Obama's Drones of War

The rise of the drone is one of the most significant developments in modern military history

On Thursday 23^rdof May 2013 President Barack Obama of the United States stood at the National Defence University and delivered what is likely to be the most important foreign policy speech of his career. In it he set out the path of the United States’ battle against terrorism for the years to come, formalising policies which have shaped the transformation from the Bush doctrine to the Obama doctrine of war. This article is a breakdown of his new policies.

In it he explained the world the US faces in its potentially endless struggle against radical terrorism, a world which was thrown into stark relief by the events which shaped his predecessor’s career. From 9/11 the US was faced with a new kind of war it had not encountered before, “as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning.”

The events of that day did not only shape the career of Bush, but also that of his successor. Obama inherited the War on Terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would go on to throw himself into these conflicts perhaps even more aggressively than Bush. He carried out Bush’s planned withdrawal from Iraq and set down the timeline of withdrawal from Afghanistan, but boots on the ground is just one facet of the conflict which has unfolded over the past decade.

In his speech Obama paid tribute to those soldiers who have lost their lives. “Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home.” It is this concern for the lives of soldiers both in and out of conflict which has determined the course of US foreign policy above everything else, driven by the force of public opinion which has long lost the ability to stomach further deaths on distant soils.

The past term of Obama’s leadership has reflected a strong turn away from occupying and securing whole countries to targeted surgical strikes against key figures. This is a vital change. The rhetoric of occupation and crusade has been used by terrorist leaders to recruit far greater numbers of fighters than they would otherwise have been able to achieve.

The change to targeting al-Qaeda leadership has paid dividends over the past few years, as Obama was sure to underline. Osama Bin Laden has been killed as have most of his lieutenants. The core al-Qaeda membership “spends more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against [the US].” Not a single large-scale attack against the western states has been carried out in years, and nothing close to the events of 9/11.

Al-Qaeda’s effectiveness has been eliminated. Whereas before “in the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya.” Now the core’s ability to carry out attacks has been almost completely removed.

Instead the threat now lies in domestic terrorism and isolated terrorist cells. Although Obama stressed the priority status of the danger posed by those “inspired by larger notions of violent jihad”, he also acknowledged that terrorism is not only Islamic. He noted the acts of a white supremacist and army veteran who committed a mass shooting at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, the anti-Capitalist suicide attack on an IRS building by a left-wing plane pilot, and the Oklahoma City bombings carried out by two militia-movement army veterans.

Obama also highlighted non-military efforts which would have to be set upon to reduce the threat of terrorism. He reiterated that he believed Guantanamo Bay must be closed, even after his previous efforts were blocked by congress. He set out a focused approach to engagement with domestic moderate Muslims and supplying aid to those companies struggling with poverty, starvation and conflict. He underlined how such struggles were a security risk in themselves, driving individuals towards radicalism.

It is with this background of a broad and diverse threat of terror attacks that Obama rejected the boundless “global war on terror” which was set in motion by Bush in 2001. Instead the US would embark on “a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists” with the aid of allies in the Middle East and the European Union.

The problems with such a narrow and targeted response are widespread, Obama stated that:

• Small Special Forces operations have enormous risks, the operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. It is not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us
• Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage.
• Invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. It is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.
• Allies cannot always be expected to make such attacks themselves. In the places terrorism lays roots “the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action.

With so many answers ruled out, Obama sets out the case for his new priority in the war against radical terrorism: Drones.

• Strikes are effective. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.
• America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

Drone strikes are not only effective, they are increasingly so. As their use has increased over the past decade they have become increasingly accurate and with fewer and fewer collateral deaths for every terrorist leader killed. However, the new technology is rife with issues in international law and moral considerations, considerations he has been attacked for taking into account at all (by the right) and for not prioritising above security (by the left).

Obama proceeded to perform remarkably well in answering these issues to give himself maximum flexibility with drone attacks whilst calming the worries of both sides of his opponents on those attacks.

In consolation to the left Obama pledged to only use strikes “against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat.” More importantly he underscored that “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured”. However as a caveat he noted that “to do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties... Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.” He may have been granting concessions to moral considerations, but not at the expense of his ability to attack those considered dangerous.

The President also responsed to the controversy over the killing of Anwar Awlaki, chief of external operations for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and an American citizen. Here he likewise have a two-headed response. On the one hand it would not “be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.” On the other hand “when a U.S. citizen is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.” Obama is placing focus on the fact that drone strikes are not political assassinations; they are a law-enforcing response to terror attacks no different to any other act against killers who are a present risk of causing further death to American civilians.

