When Think-Tanks Stop Thinking

“A wise man is cured of ambition by ambition itself; his aim is so exalted that riches, office, fortune and favour cannot satisfy him”. Samuel Johnson

Alphen, The Netherlands. 5 September, 2011. Something strange happened to me last week. A leading London think-tank (which shall remain nameless) asked me to remove my affiliation as an Associate Fellow from my blog because in the words of the offending email, “I do not mince my words” and because my blog may be seen as the official position of aforesaid think-tank. Excuse me!

Associate fellowships, special professorships and the like have proliferated over recent years. They offer institutions free labour during a time of austerity in return for an affiliation that implies prestige. What happened to me is of course immaterial but what it implies is not; that think-tanks stop thinking and challenging for fear of offending the so-called ‘great and good’. Whatever happened to academic freedom?

There are two reasons why this is happening in London (and I have seen evidence of it elsewhere). First, some of the more traditional think-tanks have become too close to the Establishment. Consequently, their instinct is to validate rather than challenge Establishment thinking. As a result they become progressively co-opted by the Whitehall Village and thus add little to it. Second, there has been a host of new think-tanks in London over recent years most of whom support one political party/issue or another. Their mission is simply to justify the political positions of their political/vested interest masters. Sadly, whilst there are a few think-tanks still free to do what they should be doing – thinking, challenging and provoking – they are perilously few in number.

Thinking, challenging and provoking is also the overt mission of my blog. It is not without method or rigour. On occasions (dare I say) I may be wrong. However, when I challenge or provoke I do so after a lot of thought and supported by a lot of facts, and with many years of experience behind me. My goal is essentially simple; to fill with analysis and strategy the expanding gap between the abstractions into which government is retreating and the very different reality on the ground which real people see daily. In other words, I am trying to do what too many think-tanks now fail to do too often.

Implicit in this creeping vine of intellectual entanglement is a wider risk – the more sensitive the issue the greater the pressure for self-censorship driven on by the political correctness that now oozes from every fissure in political London. Of course, one must at all times be sensitive to the impact of ideas and words and I am acutely so. However, that must not stop free thought.

The ‘offending’ blog seems to have been “The Great Immigration Disaster” in which I analysed official figures and considered the impact on Britain’s social infrastructure from uncontrolled immigration. The fact is that Britain is my country and the pace and scale of immigration as confirmed by the official figures and the changes it implies for Britain – both positive and negative - represent one of the most profound and indeed strategic changes to British society ever seen. Thus, I have every right to consider it.

And yet here’s the rub; very few beyond the far Left or far Right are brave enough these days to consider this vital issue. This conspiracy of silence, which is not limited to immigration, reflects a lack of leadership at the very top – both on the Left and Right. It is a failure of leadership itself fuelled by fear and narrow political calculation that opens the way for the politics of hate.

The simple fact is that politicians are scared of dealing with difficult issues for which they have few or no solutions and their fellow-travellers in the think-tanks too often validate rather than challenge this. Cosy elites are always dangerous, but when free thought is either co-opted or simply quashed then there is something profoundly wrong.

Such insecurity also reveals a dangerous vulnerability at the heart of Britain’s elite. The British people still hang on to the now out-dated belief that Whitehall remains capable of dealing with all issues and establishing sound strategy as a result. In fact, the more sensitive the issue the more likely it is that Whitehall avoids it; and the more likely that think-tanks will take their cue from government.

The bottom-line is this; Whitehall’s inability to confront profound and sensitive issues explains why Britain is incapable of establishing sound strategy. The job of think-tanks therefore is to truly challenge orthodoxy, not to ratify it. And that means more than empty marketing slogans that appeal to government and corporate sponsors. All that does is to legitimise the group-think that inevitably leads to failure.

The alternative to moral courage? I see it here every day in the Netherlands the politics of which is dominated by a right-wing populist Geert Wilders. All he has done has filled the vacuum created by the failure of the intellectual class to challenge the governing class on issues of fundamental importance to society and the state.

The world is a safer place when think-tanks think, not merely pander. So, rest assured; I will not stop blogging, the views expressed herein are entirely my own, I will not mince my words and I will confront all and any issue I deem to be of strategic importance.

Oh, and I have also removed the offending affiliation. Their loss!

Julian Lindley-French

Thank You, Royal Wootton Bassett

Alphen, the Netherlands. 1 September, 2011. Every now and then politics is full of painful symmetries. Today saw the start of the long-heralded cuts in personnel of the British armed forces. Some 22,000 posts will be cut over the next four years with more possible on top. This represents over 10% of the force, with more likely to come.

