuel. It’s currently exempt, even for domestic flights. And that, argues the Campaign for Better Transport, gives airlines an unfair subsidy over rail. Clawing this back in Britain alone, they claim, would be enough to pay for a high speed rail line from London to Birmingham. And a fuel tax on domestic flights that increased the price of air travel by 50% could cut carbon emissions by one million tonnes a year.

But there are few votes in taxes. And so it’s hardly surprising that the aviation lobby’s resistance to anything more than very modest passenger duties or departure taxes cuts more ice with politicians than the call of green groups for tougher action.

However, one thing has changed for good, and that’s the assumption that aviation emissions cost nothing. In Europe at least, the industry is preparing itself for the prospect of a market price on its carbon via ‘cap and trade’. From 2012, the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will for the first time include aviation. Lobbying continues on how tight the cap should be, and what proportion of permits should be doled out free rather than auctioned – but emissions trading in some form is now factored in to the industry’s expectations.

In ten years’ time, says independent aviation policy analyst Chris Hewett, it might be operating under a single global cap, with operators required to buy their initial permits at auction, then trading between themselves and on the wider carbon market. Carbon offsets could play a role, he believes, so long as controls are strict and the overall global cap sufficiently tight. Indeed, he goes so far as to call them “desirable, likely and feasible” under this kind of system. “We’ll end up paying more for flying”, says Hewett, “but that investment will go into cutting emissions elsewhere in the economy”. Offsets won’t replace the need for emission cuts at source, however.

So with kerosene looking like an increasingly expensive option, what alternatives are in the offing? Top of the list are ‘carbon neutral’ biofuels. Two years ago they were totally untried, but now, says Jonathon Counsell, Head of Environment at British Airways, they’ve “become a key part of BA’s future carbon strategy”. Virgin Atlantic scored the ‘industry first’ in 2008, flying a 747 to Amsterdam with one of its engines using a 20% biofuel mix made from coconut oil and babassu nuts [see Take-off for biofuels?]. Since then, Air New Zealand and Japan Airlines have used biofuels derived from jatropha oil and hardy oilseed-bearing camelina plants as (higher percentages) of the overall fuel mix. And Continental has done an experimental flight around the Gulf of Mexico with one engine running entirely on fuel made from microscopic algae.

Such ‘proof of concept’ work suggests that biofuels could offer a 60% carbon saving, and has dispelled fears that they were doomed by lack of energy density or a tendency to gel at low temperatures. Existing plane engines, it seems, can use them without modifications in 50/50 blends – a recipe which could secure the necessary US Federal Aviation Administration approvals within two years.

So they work. But are supplies sufficient to meet demand? The big issue now, acknowledges Counsell, is taking biofuels to scale. IATA has set a goal of 10% of airline fuel to come from ‘alternative sources’ – which basically means biofuel – by 2017. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Group, an industry consortium, wants planes to use 600 million gallons of biofuel a year by 2015. At this threshold, says Counsell, biofuels can be an economically sustainable part of the supply chain. It would still cost more than kerosene to buy, but that would be balanced by the expected financial value of the carbon saving it delivers.

If plant-based biofuels like jatropha really take off, though, they will create a massive demand for land on which to grow them. There is some prospect that significant supplies could be produced from degraded land unsuitable for other uses. But once a flourishing market is in place, it’s hard to imagine that we won’t see forests being cleared and food crops being displaced to make way for lucrative biofuels – which is hardly a sustainable option.

…

“An algal pond the size of Belgium could meet all aviation’s current fuel needs”

Hence the excitement over algae. Algal (often called ‘third generation’ biofuels), although currently experimental and expensive, could really help on this score, since they have the potential to be grown in waste or even salty water [see 'Algae biofuels race hots up'] – and they produce a lot more fuel per hectare. “An algal pond the size of Belgium” could meet all of aviation’s current fuel needs, says Sian Foster, Head of Business Sustainability at Virgin Atlantic. By comparison, you’d need “a field the size of the EU” to grow that much from plant-based biofuels.

