Eric Morse and Eugene Lang have their doubts:

…Small, relatively prosperous, yet ethnically and religiously divided, this West African country with one principal export (cocoa) already has 9,000 UN peacekeepers on the ground, one of the UN’s largest operations. Gbagbo [still claiming to be president after an election the UN says he lost] faces both an international and African community united in outrage against his intransigence.

It should be a recipe for successful international action to remove him.

Instead, the aftermath of the election is turning into a prolonged standoff, a test of the relevance of the UN…

As for the UN, Gbagbo has thumbed his nose at New York, demanding peacekeepers leave the country. Although the UN is steadfastly refusing to retreat, the Security Council peacekeeping mandate does not extend to active military intervention in a political confrontation.

It’s unlikely Gbagbo will go anywhere he’s not forced to go, and that is the nub of the issue: How do you get rid of a despot who shows no sign of moving, and has a significant armed force at his disposal?…

That leaves the possibility of armed intervention. ECOWAS has had a fairly respectable record with this in neighbouring Sierra Leone and Liberia, but Ivory Coast is something else again. Gbagbo’s forces are capable of strong resistance if they are so minded.

Unless Gbagbo is persuaded it is in his self-interest to quit, the possibility of either a prolonged standoff or a bloody civil conflict or both is uncomfortably real. The international community has expressed its will and may be close to finding out that it has no realistic way to impose it, despite having thousands of UN troops on the ground. That would highlight the impotence of the UN as an entity capable of forging the political consensus for a military intervention, much less actually organizing an effective on-the-ground effort. And if civil war, genocide or crimes against humanity occur in Ivory Coast following the failure of the international community to force Gbagbo out, you can effectively say goodbye to the lofty and idealistic UN doctrine of Responsibility to Protect [see "There’s a responsibility to protect us from Pink Lloyd and Soft Rock"]…

It might well take the military efforts of France — the former colonial power that still has troops in the region and has a record of intervening in African hot spots — to save the UN’s bacon and restore something resembling democracy to Ivory Coast. France has said it won’t do it but in the end it may not have much choice. Wouldn’t that be ironic?

Eugene Lang, former chief of staff to two Liberal ministers of national defence, is co-author of The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar. Eric Morse is a former Canadian diplomat who is now vice-chair of security studies at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto.

Meanwhile, in the same edition of the Ottawa Citizen, pernicious Prof. Michael Byers reveals a sweet stink of hypocrisy:

…
Canadians can help…by demanding that Ottawa support a UN-authorized military intervention by ECOWAS…

But why not simply have the Security Council give the UN peacekeepers already there (and reinforce them if necessary) a more robust mandate rather than outsourcing the job?

After all Mr Byers has not approved of the Security Council’s outsourcing (more here) the job in Afstan to NATO:

…Prof. Byers believes that “it’s time to move from a combat-oriented approach to one that focuses on negotiation, peacemaking and nation-building. … It’s time to move NATO troops out, and UN peacekeepers in.”..

So the Security Council’s outsourcing military intervention is a Good Thing in Ivory Coast but a Bad Thing in Afstan. UN peacekeepers are all that’s needed in the latter but not in the former.

Huh?

Update: A version of this post is at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds Blog.

Mark
Ottawa

…from the French:

[more here on the Mistral class]…

Since 2006 our government has delivered squat in terms of new Navy ships (see here for the sorry story of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship, and here for the now-abandoned fairly honking Joint Support Ship).  Mainly because it, like all Canadian governments, insists our Navy’s vessels be built in Canada.  Fie!

Update remark: Politics, politics, all is politics.

Upperdate: A version of this post is at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds Blog.

Mark
Ottawa

Chaos! From Roger Cohen in the NY Times on the European travel catastrophe:

Snow! Hit the Panic Button
…
Add to that dismal stew a pinch of global warming, which some people, including Matthews [British Airports Authority chief executive], apparently took to mean the end of European winters, and you end up with the current farce. Europe, thy name is pitiful…

Apparently, if you don’t want to blame greed or the cuts or Matthews or the breakdown of the French state, you can blame the North Atlantic oscillation. That, for the uninitiated, is the difference of atmospheric pressure at sea level between the Icelandic low and the Azores high. When the difference is low, Arctic air penetrates Europe. That happened a lot in the 1960s. Now it’s happening again.