Last night the people of a small, dignified Wiltshire town turned out for the last time in Sunset Service to mark their role in respecting Britain’s fallen soldiers. Since April 2007 Wootton Bassett has paid its respects to 345 fallen servicemen and women who have passed through the town on the return of their bodies from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Some 2,000 people turned out on 18 August to pay silent tribute to Lt Daniel Clack of the 1st Battalion, The Rifles; the last body of a serving British soldier to be repatriated via neighbouring RAF Lyneham which will shortly close due to the cuts. Henceforth, Britain’s dead will return via RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire where the town of Carterton will take up the vigil.

The town’s mayor, Paul Heaphy, said last night that the service was the “last full measure of devotion” to those who had died.

In June President Obama said the people of Wootton Bassett marked the “best of British character”. From this October the title Royal Wootton Bassett is to be conferred upon the town by Her Majesty the Queen as a mark of royal respect. Yesterday the Union Flag was lowered one last time before being taken to the memorial garden at Brize Norton.

The wife of one servicemen when asked about the cuts said, “I don’t believe Mt Cameron and those involved in making the decision to cut the Armed Forces are fully aware of the true cost and impact that the stroke of their pens will have on those who served them so proudly”. I am sure the people of Wootton Bassett are, as are the rest of us who think about these things. But that is perhaps for another day.

Thank you, Royal Wootton Bassett. You are indeed the best of British; already royal to my mind in both spirit and generosity.

Julian Lindley-French

The Worst Journey in the World

Alphen, The Netherlands. 31 August, 2011. Seventy years ago this day the first Arctic Convoy set off from Scotland en route to Murmansk in Northern Russia. Between August 1941 and May 1945, 78 convoys comprising some 1400 merchant ships completed what Winston Churchill called, “the worst journey in the world” to deliver vital war supplies to Soviet Russia under a lend-lease agreement with the United Kingdom and United States.

The convoys were escorted by the ships of the Royal Navy, supported by units of the Royal Canadian and US navies. Over that period 85 merchant ships were sunk by enemy action, together with 2 Royal Navy cruisers, 6 destroyers and 8 other escort ships. Sinking was almost certainly fatal as life expectancy in the freezing waters of the Norwegian Sea and the Arctic Ocean amounted to a few minutes at best.

Operating under constant threat of air and U-boat attack from occupied Norway the convoys had to operate either in perpetual dark or perpetual light. Moreover, severe weather, fog, strong currents and the mixing of warm and cold waters not only made the use of ASDIC (sonar) difficult, but also greatly complicated convoy cohesion.

Keeping ships together was vital. In July 1942 convoy PQ17 suffered the worst losses of any convoy in World War Two. Fatally, following constant attacks by air and the threat from the German fast battleship Tirpitz (sister ship of the Bismarck), the convoy was ordered to scatter. Only 11 out of 35 ships made it to Archangelsk on Russia’s Arctic coast.

Hitler deemed the convoys to be of such strategic importance that intense efforts were made by the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine to disrupt them, but at an enormous cost to both services. On December 26, 1943 Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser, flying his flag in the battleship HMS Duke of York and supported by the cruisers HMS Belfast, HMS Jamaica, HMS Norfolk and HMS Sheffield, trapped and sank the German battle-cruiser Scharnhorst by employing for the first time radar-controlled gunnery. In the Arctic twilight Duke of York straddled Scharnhorst with the first salvo from her 14 inch guns. On 12 November 1944 32 Royal Air Force Lancasters from Nos 9 and 617 (Dambusters) squadrons dropped the massive Tallboy bombs on the Tirpitz as she sat in Norway's Tromso Fjord. She rolled over and sank within minutes. In all the Germans lost 2 battleships, 3 destroyers and some 30 U-boats in addition to many aircraft.

The convoys provided essential support to a hard-pressed Soviet Union, particularly during the siege of Leningrad in 1941 and 1942 by delivering critical food and ammunition supplies. As the war moved towards its conclusion the Soviets insisted the convoys continue, mainly for symbolic reasons. In the end the Arctic Convoys proved a decisive victory for the Allies, but at an enormous cost in lives and ships.

Vital to that success was ULTRA intelligence gained as a result of the cracking of the German Enigma code at Bletchley Park in southern England. This enabled the Royal Navy not only to make the best use of its forces, but also provided the forewarning to route convoys around U-boat wolf packs and German surface raiders.

Seventy years on from what was an epic struggle which claimed the lives of thousands of men on both sides it is right that we pause and remember their sacrifice.

Julian Lindley-French

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli?