So is that it – problem solved? Far from it, says Rupert Fausset, Forum for the Future’s sustainable transport expert. There’s still a big climate problem even if you use algal biofuel instead of kerosene to cut the CO2, he says. The ‘radiative forcing’ effect from emissions such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and water vapour (contrails) at high altitudes causes at least half a plane’s climate change impact, and would remain largely unaffected by a move to biofuels. Even if these succeeded in cutting aviation’s climate impact by as much as 30%, as their proponents hope, he adds, “a return to aviation growth could negate that in just five years. Biofuels do not change the game”, he concludes. “The industry will have to make many more fundamental changes if it is to grow sustainably.”

So what other options are there? More efficient flying would help. In part, that means smarter, more integrated air traffic control systems – so planes flying over Europe wouldn’t have to follow fuel-sapping zig-zag routes designed to fit in with all the various national systems of the countries below. It would also reduce the amount of time they spend stacking in holding circuits waiting to land. This much is feasible, and could improve efficiency on some routes by 10-20%.

Then there are improvements to engines and aircraft body design. A long series of gradual cuts in fuel use have been achieved by boosting engine efficiency and using lightweight materials for the body, such as in the current generation of 737s. In the next few years, Boeing and Airbus should bring into service new turbofan engines which promise 10-15% better performance. Overall, IATA is confident of meeting its targets for annual efficiency improvements of 1.5% across the world’s airline fleets.

But there’s only so far that efficiency curve can rise, warns Keith Hayward, Head of Research at the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society. We’re reaching the point where further gains in fuel burn economy in current gas turbine engines come up against the basic laws of physics and chemistry, where they’re only achievable at the expense of increasing NOx emissions. The new open rotor technology, which could be eight years away, might deliver as much as a 30% step change, but there are big commercial risks with such new departures, and real worries too about how noisy they are – the issue which has always attracted by far the most public complaint.

Nor is there much low-hanging fruit left for plucking in the field of aerodynamics and design. Again, says Hayward, we’d need something really radical to make much of a difference. The reconfiguring of plane body shapes, from the current ‘tubes with wings’ into so-called ‘flying wings’, comes into that category. Theoretically, says Jonathan Cullen at Cambridge University’s Department of Engineering, you could design an aircraft with a ‘laminar flying wing’ body shape, which, if you optimised everything else to the nth degree, would run on 46% less fuel than today’s average plane.

Worth pursuing, perhaps: but what that 46% figure really tells us is that planes aren’t half bad at flying already, and the scope for improvement is relatively limited – certainly compared to houses and cars, where Cullen calculates that there’s room for up to 90% efficiency savings.

In any case, the aviation industry won’t want to rush into mass production of anything as way out as the flying wing. It’s a business that favours evolution rather than revolution. Planes are expected to last 25 years, and it’s hardly cost-effective to replace them sooner. Airports, too, won’t welcome all the reconfiguring they’d need to handle 850-seater flying wings as wide as a cinema – at least not until the business case is overwhelming.

All of which means that even holding aviation emissions constant over the next few decades is going to be an extremely tough ask. This is perhaps the main industrial sector where it is hard to imagine real breakthrough technologies coming through in the time frame required for making drastic carbon cuts. So either other sectors will have to make even deeper cuts to compensate – deeper than Ed Miliband suggested – or we will have to place our faith in offsets on a huge scale. Or… we will somehow learn to live with less flying – travelling more slowly [see 'At a leisurely lick'], and enjoying digital, rather than face-to-face, contact.

…

“Burning fuel is not the only way to fly”

For some, though, the dream of zero-emission aviation should not be abandoned so easily. Burning fuel, they argue, is far from the only conceivable way to fly [see panel]. Take Cranfield Professor Ian Poll, who gave an interview in 2008 propounding a nuclear powered airliner à la Thunderbirds. Was he just flying a kite, thinking the unthinkable? He is, after all, the chair of the research group Omega, whose recent competition at Sheffield University asked students to sketch out truly novel ideas for powering commercial passenger planes. Both solar power and hydrogen fuel cells have their devotees, and can certainly lift demonstrator aircraft off the ground – though in both cases the main application seems likely to be powering auxiliary systems rather than aircraft engines. Then there are lighter-than-air airships – at present only niche players, but in the eyes of some, aviation’s best long-term bet, capable of offering spacious facilities, comfort and train-like speeds for the leisure and business travel market of the future.

