Modern warfare: Drones and society

Perhaps the toughest decision any leader can undertake is the prospect of declaring war. A leader must be confident enough to believe their convictions that war is the only answer. It cannot be taken likely. War is bloody. War is miserable. War is expensive. All focus tends to be displayed on whether it is necessary. A short and decisive victory can elevate a leader into the people’s hearts. Yet a war that is bloody and sluggish can signal the end of a government. Countless leaders have ridden the polls of popularity after victory; whereas countless more have fallen upon defeat. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz said that “War is an extension of politics by other means”, and even to this day wars are resolved by political leaders and diplomats, not soldiers. War is constructed through a political and moral lens. Is an invasion illegal? Could it have international consequences? Is it affordable? These are all questions asked before a potential conflict may ensue. Yet few people actually ask militarily what war means.

The apparatus of war has evolved over the centuries. From formations of soldiers across Great Plains, ready to duel on horseback to the use of cruise missiles in the Gulf wars. As the size of armies has grown and the weapons became more mechanised, it created units dedicated to medical and logistics. The advances in communications and intelligence have allowed armies to operate at greater distance and with more efficiency. No longer do generals lead from the front but can be stationed hundreds of miles away. These advances have not only changed the way wars are fought but increasingly how wars are won. Up until the mid twentieth century, victories were determined by the capitulation of an army or the capture of the enemy’s major city. Today’s technological wars are fought within smaller warzones; requiring fewer frontline troops but retaining devastating fire power.

The increasing use of unmanned drone aircraft is systematic of this change. Even at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion in 2003, drones were small reconnaissance probes that scoured for intelligence. Now, they are much bigger and armed with missiles to target and kill any threat. Controlled from thousands of miles away in a military base in Nevada, operators are engaged in a form of virtual war as they hunt enemies around the world. In late 2011, the American born Islamist militant, Anwar Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone in Yemen to little news coverage. In fact, the use of drones over North-West Pakistan, killing an unknown number of militants and civilians, has caused America less trouble diplomatically than the raid carried out by US Navy SEALS that killed Osama bin Laden.

Wars that are unseen are perhaps more conducive for a government and military. Compare the news coverage of assassinations of Iranian nuclear physicists by foreign agents (possibly Mossad) and the computer virus that has caused havoc to Iranian nuclear enrichment plants (CIA, GCHQ) to NATO’s role in Libya. It is unsurprising that governments are investing heavily in their secret services and Special Forces, moving away from the traditional spheres of warfare.

All the while, Western societies are increasingly subscribing to a post-militaristic view. As fewer families are affected by war, they are moving away from the ideas of associated with the army. Civilians do not accept the idea of a soldier dying for the good of the mission. Soldiers are ends in themselves, not means of the Army. The use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) has made this war more vivid, particularly with a greater number of survivors and a modern media to convey their story. Although every death is tragic, it neglects the fact that soldiers sign up knowing they could possibly die. In World War One, on average 559 British soldiers died per day (886,939 in total), In Afghanistan, a war that began in 2001 has so far killed 398 soldiers. It highlights the point.

All wars are demanding on all constituents: politicians, the military and ordinary citizens. Although wars will be fought on different lines, it will continue to ask the same questions as before.

Capello: England's most successful manager

Yesterday's departure of the England manager Fabio Capello was greeted with both shock and hope in the football world. The Italian resigned from his position after he disagreed with the Football Association’s decision to strip England captain John Terry of the armband.

Terry, who was stripped of the armband previously, is alleged to have made racist comments towards the QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. The events have led to a court case that will be heard after this summer’s European Championships. The FA felt that an internal inquiry could affect civic justice and therefore decided to act to remove the captaincy so it did not become an issue during the tournament. However, Capello made his anger known on Italian TV believed that sporting justice should be served. The clash between the FA and Capello has now seen the Italian go just six months before the England team head to Poland and Ukraine.

On the same day, Tottenham Hotspurs manager Harry Redknapp was cleared of all charges relating to a tax evasion charge. Currently as the most successful English manager, fans, players and ex-professionals are all now calling for Harry to take charge. But will it really mean anything?

Harry Redknapp is an excellent football manager and has a proven record in the English Premier League. Most recently, he led Tottenham to the quarter finals of the Champions League and won the FA Cup with Portsmouth in 2008. Yet, the mysticism of him being English does not conceal the truth.

Capello, with a win percentage of 67 per cent is England’s most successful manager. Even the World Cup winner Alf Ramsey only managed 60 per cent. Capello took over a team that had failed to qualify for the 2008 European Championships and managed to re-establish them as one of Europe’s best. In the qualifications for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, England only lost once to Ukraine, in a game when qualification was already confirmed (plus England’s goalkeeper was sent off). More surprisingly, under Capello England have scored more goals, winning the average game by 1.5 goals.

