The date is July 27, 2012, and in London the Olympic Games are about to begin. For months, the British people have been looking forward to the jamboree of patriotic enthusiasm.
But now that the day is here, the mood feels heavy with gloom. The crowds are thin, the drizzle pours down. The Union Flags hang forlornly in the dull breeze.
Even the nation's new Prime Minister, the blinking, stammering Ed Miliband, cuts a remarkably limp figure, a melancholy leader for a nation sunk in misery.
Several thousand miles away, across the cold seas of the South Atlantic, the atmosphere could hardly be more different. For in the capital of the Islas Malvinas, the archipelago formerly known as the Falkland Islands, an Argentine victory parade is underway.
Though victory in the Second Falklands War was secured only a few weeks ago, the islands' conquerors have already been busy.
At the tiny airport that serves Puerto Argentino formerly Port Stanley a gigantic mural commemorates the soldiers from the mainland who lost their lives.
Beside the old Anglican cathedral, draped with a massive blue-and-white flag, the statue of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner gazes impassively out to sea.
For the Iron Lady, as her adoring country-men call her, the war was a turning point, securing her place in South American history for all time.
But for Britain, battered by months of economic austerity, it was a tempest that swept away the Coalition government and destroyed any lingering illusions that the United Kingdom was still a serious power.
As the Argentine troops parade triumphantly down Avenida Leopoldo Galtieri, a few miserable islanders stand and watch. Many have already booked their flights back to Britain, sick of the Spanish road signs and posters of Diego Maradona.
#3
The big issue is air cover. If they don't get more air cover to the Falklands now they'll be unable to do so after any shooting starts. In the last war they had a carrier and a large tanker that they converted to a carrier for Harriers. Now they have no carrier at all, since they retired HMS Ocean and the new carriers have yet to (and likely will never) be built.
A submarine loitering in the region would also help.
But I'd get a squadron of modern aircraft in: Typhoons, or even Tornado GR4s. They aren't really needed in Europe after all so it makes sense to deploy them. Yes, it's a logistical strain of the first order, but the Argies need a clear signal: look all you want but don't touch.
I'd also get a modern anti-air battery in, and some high quality ground forces. The latter need not be overly numerous, but rotating in a battalion of Paras or infantry, with logistics, along with a few squads of SAS or other special forces, would certainly let the Argies now that there would not be such a thing as a quick snatch of the islands.
How to pay for this? Let the oil exploration continue and put a small tax on whatever is pumped out from the sea bed in the economic zone.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/24/2011 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And as it turns out, my drivel is well preceded by this Wiki source that outlines the Falklands defense. They have naval and infantry assets as well as an air presence. The only thing I'd add is a few more Typhoons.
I should read more before I comment.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/24/2011 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
They have a total of four combat aircraft present on the islands. A couple squadrons would be much better.
#6
Sure. It's a combination of the limits of their budget, the logistics and what they perceive the threat to be. They have intel that you and I certainly don't have so perhaps they know that the Argies can't do much.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/24/2011 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
'This week Argentinas claim to the Falklands has been powerfully reinforced, declared an article in the Guardian yesterday. Apparently, the political climate in Latin American countries has changed in favour of the Argentine claim, so we should consider consigning the Falklanders to the mercies of a nation they fear and despise. This may strike you as peculiar reasoning, but perhaps things will become clearer if I tell you that the article is by Richard Gott. Thats the same Richard Gott who, while on the staff of the Guardian, received expenses from the Soviet Union red gold, as he put it in return for well, that has never been clear. I would have thought Gotts views on sovereignty were compromised, to say the least, but then this is the paper that just ran an article giving Václav Havel a good kicking for undervaluing the achievements of Communism.
#11
If Argentina was smart they'd take over the islands diplomatically. Position the conflict as a colonial issue to fool the rubes that barely pay attention to politics but still feel guilty over colonial remnants. They would then offer to allow the locals to stay if they wanted as English ex-patriots and give mineral rights for a set amount of time to the UK.
This would (a) appear totally peaceful and convince a lot of westerners to side with Argentina against the evil colonials. It would also being the de armament process in the Falklands and allow the UK to begin any mining operations.
Pejman Yousefzadeh delivers a righteous and completely appropriate smackdown of communist apologists. The occasion is the death of that monster Kim Jong Il, but the sentiment is proper anytime.
As he says, someday we'll ostracize communist sympathizers the same way we do Nazi sympathizers. Someday.