The big story for political groups however is the unparalleled oversight Obama is ensuring over his ability to make decisions on drone strikes. Not only will congress (including a House of Representatives presently a hostile body to the Obama administration) be constantly informed of every strike and consulted through a special committee, but this body will be able to hold direct accountability to the President through the Presidential Policy Guidance he had signed the day before.

Further Obama called on congress to sign into law a “media shield law” to guard against… himself. This law would protect journalists from any kind of legal retaliation against stories regarding drone strikes, raising these strikes to the same level as a ground invasion in public scrutiny and again underscoring that they are legitimate and legal acts, not secretive political assassinations.

With his speech Obama has pre-empted the rising debate on drone strikes as the new dominant method of his war doctrine against terrorist groups worldwide. He must still face up against foreign governments angry at the breaches of their sovereignty, right-wing conspiracy theorists determined to believe their American homes could be targeted at any time, generals concerned that their freedom to wage war is being curtailed and liberals demanding an end to what they erroneously believe to be the soulless and random bombings of civilians in Islamic lands.

Drones are, and will continue to become, the most useful tool in the battle against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. They are near-impossible to combat, they are stunningly accurate, and they can strike anywhere at any time and they bear almost no risk. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and no way of fighting back against these dots in the sky. They also negate the wave of negative public opinion which comes with deaths of soldiers fighting abroad. However, with this kind of technology comes risk of a very different sort. Drones are terrifying instruments of war, rightfully so, and Obama must be careful it is America’s enemies who are terrified and not his own people.

Domestic Radicals - The Future of Terror

Sudden, deadly and brutal. The scene of the attack at Woolwich

Yesterday’s attacks on Woolwich were the first fatal terrorist attack in Britain since the 7/7 bombings in 2005. It was only the second by Islamic militants, all others since 2000 having been carried out by the Irish Republican Army. In a country where such attacks are so rare a single death is of huge significance.

At just past 2pm a car drove onto a pavement. Two men leapt out, drawing meat cleavers, and proceeded to hack at a man who they had knocked down. The man, wearing a Help For Heroes shirt, was a serving member of the British military but was unarmed, returning to his barracks from a day out. The attack was over in moments.

But the assailants did not run, they did not proceed to attack others in the area. Instead they posed for photos and videos, calling for onlookers to see them and the result of their attack. They engaged in discussion with individuals brave enough to try and distract them should they attack again.

When the armed police arrived they charged them. They were shot and shortly later flown to hospital.

Videos and interviews leave no ambiguity as to the motivations of the attack. They shouted “Allahu Akbar” (an Arabic term meaning “God is great”) as they carried out the attack. They explained to onlookers that the killing was one of revenge against British military involvement in the Middle East, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” They apologised to women who saw the attack, allowing no men near the body, but claiming that all women had to view the same in their country.

This is not a new kind of attack. An attempt to behead a soldier in Britain in 2007 was just one of several such attacks foiled over the past decade of war in the Middle East. Nor is such a brazen attack in daylight new, Dutch playwright Theo Van Gogh was shot on his way to work in 2004 by Mohamed Bouyeri who then attempted to decapitate him in the street.

This form of spontaneous attack by domestic, untrained terrorists is in many ways an inevitable progression in the Islamist terror campaign. Since 2001 western governments have become more and more efficient at tracking down and arresting organised terrorist cells capable of larger scale attacks. Since 9/11 the most deadly attack was the 2004 Madrid train bombings, a distant second the 2005 London 7/7 attacks. The effectiveness of modern anti-terrorist organisations in the west is evident by the complete lack of major attacks in almost a decade. Despite the ever-increasing capabilities of improvised explosives and the continuing strife in the Middle East, major terrorist attacks have been foiled at almost every turn.

Counter-terrorism in the West has been stunningly effective. Part of this has been achieved abroad with the swift closing of ungoverned spaces Islamist groups use to train their terrorists. Iraq is stabilising, the Taliban of Afghanistan are being brought towards compromise, French action crippled Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb in Mali, AU forces look set to bring an end to Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan has cut the heads from the tops of many Al-Qaeda affiliates. Across the world Al-Qaeda and similar groups have never seen such a line of setbacks and defeats. Their capabilities for organising huge attacks continue to fall.

It is in this context that the Boston bombings and Woolwich murder are so significant. They are a sign of what may be the new great threat of terrorism. Not a masterful intricate plot through a world-spanning organisation orchestrated from deep in the Afghan mountains, but the sudden and brutal attack just downyour street.

Dozens such attempts at terror have been stopped by counter-terrorist groups just this decade. Small, radicalised groups who decide to strike out at the society they inhabit. Armed with anything from kitchen knives to pipe-bombs they are significantly more difficult to predict, detect and stop. The vast majority of these individuals are on the radar of security services, but it is difficult to keep track of the hundreds who would require constant surveilance to stop. The attackers at Woolwich, like the Boston bombers, were both known to the security services before the attacks.