…

Attribution:

• Roger East, Guardian Newspaper, 8 January 2010

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘Great story for dark spiritual nights’…

…Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me … When this is done I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish. [Esther 4:16]

GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY

Teaching from Scotland

ESTHER is a gripping story with tension, subterfuge, danger – and a happy ending. Why it is in the Bible has long been debated; it doesn’t mention God, nor attempt to teach anything overtly. Yet it is a moral tale in which good eventually triumphs over evil. This is not a book for bit-by-bit study, revealing and its spiritual treasures best if you read it in one sitting.

Set in Susa, the capital of Persia during the reign of Ahasuerus (also known as Xerxes) about 480 BC, before Ezra returned to Jerusalem in 445 BC, it records an otherwise unknown event. The pompous courtier Haman plots the destruction of the Jews (by tricking the king into signing a bogus decree) because Mordecai refuses to bow to him. Esther, Mordecai’s cousin and surrogate daughter, groomed in the royal harem, catches Xerxes’ eye after he expels his wife Vashti for insolence. In a second sub-plot, Mordecai saves the king’s life.

Hearing of Haman’s planned genocide, Mordecai and Esther conspire to tell the king the truth behind the decree he has just signed. Very annoyed, he issues another decree which annuls the first, executes Haman and promotes Mordecai.

Today, at the Jewish feast of Purim, the story is read and the audience boo every mention of Haman and cheer every mention of Mordecai.

Teachings for Sunday 10 January 2010 are given from the the Old Testament Book of Esther.

Esther shows how God is sovereign in human affairs. The eye of faith can see him putting characters in place on the stage. They have no prophet to tell them God’s word, and no priest to intercede for them. God is apparently silent and distant. There are just some coin-cidences which add up to a remarkable deliverance through the human agency of two people who risk all.

Esther is the ordinary Christian’s book. Most of us live with problems for which solutions do not come easily. Yet looking back we see God’s ordering of events which aid us through the troubles. Esther’s message is, ‘don’t forget such signs’, look back with thanks, and trust that God will show himself sovereign again.

…

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

ABC: ‘All of My Heart’…

Rare earth materials: ‘China – an elemental challenge’…

HOARDING & SCARCITY

From the desk of MD

RARE EARTH ELEMENTS are relatively largely unknown to the general public. That position, however, could be about to change. Geologists will be well aware of elements such as lanthanum and holmium, which soon could become names as familiar as gold and oil to the average man in the street. The reason is scarcity.

Global demand for these materials has tripled over the past decade from 40,000 to 120,000 tonnes. Rare earth elements are used in a host of technologies from iPhones, to fibre-optic cables, to missile guidance systems. They are also essential for a swath of low-carbon technologies, ranging from catalytic converters to nuclear power rods. This is a market that is set to expand exponentially over the coming decades as nations seek to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

One country, though, has a virtual monopoly on the production of these materials. China provides 97 per cent of the global supplies of rare earth elements; most being extracted from a single mine in Inner Mongolia. By 2014 global demand for rare earth materials is expected to hit 200,000 tonnes a year. But for several years China has been steadily reducing the amount of material it makes available for export. Worryingly, Chinese-produced terbium and dysprosium – irreplaceable elements of magnets used in the batteries of hybrid cars and wind turbines – are likely to be cut sharply in the coming months.

..

THEORETICALLY, the global free market should dictate supply and demand of a scarce commodity. China, along with other powerful nations, however, does not always play by such market rules. Beijing seems particularly keen to hoard materials for its own expected future needs as well as ensuring that all raw rare earth materials is processed within its borders. Ostensibly, China wants to build its share of a lucrative rare earth component manufacturing market.

Such a stance is likely to prove extremely disruptive for the rest of the world. A sudden cut in supply is going to have painful knock-on effects for many high-technology industries in developed countries. The most obvious response will be to seek other suppliers: rare earth mines are being developed in South Africa, Greenland and Canada; however, these earth mines are at least five years away from being able to generate a significant level of production. Whilst a transition seems inevitable at some stage in the future, it could be an agonising process.

It need not be this way. There are, as it happens, potential short-term gains to be had by China from constricting supply of these precious raw commodities. That aside, it would certainly not be in China’s long-term interests to antogonise its international trading partners by behaving in this fashion. Nor would it be wise for Beijing to allow the development of low-carbon technologies elsewhere in the world to be slowed down by its policies.