#2
Oooohkay. Maybe I screwed up. I thought that the link to the article went to Glenn's post, not directly to the article. Wish we could delete comments.
#4
Could you imaging decades after the American Civil War an extensive academic caste rationalizing and romanticizing the benefits and purity of slavery? /rhet question
It's not an issue of 'academic freedom'. It's a total lack of intellectual integrity.
For Sunday, lotp reviews Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.
An excerpt:
Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow is an account of the insights into decision making that won him a (respected) Nobel prize in Economics. The book is a useful guide not only to our day to day decision making but also to understanding how political campaigns succeed in the face of incoherent policies, lousy character on the part of candidates and repeated failures and broken promises.
After the US Congress froze close to $700 million in aid to Pakistain earlier this month, the B.O. regime is trying to assure its estranged ally that the legislation merely includes a reporting requirement that could be waived.
The provision is part of a giant $662 billion defence budget for fiscal 2012 passed by US Senate by 86 to 13 votes on December 15, a day after the US House of Representatives approved it by 283 to 136 votes.
The new legislation would freeze any aid to Pakistain until Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ... sometimes described as The Heroine of Tuzla and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another William H. Seward ... verifies Pakistain's cooperation in the war on terror.
Cooperation between the US and Pakistain came to a halt after a fatal NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A cautionary tale of cost-benefit analysis.... attack on a Pakistain border post. Pakistain stopped all supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan and told the US to leave the Shamsi air base.
"I cannot believe that the cooperation stopped because of a couple of incidents - it's immature," said Tim Barkin, a defense analyst who has worked in Afghanistan.
While President Barack My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it Obama and his administration want close ties with Pakistain, the security establishment and the hawks in the administration and the Senate are pressing for tougher actions.
"There have been over 2,800 NATO causalities so far, and we have not blamed them on Pakistain," said a senior NATO commander in Afghanistan. "What if we act like Pakistain? What would that lead to?"
Former US embassy military front man Col Michael Shivers said Pakistain received $3.5 billion in economic assistance from the United States over 15 years from 1952 to 1967. This was more than three times the combined aid provided by West Germany, Canada, Great Britannia and Japan. From 2002 to 2010, the US was been the biggest donor to Pakistain with approximately $4 billion in direct aid. Its security assistance support was $462 million in fiscal year 2008, $884 million in FY 2009, and $1,114 million in FY 2010. This does not include the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), a reimbursement programme for expenses incurred by Pak military for its assistance to the US. CSF reimbursements since 2001 total approximately $8.88 billion.
Relations between Pakistain and the US have worsened to the extent that all US military representatives working in Pakistain, including the important Director of Strategic Communications, have been virtually stopped from working in Pakistain after the Raymond Davis case, and according to a US diplomat, "We are treated as enemy combatants in Pakistain."
Carl Prine, a veteran journalist and military analyst, however thinks that "without Pakistain, the US won't end up anywhere in Afghanistan."
Making a joke about what appears to be a key factor in the worsening of the ties, he asked if it would be "better to give $10 million a month to the Haqqanis instead of wasting $120 billion a year in Afghanistan?"
Some analysts see the new US move as a response to Pakistain's decision to stop supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan. "Some in the US want to take on Pakistain by exerting financial pressure," one expert said.
"The last time they closed the supplies, the US made alternate arrangements," said diplomat Mark Author. "They are more expensive, but that's better than being blackmailed."
The military establishment may be ready to work with Zardari, but will not tolerate civilian intervention in policy towards the US
[The Friday Times] As the drama orchestrated by Mansoor Ijaz unfolds in Islamabad, President Asif Ali President Ten Percent Zardari ... sticky-fingered husband of the late Benazir Bhutto ... appears to be the in a weak position. He has lost his trusted aide in Washington DC, Husain Haqqani, in what looks like a head-on collision with the powerful military establishment.
President Zardari is not known to be a big risk-taker, people close to him say. He tries to keep the people who matter happy. And so far he has been rather successful. Advisers who idealize the 1986 return of Benazir Bhutto ... 11th Prime Minister of Pakistain in two non-consecutive terms from 1988 until 1990 and 1993 until 1996. She was the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founder of the Pakistain People's Party, who was murdered at the instigation of General Ayub Khan. She was murdered in her turn by person or persons unknown while campaigning in late 2007. Suspects include, to note just a few, Baitullah Mehsud, General Pervez Musharraf, the ISI, al-Qaeda in Pakistain, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who shows remarkably little curiosity about who done her in... to Pakistain and her passionate speeches tempt Zardari to venture where he should not. But he is wise.