More importantly, they are also potentially significantly more terrifying than the plots of huge foreign organisations. That a group living just down the street may at any time decide to commit murder for a religion they only encountered the year before is an extremely effective way of scaring domestic populations. Paradoxically the more organised and large-scale the plans of such a group of radicals is, the more likely they will get caught long before they can carry out their plan. That it is those who spontaneously and suddenly decide to strike out who are most likely to succeed rightfully is terrifying for any population.

These small groups of terrorists are not only difficult to detect for counter-terrorist groups, they are also very difficult to spot for society as a whole and even for Muslims they may come across. Most know nearly nothing about the religion they claim to carry out attacks for, and (unlike international groups) are motivated far more by an exaltation of violence than the creeds of a holy book. They are unlikely to attend a Mosque frequently as they are more likely to take their education in terror and ideology from radical websites and youtube videos.

This may be the future of terror. With the international organisations of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in disarray and counter-terrorist groups more efficient than ever, the threat of organised attacks is at its lowest for over a decade. However difficult to predict such small-scale attacks are, we can take small comfort in the fact that the majority are stunningly ineffective. The 2007 attempted bombings of London and Glasgow are the largest-scale of these attempts in Britain, with many attempted airline bombings on-board flights to the United States, but almost every month another group is caught having attempted to plan such an attack.

Domestic radicalised individuals who with the support of several others turned to glorify violence. Dozens of such attempted attacks have been foiled in Britain alone, often by acts of gross incompetence on the parts of the would-be-terrorists, but also testament to the competence of counter-terrorist groups.

Small-scale domestic terror may be the future of the Islamist threat to Western citizens and to their social consciousness. Preventing the radicalisation of such individuals must now be the priority of these societies, and a focus of Muslim groups who wish to shake their association to these attacks. The Muslim Council of Britain has spoken out against the attack, stating “This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family. We understand the victim is a serving member of the Armed Forces.  Muslims have long served in this country’s Armed Forces, proudly and with honour. This attack on a member of the Armed Forces is dishonourable, and no cause justifies this murder.” However, it is important to turn words into action on radicalism.

The best course is to prove that these attacks do not work, for societies to remain calm in the face of justified anger, and to not prematurely withdraw from the vital missions in unstable states that hold back the ever-present threat of far larger, far more deadly attacks from abroad. This is the course Britain is taking, and like so many such brutal attacks it has achieved the opposite of its aims. A high ranking COBRA meeting of British leaders concluded the best course was to make no change at all in response to the attack other than to caution soldiers to temporarily avoid identifying clothing in public, a policy which has since been withdrawn. Support for the military, and the veteran’s charity Help For Heroes has been so overwhelming that their website has been struggling to cope with the volume of traffic for donations.

Donations to the charity can be made in these ways (credit to the Telegraph):
- Through their website (presently down) http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/
- Texting the word "HERO" to 70900 to give £5;

- Through the website www.bmycharity.com/charities/helpforheroes
- Posting cheques or postal orders, made payable to "Help for Heroes," to Help for Heroes, Donations, 14 Parkers Close, Downton, Salisbury, SP5 3RB;
- Calling the donations team on 01725 514130. Out of hours you can leave a message and someone from the team will call you back;
- Emailing donations@helpforheroes.org.uk and leaving your contact details.

The Radicalisation of Feminism

Anger has become the primary stereotype of feminism

Feminism is one of the most important developments in modern society, and one of the most vital in the development of our democratic society. The emancipation of women is widely acknowledged as being a primary objective in developing states in order to dramatically improve their economic and political prospects and has become a key aim of the United Nations and a multitude of aid groups worldwide.

I am a proud feminist. I find the concept of the institutionalised oppression and suppression of women abhorrent. The practice of treating women as second-best to men is scientifically, economically and morally wrong. It is with this foundation, and the acknowledgement of the importance of feminism in our society, that I am so disappointed with the chaos feminism has descended into.

“Feminist” has become a dirty word. This will likely be an offensive thing to say for some, but it does not take much social observation to notice it. If someone labels themselves a feminist the resulting impression is of bitterness, over-sensitivity and hatred of people's enjoyment of life. To label someone else one tends to be based far more on the impression of a man-hating, superior, patronising and generally angry individuals. Where once it was a label of someone who simply supported equal legal and social treatment for both sexes (itself once a radical concept), it has become something far more radical than that. The radicalisation of feminism is such that both women and men who completely support equality feel the need to use qualifying phrases such as “I'm not a feminist or anything but I think women should be equal” or “I'm a feminist but not the man-hating kind”.