..

CHINA stands to reap benefits from low-carbon technologies just as much, if not more, than other nations. Beijing is a huge importer of expensive oil and increasingly reliant on fossil fuels, like coal, to power growth in its economy. Its territory and landfall, too, is extremely vulnerable to the malign impact of climate change.

…This is a market that is set to expand exponentially over the coming decades as nations seek to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

China’s economic expansion over the past two decades has been very impressive. The release of hundreds of millions of its people from poverty has stemmed from harnessing the power of liberated markets. Its rulers would surely be foolish indeed if it were to jeopardise all those gains by adopting a myopic, beggar-thy-neighbour policy over the commodities that are set to be a vital ingredient in powering the modern world.

..

© Mark Dowe 2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

2014 Homecoming: ‘An opportunity to celebrate’…

HOMECOMING SCOTLAND

2009 had been dubbed in Scotland as the year of the great “Homecoming”. It’s reasonable, as 2010 starts, to assess the impact of that protracted event and to ask whether the event should be revived in coming years.

Homecoming was the brainchild of one of our most thoughtful politicians, the veteran LibDem Donald Gorrie. It was some seven years ago when Mr. Gorrie first proposed the idea of a grand year-long event. He envisaged it as a kind of mixture of a school reunion and a golden wedding anniversary, but on a national scale. The main drive would be a huge push to get Scottish expatriates to return home.

Mr. Gorrie persuaded his party colleagues that this was a sound idea and, hitherto, duly included it within the LibDem manifesto for the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary elections. The LibDems formed a coalition government with Labour, and the Homecoming became official policy – to coincide with the Burns anniversary year of 2009. Then, of course, the SNP won the 2007 election and the new First Minister, Alex Salmond, enthusiastically took up the reigns and promoted the event with panache.

So, now it has taken place, can Homecoming be deemed a success? Donald Gorrie, publicly praised by MSPs from across the political spectrum, and the original instigator of the event, believes (himself) that it has certainly not been a flop.

Mr. Gorrie, a former teacher, is concerned that Scots should know much more about their culture, their history and their traditions. He is convinced that Homecoming has helped on these fronts. He points to a varied series of events, most of them individually successful, which would not otherwise have happened. He is confident, too, given the evidence thus far that a large number of expat Scots did interlink well with those people and family members who have remained at home.

He concedes, however, that the major centrepiece event, the Clan Gathering at Holyrood, was not as successful as he would have wished.

…

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE, Mr. Gorrie believes that a Homecoming every year would rapidly lose momentum and interest. So he proposes a Homecoming every five years. It seems highly likely that the present Scottish Government will be disposed to consider such an idea sympathetically.

That would make sense, for that would mean the next Homecoming would be in 2014, which, by any standards, should be an illustrious and memorable year for the Scottish nation. A major sporting event of global import, the 20^th Commonwealth Games will take place in Glasgow that summer.

More controversially, 2014 will also be the year in which Scots, worldwide, will be commemorating the 700^th anniversary of the victory over the English at Bannockburn in June 1314, when around 20,000 English troops, led by King Edward II, were comprehensively defeated by around 7000 Scots led by King Robert I.

Controversial, because, no-doubt there will be some who will aver that Bannockburn should not be celebrated too enthusiastically in case this whips up anti-English sentiment. Complete nonsense.

Scotland has had few enough great victories in her long history: most mature English folk should be perfectly relaxed about sensible and well-judged celebrations of a landmark victory, just as most Scots would not hijack such celebrations for any puerile English-bashing.

For some the real controversy kicks-in when we consider the nature of the Bannockburn victory: Was it, as many declare, a landmark victory? Or, was it just a relatively minor setback for the English, who were able to quickly recover and who delivered serial defeats for many years to come?

An alternative, and perhaps more noteworthy view – and, one which is favoured by the Scottish Government – is that Bannockburn paved the way for an event of global significance in the context of constitutional development and political thought.

This was, of course, the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, undoubtedely one of the keynote documents of the medieval era. The declaration gives only a conditional endorsement to the victor of Bannockburn, King Robert.

In magnificent, eloquent phrases, it is made clear that the king is answerable to his subjects, as well as vice versa. This can be regarded legitimately as a pivotal development in constitutional nationalism.