“At the very time that Rome burned, he mounted his private stage and, reflecting present disasters in ancient calamities, sang about the destruction of Troy”. Tacitus on Nero

Alphen, The Netherlands. 29 August. Writing in Time.com Professor Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center in Washington gave me a bit of a kicking following my blog “Well Done, NATO”. I had suggested that NATO, the EU and its member-nations endeavour to support Libya’s National Transitional Council with the stabilisation and reconstruction of Libya. Gordon rather forcibly objected, citing failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is nothing wrong with that. I like a good Yank-Yorkshire punch-up. It moves the debate forward.  "What on earth are we thinking?" Gordon thundered.  Here is what I am thinking.

Now, before I am deemed to have offended the entire US Marine Corps – never a good idea - my use of the first line from the Marine Hymn is not a slur on them. Indeed, I have nothing but respect for the Corps. What concerns me is the apparent loss of America’s strategic mojo. Which brings me to my main concern; America’s is catching the European disease; ignoring threat because it is too expensive. If that is the case then American leadership is over and with it NATO.  And I for one am not (yet) prepared to accept that.

Gordon paints a picture of another Iraq and/or Afghanistan with tens if not hundreds of thousands of Western troops sent to Libya to fail to rebuild yet another Arab/Muslim country. I suppose it is a natural reaction to a decade of American and European strategic incompetence and growing American and European isolationism. Frankly, Iraq/Afghanistan fatigue has wreaked havoc with our strategic self-assurance. Gordon’s Hobson choice is thus; either flood Libya with ‘our’ troops, or do nothing.

I reject that choice. First, his suggestion that we the West have learnt nothing about stabilisation and reconstruction after ten years of faking it, botching it and generally making a mess is bogus. We have indeed learnt two rather important things: 1) that the outcome will never be Switzerland (Europeans never believed in that any way); and 2) if we do use what now constitutes the world’s leading pool of military and civilian stabilisation and reconstruction expertise it should only be in support of a government in transition...and with a reasonable hope of achieving it.

And here's the crux; Libya is also neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. Libyan human leadership capital is far better than that of either Iraq or Afghanistan. There is a middle class unlike in Afghanistan where it had been destroyed by the Soviets. Sectarianism of the sort we saw in Iraq is far less of a factor. Libya’s infrastructure has suffered far less damage than that suffered by Afghanistan and Iraq and with high-grade oil Libya can afford its own future.

Nor can we dither.  There is a power vacuum developing in Tripoli and it is vital we help the moderates on the National Transitional Council prevail. Not by sending huge numbers of Western forces, although the EU’s mythical humanitarian force needs to be stood up urgently. Rather, by patient support over key areas of governance and transition. Yes, a stabilisation force is indeed needed but one drawn from all countries in the International Contact Group (and beyond) and legitimised by UN mandate.

This is the crunch moment. The residents of Tripoli, which with Benghazi is the key to power in Libya are already complaining of a lack of life essentials – food, water, power supplies. The coming battle for Sirte, the last real stronghold of Gaddafi loyalists is likely to take place only because negotiations with the National Transition Council are failing against a backdrop of the very reprisal killings I warned about a week ago. The Berber minority have walked out of talks about future governance because a relatively small number of Islamists are now pushing for Sharia Law to be the law of the land,

The West therefore needs to use its expertise cleverly. Indeed, having paid such a high price to gain such expertise it would be a shame that that our collective strategic depression is leading to failure of both nerve and vision. Much of this expertise far from being a monstrous regiment can mainly be found amongst civilians in the public and private sectors, which Gordon Adam rather peevishly calls the providers of good will, advisers of merit and profit seekers. That is simply not fair.

And, I did indeed make the point that the Libyans must always be in the lead and a partnership established early and modestly to establish key needs and advice. The British are working with the Council to achive precisely that. But then again we are not American so anything we do does not count.

The bottom line is this; the southernmost tip of NATO/EU is only 294kms/182 miles from Tripoli.

The alternative is to do nothing and fiddle whilst Libya burns. How many refugees now crowd the shores of Lampedusa on their way to the rest of Europe? Expect a few more.

“From the Halls of Montezuma, to the Shores of Tripoli?” I wonder, Gordon.

Julian Lindley-French

The Great Immigration Disaster

Alphen, The Netherlands. August 26. I have just returned from a shopping expedition to Breda, the nearest town of significance to my home. I spoke to someone in a shop who asked me a really strange question. “Are you English?” he said. To which I of course replied yes. He then asked me if I was really 100% English. Apart from finding this somewhat intrusive – not untypically Dutch, I said yes. “You are a dying breed”, he ventured. Maybe not, but the latest statistics from the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that in 2010 hyper-immigration into Britain continued unabated.

