Libya - Here We Go Again

As we seem to move, inexorably, towards a deployment of British troops in Libya, I hope all our decision makers have read and digested Christopher Elliott’s excellent book, “High Command” – British Military Leadership in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.  Any armed conflict must command the commitment of the nation as a whole. On the other hand, it could be argued that since we are only intending to deploy a few hundred troops in non-combat training roles, we do not need to apply very much scrutiny to the plans.  Wiser heads may disagree and, perhaps, envisage a more complex situation developing in which a whole of Government approach would be required.  It would be foolish not to have considered potential complications or the consequences of escalation.  In his analysis, Major General Elliott helpfully identifies a number of things that went wrong on the last 2 occasions.  For the Service Chiefs, it goes almost without saying that they should be provided with adequate resources to do the job and that sufficient contingency reserves are available.  As for politicians, since it is now commonplace to verify compliance through box-ticking, so much easier than arguing the specifics, I have distilled General Elliott’s observations into a handy checklist.  Busy politicians, with an eye on writing their memoirs in the future, may care to seize the opportunity to satisfy themselves on the basics before acquiescing to the Prime Minister’s slam-dunk deployment plans?  So, here we go:

The collective political will is strong enough to withstand the consequences of what might develop
All decisions have been recorded with proper underpinning analysis
UK military command structure is able to operate effectively in a coalition
Arrangements for proper coordination of British and coalition commanders with representatives of other government departments in theatre are inadequate
Processes and working practices in MOD will ensure clarity of purpose
If CDS becomes the single focus for the conduct of military operations, proper arrangements are in place to ensure wider influences who might question assumptions and conclusions are not side-lined
The ground truth, what is really going on, is available to decision makers in London
I promise I won’t become distracted by more pressing domestic issues eg getting re-elected, whilst our soldiers are in harm’s way

Mind the Gap

In his diary today, John Redwood broke down the components of the hugely disappointing balance of payments figures totalling 5.2% of GDP for last year:

• Over 1/4 of the deficit is because of payments to the EU and overseas aid.  These will go on rising because they are ratcheted to growth
• Then there is the money we are paying foreigners who own UK assets - this will also go on rising
• Finally there is the gap in trade - in surplus to the rest of the world but massively in deficit to the EU

The record deficit has provoked a rash of Brexit scare stories.  The Governor of the Bank of England says that we now rely on the "kindness of strangers" as foreign investors bridge the current account gap.  George Osborne invokes project fear - "today's figures expose the real danger of economic uncertainty and shows that now is precisely not the time to put our economic security at risk by leaving the EU." 

When I was a young Royal Air Force Pilot, struggling to contain my monthly mess bill within my monthly salary, I was reliant upon the" kindness" of Cox's & Kings Bank (6 Pall Mall SW1) to keep me afloat.  When it became apparent that their patience was wearing thin, I was obliged to trim my expenditure and seek more moderate company in the Mess.  I just wonder whether there might not be a parallel with George's stewardship of the economy?  He has certainly spent profligately, doubling the National Debt whilst in office.  And when a bit of good fortune came his way, instead of saving and insuring against the next financial shock, he dispensed it like free beer at Happy Hour.

Rather than trying to scare us by saying that if we leave the EU we may not be able to borrow on such benevolent terms, perhaps the real answer is to borrow less, get the public finances in order and become solvent?