Beware the alliance which is exclusive

This may look like nothing more than conservative efficiency in action but it carries with it the great dangers which led to the 1914 - 1918 Great War.

... a Defence Ministry source told Reuters that Britain might cancel one or both of its planned new aircraft carriers to cut costs, though there were no plans to scale back the country's nuclear deterrent.

The proposal involving France would make it easier for Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers under construction, the Times said.

The newspaper said the proposal would ensure that one of three ships -- one French and two British -- would always patrol the seas.

"Using each other's carriers would require decisions to be made at the strategic level so that national aims on any given operation would be the same," the naval source was quoted as saying.

That may sound eminently logical but it puts a great many things at risk. For one thing, it means that the foreign policy of both countries has to be identical. Aircraft carriers have only had one good war - the 2nd World War, and then we can divide that to two different roles. In the Pacific they were both the projection of tactical power and the defence of the fleet logistics train which ranged across the World's largest ocean. In the Atlantic they were, with exceptions, employed in an expanding defensive role.

Since then, they have been expensive and difficult to defend targets. They do well in an escalating diplomatic environment, but the survivability of such a large warship requiring so many layers of defence has been the subject of many debates. Even in the Falklands conflict the post-mortem of that action has raised a question which I have never heard answered properly: "Would it have been easier and more effective to take and defend an island airfield?"

But this really isn't about aircraft carriers. This is about forming one of those back door alliances which eventually result in a euchre.

We already know how a major collective alliance responds to an unexpected call to arms. When the United States was attacked, not by a nation state, but by a group of ideological whackjobs the US invoked a chapter 5 response from NATO. Every member of NATO nodded in the affirmative. Most then sat back and watched. An alliance structured to deal with a single threat, the Soviet Union, was not prepared to shift the focus to another and perhaps more ominous threat. If it wasn't T-72 tanks crossing the German plains then it made no sense - and it wasn't their problem.

Time wore on that alliance. It became clear that the machinations of the George W. Bush administration were not consistent with the intended purpose of the NATO alliance. Bush's insistence on the requirement to invade Iraq put NATO in a spot. Afghanistan - maybe; Iraq - not part of the program.

I think I can safely say that if any country other than the United States, especially when it was led by Cheney and Bush, had been similarly attacked, that country would have considered the attack an issue they would have had to deal with independently.

Britain never invoked the NATO response when dealing with the IRA.

The problem with strategic alliances, such as the British and French are considering is the deal. They make one, based on today's known threats and then it gets pulled into action for some reason altogether different from the original intention. Unless the British and French intend to pursue an identical foreign policy, they will have different strategic objectives. That's fine, but to commit each others' force projection platforms is little more than hiring expensive mercenaries.

Where's the morality?

There isn't any. It has the potential, based on historical proof, to draw a country into a war it did not want.

It was little back door alliances like the one apparently bubbling up between Britain and France which helped accelerate the rush into the Great War. It all started with saving money and moved to government led calls to patriotic nationalism. It was a militarism promoted by governments which could not afford it.

And there's no saying what will happen to second-rate powers like Canada in this. With a war junkie like Harper in charge it puts us in a position of thoughtless commitment of forces to an already lost effort. Keep in mind, Harper was more than a little adamant that Canada should have committed troops and resources to the Bush invasion of Iraq. He never once questioned Bush directly on why he was doing it. He simply sucked up the falsified information and went op-ed. It doesn't matter that he has subsequently suggested that his mindless intransigence would have been a mistake. We already know that, and if he'd been the prime minister of the day, we would have just now been withdrawing our surviving troops from the bloody occupation of a country which had attacked nobody and had threatened nobody with anything but empty words.

The results of war are unpredictable at best. Both sides are out to win - at all costs. Committing one's forces as a strategic resource to another nation's strategic objectives is dangerous - and as mindlessly stupid as the Triple Entente.

The French are pissed-off, too

AP – Continental employees of the Clairoix tire plant, northern France, burn tires

YAHOO NEWS HAS A PIECE FROM AP NEWS, by Emma Vandore. Apparently, French workers burnt tires, and held a 3M manager hostage because they're angry about bonuses, too.