This, according to some, is the result of global warming. So if all else fails, blame global warming for the freeze…

Now for some British understatement:

…
Passengers may experience delays and cancellations due to adverse weather conditions at airports across Europe. Select the relevant airport below to find out the latest situation:

Heathrow Airport Stansted Airport

Glasgow Airport Edinburgh Airport

Aberdeen Airport Southampton Airport

…

Earlier:

I’m dreaming of a white…

…kingdom…

Today across the Channel:

Paris Charles de Gaulle terminal evacuated due to snow on roof

And two days hence in the UK?

Boxing Day travellers could be disrupted by heavy snow
…

…

Update: Guess who’s involved in the profit-making at Heathrow?

…
Matthews…[is] running a vital British public service, which remains, despite BAA’s forced sale of some of its airports, a kind of monopoly – there are other London airports, but there’s only one Heathrow. At the same time he isn’t running it for its users, the passengers and airlines. He’s running it for its shareholders – Ferrovial is the majority owner, the government of Singapore and the Quebec pension fund are the others…

And it ain’t just Québec involved with British airports:

…the C$100bn (€73.7bn) Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has stakes in both Birmingham and Bristol airports…

A fellow Canadian fund, the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, owns 26% of BAA, the UK airports operator that runs Heathrow…

Mark
Ottawa

Senior serving British officers certainly are much more open and frank than ours:

Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, commander of the RAF’s No 1 Group, which controls all Britain’s fast jet combat aircraft, said that Britain was likely to end up with only six fighter and bomber squadrons, half its current number.

He warned: “That might not be quite enough.”

Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell’s remarks, in a briefing last week to Defense News, a trade journal, are among the most outspoken by any senior RAF commander.

He warned that even the reductions that have been publicly announced — from 12 fast-jet squadrons to eight — would leave the RAF only “just about” able to do its current tasks, with no leeway for the unexpected…

In the medium-term, over the next seven to 10 years, Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell said, the RAF “will be a six-squadron world; that’s what’s on the books”. He said he expected there to be five squadrons of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and just one of the Harrier’s long-term replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter. “I expect a single [JSF] squadron in 2020 and that’s it,” he said [more on the UK's F-35 plans here, plus the RAF's giving up aerial maritime patrol].

Asked whether this left the RAF on the same level as Belgium, he replied: “I think we’re slightly above Belgium, and we are not a Belgium-minded country.”

He added: “I might, over the next few years, argue that that might not be quite enough.” As recently as the 1990s the RAF had 30 front-line fast-jet squadrons [emphasis added]…

An RAF comprising six fast-jet squadrons would be smaller than at any point since its foundation in 1918. It would take British combat air power back to the pre-RAF days of the Royal Flying Corps.

Belgium no longer has a stand-alone air force, but an “air component”, with five fast-jet squadrons. In squadron terms the RAF of 2020 will be only slightly larger, but will still have significantly more aircraft, with an estimated minimum of 135 fast jets to Belgium’s 70.

Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell said that one way around the shortages was to collaborate more with the French [emphasis added, more here: "Good froggies!"].

“It looks like we are going to twin 3 Squadron [a Typhoon squadron] with one of the [French] Rafale [fighter-bomber] squadrons. I’ll make a prediction we will have British officers flying Rafale from a carrier within a few years. I’m quite sure of it.”..

Meanwhile:

U.K. Harrier’s Farewell
…

(All Pictures: UK MOD Crown Copyright 2010)
[Note the snow.]

Earlier on the Harrier:

Harrier’s last sea jump

By the way, the Canadian Air Force has two operational fast air squadrons (CF-18 Hornet “gun squadrons”): 409 at Cold Lake, Alberta, and 425 at Bagotville, Quebec.