This development mirrors one which developed in 1950s America of an entirely different political nature. With the fall of Nazi Germany and the rise of Soviet Russia the Red Scare swept across the United States. Communism had become the great enemy. But the labelling did not stop at the door of the “C” word. The USSR was the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Socialism, with its own vital importance to the development of the modern liberal democratic state, was swept up in the fear and hate directed at the expanding wave of Communism. Even today socialism, despite its basic grounding in state provisions for the poor and equal opportunity for all, is a dirty word in American politics. Anyone on the right or centre will gladly smear anyone seen as drifting too far left with the term, as if they were Lenin come again to bring revolution and destroy private property. Socialism, despite its fairly basic and sensible foundations, was swept up in the radicalism of revolutionary communism.

It is this fate which has befallen feminism, but it is not one unique to the United States. Across the developed world the concept that is so vital for the ongoing development of the third world is under widespread attack. But what people attack is not the fundamentals of feminism itself, the concept of relegating women to second-class citizens is not one any respectable group would ever support, but instead the radical fringes which have claimed the term for themselves, and robbed it from their moderate allies.

These fringes claim that they are the only true feminists. Far more broadly than those who “only” support institutional and legal equality, they take aim at every facet of society. Their aggressive and exclusive approach to their campaign has made them a hostile movement, but in doing so has also provoked hostility in return and isolated them from the society they seek to change.

In reality, these feminists are a tiny fringe of the movement, a movement which covers most of society. However, the fundamental movement has suffered the same fate as the socialist centre-left and the religious moderates in that it has become defined by its loudest and most aggressive elements. The outrage the radical fringes express in response to almost any news story even vaguely connected to their interests has eventually developed the stereotypical image of the totalitarian Stalinist socialist, the raving new born evangelical Christian and the bitter man-hating feminist, all to the detriment of their moderate would-be allies. These stereotypes have swamped the messages of the moderate majority, to the despair of all that support them, but what pushed feminism to this point?

Feminism emerged as a term in the late nineteenth century and came to prominence in the campaigns of the suffragettes to achieve equal voting rights, the first wave of feminism. This was a wave of the institutionalisation of equality, one which gave birth to the second wave, one which took aim at the sexism inherent in western institutions. With the post war years this wave brought reproductive rights, labour rights and a huge push towards cultural and social equality.

However, what came with it, and with the third wave that followed, was a spreading front which directed its campaigns not only at concrete issues such as votes and jobs, but at society's values in general and aspects of culture far more fluid and open to interpretation. The feminist movement targeted such a broad spectrum of issues that it began to divide along lines not possible in its earliest years. As many turned to the third-wave's attack on the cultural norms of society others became "post" feminists who believed with the second-wave's main aims accomplished it was now simply a case of keeping the ball rolling.

It is the third wave which has borne fruit to the radicalism which has turned feminism into an isolated and hostile movement. This fringe, which sees itself as the only real feminists, sees the entire culture of its surroundings as hostile, and therefore is hostile in return. They claim the social construct of the patriarchy, an ultra-masculine complex of social mechanisms and norms, makes all of society take for granted male superiority over women. This almost subconscious construct has society in general acting in ways which promote the dominance of the masculine over the feminine without even realising it.

Not only is society as a whole unconsciously oppressing women, but it is doing so to everyone not rich, white, male and straight. The radicalised feminist movement has long moved on from being just about women and has taken on much of neo-marxist theories of emancipation. The theory of privilege, that the patriarchy privileges a small minority at the expense of all others, has become central to this feminist group.

I have no doubt that this article will be met with claims that in terming them "radicals" I am spreading the oppression of the patriarchy, that from my position of privilege (despite most readers having absolutely no idea as to my identity) I am waving aside oppression because I am not personally affected by it. That from my privileged pedestal of white, male, straight affluence I can no more comment on these issues than I can on the pain of childbirth or the experience of racism.

The point is that this is all completely irrelevant. I could be all or none of these things and still be perfectly able to see what has happened to the term "feminist". Doing so is as simple as asking a series of people in the street if they are feminists could achieve this. By taking aim at the whole of society around them, even those on their own side for not being quite unprivileged enough to comment, the radical feminist fringe has become isolated from the society it is so hostile towards. By claiming themselves far more worthy of the term feminist than mere supporters of legal equality, by being the loudest and most aggressive of this almost society-wide label, by turning out those of this collective who do not subscribe to their theories of an absolutely, aggressively, oppressive society that we live in, they have turned feminism into a stereotype. A stereotype of angry, bitter, man-hating, humourless women who wait for every little slip-up you might make to lash into your ignorant sexism. The kind of stereotype which leaves people uncertain whether it's acceptable to open a door for a woman or whether it can be ok to want to settle down as a stay-at-home mother.