PARIS – French workers burned tires, marched on the presidential palace and held a manager of U.S. manufacturer 3M hostage Wednesday as anger mounted over job cuts and executive bonuses.

The euro 3.2 million ($4.3 million) exit bonus paid to the former head of Valeo SA, an auto parts maker that received state aid, has fueled outrage in France. Controversy also grew Wednesday over bonuses at brokerage company Cheuvreux, a unit of a French bank that got state handouts.

"The risks of repercussions of ill-feeling from employees and from a political backlash are real if execs continue to be compensated at pre-crisis levels," said Cubillas Ding, a senior analyst at financial research firm Celent. "Bonus and pay cuts are now seen as the politically correct thing to do."

Rising public outrage at employers has led to kidnappings, marches and strikes in France, a country with a long tradition of labor unrest.

The French send a message to Sarkozy...

And it's not "we love you". Nicolas Sarkozy's conservative Union for Popular Movement (UMP) is taking something of a beating in local French elections:

President Nicolas Sarkozy's camp suffered setbacks in several large cities in round one of French local elections Sunday, dealing a fresh blow to the right-winger whose popularity has plummeted since his triumphant election last year. Exit polls showed the opposition Socialists well-placed to score big gains over Sarkozy's Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), in next Sunday's decisive second round of a vote cast as a referendum on his presidency.

Nationwide, the Socialists took an estimated 47.5 percent of the vote, well ahead of the UMP and its allies on 40 percent, according to a CSA survey. Turnout was high, estimated at between 68 and 70.5 percent.

Socialist leader Francois Hollande said voters had sent "a warning to the president of the republic and the government on the policies conducted over the past nine months."

Local elections rarely have an effect on federal policies in France, however the loss of support in major cities is being treated as something of a referendum on Sarkozy's performance and popularity.

The Socialists were on course to keep hold of Paris and cemented their grip on France's third city Lyon -- claiming victory in round one -- as well as the northern capital Lille.

Exit polls showed the left-wing party dethroning the UMP in the northwestern cities of Rouen and Caen and the southern city of Rodez.

Right-wing former prime minister Alain Juppe held on to the southwestern wine capital Bordeaux, winning reelection in the first round.

But the Socialists appeared well-placed to seize the eastern capital Strasbourg -- one of three key trophies up for grabs along with the second city Marseille on the Mediterrean and southwestern Toulouse.

Both southern cities were headed for a close-fought second round between the right-wing incumbents and left-wing challengers.

The symbolic loss of one or more major city would further hurt Sarkozy's reputation and undermine his ability to plough ahead with wide-ranging reforms.

Sarkozy has been accused in the French media of being distracted by... his wife.

The president's divorce from his second wife Cecilia, followed by a jet-setting romance and swift marriage to supermodel and singer Carla Bruni, gave many voters the impression he was neglecting his promises to boost incomes and rein in the cost of living.

The Socialists accuse Sarkozy of hobnobbing with the rich and famous while drawing up a painful austerity plan for ordinary folk, which the government denies.

France wasn't the only country to reject a right-wing agenda. Spain held elections today too.

Got your reality right here, MacKay. The four French options.

The Harperites motion to extend the Afghanistan mission to 2011 may well be moot. Already Peter Van Loan has stated that the 2011 date is simply a point on the calendar and not a definitive withdrawal date for Canadian troops. There is every possibility that it could be extended beyond that. At least as far as the Conservatives are concerned.

They may soon have to tackle reality.

The Harperites are pinning their Afghanistan policy on the Manley Report and the recommendation that Canada's continued involvement in the Kanadahar region be contingent upon NATO providing 1000 additional troops to supplement the existing Canadian force of approximately 2500 troops.

No matter how you read that, Manley and the Conservatives are calling for a troop escalation. Given that we are being told by the Harper government how much progress is being made in Afghanistan, the demand for a 40 percent increase in the number of combat troops suggests something altogether different.

MacKay came out of Vilnius with cheery news that France was considering sending 700 troops to serve in the Canadian sector. Not that 1000 troops is likely to make much of a difference, but 700 is not 1000.

