DOCSLIB.ORG

Sustainable Direction Forthe Democratic Left

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sustainable Direction Forthe Democratic Left compassDIRECTION FOR THE DEMOCRATIC LEFT thinkpieces SUSTAINABLE Peace & Security Today By James Kemp, Oxford Research Group compasscontents Sustainable Peace & Security Introduction Trust in security The dominant approach to security Integrating policy Global threats in the 21st century Climate change Marginalisation of the majority world Resource competition Global militarisation A window of opportunity “Following the price hikes of 1973-74, Pentagon planners prioritised the development of a capability to deploy military forces to maintain control over the Persian Gulf region to secure the supply of oil and deny competitors control or influence in the region”. Compass publications are intended to create real debate and discussion around the key issues facing the democratic left - however the views expressed in this publication are not a statement of Compass policy. compass Sustainable Peace and Security Today By James Kemp, Oxford Research Group, November 2006 Compass Thinkpiece 18 Introduction This Thinkpiece outlines how and why a security strategy fit for the 21st century would differ from the approach that dominates today. The dominant approach is pre-occupied with maintaining key elements of the status quo and controlling pressure for change.This approach to security is not only failing, it is also incapable of effectively tackling some of the most important threats we face today. Another security strategy, one that stands a greater chance of securing international and therefore UK peace and security, would begin by reassessing threats. Instead of focusing almost exclusively countering immediate threats, it would attend to the drivers of insecurity and conflict too.What we are talking about is the right balance between countering and defending against imminent threats on the one hand, tackling the causes of conflict and insecurity on the other, and the most effective means for achieving these ends.Today’s dominant approach to security focuses almost exclusively on the former with little consideration to how foreign and security policies impact over time on the latter. A more effective approach - a sustainable security strategy – would be based on cooperative means and long-term planning to tackle imminent threats alongside the root causes of conflict and insecurity. Unless the root causes are tackled, our only option is to try to control their results. In an increasingly integrated world it is unrealistic to believe that a US-led political elite can rely on military measures and the prism of the ‘war on terror’ to keep global threats at bay for much longer. Trust in security It is essential for the legitimacy of UK foreign policy that a consensus exists between Government, the public and military about the role of the armed forces in the 21st century. If this consensus were to breakdown, UK security would suffer; today it is showing signs of stress. Recent statements from current and retired senior military officers reveal that the relationship between the armed forces and Government is under pressure. 1 Public support for the UK’s military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan is weak. 2 There is confusion about what the armed forces are for and what they need to do it. 3 A security strategy fit for the 21st century would work to achieve four objectives: • address imminent threats and respond to crises; • identify and respond to trends and changes in the international security environment; • strengthen trends and institutions that sustain peace and security; and • strengthen trust - the world’s primary security currency. Trusts is often overlooked in discussions about security, or rejected as an irrelevance.This is a mistake. As any diplomat or politician who has tried to negotiate a treaty, peace process or arms control measure will testify, trust building is essential.Without trust, negotiations fail, agreements and treaties breakdown, misunderstanding is more likely, and coercion, sometimes violent, appears a more reliable means for protecting interests and reducing vulnerabilities.The problem is that coercion cannot secure cooperation over the timeframes we need to start thinking in. 1 For example see www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/14/nirq214.xml 2 See Guardian / ICM poll, Oct. 24 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329608463-117700,00.html 3 For example, does the UK need nuclear weapons? Sustainable Peace and Security Today www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 1 compass The dominant approach to security “We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation, and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us.” This statement by President George Bush (2003)4 encapsulates a rather evangelical form of the dominant approach to security. Its goal of which is indeed to ‘write history’: to embed into the status quo the military, economic and political advantages presently enjoyed by the USA.5 To achieve this, US strategy aims to (1) control access to fossil fuels, (2) maintain US global military supremacy, (3) protect US domination of international financial institutions, and (4) the military advantages enjoyed by key regional