This is not what feminism is. Feminism is one thing and one thing only at its most fundamental - no matter what sex you are you deserve to be treated equally regardless of that sex. This is not only an admirable position, it is a fundamental element of our society, that everyone should be treated equally regardless of sex, race, creed, sexuality or any number of other arbitrary divisions. That this term could be made not only to represent only a radical part of itself, but to turn its very label into a dirty word is a travesty.

The radicalisation of feminism is not unique. It has happened to every political movement that has come before or since. The most passionate, the angriest, the most radical, will always be those who to some extent define their ideology ahead of the meek and the moderate. It is long past time feminism was reclaimed by society at large, regardless of their privileges, and the people of the western world realised that feminism is in no way a dirty word. Something so simple as to turn from exclusion and aggression to inclusion and explanation could make all the difference. It is an ideology we all share, and we should all be proud to call ourselves feminists.

Equality in Marriage - Because Everyone Deserves the Right to be Unhappy

Republicans have gone from small-state to voyeur-state

This article is a guest piece from Sam Wood. He is a graduate of the University of Bristol and holds an MSc in International Secuirty

Two weeks ago two cases were brought before the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the legality of same-sex marriage. It has come to be seen as another potential landmark ruling in the Court’s history, similar to Roe vs. Wade on abortion and Brown vs. Board on segregation. As people begin to discuss the gravity of the hearing, both the Christian far-right and the pro- civil rights groups have been present and visible in front of the courthouse.

The issue of gay marriage in the 21^st Century is largely used as a distraction from pressing issues, it should be legal and we should focus our efforts on helping society in other obvious ways. In many ways however, gay marriage is an issue like other civil rights causes, with the LGBT community simply asking for equal standing before the law.

How then, would so many people appear to oppose it? The answer, in part, may lie with a small group of political ideologues that have been present in Washington for decades – the Neoconservatives. Based on the ideology of creating a true moral compass for American society, the Neoconservatives despised the moral relativism that comes with liberalism. Before 1980 Pastors and other church officials in America discouraged political engagement. In 1981, the Reagan campaign mobilised the Christian population to swing the vote overwhelmingly in Republican favour, thanks to the ideas of the Neoconservatives. What began as re-establishing a true moral compass turned ugly for the party a decade later at the Republican National Convention where speakers were booed off the stage for espousing true conservative values, such as a woman’s freedom to choose what happens to her own body.

Thus the Christianisation of freedom issues within sections of American society was the work of a small band of political theorists and policy makers. After all one of America’s founding principles was the freedom of religion, not the dictate of a sect of Christian moralists. Arguments relating to the Biblical sense of marriage, with the irksome phrase “marriage is between a man and a woman” bantered around, are often deeply flawed in themselves. Biblical marriage would also allow a man to marry several women, his rape victim, a female prisoner of war and a woman’s property, i.e her slaves. Thus, if considered properly, common law forbids many forms of Biblical marriage. It is simply an attempt to rebuff notions of equality, and a sloppy one at that.

Part of the reason for same-sex marriage becoming an issue is the culture of the 21^st Century. The exchange of private information, which many people willingly participate in, has reduced the classic sphere of private liberty. People seem too concerned with the actions of others, and too little concerned with political engagement and their own actions in society. How would two men getting married even affect most people’s lives? It wouldn't  Chances are if you hate the idea of it you won’t be attending a same sex wedding anyway. Thus it is probably down to the fact that people, millions of people, are willing to involve themselves in the personal lives of others, and then claim a breach of privacy when people examine theirs.

It is perhaps time to move beyond these arguments. Freedoms should be granted quickly so progress can be made in dealing with the massive issues of our day. Before we achieve equality in society as whole, there will be only sluggish attempts at fixing a very sick world.  

The Boomer Bust

Right now the Baby Boomers rule London, but will their policies alienate them when they move on?

As the Second World War ended there was a massive increase in birth rates across the Western Allies as soldiers returned home after six years of brutal conflict. The result was the baby boom. Stretching 18 years until 1964 it produced the largest generation in British history. Following the boom came the X-generation of disenfranchised angst who grew up to witness the fall of the Berlin Wall and finally the Echo Boom of the Millennial children of the massive Baby Boomer generation.

Given the periods of the Boomer and Millennial generations, the Boomers are now aged between 48 and 66, and are nearing the end of their working lives. Pressing against the war-era Silent generation on the one hand, and the far smaller X-generation on the other, they wield a disproportionate share of power in Britain. By contrast the next large generation, the Millennials, are generally at their broadest as aged between 12 and 30, concentrated on those coming of age into employment or university. 