Yet, dodgy as it may seem to some, is the suggestion that Bannockburn produced authenticity for an independent Scotland. That, to me, though, seems perfectly logical in pursuing the line for independence.

Somewhat sadly, but nonetheless realistically, it is Bannockburn’s rarity value as a defeat of the English in open battle, and not as a major turning point in Scotland’s history, that gives Bannockburn a continuing resonance for most Scots. They take pride in it, but do not glory in it.

Some historians, such as the military analyst and writer, Aryeh Nusbacher, insist that Bannockburn’s importance has been seriously exaggerated. However, Nusbacher concedes that the story of the battle itself is, in his phrase, “a rattling good yarn”, complete with bravery, stupidity, bloody murder, sex, violence and terror.

…It seems highly likely that the present Scottish Government will be disposed to consider such an idea sympathetically.

This, then, might raise a further debate as to whether the anniversary of any battle, with all the omnipresent bloodshed, should be celebrated at all. Battles are, after all, appalling events; there is a valid case for saying that they should not be celebrated but instead remembered quietly. Heroism and sacrifice should be recalled judiciously, with due care and attention, and in a dignified summoning up of the past.

Many in Scotland remain enthusiastic about the notion of 2014, the year that Glasgow will host the Commonwealth Games and the Bannockburn anniversary, as the Second Year of Homecoming. It would be good, in my view, if, during the Scottish Parliamentary election campaign of 2011, the various parties could reach a consensus that 2014 should be a truly notable year in Scotland’s history.

..

© MD Journal (Scotland) 2008-2010: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Site Note…

Scratchboard Note, 03 January 2010.

Yemen: ‘London crisis meeting called’…

TERRORISM

From the desk of MD

GORDON BROWN, the Prime Minister, has called a high-level international meeting in London on January 28 to discuss countering radicalisation in Yemen in the wake of the Christmas Day airline bomb attack.

The move came after the Prime Minister announced an immediate review of security at UK airports, which may lead to the introduction of hi-tech full-body scanners that could detect explosives of the kind smuggled on to a US-bound plane from Amsterdam.

Suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, is believed to have developed radical Islamist views during visits to Yemen, and the country’s foreign minister this week appealed for international help to take on as many as 300 Al-Qaeda operatives believed to be using it as a base.

Related:

• Northern Yemen: ‘A proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia?’…

Mr Brown said the January 28 meeting would be a stand-alone event involving key international partners held alongside the conference on the future of Afghanistan being held in London on the same day.

Downing Street said his plans have already received strong support from the White House and European Union, and Britain also aims to secure backing from Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries in the coming days.

In an article on the lessons to be drawn from the incident, published on the Downing Street website, the Prime Minister said that he would do everything possible to preserve the “safety and security” of the public.

Experts have expressed concern that Britain was falling behind other countries and putting lives at risk by not immediately introducing X-ray-like full body scanners after ministers said that there were “no plans” to introduce them.

Holland, the departure point for the Detroit-bound plane, and Nigeria, where Abdulmutallab is from, have both already announced that they would be installed for travellers to the United States.

But Mr Brown stopped short of saying that full body scanning machines would definitely be brought in, saying that he would consult with United States President Barack Obama on the introduction of new searches at airport, including the possibility of full body scans.

He also claimed that the Government would expand the number of people named on “watch lists” to ensure that potential terrorists were monitored and kept away from airports.

The article outlined for the first time the British Government’s acceptance of Yemen, where Abdulmutallab is thought to have spent time, as a new al-Qaeda terror hub now posing as much risk as Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Mr Brown said:

…We now know that the would-be bomber used a small quantity of explosive that went undetected by standard airport security equipment.

…We need, therefore, to continually explore the most sophisticated devices capable of identifying explosives, guns, knives and other such items anywhere on the body.

…So – in co-operation with President Obama and the Americans – we will examine a range of new techniques to enhance airport security systems beyond the traditional measures, such as pat-down searches and sniffer dogs.

…These could include advancing our use of explosive trace technology, full body scanners and advanced x-ray technology.

…

LORD ADONIS, the Transport Secretary, had claimed that the introduction of full body scanners is not possible without the permission of the European Union.

Four £10,000 scanners are thought to be in storage at Heathrow airport following a trial, but staff are banned from using them.