allies.This approach to security is known as the ‘control paradigm’ because broadly speaking, it seeks to keep threats to the status quo under control. The control paradigm is, by its own standards, failing. Democracy is ephemeral in the Middle East. Support for radical Islamic terrorism is significant, especially in Jordan and Pakistan,6 and home grown radical Islamic terrorism is a problem in the UK and elsewhere.7 Competition over energy supplies is increasingly unstable.8 The 2006 Israeli war with Hezbollah in Lebanon exposed the limits of Israeli power, and strategic competitors to US dominance are emerging elsewhere. Iraq is in a state of bloody chaos, and the Taliban are re-emerging as a powerful force in Afghanistan. The recent US midterm elections and likely appointment of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld will not bring about the kind of re-assessment that is needed.Tactics for dealing with Iran, for instance, may change, but the basic objectives will remain the same. Given the extent to which the US influences the international security agenda, the control paradigm will continue to define security and defence policies in the UK and across much of the world. Integrating policy To be effective, a sustainable security strategy would require integrated policy making across Whitehall. Efforts to integrate UK conflict prevention and reduction policies, for example, have made considerable progress. Cross-departmental units have been established for global conflict prevention, a programme for African conflict prevention, and Post Conflict Reconstruction, for example. Other structures have been created for counter-terrorism, intelligence and some other security issues. Many of these initiatives have been quite successful.There are, as expected, problems with management and leadership, funding, communication between departments and competition. But the main problem, from the security strategy perspective, is the absence of an over-arching strategic direction and the extent to which the post-9/11 US-led ‘war on terror’ has distorted security priorities. These obstacles prevent the UK from developing the coherent strategies for dealing with the most pressing threats to peace, security and prosperity that would constitute a sustainable security strategy. Given the interconnected nature of security challenges today, policy integration must cross international boundaries, including the EU, NATO, UN,World Bank, OECD, etc. as-well as between states. In 2003 the EU published the European Security Strategy (ESS)9, intended to set parameters for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It was drafted to act as a “global strategic concept, a sort of general philosophy for the Union’s action in the world”.10 It is probably the most sustainable security strategy in operation today. Progress towards realising the CFSP’s goals is slow and in no way guaranteed. UK defence planning assumptions must refer to the most likely scenarios and facts on the ground today. A pivotal MoD planning assumption is that participation in peace support operations and military interventions will “generally be in coalition with other countries and large-scale intervention operations are unlikely to be conducted without the US.” 11 4 See www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,904086,00.html for text of full speech. 5 The Project for a New American Century “Statement of Principles” is widely regarded as an early expression of this aim. Signatories to this statement include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalizad and Jeb Bush. For more details, see http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm 6 See,“Islamic Extremism: common concern for Muslim and Western publics”. Pew Global Attitudes Project. July 2005. 7 See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5306580.stm. 8 For example Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, said during a energy conference on 20th November that:“Sitting on huge reserves of oil and gas gives some difficult regimes a trump card.They can use energy revenues for purposes which we may find problematic… And it shields them from external pressure.Thus, our energy needs may well limit our ability to push wider foreign policy objectives, not least in the area of conflict resolution, human rights and good governance.” http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0611202872164432.htm 9 See, www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf PAGE 2 www.compassonline.org.uk Sustainable Peace and Security Today compass Like their predecessors,Tony Blair and MoD officials mainly look to the US when making decisions with long-term security consequences, such as which type of aircraft carriers to build and what type of operations are most likely in the future.The USA’s singular power does not make this direction inevitable or desirable. Other factors determine the merit of a security strategy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • War Prevention Works 50 Stories of People Resolving Conflict by Dylan Mathews War Prevention OXFORD • RESEARCH • Groupworks 50 Stories of People Resolving Conflict