Britain is now heading rapidly towards a population of 70 million. It is a figure the islands simply cannot sustain. As such hyper-immigration now represents an existential threat to British society, culture and social infrastructure. The Whitehall Village is again failing the British people in a critical area whilst trying to impose silence on the people by accusing anyone brave enough to raise this critical issue of racism. It is not racist to express concerns about one of the most pressing challenges of the age. Common sense can no longer be suspended. As ever, I am prepared to put my head above the parapet and I am no racist. Try me!

The BBC of course covered the news in passing, preferring not to address any comment that might threaten the multicultural wonderland the BBC clearly believes in. Indeed, the BBC’s coverage of this matter stopped being objective some time ago.

Net immigration last year rose by 21% with 239,000 more people arriving in the UK than leaving. This is in itself a dangerously misleading figure for its masks the net loss of British people to the island which means the social and cultural impact is even higher than the figures suggest. The number of those emigrating last year stood at 336,000. Indeed, the ONS put long-term immigration (those coming to settle permanently) at 575,000 last year. This makes a mockery of the government’s stated intention to reduce net immigration to ‘tens of thousands’ by 2015. “Do the math”, as the Americans would say.

Now, for the sake of balance this figure could also reflect the legacy of the last Labour Government which not only lost control of Britain’s borders, but actively promoted hyper-immigration. I am prepared to give the government one more year to bring immigration under some form of control and show it has done so before I become really concerned.

Study is also a reason for much of the immigration, with some 228,000 students entering the country last year. On the one hand this is good news for Britain’s higher education sector, but many do not leave. Attempts to then enforce deportation are then blocked by the Human Rights legislation which has to all intents and purpose removed control of Britain’s borders from Whitehall. So, what do politicians do when they cannot deal with a crisis? They take their collective heads and place them collectively in the nearest deep pool of sand.

Nor is this an issue of race. The issue is mass. As I have said before, I do not care if Britons are white, black, yellow or whatever so long as they are loyal to the United Kingdom and to the values that underpin our society. As an immigrant myself here in the Netherlands my first duty is to the Dutch state, its people and its laws. This is something I take very seriously. Evidence in the UK would suggest that the obsession with multiculturalism is leading to a new phenomenon – British citizens who are loyal to another country.

What is particularly worrying is the marked increase of the number of immigrants from the so-called A8 countries in Eastern Europe. Again, I visit these countries a lot and they are full of hard-working, great people. However, the numbers coming to live permanently in the UK has increased from 5,000 in 2009 to 39,000 in 2010. Sadly, much are going straight onto welfare dependency or doing the kinds of jobs that would start Britain’s unemployed youth on the career ladder. As of August 2011 there are some 1 million 16-24 year old NEETs in Britain – not in education, employment or training. There are also some 43,000 claimants of British social security now living in Warsaw.

Immigration Minister Damian Green gave the usual limp-wristed response that EU laws prevent the government managing reciprocal, intra-EU migration. Well, sorry, but the migration is not reciprocal – it is all one way. I am all for managed migration, but that is the point – it is not managed. If this trend continues then London must begin to consider suspending EU treaties so that it can regain control of British borders.

The British people of all colours and creeds are rightly fed up with the failure of the Whitehall Village to regain control of hyper-immigration. It is a failure of politics, a failure of will and failure of management. Above all, it is failure of leadership. This leaves me with the most profound of concerns about the future of my country. It is so, so sad.

Get a grip, London!

Julian Lindley-French

Well Done, NATO!

Alphen, the Netherlands. 25 August. NATO will soon suspend Operation Unified Protector over Libya. Nigh on ten years after 9/11 and after a gruelling decade of controversy and division the Alliance can finally chalk up an unequivocal success. The new regime in Tripoli simply would not have succeeded in toppling Gaddafi without NATO’s support and I for one wish to congratulate the Secretary-General, the North Atlantic Council and Admiral Stavridis, the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and his team for their leadership. This is the kind of positive change that can be achieved when the Alliance simply gets on with succeeding.

Back in April I was very critical of the communique that came out of NATO’s Berlin meeting. It smacked of the diplomatic double speak that has too often been NATO’s norm of late with member nations offering full support…but. Having written extensively for the Atlantic Council of the United States on last year’s Strategic Concept I am also acutely aware of the many challenges that lie ahead for the Alliance, from anaemic or declining defence budgets, ageing militaries, a lack of strategic purpose and a bureaucracy badly in need of reform.