The Royal Navy, for its part, is also fading fairly fast:

The Royal Navy’s new flagship is a ferry…

Lots more here on the recent UK big defence cuts.

Update: A pilot from 425 Squadron is flying Tornados in Afstan on exchange with the RAF (via Milnews.ca and the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs).

Upperdate: A version of this post is at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds Blog.

Mark
Ottawa

When the Brits decide you’re for the high jump, the axe falls brutally fast (for aerial maritime patrol too, see end of post).  Photos:

Harrier GR9′s Last Launch
…

I’ve always found the plane strangely beautiful, and well remember its critical role (an earlier version) in the Falklands.

Lots more on the UK’s defence budget slicing here:

UK: How many F-35s? Who knows? But fewer/Defence reviews/Canadian Update

By the way, the RAF is also getting out of the maritime patrol business, rather amazing for an island(s) country’s air force. I doubt Canada could go so far (turn the mission over to the US? no way in this country, though the Brits seem willing to rely a lot on the French–see preceding link, more here). But there is an idea for reducing our Air Force’s requirements for that mission at this post:

…Civilian maritime patrol Uppestdate

Mark
Ottawa

From The Economist on the British/French defence pact:

…
Divided we fall
Britain and France need each other to continue as great(ish) powers

…most of the objections raised seem either ignorant or anachronistic. Even before France rejoined NATO’s integrated military structure last year, British and French forces had frequently worked and fought together under the command of one or other country. With the exception of the Iraq controversy, the two have rarely found themselves on opposite sides during recent international crises. For example, Britain’s defence secretary during the Falklands war, John Nott, revealed in his memoirs that France had been Britain’s staunchest ally, providing information that helped to render the Exocet anti-ship missiles used by Argentina ineffective, and supplying Mirage and Super-Etendard fighters for British Harrier pilots to pit themselves against in training…

But this table is rather sad, from the Royal Navy point of view in particular:

Mark
Ottawa

Earlier:

Revolting British admirals, generals and air marshals (and the F-35)/Only 40 F-35s Upperdate?

The Brits had been planning to buy 138 F-35Bs, the short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) version (our government is commited to buying the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing version). The UK government has now announced the results of its Strategic Defense and Security Review (MoD news release here, full text here). A decision on the size of the F-35 fleet has been deferred for some time but it appears clear the total buy will be reduced, probably considerably, since only one of the Royal Navy’s new carriers will eventually field the aircraft, not both as originally planned. And the carrier F-35C version will be acquired instead of the F-35B, none of which will now be bought (see also Part Two, pp. 23, 26 of the “Review”):

…the government has decided to reduce its F-35 buy. Britain also will shift its carrier-based version to the F-35C, away from the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing B system. How many Lockheed Martin F-35s will be bought…remains to be sorted out. A defense official says those decisions may await the next defense review in five years time, leaving a lot of uncertainty over the program…

On the aircraft carrier side, the HMS Prince of Wales will be modified to allow operations of the F-35C, designed specifically for carrier-based operations…The carrier will be fielded four years later than planned, around 2020, when the aircraft also are slated to arrive. The HMS Queen Elizabeth will be held in reserve and may be sold, leaving the U.K. with a single carrier force in the future…

More:

…One of the carriers will be designed to operate with 12 of Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter planes.

“The single carrier will routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater than the existing Harriers,” the review document said…

That leaves the US Marine Corps as the only buyer of the F-35B, looks like they’re planning on 262 operational aircraft. In any event that pool of international JSF sales, from which our government hopes the Canadian aviation industry will make out like bandits, is starting to shrink.

The British review is far more comprehensive, detailed and specific–in terms of what things the government intends that its military services be capable of doing, and of what personnel levels, as well as types and numbers of equipment, are needed to do them–than anything you’ll see from this or any likely future Canadian government.  A previous post:

The Canadian Forces, war present, and future?

By the way, the UK is planning to acquire an ice patrol ship (p. 21 of “Review”). Somehow I don’t think we’ll be able to sell them the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships intended for our Navy, whenever we get around to building them.