    OXFORD • RESEARCH • GROUP war prevention works 50 stories of people resolving conflict by Dylan Mathews war prevention works OXFORD • RESEARCH • GROUP 50 stories of people resolving conflict Oxford Research Group is a small independent team of Oxford Research Group was Written and researched by researchers and support staff concentrating on nuclear established in 1982. It is a public Dylan Mathews company limited by guarantee with weapons decision-making and the prevention of war. Produced by charitable status, governed by a We aim to assist in the building of a more secure world Scilla Elworthy Board of Directors and supported with Robin McAfee without nuclear weapons and to promote non-violent by a Council of Advisers. The and Simone Schaupp solutions to conflict. Group enjoys a strong reputation Design and illustrations by for objective and effective Paul V Vernon Our work involves: We bring policy-makers – senior research, and attracts the support • Researching how policy government officials, the military, of foundations, charities and The front and back cover features the painting ‘Lightness in Dark’ scientists, weapons designers and private individuals, many of decisions are made and who from a series of nine paintings by makes them. strategists – together with Quaker origin, in Britain, Gabrielle Rifkind • Promoting accountability independent experts Europe and the and transparency. to develop ways In this United States. It • Providing information on current past the new millennium, has no political OXFORD • RESEARCH • GROUP decisions so that public debate obstacles to human beings are faced with affiliations. can take place. nuclear challenges of planetary survival 51 Plantation Road, • Fostering dialogue between disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • WOULD AIR STRIKES WORK? Understanding Iran’S Nuclear Programme and the Possible Consequences of a Military Strike
    WOULD AIR STRIKES WORK? Understanding Iran’s nuclear programme and the possible consequences of a military strike Frank Barnaby With a foreword by Hans Blix BRIEFING PAPER MARCH 2007 Published by Oxford Research Group, 2007 Oxford Research Group Development House 56 - 64 Leonard Street London, EC2A 4LT United Kingdom Copyright © Oxford Research Group, 2007 Some rights reserved. This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons licence that allows copy and distribution for non-profit use, provided the author and ORG are attributed properly and the work is not altered in any way. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ for full details. Please contact Oxford Research Group if you would like to translate this report. About the Author Frank Barnaby is Nuclear Issues Consultant to Oxford Research Group. He is a nuclear physicist by training and worked at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston between 1951-57. He was on the senior scientific staff of the Medical Research Council when a university lecturer at University College London (1957-67). He was Executive Secretary of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affaires in the late 1960s and Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) from 1971-81.His books include: ‘The Invisible Bomb’ (Tauris, 1989), ‘The Gaia Peace Atlas’ (Pan, 1989), ‘The Automated Battlefield’ (Sidgwick & Jackson, 1987), ‘Star Wars’ (Fourth Estate, 1987), ‘Future Warfare’ (Michael Joseph, 1986) and ‘The Role and Control of Military Force in the 1990s’. Acknowledgements Oxford Research Group gratefully acknowledges the support of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation and our many supporters and Sustainers for making the publication of this report possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Endless War the Global War on Terror and the New Bush Administration
    Endless War The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration Paul Rogers Oxford Research Group March 2005 Endless War: The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 The US Political Context 4 Neoconservatism and Christian Zionism 5 Responding to 9/11 7 The Status of al-Qaida 8 Israel, Palestine and the War on Terror 12 Iran and Syria 13 Prospects and Alternatives 15 Notes 16 2 OXFORD RESEARCH GROUP Endless War: The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration Executive Summary Three and a half years after 11th September and two years after the termination of the Saddam Hussein regime, the “global war on terror” has no end in sight. Al-Qaida and its affiliates remain active and effective, with a stronger support base and a higher intensity of attacks than before 11th September. The United States is embroiled in a conflict in Iraq that has already cost over 25,000 lives. Even so, the second Bush administration is likely to strengthen its pursuit of a New American Century, with little prospect of changes in policy towards Iraq or al-Qaida and the possibility of an extension of its Middle East policy to a confrontation with Iran. In Washington, the neoconservative agenda is strengthened by the rise of Christian Zionism, making it less likely that the administration will encourage Israel to accept a fully viable two-state solution to its confrontation with the Palestinians. It may be argued that many aspects of US security policy are counterproductive, but this is likely to have little impact in Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Remote Warfare: Security Cooperation