However, what has impressed me has been the extent to which the nations put aside their many differences after Berlin, avoided public controversy over who does what and quietly got on with the mission in hand. Of course, the usual suspects were to the fore – America, Britain and France – but that is what they do. Equally, the relationship between London, Paris and Washington was probably as close during this crisis as at any time prior to the 1956 Suez Crisis. Does this auger well for the future?

What has also been encouraging and I must say vaguely surprising has been the active support of some of the smaller countries, most notably Belgium, Denmark and Norway. They have all done their bit with combat missions as well as offering other forms of support. For once NATO planned around the problems rather than planned straight into them.

So, what now? Well, in the immediate future the political opportunity afforded by NATO’s support for the new Libyan Government must be fully exploited. If for once transition can take place successfully then all the depressing news that too often emerges from Kabul will at least be balanced.

Therefore, subject to the formal invitation of the new authorities in Tripoli, the Alliance should be preparing now to offer to the Libyans its huge expertise in stabilisation and reconstruction gained these ten years past.

If possible that support should be offered in conjunction with the European Union. If ever there was a moment for the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) to play a vital role in offering humanitarian aid and assistance it is now. No more prevarication please. Suffering must be alleviated and political reconciliation given a proper framework for action. A joint EU-NATO mission could also play a vital role in disarmament, de-mobilisation and rehabilitation (DDR) of all armed groups and militias, as well the integration of opposition groups with the former military to create a new Libyan National Army. This will require in and of itself expertise covering democratic control over armed forces (DCAF). Here again, both the Union and the Alliance preferably in partnership could provide a service of immeasurable and incalculable importance to and for Libya’s future stability.

There are wider implications. The very modesty with which NATO approached its task has been impressive. There has been little political tub-thumping. It is thus just plausible that a real opportunity now exists to offer a new model of support for transition across the Middle East. Handled with due sensitivity a wholly new pattern of relations could be established with close and important neighbours for the decade ahead. But again, modesty please.  The relationships established with both the Arab League and the African Union must be deepened.

And what of the future? Libya is living proof that the mantra of 2010 NATO Strategic Concept, “Active Engagement: Modern Defence” has meaning. However, this moment will pass soon and the political momentum and unity of effort and purpose generated by this success must thus be grasped. Indeed, Libya has demonstrated that in spite of the doom and gloom of these austerity years a NATO that gets its act together and uses its immense power intelligently affords the planet no more positive a force.

Next May NATO’s Chicago Summit will take place on the eve of an American presidential election. This entails both a problem and an opportunity. It will be a problem in that Americans will be otherwise engaged. But the political climate afforded by this success will also be an opportunity to take forward NATO’s three strategic themes for this first post-911 decade; modernised collective defence, effective crisis management and credible co-operative security.

Libya is proof of an Arab world beginning to move beyond 911 and escape the clutches of Al Qaeda's gruesome medievalism.  The next month will be one of pain for the American and other people as we all remember our victims, both civilian and military.  In time maybe just maybe what is happening today in Libya might just move all of us towards a more hopeful future and NATO played its role in that. 

As Churchill once said about a battle not so very far from Libya.  This may not be the end, or even the beginning of the end, but it is at least the end of the beginning.

Well done, NATO!

Julian Lindley-French

Pom Power! A Cricketing Power Parable for the Twenty-First Century?

Alphen, the Netherlands. 23 August. Good news! Yesterday, at 1658 hours the England cricket team dismissed the last batsman of the Indian cricket team to replace India as the number one cricket team in the world at the very zenith of the world’s most played sport. The natural order of things has been restored. For the uninitiated amongst you – Americans - cricket is the world’s most noble and fascinating of sports. It requires far more guile than the glorified rounders that I used to play at school as a ten year old – baseball. And, lasting five days per match, cricket demands far more stamina than the armoured interruption to US television commercials that is American football. And by the way, a cricket ball is bloody hard – I can testify to that.

Perhaps England’s crushing 4-0 series victory is also a bit of a parable for power in the twenty-first century. The West routinely oscillates between exaggerating its power and a kind of collective power-depression. We in the West also routinely exaggerate the power of the new kids on the eastern block, so as to make our depression seem more comforting. Decline is inevitable we are told by the defeatist Establishment.

No it is not! The much-hyped Indian cricket team proved weak and irresolute, whilst the English team determined, ruthless and organised. Much has been exaggeratedly made of the Asian century. Sure Asia is emerging but as events in Libya over the past few days have demonstrated the old West can still pack a punch.

The best news of all? The hitherto rather smug and irritating Australians were also stuffed by England recently…and in Australia too. This is known down under as Pom Power!

What’s more their team is rubbish! They lost again yesterday – to Sri Lanka.

G’day to yer, mate!

Julian Lindley-French