Update: Round-up piece from Defense Industry Daily:

Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets

Upperdate thought: With the loss of the 138 F-35Bs planned for the Brits, the cost of the ones the USMC is to buy will certainly go up, perhaps substantially. One wonders how many the Marines will get in the end [Oct. 25: more here on the Marines and the F-35B, and on the Marines' future generally].

Uppestdate thought: And, heavens to Betsy Ross, depending on the F-35C’s testing progress and eventual cost, might the UK’s sole carrier end up with Super Hornets?  The US Navy will still be buying them for a while to come (Oct. 21: Lockheed Martin’s competitors are sniffing wider opportunities). Or, gasp!, maybe the navalized Rafale? Interoperability!  Une entente aérienne!

After all there have been suggestions of increased Anglo-French naval cooperation. Meanwhile, here’s a quick but substantial US reaction to the British defence cuts.

Beyond Uppestdate: Post is in the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:

…
Canadian Commentary
…
Mark Collins — Unambiguously Ambidextrous
How many F-35s?…

Mark
Ottawa

It stikes me as odd that a govenment that will not consider participating in North American ballistic missile defence may now agree to a European system (maybe it’s just that no-one in this country has bothered to notice).  Previously, at Daimnation! in 2006:

The defence that dare not speak its name [links now gone poof!]

There seems to be an an odd disconnect with reality here:

“Harper deflects talk of missile-defence shield”

“Nato warms to plan for defence shield”

“Joint missile defence plan for US & Japan”

What a political reality of pure fantasy the Conservative government is forced to work within.

Then in 2008:

Missile Defence: Good for Europe, bad for Canada

I wonder when the NDP and Liberals will scream bloody murder; Canadians now seem to be…

…in the curious situation of opting into a missile defence system to protect Europe, after having opted out of one to protect their own country…

The latest:

NATO Endorses Europe Missile Shield…

Yesterday:

NATO near adoption of U.S. missile shield

BRUSSELS – U.S. and NATO officials said Thursday that they expect the military alliance to formally participate in the Obama administration’s plan for a missile defense shield over Europe, scheduled to be activated next year.

“Based on today’s discussion, I am quite optimistic,” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters after a joint meeting of foreign and defense ministers from the alliance membership. “There is, I think, a broad agreement that we should make such a decision, but there is still some technical work to do.”

NATO is scheduled to vote at a summit in Lisbon next month on whether to make missile defense a formal part of its mission. If it does, European alliance members would plug their individual defense systems into a broader missile shield that the Obama administration is building to guard against potential attacks from Iran.

The United States would foot most of the bill for building and operating the shield over Europe. The combined cost for other NATO members to link into the system is projected to be about $200 million over 10 years, Rasmussen said [will Canada be contributing?].

Although U.S. and NATO officials said they are close to a consensus on missile defense, there are still hurdles to overcome…

Obama announced in September 2009 that he was overhauling the Bush administration’s plans for missile defense in Europe. Although Obama had previously expressed skepticism of Bush’s approach, he directed the Pentagon to build a more extensive and flexible missile shield for Europe that will be built in phases between now and 2020.

That Democratic Nobel Peace Prize winner in more gung ho on missile defence than our prime minister. Who’d a thunk that?

Update: French in:

France backs European missile shield

Mark
Ottawa

The chatter is heating up:

U.S. Uses Attacks to Nudge Taliban Toward a Deal

U.S. Encourages Afghan-Led Taliban Talks

Push on Talks With Taliban Confirmed by NATO Officials

Head of Afghan peace council says Taliban is ready to talk

Meanwhile (top story), whilst our government holds firm on the CF’s leaving, not even a non-combat training mission:

Dutch open to Afghan return

The new prime minister of the Netherlands has opened the door to a return of Dutch military personnel to Afghanistan, saying his government would consider a Nato request to provide police training forces “as soon as possible”.