    Defining Remote Warfare: Security Cooperation Briefing Number 1 Tom Watts and Rubrick Biegon [Date] 0 This report has been commissioned by Remote Control, a project of the Network for Social Change hosted by the Oxford Research Group. The project examines changes in mili- tary engagement, with a focus on remote warfare. This form of intervention takes place be- hind the scenes or at a distance rather than on a traditional battlefield, often through drone strikes and air strikes from above, with Special Forces, intelligence agencies, private contrac- tors, and military training teams on the ground. Published by Remote Control, November 2017 Remote Control Oxford Research Group Development House 56-64 Leonard Street London EC2A 4LT United Kingdom +44 (0)207 549 0298 [email protected] http://remotecontrolproject.org The text of this report is made available under a Creative Commons license. Photographs remain the copyright of original holders. All citations must be credited to Remote Control, Tom Watts and Rubrick Biegon. This is a commissioned piece of research that does not necessarily reflect the views of the Remote Control Project. Cover image: US Africa Command (US Army photo by Spc. Zayid Ballesteros) About the Series The Remote Control Project is a research and when you see it”. Moreover, while we have policy unit analysing the rise of remote been focusing on the use of remote warfare warfare: the recent shift away from “boots on on today’s battlefield, we are also aware that the ground” deployments towards light- future changes in technology, especially the footprint military interventions abroad. rising importance of cyber and autonomous weapons, will have an impact on how we Among other factors, austerity, budget cuts, should understand remote warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Enacting Global Transformation
    Enacting Global Transformation A Collaborative Initiative of the Centre of International Studies, University of Oxford In Partnership with Theatre of Transformation Academy WHY, Why Now, and So What: The Motivation, Purpose and Intended Impact Purpose: to bring humanity and creativity to the responses of scholars, policy makers, crisis-affected communities and the public to crises of security and governance, and stimulate new ideas for paradigm change. Why: We stand at the precipice of what could be the most perilous period in human history since the 1930s. We are called now to ‘not merely tinker with piecemeal reform of governance structures that leave the current paradigm of governance intact, but fundamentally… redefine the paradigm of power itself.’1 This collaborative initiative responds to this imperative by combining transformative theory, practice and policy with the arts. Why now: The dire global climate of violent conflict, divisive national politics, and severely strained international relations we face today requires innovative, effective responses grounded in humanity and ethics. The intended impact is to foster renewed thinking, research, policies and public reactions to global crises of war and governance, as evidenced through creative research, initiatives and collaborations to enact global transformation. This initiative does not seek piecemeal responses to individual global crises. Rather, it evokes critical rethinking of prevailing paradigms of power underlying today’s intertwined crises of war and governance, and fosters humane and creative thinking to shape new paradigms of power for politics and IR. WHAT FOR: Origins and Objectives This project builds on previous research projects conducted at CIS since 2009, on the responsibility to protect, culture, religion and governance.
    [Show full text]
  • GA Background Paper
    GA United Nations General Assembly Committee: United Nations General Assembly (GA) Topic: The question of implementing a standing military force within the United Nations system Written by: Bárbara Martínez, Karen Soto and Camila Mota I. Committee Background The General Assembly (GA) is the primary deliberative, decision-making and representative body of the United Nations (UN). The General Assembly has many vital functions, including the admission, removal or expulsion of UN member states. The UN Charter summarizes its key purposes as “promot[ing] international co-operation in the economic, social, cultural, educational, and health fields, and assists in the consciousness of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (Whiting, WEF, 2018). Currently, the GA consists of 193 member states and two non-member observer states. The committee’s headquarters are located in the UN Building in New York City. The General Assembly is responsible for overseeing the budget of the UN, selecting the non-permanent members of the Security Council, voting on the Secretary-General of the United Nations, making recommendations in the form of resolutions and establishing subsidiary organizations (Charter, UN, 2020). II. Topic Information a) History of the Topic According to the United Nations, peacekeepers are specially trained individuals who “provide security and the political and peacebuilding support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace” (Thematic Issues, UN, 2019). All UN peacekeeping operations are governed by rules set out in the UN Charter and are approved of by the United Nations Security Council. The role of peacekeepers has evolved since the UN’s first peacekeeping mission in 1960.