His record in South Africa was not ideal and as many believe it is where he should have been judged. England was knocked out in the second round after losing comprehensively to Germany 4-1 in Bloemfontein. Capello admitted there were faults in the set up, yet people forget England regularly disappoint in summer tournaments. Not only did he have to contend with injuries to defenders Rio Ferdinand, Ledley King and a half fit Wayne Rooney. But like all other England managers, he took a burnt out squad, tired from a Premier League campaign. Capello became a national scapegoat.

Yet Capello is a winner. As both a player and manager he has had success wherever he has gone. Results was his only interest. He was paid £6 million a year to win trophies, he wasn't paid to help create a new generation of coaches or change English football's set up. When he failed on the pitch, it created a perception that he wasn't interested. The FA, with a new chairman and known to change managers frequently, believed the project must end. Who knows what they believe.

Whoever takes over the England job will go into the tournament feeling confident. Yet, whoever it is: Redknapp, Pearce, Neville; expect to see the same result both on and off the pitch. 

Bankers' Bonuses: A sensible policy.

The question surrounding bankers’ bonuses continues to dominate political debates. Fred Goodwin, the disgraced former Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), joined an unflattering list of people, including Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe, to have their Knighthoods stripped. His successor, Stephen Hester, also succumb to growing public and political pressure by waiving his annual bonus.

Goodwin, who oversaw the flawed takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro, was made to resign after the UK government were forced to rescue RBS with a bailout package worth in the region of £45 billion. In 2009, RBS went on to report the biggest loss in UK corporate history totalling £24 billion. Goodwin, meanwhile, left with a pension pot worth in the region of £703,000 a year. Hester his replacement, by all accounts a good manager, has had to oversee massive changes in the organisation and deal with plenty of criticism as he has put to task. The UK government still owns 81 per cent of RBS shares.

Bankers are still not popular in the UK after the financial crisis in 2008, and despite the curbs on pay and apologies from bosses, financial regulation and policy is still an affliction on government policy, particularly bonuses. As the public sector endures a pay freeze and high inflation, it would be difficult for a government to be seen endorsing bonuses to a bank which is owned by the public.

Last year, the Chief Executive of Barclays Bob Diamond, once called the ‘unacceptable face of banking’ by the former Labour Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, told members of the House of Commons Treasury Committee that the period of remorse and apology for banks needed to end. Diamond, who received a £6.5 million bonus in 2010, believed the language being used on British financial institutions was unfair and could have an adverse impact on future regulation. The Barclays chief, aware of the public mood, introduced a new ethics code for misbehaving or ostentatious bankers.

Bob Diamond

The government has been unable to counter the venomous attacks from the media and its ability to generate campaigns. The Daily Mail’s front page targeted ‘Sir Fred’ day after day and then subsequently Hester. The Transport Secretary Justine Greening was forced to be seen to prevent Network Rail chiefs from taking their annual bonuses too.

Perhaps this is where the Conservative party is getting into trouble. It is too keen to submit in what is developing into a shotgun democracy. It wants to protect the City but it doesn’t want to be seen as protective of bankers. The Labour Party, who can still form no sensible policy or opinion of their own, continues to flip flop on the spur of public opinion. They are more content on trying to target left-leaning Liberal Democrats and splitting the coalition. Their agenda is fast becoming one of envy and class, yet the Tories retreat from any form of debate. Most people agree that it was correct to strip Goodwin of his Knighthood, but the hysteria is spiralling out of control.

This is fast damaging London’s reputation. The RBS Chairman Sir Philip Hampton said that bankers’ pay is something that needs reforming but it would require an overview of how we want to the City to work. If the 50p higher rate of tax on highest earners remains in place until the next election, London and the UK could potentially become an economically and politically ugly place to do business. It is a question that government must answer sensibly and putting business and jobs first. Otherwise, bonus season will become a never ending carousel for government.

A gay footballer?

The fight to combat discrimination in British football has made impressive inroads over the past twenty years. In the 1970s and 1980s, black footballers were ritually taunted by the crowds with malicious and demeaning attacks. The audible echoes of monkey chants and communal throwing of bananas on the pitch were common features of league matches. The former Crystal Palace manager Ron Noades once commented that black players were needed for their “skill and flair” but white players were needed as they brought “brains and common sense” to a team. Yet British football has moved on and the national side has done much to promote the anti-racism message. In fact, when England players have suffered abuse in Europe, it came to deem racism as unpatriotic and something we no longer did. British football is aware of its ugly history and cherishes how far the game has moved on. The high profile cases of Chelsea captain John Terry and Liverpool striker Luis Suarez, though shameful, highlights how infrequent these events are.

There are still instances of hate crime on the terraces, but many songs by fans are jovial. Welsh sides are besieged by chants of sodomising sheep, whilst Manchester United fans lionise their South Korean midfielder Ji-Sung Park with the song:

“Park, Park, wherever you may be, you eat dogs in your home country. You could be worse; you could be Scouse, eating rats in your council house!” – (Music – Lord of the Dance)

It does ask a question, that as the Premier League has become more cosmopolitan and diverse, both players and fans, why no footballer has yet to come out as gay.