And then there is what is actually happening in France. It seems Nicolas Sarkozy has not only not made up his mind, but his military commanders are surveying four different possible deployments for those troops. From Le Figaro:

Quatre options sont actuellement en préparation sous la houlette des hauts responsables militaires et diplomatiques. La première resterait centrée sur la région de Kaboul où est actuellement basé le gros des troupes (quelque 2 000 hommes au total). À la grande satisfaction de ses alliés, Paris déploie désormais des équipes d'instructeurs (Operationnal Mentor and Liaison Team, OMLT), intégrées au sein d'unités afghanes. Quatre de ces «omelettes», comme on les surnomme, sont d'ores et déjà opérationnelles sur le terrain, y compris dans les zones de combat. Une cinquième sera déployée dans le courant de l'année. Mais Paris est appelé à faire davantage. Une deuxième option serait un déploiement dans la région «Sud», autour de Kandahar. Paris y maintient déjà six avions (3 Rafale et 3 Mirage 2000D) et 200 hommes.

Les Canadiens, qui ont déjà eu près de 80 tués, ont indiqué qu'ils retireraient de Kandahar leurs 2500 soldats si l'Otan ne déployait pas un millier d'hommes supplémentaires. La semaine dernière, la presse canadienne évoquait le chiffre de 700 Français transférés vers le Sud. Une troisième option consisterait à envoyer des renforts français à l'ouest, dans la province du Helmand et vers la frontière iranienne.

Des régions livrées aux chefs de guerre, aux bandes criminelles et aux cultivateurs de pavot. La Force internationale d'assistance à la sécurité (Isaf), avec ses 43 000 soldats de 40 pays, n'y est pas présente. Enfin, la dernière hypothèse viserait à dépêcher des troupes à l'Est, autre zone «chaude» de l'Afghanistan, proche des régions tribales du Waziristan où les djihadistes évoluent comme des poissons dans l'eau.

For those needing a translation, the gist of Le Figaro's report goes like this:

- There are four possible options for the deployment of the French battalion being studied by France's military headquarters and senior foreign affairs officials.

- The first option is to focus on the Kabul area and reinforce the 2000 strong French army force there. The French run four Operational Mentor and Liaison teams, (which they call an "omlette"), and feel they need to generate more.

- The second option is to deploy the 700 man force to the south to assist the Canadians in Kandahar. The report mentions that the Canadian press had made the first mention of 700 French troops going to Kandahar.

- The third option is to send French troops into the western area of Helmand province, in an area where ISAF has no presence, near the Iran border and with the mission to deal with war lords and criminal gangs in the border region.

- The fourth option would be to dispatch the French battalion to the east, another "hot" area of Afghanistan, on the border of Waziristan where jihadists "surface and move like fish in water".

Of those four missions being studied by the French, the Kandahar option doesn't look to have any greater imperative than any of the others.

Even if France does opt to send its troops to Kandahar to escalate the ground combat force in that area, the man who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Dan McNeill, feels the number of troops being offered, indeed the entire force on the ground is woefully inadequate.

In Afghanistan, the population is “estimated to be perhaps as much as 3 million more than Iraq, yet we have, in trying to operate in a counterinsurgency environment, only a fraction of the force that the coalition has in Iraq,” General McNeill added. “So there’s no question it’s an under-resourced force.”

General McNeill said that if the official American military counterinsurgency doctrine were applied to Afghanistan, then well over 400,000 allied and Afghan security troops would be required. He acknowledged the impossibility of fielding a force of that size.

That's not just counter-insurgency doctrine, that's just plain common sense. If you want to win any military action you employ overwhelming force. Either that or be prepared to chip away at the beast for a lifetime with little real chance of success.

And the impossibility of fielding that size of force has a lot to do with the fact that most countries just aren't into this operation. That, by the way, includes Canada. We get a lot of rhetoric and jingoistic crap out of the Harper and Bush governments but if they really meant it they would both take the kind of action Eric Margolis is suggesting.