Mark Rutte, of the Liberal VVD party, stressed on his first day in office that “the Netherlands has always shouldered its international responsibilities in the past and will continue to do so in the years ahead”…

People close to the new coalition government said a consensus existed about contributing forces to Nato’s efforts to bolster Afghan police forces but that neither the timing nor the nature of the assistance was yet clear…

Other countries:

Afstan: Italy plans to leave by 2014/Fighters may start bombing/German combat Update/French progress Upperdate

So Canada may be the only ISAF country to bug out completely in 2011. Nice.

Update: It’s all about “asset optimization”:

Canada starts planning for Afghanistan withdrawal

Mark
Ottawa

Still three years after Canada (the Brits plan to be out by 2015 but only “based on success on the ground”):

Franco Frattini, Italy’s foreign minister said its 3,400 troops will have left the country by 2014.

The Italian decision follows the withdrawal of Dutch troops earlier this year and the Canadian decision to leave next year, as commanders struggle to sure up an alliance which is still short of troops…

…summer 2011 for the start of a gradual drawdown of troops, with the intention of completing it by 2014,” he told an Italian newspaper.

Barack Obama’s announcement that American troops will also begin returning in July 2011 has been criticised for giving the Taliban hope they can simply wait for Nato to leave.

The Nato mission is still short of several hundred soldiers to train the Afghan forces [more here, no help to be expected from our government] supposed to replace them and Nato officials have been trying to persuade alliance members to stop announcing withdrawal dates.

And in the meantime the Italians are considering getting more aerially robust than us–our government has never even been willing to deploy our CF-18s:

Italy considers bombings after Afghan deaths

The defence minister said Sunday that he is considering authorizing bombings by Italian fighter jets in Afghanistan if Parliament backs the decision following the killing of four soldiers there.

Minister Ignazio La Russa told Sky TG24 TV Sunday that while Italy’s participation in the NATO mission in Afghanistan can’t change “from one day to the other,” its fighter jets must be able to bomb if necessary.

La Russa has withheld permission for aerial bombings in order to avoid mistakenly killing innocent civilians.

Four Italian soldiers died Saturday in a bomb and shooting attack on a convoy…

Update: Germans fighting in the north–in self-defence:

The Battle of Shahabuddin
Under Fire in Afghanistan’s Baghlan Province

One German officer fights the Taliban alongside Afghan soldiers he can’t always count on, risking his life for a peace few Germans believe is possible. Germans have seen the largest battles since World War II in Baghlan Province, and their leader is more optimistic than most about the war…

…
“I look the Afghans in the eyes every day. We have taken on a responsibility here,” says Andritzky, who has grown a beard for the mission. The Afghans like it, he says. He wears a checkered scarf around his neck, a gift from an Afghan soldier. “We can’t let the Afghans down, or else it’ll all have been in vain [emphasis added].”..

More on the north at the second part of this post.

Upperdate: The French, who do have a combat role, may be making progress:

FORWARD OPERATING BASE TORA, Afghanistan — Just east of Kabul lies a stark mountain moonscape that for centuries was home to gunmen who preyed on travelers and harassed invaders in the narrow mountain passes. As recently as last year, ambushes of NATO troops were not uncommon.

Now, the French soldiers responsible for the area say they believe that the situation has calmed so much that by next summer or even earlier, they would be comfortable handing primary responsibility for this district, Sarobi, in eastern Kabul Province, to Afghan troops.

“Of course this is a political decision, but the district of Sarobi could be transferred to Afghan control not later than the summer of 2011; I think even by February it could be ready,” said Brig. Gen. Pierre Chavancy, the commander of Task Force Lafayette [actually La Fayette], the French brigade in Afghanistan with 2,500 soldiers…

The French battalion commander in charge of Sarobi, Col. Jerome Goisque, whose Forward Operating Base Tora looks out across the mountains and whose soldiers patrol its valleys, is more reserved. He said it would probably not be possible for a foreign civilian to travel on the roads. “It is quiet, but sometimes you have ambushes or exchanges of fire,” he said. “But if we were not there it would be worse.”..

Naturally we see nothing about the Italians, Germans or French in our blinkered major media.

Mark
Ottawa