    [Show full text]
  • EAST of SUEZ, WEST from HELMAND: BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE and the NEXT SDSR Richard Reeve
    Oxford Research Group | December 2014 Oxford Research Group Briefing – December 2014 EAST OF SUEZ, WEST FROM HELMAND: BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE AND THE NEXT SDSR Richard Reeve The formal signature on 5 December of a new defence cooperation agreement between the UK and Bahrain, including the formalisation of a ‘permanent’ Royal Navy forward operating base in Manama, is the latest step in the current UK Government’s plans to reconsolidate a military presence in the Persian Gulf. Of little significance in itself, the upgraded Bahrain naval base and the timing of its announcement are important reflections of British strategic thinking in the context of withdrawal from Afghanistan, intervention in the messy ideological and proxy wars of the wider Middle East, and the looming Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), due after the May 2015 election. East of Suez The UK’s security relationship with Bahrain is not new. A British protectorate, along with all the other southern Gulf emirates, for a century up to 1971, the UK only scaled back its naval and air bases there in its post-1967 withdrawal from ‘East of Suez’. Since 1980, when the Iran-Iraq war occasioned the deployment of the Armilla Patrol to protect friendly (oil) shipping, the Royal Navy has continuously had at least one frigate or destroyer in the Gulf, and often many more. Bahrain is their usual regional base and is home to an indefinite deployment of four British minesweepers, alongside the much larger US Navy presence. While the US clearly eclipsed the UK as the dominant external power in the Gulf in the 1970s, British military influence has remained entrenched among elites.
    [Show full text]
  • MAPPING the DEVELOPMENT of AUTONOMY in WEAPON SYSTEMS Vincent Boulanin and Maaike Verbruggen
    MAPPING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTONOMY IN WEAPON SYSTEMS vincent boulanin and maaike verbruggen MAPPING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTONOMY IN WEAPON SYSTEMS vincent boulanin and maaike verbruggen November 2017 STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair (Sweden) Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) Espen Barth Eide (Norway) Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger (Germany) Dr Radha Kumar (India) The Director DIRECTOR Dan Smith (United Kingdom) Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 72 Solna, Sweden Telephone: +46 8 655 97 00 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.sipri.org © SIPRI 2017 Contents Acknowledgements v About the authors v Executive summary vii Abbreviations x 1. Introduction 1 I. Background and objective 1 II. Approach and methodology 1 III. Outline 2 Figure 1.1. A comprehensive approach to mapping the development of autonomy 2 in weapon systems 2. What are the technological foundations of autonomy? 5 I. Introduction 5 II. Searching for a definition: what is autonomy? 5 III. Unravelling the machinery 7 IV. Creating autonomy 12 V. Conclusions 18 Box 2.1. Existing definitions of autonomous weapon systems 8 Box 2.2. Machine-learning methods 16 Box 2.3. Deep learning 17 Figure 2.1. Anatomy of autonomy: reactive and deliberative systems 10 Figure 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition Theoretical and Historical Perspectives
    Research Report C O R P O R A T I O N MICHAEL J. MAZARR, JONATHAN BLAKE, ABIGAIL CASEY, TIM MCDONALD, STEPHANIE PEZARD, MICHAEL SPIRTAS Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition Theoretical and Historical Perspectives he most recent U.S. National Security KEY FINDINGS Strategy is built around the expectation ■ The emerging competition is not generalized but likely to of a new era of intensifying international be most intense between a handful of specific states. Tcompetition, characterized by “growing political, economic, and military competitions” ■ The hinge point of the competition will be the relation- confronting the United States.1 The new U.S. ship between the architect of the rules-based order (the United States) and the leading revisionist peer competitor National Defense Strategy is even more blunt that is involved in the most specific disputes (China). about the nature of the emerging competition. “We are facing increased global disorder, ■ Global patterns of competition are likely to be complex and diverse, with distinct types of competition prevailing characterized by decline in the long-standing 2 in different issue areas. rules-based international order,” it argues. “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, ■ Managing the escalation of regional rivalries and conflicts is now the primary concern in U.S. national is likely to be a major focus of U.S. statecraft. security.”3 The document points to the ■ Currently, the competition seems largely focused on “reemergence of long-term, strategic competition status grievances or ambitions, economic prosperity, by what the National Security Strategy classifies technological advantage, and regional influence. as revisionist powers.”4 It identifies two ■ The competition is likely to be most intense and per- countries as potential rivals: China and Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Research Group Consultation Aide-Memoire