If impassioned claims by U.S. and Canadian politicians that the little Afghanistan war must by won at all costs, then why don't they stop orating, impose conscription, and send 400,000 soldiers, including their own sons, to fight in Afghanistan?

Of course they won't. They prefer to waste their own soldiers, and grind up Afghanistan, rather than admit this war against 40 million Pashtun tribesmen was a terrible mistake that will only get worse.

On the other hand, if the commitment to Afghanistan extends past 2011 as a combat mission that will make it half again as long as Canada's involvement in the 2nd World War.

How long does MacKay think he can keep feeding a volunteer force into a war without end?

You played it for Steve, now play it for Petey.

This looks like another piece of kabuki theatre.

France is considering sending a new contingent of soldiers to the volatile southern regions of Afghanistan in a bid to appease Canada.

The country already had planned to send more troops to Afghanistan, and on Thursday, French Defence Minister Herve Morin said he would be willing to have those troops stationed in the south, where Canadians are currently working alongside British, American and Dutch soldiers.

"I said we would help the Canadians," Morin told reporters in Vilnius, Lithuania, where NATO defence ministers are meeting to discuss the mission.

This is after weepy Petey MacKay had come out saying that he didn't have a single commitment from one country and might have to "cobble together" several smaller commitments from several different countries.

Repeating words he learned from US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, he warned of NATO becoming a two-tier organization.

Before all the conservative drum-thumpers start cheering and spitting half-chewed cheese puffs all over the basement furniture, they need to examine this a little more carefully.

Morin implored Canadians to wait on making a decision. He noted final details about France's troop increase would be presented at a later date by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"Be patient," he said.

A Canadian delegation is travelling to Paris Friday to talk to French officials about the troops, CBC News has learned. It is not clear how many soldiers France will be sending, although some reports have suggested 700.

In fact, based on French army information, it had already planned to send a 700 man paratroop battalion which is presently a part of the NATO strategic reserve force. Sarkozy announced that possibility back in December, so this is not new information. Given that the majority of the current French contingent in Afghanistan of 1900 troops is located in Kabul, there was always a plan to send them into a different area and the south was the obvious destination.

The problem is, of course, 700 troops is 300 shy of the Manley Report requirement which the Harperites are waving around as some form of final strategy document to save the world. That means Harper needs to bleed out 300 more troops from somewhere. You can bet that is what Harper's early week phone call to Nicolas Sarkozy was all about and you can put good solid money down that the announcement heard today was already decided before MacKay ever arrived in Vilnius.

What we're getting out of MacKay, as he wipes the sweat from his brow, is a performance which makes him look like a hard-nosed negotiator beating down allies and getting his way.

Don't step in that.

Now, I suppose you're wondering where the extra 300 are coming from. Say hello to the US Marine Corps. If France follows through and sends the battalion they are suggesting they might, the US is planning on a "short rotation" of US Marines to bolster the entire mission. I would bet a big bunch of clam shells that if the French contingent is short, Gates will promise a Marine detachment to Kandahar to make up the difference.

All of this is being slapped together in enough of a hurry to allow Harper to avoid the messy detail in any confidence motion which would see it die before a vote. Without those 1000 extra troops, committed for the same length of time as the extension of the mission he is seeking, he cannot accuse the opposition of killing the Afghanistan expedition.

Did I say, for the same length of time as the extension of the mission?

Yes. Because unless that is the commitment from other countries, Canada ends up right back in the same situation six months after the additional troops arrive.

Further, the Manley Report provided a fairly useless identification of air requirements. While it was watered-down the commanders of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are actually insisting that the infantry force become a fully air-mobile organization. The reason for that is fairly obvious. It is the infantry footprint which is killing Canadian troops. Most are being killed and wounded by land mines and roadside bombs. They need to get off the roads.

As an additional note, Cheryl picked up on a statement made by Conservative MP Betty Hinton. Hinton stated that if Canada pulled out of Kandahar there would be a genocide. Given that Hinton in her entire term as an MP has never had an independent thought, you can count on hearing that again. It's a Conservative talking point.

H/T Holly Stick in comments.