Warning of the risk to world peace from terrorism fermented in Yemen, Mr. Brown also announced that a new “Friends of Yemen” group would be established in the region to help prevent the Middle Eastern nation slipping into a failed state.

Mr Brown said:

…In the past week, we have been exposed to an evolving terrorist threat and reminded of the importance of a major new base for terrorism.

…These enemies of democracy and freedom – now trying to mastermind death and destruction from Yemen as well as other better-known homes of international terror such as Pakistan and Afghanistan – are concealing explosives in ways which are more difficult to detect.

…So the failed attack in Detroit on Christmas Day reminds us of a deeper reality; that almost 10 years after September 11th international terrorism is still a very real threat.

…Al Qaeda and their associates continue in their ambition to indoctrinate thousands of young people around the world with a deadly desire to kill and maim.

…Our response in security, intelligence, policing and military action, is not just an act of choice but an act of necessity.

..

© MD Journal (Scotland) 2008-2010: all rights reserved

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

2009: ‘Hogmanay Duo’…

‘Scottish Soldier’ – Isla St Clair – Gordon Walker

Alexander Brothers: ‘The Old Button Box’

Jim Davidson: ‘Home from the Sea’…

– Jim Davidson and The voluntary crews from Caister and Cromer in Norfolk give an unforgettable performance on stage. The man, the men, the words, the music, the faces, and the story.

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘Spiritual health check for y’all’…

EPHESIANS

…[Christ] came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. [Ephesians 2:17, 18]

Teaching from Scotland

THERE’S A CHRISTIAN POSTER which reads, ‘God so loved the world that he didn’t send a committee’. That is true, but he did send a church, which many might consider to be the next worst thing. As you open Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, be prepared for a shock to your theological system.

The whole letter, including the teaching on salvation, is addressed to the church corporate. Paul never denies that faith is personal, but he stresses that it is not individual. Being a Christian is not about ‘my relationship with God’ but about our relationship with God as believers together.

T.S. Eliot illustrated this perfectly when he wrote in Choruses from ‘The Rock’:

‘There is no life that is not in community … And no community not lived in praise of God.’

Teachings for Sunday 27 December 2009 are given from the the New Testament Book of Ephesians.

God’s original purpose was to create humans in continuity (‘It is not good for the man to be alone,’ Genesis 2:18), and to call together a community of people who honoured him (‘The LORD has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people’ Deuteronomy 7:6).

So, mixing his metaphors, Paul writes: ‘You are … fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household … being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his spirit (2:19, 22). It might be easier if you translated the letter into colloquial American-English, and substituted ‘y’all’ for ‘you’ whenever you see it. Or else read it in a French Bible, and see the plural vous where Western individualism would prefer to see the singular and more intimate tu.

Written more in the style of a tract than a letter, Ephesians sets out in memorable terms and vivid pictures the practical consequences of what God has done in Christ, and the essence of Christian life. Commentator William Barclay called it ‘the Queen of the epistles’; it is probably unmatched in its combination of clear doctrine and practical advice.

..

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

2009: ‘Picture(s) of the Year’…

. TOUGH GUYS, ‘GAME ON’…

Tough Guys, “Game on” — An American Army soldier runs during a game of mud football at a base in Khan Neshin, Helmand province, Afghanistan.

 

 

. PARCHED EARTH…

“Parched Earth, Kenya” — A giraffe felled by drought lies dead on a road in Wajir, Kenya, where virtually no rain has fallen in several years, prompting a severe water crisis.

…

© MD 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Iran: ‘Volatile and explosive dishonesty’…

DECEIT

Lead: Iran’s testing of an essential component of a nuclear weapon is confirmation of deception by a bellicose and belligerent regime.

From the desk of MD

WINSTON CHURCHILL described the actions of Russia as a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’. The nuclear diplomacy of Iran is constructed more simply: it is one lie after another. Western diplomacy has proved susceptible to the tactic. A US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in December 2007 concluded that Iran was “less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005”. Yesterday’s Journal, on this site, reveals that this assessment was worthless.

What is more, Iran’s most sensitive nuclear project is raising more alarm bells within the international community than many realise. It is known, for instance, that Iran has a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator. This is the component of a nuclear weapon that triggers (or ignites) the explosion. The plan was initiated in the very year that the NIE delivered its reassuring message.