    Copyright © 2007 Oxford Research Group Do not quote without the author’s permission Oxford Research Group Consultation Charney Manor, Charney Bassett, Oxfordshire Tuesday 13 th –Thursday 15 th March 2007 An investigation into the: “Regional and global security implications of a British decision on replacing its strategic nuclear weapon system” Aide-Mémoire This Aide-Mémoire sets out to identify key themes raised by participants during the intensive information exchange and dialogue that took place over two days. It is based on brief formal presentations made by invited speakers, and on notes made by recorders during extended informal discussion periods which followed these presentations. It therefore does not represent views or address issues which were not raised during the proceedings, nor does it embody a consensus of the views of all participants, except where indicated. We invited all participants to comment on the first draft of this Aide-Mémoire, and have made every effort to accommodate comments received. The meeting was held under the Chatham House rule, which means that contributors are not identified by name. The final text is the sole responsibility of Oxford Research Group, and not a formal agreed communiqué from all participants. 1 Copyright © 2007 Oxford Research Group Do not quote without the author’s permission The key questions, and particular points of interest that emerged from the subject areas covered in the programme are set out below. One of the recurrent themes that emerged throughout was the necessity for trust and confidence building and the importance of “stepping into the shoes” of an adversary, in order to view the security environment from a different perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • No Such Thing As a Perfect Partner the Challenges of “By, With, and Through”
    No Such Thing as a Perfect Partner The Challenges of “By, With, and Through” By Emily Knowles n recent military campaigns against violent non-state actors, many states have reduced the risk to their own forces by conducting airstrikes or supporting allies rather than placing their own forces on the ground.1 Small teams of special operation forces (SOF) and military advisers, as well as military training Iteams and intelligence support units, have supported host-nation security forces in doing the bulk of front-line fighting against groups like al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and al-Qaeda. In some theaters, such as the campaign against the Islamic State, this has extended to include intensive air and intelligence, surveillance, and recon- naissance (ISR) support. In other theaters, support may be limited to training and equipping local partners without conducting joint operations—like the support that the UK provides to Kenyan forces through the British Peace Support Team (Africa). This is a trend that the Oxford Research Group calls “remote warfare,”2 although it goes by many other names, including “surrogate war,”3 “light-footprint,”4 “low-intensity war,”5 and “by, with, and through.”6 This article draws on field research conducted in Afghanistan (2017), Iraq (2017), Mali, (2018) and Kenya (2018) as well as a series of expert roundtables held in London between 2017–2019, and interviews held with militaries, diplomats, and civil society in Mali (2019) and Somalia (2016–2018). The purpose of the effort was to identify changes in military engagement following the drawdowns of large international military oper- ations in Iraq (2011) and Afghanistan (2014) and to highlight the strategic implications of a shift towards remote warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Intervention in Syria: Implications for Western Engagement
    Global Security Briefing – OCTOBER 2015 Russia’s Intervention in Syria: Implications for Western Engagement Paul Rogers & Richard Reeve Summary The war in Syria has become dramatically more complex since the summer, with Turkey and Russia becoming more directly engaged and several western states extending their bombing campaigns. Russia’s direct intervention seeks tactical gains for the Assad regime in northwest Syria in support of its strategic goal of a pro-Russian political settlement to the conflict. Such action makes further Islamic State advances more likely in Syria. Further escalation of British military intervention in Syria would also be likely to fuel the conflict. Introduction Since September there have been four significant developments as the war against Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria intensifies: • Russia has changed the nature of its intervention in Syria by deploying combat aircraft and up to 2,000 support personnel and weapons systems. • More western states are extending the air war from Iraq to Syria, with the probability that there will be a vote in the UK parliament to support British involvement in Syria. • The US has changed its strategy of assisting non-jihadist opposition forces in Syria from training them to sending more arms and ammunition. • Revised US intelligence estimates of IS strength suggests that international support for IS is more than compensating for its losses in spite of the intensity of the coalition air strikes. Together with the post-July involvement of Turkey in air strikes against both IS and its Kurdish adversaries in Syria, these developments greatly increase the complexity of the war there.
    [Show full text]