Sources privy to the recent developments say the military establishment wants more heads to roll. They have a list of people they dislike, and demand they be shown the door. Prominent among them are Interior Minister Rehman Malik Pak politician, current Interior Minister under the Gilani administration. Malik is a former Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) intelligence officer who rose to head the FIA during Benazir Bhutto's second tenure. He later joined the Pak Peoples Party and was chief security officer to Bhutto. Malik was tossed from his FIA job in 1998 after documenting the breath-taking corruption of the Sharif family. By unhappy coincidence Näwaz Shärif became PM at just that moment and Malik moved to London one step ahead of the button men. and Pakistain's Ambassador to the United Kingdom Wajid Shamsul Hassan.
If national institutions really are on a collision course, the collateral damage may include democracy, as has been seen in history. Whether the People's Party government will complete its remaining term will depend primarily on how the president and his aides will behave.
Some in the military establishment were surprised when Memogate made headlines world over. They had believed President Zardari followed the policy of "live and let live". And although they are ready to give President Zardari another chance, they will remove some of his "anti-army" aides in key slots. They will be discreet, however, and not leave the slightest evidence they were behind such moves.
"If they control corruption and their governance is effective, this would be the best political dispensation the military establishment could ever work with," said a defence official requesting anonymity.
They have a list of people they dislike. Prominent among them are Rehman Malik and Wajid Shamsul Hassan
He denied that military intelligence agencies, the ISI and the MI, were behind the recent surge in Imran Khan ... aka Taliban Khan, who isn't your heaviest-duty thinker, maybe not even among the top five... 's popularity. The regional situation is fragile, he said, and they would certainly not want to get caught up in domestic politics at the risk of another embarrassment.
Political analysts say Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... might be a feasible option for the military establishment if he proves his loyalty. His move to take the government to the Supreme Court over Memogate was well orchestrated. The PPP is likely to respond with a counter strike. And it is not difficult to predict who will collect most of the chips from the messed-up poker table.
Meanwhile, ...back at the scene of the crime, Lieutenant Queeg had an idea: there was a simple way to tell whether Manetti had been the triggerman -- just look at his shoes!... the military establishment has made it clear any decisions on ties with the US would need a nod from the GHQ in future. It believes the relationship with the US is its domain, and did not welcome Husain Haqqani's intrusion.
Analysts believe the military establishment would not allow Ambassador Haqqani to go back to DC in his previous capacity even if the Supreme Court declares him innocent.
Last month's fatal NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A cautionary tale of cost-benefit analysis.... strike on a Pak border post has angered the military, and it wants clear answers to critical questions about the future of Afghanistan after a large number of US troops leave in 2014.
Army believes the relationship with the US is its domain, and it did not welcome Husain Haqqani's intrusion
"We don't want to be in another post-Cold War situation, when Pakistain faced the brunt while US leaders were celebrating the breakup of the Soviet Union," said a defence official.
The government has claimed trucks carrying supplies for NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A collection of multinational and multilingual and multicultural armed forces, all of differing capabilities, working toward a common goal by pulling in different directions... troops in Afghanistan have caused a Rs50 billion loss to Pakistain's road infrastructure each year, and Pakistain will ask NATO to compensate for that loss. NATO containers were also exempted from customs duty and only had to pay a small toll tax.
General Ashfaq Kayani ... four star general, current Chief of Army Staff of the Mighty Pak Army. Kayani is the former Director General of ISI... 's security paradigm is India-centric, and the army believes a Hamid Maybe I'll join the Taliban Karzai ... A former Baltimore restaurateur, now 12th and current President of Afghanistan, displacing the legitimate president Rabbani in December 2004. He was installed as the dominant political figure after the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001 in a vain attempt to put a Pashtun face on the successor state to the Taliban. After the 2004 presidential election, he was declared president regardless of what the actual vote count was. He won a second, even more dubious, five-year-term after the 2009 presidential election. His grip on reality has been slipping steadily since around 2007, probably from heavy drug use... -style government in Kabul after the US withdrawal would be detrimental to Pakistain's interests. It has asked the politicianship to ensure the US would help Pakistain secure both its eastern and western borders.
Continued on Page 49
[Dawn] THE core political economy question facing Pakistain today is whether the military in Pakistain has a place in civilian affairs, or whether it should be permanently removed to the barracks and be made answerable to a civilian elected government.