Or at least, that is how the Boomers would have experienced their early 20s. They reached adulthood as the United Kingdom began to emerge from the rationing and austerity of the post-war years, into a new University system. As they emerged into employment between the 1960s and 1980s they were able to help drive the growth which would lead to the late 1990s boom, a boom they more than profited from. By 2004 the Boomers had spread their dominance in population into a dominance of economics, by 2004 they held 80% of the entire nation's wealth.

2007 was the tipping point, as the Boomers began to retire. For decades economists had predicted a huge slowdown of western economies from this point. What happened instead was the 2008 financial crisis, the turn-of-the-decade credit crunch and the ensuing Eurozone crisis. None of this can directly be tied to the existence of the Boomers themselves, but the boom they helped create through economic clout can be tied to the over-optimism and risky trading which resulted in the bubble which collapsed in 2008.

What the Boomers created until 2008 relied on their huge population and rise through a strong economic foundation. Unfortunately, as they retire, they are robbing that same opportunity of the Millennials. In 2012 even the youngest are approaching retirement, and will produce the largest welfare-dependent community that Britain has ever had to support. The ratio of workers to OAPs is projected to tumble under 3-to-1 by 2020 and the average age of the population shoot up to 40.

The denial of the Boomers as to their increasing age and looming retirement has stopped many from preparing for their retirement, which for many will last three decades. This short-sightedness also left them dragging the carpet from beneath the feet of the Millennials, burdening them with student debts totalling on average £53,400. Many more will struggle through unemployment which may well have damaged their employment prospects for years to come. As a triple-dip continues to threaten Britain many will have to turn to positions from which it will be very difficult to return to the career paths they would have enjoyed should they have been born several decades earlier. The Millennials have become the "boomerang" generation, forced to shelter beneath their Baby Boomer parents long after they would have been expected to escape into independent adulthood.

The combination of their failure to prepare to support themselves and a similar failure to equip the next large generation to support them instead is a recipe for a generation clash. The Millennial generation has been robbed of the education and employment it needs to see the prosperity their parents enjoyed, largely due to a crash that the older generation created. The Boomers not only created an economic boom, but financed their boom with mountainous debts which their children will not be willing to shoulder the burden of. Nor will the Millennials happily reach into their pockets to support a generation post-retirement who themselves took away the futures the Millennials looked upon with such hope only four years ago.

As birthrates have fallen across the western world and life expectancy have swelled, many governments have yet to fully take into account the huge strain which will fall on the shoulders of national health and social security schemes. Even now many who are retiring will spend over thirty years in retirement. By the end of this period many of them will be bound to care homes and even hospitals by chronic age-related disabilities. These hospitals are already struggling to cope, the vast majority of their services being overrun, funded by the taxes of a dwindling working population.

Though Britain will face the struggles of this emerging new demography, nowhere will this strike harder than China. The erroneous one-child policy is increasingly named the four-grandparents policy. By the height of their working careers the present millennial generation will be trying desperately to support both their parents and four grandparents through retirement single-handedly, unassisted by inadequate social security provisions. Where in Britain the change has occurred gradually, spreading the pressure over half a century, in China it will strike harder and faster. The economic crisis this will involve, which will be almost impossible to mitigate, will result in a major generational clash and economic collapse. Retirees may make China the shortest-lived superpower in history.

In Britain the Boomer boom and bust was an evidence of the live large lifestyle they enjoyed, one which also brought us the swinging sixties and the beginnings of the modern protest movement. It created the success of the western world from the ashes of the Second World War. But despite all those successes, the same ethos has robbed the futures of the generation they are hoping will support them in the post-employment world they never prepared for, futures they took away to save their own lifestyles they have yet to realise cannot survive the 2008 financial collapse. With their dramatically lower birth rates, ever-increasing years in retirement and possibly decades of healthcare dependency they are damning the Millennials to an existence of trying to fill an economic chasm left in their wake.

The bitterness this will cause, exacerbated by the betrayal many of the Millennial generation feel as their champion party, the Liberal Democrats, turned back on their tuition fee promises of the 2010 election. They feel robbed and disenfranchised, labelled as lawless and selfish after the Student Protests and the London Riots which followed.

A generation clash is coming, the Boomers have lived too large and spent too freely, as their prosperity is torn away by the financial crash and their careers coming to a close they can expect no sympathy from their bitter children. What they leave in their footsteps is the most devastating economic inheritance since the world wars, one which will shape the developed world for decades to come.

Women at War

Increasingly the taboos of sex and sexuality in the military are tumbling

In January the United States opened combat roles to women for the first time in their military history. This came under eighteen months after the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions on homosexuals policy was dropped. However there is a dramatic difference between the two changes in policy. Don't ask, don't tell was an entirely psychological restriction, so much so that a homosexual soldier could serve their lifetime in the military without any restrictions so long as they did not reveal their sexuality. Opening the field of combat to women is a very different challenge.