Intelligence also suggests that Iran is making use of a material called uranium deuteride. Its destructive potential is huge. Robert Oppenheimer, the pioneering nuclear physicist, once ventured:

… I think it really not too improbable that a ten cm cube of uranium deuteride … might very well blow itself to hell.

In the view of many experts, Iran’s work in this field has no possible civilian applications. It makes sense only for a programme of this nature to be used in the development of a nuclear weapon.

..

THE DISCOVERY is an implacable indictment both of Iran’s duplicity and of the West’s complacency. The Iranian regime has not been a monolithic force in the 30-years since the revolution. Western diplomats have had to make fine adjustments as to whether the mullahs sought to spread the Islamist revolution throughout the Middle East, or were more concerned in consolidating the country’s status as a leading power in the region. But regardless of divisions within the regime, Iran has sought a nuclear capability. Its efforts have been accelerating in the past decade; the prospect of Iran acquiring a bomb is alarming, for a number of reasons:

Firstly, a nuclear-armed Iran will feel little constraint in supporting its terrorist proxies, with money and material – Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. A strengthening of these elements will make more difficult an eventual two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Secondly, a nuclear standoff in the Gulf is unlikely to replicate the stable deterrence of the Cold War. In the adversarial relationship of the old superpowers, the threat of massive retaliation deterred the Soviet Union from military expansionism. Communism was brutal, but the Soviet gerontocracy after Stalin was risk-averse.  Iran’s leadership is not like that. The regime is, as Tony Blair, former British prime minister, remarked, “a major strategic threat to the cohesion of the entire region”.

Thirdly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seeks the annihilation of Israel, a sovereign member of the United Nations. The notion that his noisome anti-Semitic rhetoric is somehow explained by a faulty translation from the Farsi is one of the more bleakly fatuous suggestions of recent diplomatic debate. A people that had doggedly clung to survival through persecution, pogrom and genocide (themselves) founded Israel. Israel’s leaders have not only the right but also the historic obligation to take at face value the threats of a religious millenarian that looks forward to a second Holocaust while denying that the first one ever happened.

And, fourthly, Iran invariably seeks to aggravate disputes. It was not the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, but its retaliation included mining international waters and attacking Kuwaiti oil tankers. Through its proxy, Hezbollah, it has sought to destabilise Lebanese democracy as well as threaten Israeli civilians with rocket attacks.

..

/…

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Guardian Response: ‘Landmines and cluster bombs’…

OTTAWA TREATY

Clancy Sigal writing in the Guardian, “Landmines: Obama’s ultimate betrayal”, Monday, 21 December, 2009, says:

… My personal breaking point, after months of jaw-dropping astonishment at Obama’s betrayals, was his refusal almost alone of the world’s leaders to ban child-killing landmines and cluster bombs. His state department announced this shameful policy on Thanksgiving eve, as if to hide it from public notice. Obama is continuing Bush’s policy of refusing to honour an international antipersonnel landmine ban – the Ottawa treaty – signed by 158 nations.

… It’s so cruel and pointless. Mostly the victims are the rural poor, many of them children of the same age as the president’s two daughters. They die from shock or blood loss far from any hospital; and the survivors suffer amputations and blinding.

… I can’t help but imagine my teenage son being blown to pieces because he’s got the curiosity to pick up an enticing yellow-finned cluster bomblet. Why can’t Obama imagine it for his kids? Since the official story is that the United States no longer produces or deploys these horrible weapons, why not ban the things? “National defence needs” is the answer: please.

– Clancy Sigal is an American novelist and screenwriter and a former BBC correspondent

..

IN REPLY

THE ISSUE of land mines and cluster bombs is a point well made. In contrast, you will note, the Government here announced through the recent Queen’s Speech that it intends to outlaw the use of such deadly and ruthless weapons. It’s an approach I totally agree with given the unpitying nature by which cluster bombs operate. Deadly, not only in the sense of claiming the lives of many innocents, but unforgiving in the sense that explosions cannot be reckoned with. They may explode mid-air, on direct impact with the ground or, worse still, after a delayed period of time after resting idle on the ground. People can become injured, and deaths have been reported, sometimes months after the munitions were released: dirty weapons that are unjustified in any theatre of war.

..

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com