There are believed to be around half a million professional footballers in the world and of them, only one has officially declared his homosexuality. Be it, Anton Hysen, an obscure Swedish player .Yet, the remainder stay quiet. Why?

In a recent study of fans, 90 per cent said that sexuality is irrelevant. What mattered to them was the performance on the pitch. There are examples of other sportsmen who have ‘come out’ and it appears not to have affected them. The England cricketer Steve Davies, Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas and the former NBA player John Amaechi, all announced their sexuality. Similarly to football, basketball had no openly gay athletes so Amaechi, who decided to publish it through his autobiography, generated interest from the America media and from many of his fellow professionals.

Perhaps the legacy of England’s only gay footballer still haunts such players. Justin Fashanu, Britain’s first black £1 million player, voluntarily announced his homosexuality to The Sun in 1990; though many feel he was forced into it. It was apparently well known by his fellow professionals and his disapproving manager at Nottingham Forest, Brian Clough. Fashanu committed suicide in 1997 after allegations of sexual indecency in the US, though many believe the abuse he suffered during his playing days was a contributory factor.

Graeme Le Saux, the former Chelsea and England defender, endured years of homophobic taunting from fans and players, even though he wasn’t gay. On one occasion the Liverpool forward Robbie Fowler made a sexual suggestion to him on the pitch. Le Saux believed he got stick because he read The Guardian. From Le Saux’s account it emerges that ‘homophobic banter’ is widespread in the dressing rooms. Reaction to John Amaechi’s announcement was met with different responses in the NBA. Tim Hardaway said that he would want the player removed from his team. Charles Barkley didn’t see it as an issue. Whereas, Steven Hunter didn’t mind, as long as he didn’t make any advances.

The Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) has launched a new campaign to highlight homosexuality in football, but it was only in 2010 when a similar scheme was withdrawn at the last minute. Agents and publicists have apparently advised footballers to refrain from outing themselves as it could have an adverse impact on their playing and marketing capabilities. To them football is still in the dark ages.

Historically, football evolved from the Victorian era as a tool for sexual restraint. Unlike rugby, where touching is part of the game, football represented a code of masculinity. Weakness was a sign of effeminacy. Hence, when footballers are called ‘poofs’ it is more subjective at a person’s weakness rather than their sexuality. Yet, this mentality has encroached throughout the whole sport. England defenders Ashley Cole and Sol Campbell are still ridiculed by opposition fans by stories that cannot be corroborated.

The fear from the terrace and the dressing room appear to be the stumbling block. Though, like the racism campaign, it will be interesting what happens on the day someone comes out.

Mitt Romney: A rock and a hard place.

Mitt Romney is now confidently sauntering towards the Republican Presidential nomination as he comfortably beat his nearest and fiercest opponent Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary. Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, appeared last week to be making a serious challenge after winning the South Carolina primary. However, a series of setbacks including some effective negative advertising campaigns has seriously undermined his bid to challenge Barack Obama for the Presidency in November. The other candidates Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both failed to make double digits.

The results reflected the amount of money spent on campaigning. Both Santorum and Paul spent nothing in Florida taking fewer than 350,000 votes. According to CNN, Romney outspent Gingrich by 5-1 and crucially takes all 50 votes from the Florida delegates.

After his victory Romney reflected that he hoped to return to Tampa in August to be officially confirmed as Republican Presidential nominee. Perhaps most importantly, he added that he hoped that it will be a time for all Republicans to reunite behind him.

This is where the issue lies. At his State of the Union address, President Obama set out his agenda on how the election will be fought: fairness. He believes that the positioning of the Republican delegates places his party in a better position to speak to ordinary Americans.

We have already discovered that Romney pays 13.9% income tax on over $21 million whereas Gingrich received a $1.6 million advisory fee from the insolvent mortgage lender Freddie Mac. It is a tactic that may easily play into the hands of Mr Obama, who will also be glad to see a growing economy and lowering unemployment. A few months ago, Republicans were certain Obama would be a one-term president, now they're not so sure.

The ultimate problem for the party is that they still have an identity crisis. Similar to the Left in Britain, there is still an ongoing argument on where the party should be positioned. This was reflected in the votes, where four out of ten Florida voters thought Romney was not conservative enough (Washington Post). Much of the debates are dominated by issues regarding immigration and ‘European-style socialism’. Although no Tea Party backed candidate is running, their spirit is evident.

Yet it would be unwise to pander to such ideologies. Nearly 40 per cent of Americans declared themselves to be independent voters and many of the issues raised by Tea Party members do not function in the day-to-day lives of ordinary Americans. It could be a vote loser.

Romney will most likely win. His message is more consistent, he is better organised, he looks more like a leader; but it may not be enough to take him to the White House. If not, then what do the Republicans do?