Many attacks on the capabilities of both homosexuals and women to serve in armed forces rely on discriminatory, out-dated and plain offensive stereotypes. Complaints that they do not have the emotional fortitude to hold up under pressure, that they are too weak to deal with the rough army lifestyle, that they ought to stick to traditional gender roles at home. Sexist prejudices have no place in serious analysis, but there remain very serious issues which must be confronted on the front-line.

• Physical limitations - This is perhaps the most significant issue with the idea of women in combat roles. There is no way to avoid the issue that women are (on the whole) significantly weaker physically than men, equality being the exception rather than the rule. This is evidenced by segregation in sports and significantly different standards in fitness tests. Men are simply designed better for combat, in fact that is one of the main ways in which they are designed. Evolution has created the capability for men to manage intense physical challenges in the form of hunting and fighting which was not developed as extensively in that of women. However there are many women (though not the majority) who can not only match their male counterparts but also exceed their abilities. The only possible way of managing this issue is gender-blind recruitment. If women are challenged to meet exactly the same standard as men in all physical challenges there can be no issue. This is the only sensible way a women-in-combat doctrine can be adopted, but could result in as few as 1% of combat forces being women.
• Women's issues - Pregnancy and menstruation are both issues in active duty, combat or not, but especially so in prolonged combat deployments. Although these issues can be mitigated, they still present an organisational issue for armed forces. 11% of women in the US military reported unplanned pregnancies in a single year, a logistics issue in itself but also a major recruitment issue, especially when dealing with individuals who may be ideologically opposed to not carrying pregnancies to term. Menstruation is also a major issue for several reasons, and something which requires careful planning not necessary for men.
• Sexual tensions - Much as it sounds juvenile, this is a very real military issue for combat units, one that featured prominently in the decision behind enforcing "don't ask, don't tell" beyond mere prejudice. Managing sexual tensions is a major issue for unit leaders, especially in an active combat environment where high-stress and violence becomes the norm. Already rape is far too frequent an occurrence in the military and many female units are limited in their co-location with male units. Considering the logistical issues with these limitations it is safe to say this is a very real problem, not an example of sexism.
• Sexism in duty - One of the often-mentioned arguments is that men developing feelings for female soldiers may place their safety above that of others or themselves. Even worse, males could compete to show-off to female soldiers. Considering the extremely close ties that soldiers develop in units and existing levels of competition it can hardly be imagined this is a real issue.
• Sexism in command - It is hardly surprising that in the old-boys club that is military officers there is likely to be some deeply entrenched sexism. However it has been shown that women actually receive more respect than their male peers for attaining the same standard, for beating the stereotypes. More concerning is the tendency of female officers to treat their same-sex subordinates far more harshly than they do men, a tendency also present in business. This tendency could very easily shut out promising female recruits who need role-models to look up to.
• Military policy - Will not change. In the slightest. There's an odd double-standard in women's rights movements that claim that women are both just as capable as men in all respects (ie. no real sex differences) and yet they can also bring something new to the table (ie. sex differences). In reality military doctrine is an ungendered practice based exclusively on pragmatism, not the masculinity of those deciding it. It is also one decided at a far higher level than combat operations, a level women have long been penetrating. It was actually the Republican Bush administration which placed emancipating women in Muslim countries centre-stage. An administration which was deeply unpopular with the female vote and included very few women.

I will not be concluding this analysis with an opinion one way or the other, as I am genuinely torn. On the one hand there should be no unsubstantiated prejudice between the sexes, women should be given every opportunity to succeed in all the same ways that men do and in every walk of life. If a woman can match or exceed the standards expected of men there should be no reason she should not succeed in any walk of life. On the other hand women in the military, and in combat roles specifically, present a major logistical, organisational, physical and psychological challenge to military forces. Much as these factors are often waved aside by equality campaigners they simply cannot be treated so flippantly. Women in combat roles is simply not an equality issue, it is a military issue. 

Much as liberal equality campaigners may wish to take their fight to the military this area should be ring-fenced. An area where the lives of soldiers fighting are at risk, in conflicts which may very well determine the fate of thousands of others, is not an area which should ever be messed with for ideological purposes. Any decision on whether or not to open the military to women, especially in combat roles, should be based purely on the very real practical concerns involved in doing so. Much as there is no room for discriminatory sexism in the armed forces based on stereotypes and prejudice, there is also no room to wave aside real sex issues for the sake of ideology. The case is still open on women at war, and it is not one which will close until the full implications of the US change in doctrine come to light.

