Alphen,
Netherlands. 31 January. Oscar Wilde
once wrote “One of the many lessons that one learns in prison is
that things are what they are and will be what they will be”. As I witness the French, British and other
Europeans rush to offer their very little militaries in support of an expanding
Mali mission I am reminded of that famous little Dutch boy who stuck his finger
in a dyke to stem a pending flood. The
gap between politician speak about “generational struggle” (dyke) and deep cuts
to the very means needed to deal with such dangerous change (size of aforesaid
finger) suggests either aforesaid politicians do not mean what they say (how
can that be?) or they do mean it but do not know what they are doing (how can
that be?). Two questions now need to be
answered; so
what and now what?
On the face of
it there are good reasons to support the French. For example, British PM David Cameron needs
to show he is a ‘good’ European following last week’s now famous Euro-realist
speech. Moreover, today Prime Minister
Cameron will announce not only that there will be no further cuts to the
British armed forces, but he will officially confirm the €200bn ($271bn) military
equipment programme I highlighted before Christmas. The British government has finally come to
realise that its armed forces are not only vital in and of themselves, but also
underpin all other forms of British strategic influence, not least with an
increasingly unfriendly Obama administration.
However, London
and all other European governments should be careful not to rush in at French
behest to save a la francophonie that
France has jealously guarded hitherto as its sphere of influence unless one can
really demonstrate a genuine strategic threat.
First, because one of the many lessons from Afghanistan is that the use
of force in the absence of a meaningful political strategy (which includes
political reconciliation) is but a short step to failure. Watching Cameron jet off to Algiers yesterday
had all the hallmarks of Britain being suckered into French problems. What has happened to the informal agreement
with France whereby Britain focuses its counter-terrorism intelligence effort
on the Gulf and Yemen, whilst France focuses on la francophonie? Third, in
spite of calls by Paris for West African states and forces to step into the
breach it is clear from discussions I have had that neither the money nor the
forces pledged are likely to be anything like enough or good enough for a long
time to come. At present it looks like
France (and the rest of us) is going to be there for a long time to come.
There is another
reason for caution. London is rightly keen to
show that the 2010 Franco-British Defence and Security Treaty is worth more
than the paper it is written on. However, it is equally clear France not for the
first time will happily take British support to get them out of a hole but
offer little back in return. Indeed, if
Prime Minister Cameron thinks by stepping into la francophonie somehow Paris is going to change its implacably
anti-British position on EU reform then he had better think again. A taste of what is to come was all too
apparent in comments made Tuesday by French intellectual (but appalling
historian) Bernard-Henri Levy. As
Britain announced the commitment of some 340 troops to a training and support
role Levy reacted with scornful derision.
He accused Britain of “spinelessness” and “inconsistency” for not
committing combat troops. He
conveniently forgot that France repeatedly refused to move into southern
Afghanistan, the crucible of the war therein, to support the British at a critical
time in the campaign and has just completed a premature withdrawal from
Afghanistan. Whilst I honour the
sacrifice of all coalition fallen in Afghanistan M. Levy’s comments reflect deep
disrespect for the 440 British dead (as against 88 French dead) thus far in
Afghanistan in what is meant to be an operation founded on NATO
solidarity. In other words, M. Levy, if
you want Britain to support France shut up!
The French action in Mali was necessary
to stop genocide. However, my sense is
that France and its allies are now drifting towards the great unplanned with no real
sense of what they want to achieve, no real sense of how to achieve it and no
idea at all how long it is going to take or what cost they will incur in lives
or money. Once again the solutions they
are offering their publics exist purely in political imagininations. This is action rather than strategy, heat
rather than light.
If the answers to my two questions can
be both provided and demonstrated then there may be the making of
strategy. As Professor Colin Gray once
wrote, “If we neglect strategic theory, marginalise it as irrelevant or
unworldly then we are utterly at the mercy of the perspective of the moment”.
Quite so!
Julian Lindley-French