The core contradiction being faced by Pakistain, one that has a bearing on almost every aspect of political and public life, ranging from domestic politics, the economy, foreign relations to a lot more, is between Pakistain's military and civilian forms of government and control.
This core contradiction has been defined and dominated by Pakistain's military since the 1950s, almost without break and without opposition. Perhaps the only time when the hegemony of the military was broken, albeit for a short time, was after the military's abject humiliation in 1971.
Soon after, due to the ineptitude and failure of a civilian democratically elected government, as well as complicit political actors in the opposition, the military found its way back, first through Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... and subsequently all over Pakistain in 1977.
For 30 years, till 2007, the military has governed at times, but always ruled and held power without much civilian discontent.
Pakistain's political class has lived comfortably with the military without feeling much discomfort and without seeing much contradiction in a subservient relationship.
This hold of the military was tempered, but not fully broken, in 2008, just as it was in 1971, when the military was forced to yield power to a democratic movement. The moment to resolve the contradiction and to ensure that there would be a break from the past, so that civilian authority would once and for all dominate and define Pakistain's future, lasted some months, but was never fully enforced.
The first few months after the elections, when the two main parties were working together, represented a key possibility for both to enforce their writ over Pakistain's political equation. As in the past, that opportunity was lost. The military was not going to give up its power and domination voluntarily and some attempts to take that authority by civilians was greatly contested by the military which prevailed. More opportunities have arisen just in this year when the military and its institutions have been weakened, not due to civilians asserting their legitimate authority, but because of military failures, such as Abbottabad ... A pleasant city located only 30 convenient miles from Islamabad. The city is noted for its nice weather and good schools. It is the site of Pakistain's military academy, which was within comfortable walking distance of the residence of the late Osama bin Laden.... and Mehran base. However, death is not the end. There remains the litigation over the estate... the legitimate holder of political power, i.e. the democratically elected civilian government, has been unable to put the military where it belongs. Key moments to replace military hegemony with the bona fide representatives of the people, continue to be lost.
This core contradiction between the military and civilians is played out in multiple manifestations, ranging from issues of Pakistain's illusory sovereignty of its borders to those related to memogate. This contradiction is observable in almost any decision that the government takes.
Government spokespersons went out of their way to state that all 'stakeholders' were on board when the MFN status was announced for India. It is absurd that the military needs to clear an elected government's economic and trade initiatives, but this is precisely the nature of Pakistain's political contradiction. Much of Pakistain's politics can be explained through this contradiction.
Civilian elected governments (as opposed to those which have been propped up by military rulers, such as the 2002-07 Musharraf 'democracy') cannot function unless this contradiction is resolved. They cannot work freely with the shadow of the military hanging over them. The military is not a democratic institution and to assume that it is a check on elected government is a fallacy of huge proportions. The institution of the military and the institution of democratically elected government are opposed to each other, with both having a very different perspective on governance, representation and authority.
The idea that some sort of 'balance' needs to be maintained between civil and military institutions is complete folly given the nature of power in Pakistain. It results in playing into the hands of the military establishment. Democracies need to be free of the burden of the military determining key issues, or of sharing views about decisions which don't affect them. Trade with India is a good example.
Why on earth does the military need to be 'on board' for decisions related to commerce or the economy? Will it also be on board when the government decides to increase the purchasing price of wheat and rice, or when it lowers the rate of interest?
Democracy cannot function in an environment in which civilian governments fear the military. Nor can it work effectively if politicians turn to the military for help as they have on numerous critical occasions in the past, to bail them out against an inefficient and corrupt government. If checks are required on the workings of a government, a strengthened judiciary and civil society and media as well as a more effective political opposition ought to be enough.
To suggest that a political party or a political leader is supported by the establishment or is seen favourably by the military undermines the basic foundations of democracy. Just as the military should be resisted publicly when it interferes in affairs that pertain to parliament, so should its attempts to create political parties or to support politicians.
However, a woman is only as old as she admits... this can only happen once the core contradiction between civilian and military institutions is resolved, and the responsibility of doing this rests unambiguously on civilian actors. Only then will Pakistain be a free democracy.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/24/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Most of the population lacking a few cards in their decks?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Hillary Clinton
Asif Ali 
Nawaz Sharif
[Dawn] THE core political economy question facing Pakistain today is whether the military in Pakistain has a place in civilian affairs, or whether it should be permanently removed to the barracks and be made answerable to a civilian elected government.