The Burning Oil of Iraq

The oil fields of Iraq and Kuwait have still not recovered from the gulf wars

Ten years ago a "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq. The incredible campaign of shock and awe wiped out the entire Iraqi military in just six weeks and the Husseins were captured or dead within six months. Eight years ago Saddam was hung, one year ago the last trucks of the US occupation force left the country.

The invasion of Iraq was an event which still scars the political landscape across the world, whether it be the collapse of US popular support across the Arab world or the continued aversion of the west to military force without UN consent. However, the debate which still rages is the one of motive. Why did the duo of George W. Bush and Tony Blair decide to invade what was one of the regional powers of the Middle East?

The word on the edge of everyone's tongues was, and still is, oil. What other explanation could there have been? After the intelligence was discredited, after the weapons they were looking for was never found. Why else would the world superpower invade a country half way across the world which just happened to have the fourth largest oil reserves in the world.

It is a popular theory, it plays well into the idea of selfish capitalist motives for an illegal conflict, of a clique of oil barons and political leaders willing to throw away the lives of soldiers for political gain. But was oil really the reason behind the war?

The argument that it was seems to rest on a very simple line of thought. Iraq has oil - the US uses oil - therefore the US would want to take the oil. This is an argument backed by several factors, including the control of petrodollars, collusion between the government and oil companies and the nonexistence of  any weapons of mass destruction. But all of these factors have their flaws.

• Saddam was planning to shift sales for oil from US Dollars to Euros - So what? The widespread online conspiracy theory about petrodollars and how the US currency will collapse the moment oil moves to Euros makes absolutely no sense. Not only does it completely ignore that currency markets are a huge industry in themselves, but also that Iraq was a relatively low-level exporter.Crippled by rounds of sanctions, Iraqi exports in 2003 were tiny. In fact Iraq cut off its exports completely in 2002 and it had barely any effect on, well, anything. The professional opinion is that the online petrodollar conspiracy theory is no more than that.

• Removing Saddam would give the US control over Iraqi oil - It is almost universally regarded that the coalition of the willing were completely unprepared for the scale of the insurgency which erupted after the invasion, peaking in 2006/2007. Even then the damage of the war would have set back Iraqi oil supplies, already far from the largest exporter in the region even at its peak. Western powers have a long history of oil deals with dictators they do not get along with Even worse, removing Saddam would remove the US's most valuable asset as a foil to the power of Iran. Why the US would want to overthrow a government they needed to hold back Iran's influence only to take control of a relatively small state they could much more easily strike a deal with? On top of that, what guarentee is there that oil would be seized upon by the US first - The Iraqi government still controls almost all Iraqi oil, and two of the first powers to be involved indirectly are Brazil and Norway. Those are risks not even the US would take just for oil.

• Removing Saddam would open up a huge reservoir of oil supplies - Even if this were the case, it would be one of the largest backfires in warfare since the Vietnam war. Iraq oil production collapsed and the first deals were only signed half a decade after the war. Iraq oil production only recovered to pre-Gulf war levels this year, and are still half that of in 1979. Not only is a decade a hell of a long-game in both political and economic terms, but knowing full well how swiftly the Asian powers were growing the US would also have known most of the trade in oil from Iraq would flow East to China, not West. Not only that but an Iraq with such large oil exports would directly challenge the US's second most powerful regional ally - Saudi Arabia. With Saddam gone Saudi Arabia is the primary regional opponent to Iran, meaning this shift would result in a significant possible reduction in US influence in the region. The exchange of oil for influence simply is not a good enough deal for the western powers to have taken.

• There were no WMDs - This is true. However the argument is now whether this was a mistake or a conspiracy. Although there is a case that the case for WMDs was invented purely for tricking the international community and domestic audiences into supporting the war, it is not a strong one. Firstly, it is very short-sighted, as it would swiftly become evident it was made-up the moment the invasion finished, destroying the reputations of both major powers involved and set back their ability to intervene anywhere militarily significantly (which is exactly what happened). Secondly, it is not a strong excuse, as Pakistan, South Korea, Libya and South Africa all openly developed WMDs and no UN measures were granted for invading these nations. If a UN mandate was not important, why bother with the WMD excuse? Thirdly, the case that it was a genuine problem of intelligence is one that is quite strong. Even individuals against the Iraq war more frequently point to the incredible intelligence failures involved before turning to the concept of conspiracy. There were no WMDs, but it seems that a genuine belief that there were was the driving influence of the decision to go to war.

Iraq was about the oil seems like one of the most often-stated unofficial truths of international commentary, but the case simply does not stand up. That it may well have been one of the influencing factors of invasion is clear, as oil often is in most international affairs carried out in the region, but that it was the only or decisive factor is not. There are many different factors which may have contributed to the invasion in 2003. Oil may have been one. But it was not the only, nor the decisive, factor for the War in Iraq.