Useful

**cupoftea** · 10-08-2010, 00:14

Originally Posted by msr

Both examples show how far the international community is from solving a problem that in the 19th Century would have been dealt with in somewhat shorter order.

The very devil of it.

Afghanistan is one of the few places left on earth where old-school Political Officers would be able to thrive and deliver results, but short-sighted politics lurching under the weight of naiveté and obtuse social morés squashed that one flat.

We beat around the bush tactically whilst continuing to miss the point strategically.

Strategic raiding (I think Gunboat Diplomacy has more of a ring to it) only works in tandem with shrewd intelligence - the quiet Political Officer's big stick. Only he knows the real politikal fathoms and the lay of the land, and you can't 'parachute in' to the job either. It is time for our Friends to revive the political branch.

'Smart cuts' indeed, how about some 'smart usage'.

**ASICarrot** · 10-08-2010, 02:35

Rory Stewart was the closest we had in theatre to the traditional political officer (similarly he had exposure back at home outside of institutions which POs have).

That said POs only work because they were given a massive amount of local authority and a support chain back home to back that up.

It is a matter of whether or not a democratic government will have the political capital to just sign off on someone like this. The yanks tried it with the CIA in the early 60s and there was some success but epic abuse and failure.

I can see why they have not tried it since because they have never displayed a nuanced mindset for foreign policy.

We should have a punt at it though.

**cupoftea** · 10-08-2010, 02:46

Richard Holmes writes at some length about POs in Sahib. Recommended reading - as relevant to current biznai as Bugles and A Tiger by John Masters.

Especially since the locals have hardly changed.

**jonwilly** · 10-08-2010, 08:37

"Especially since the locals have hardly changed."

Yes time does have a different quality in the orient.

john

**seaweed** · 10-08-2010, 08:42

I think what has screwed the old Political Officer idea is modern communications which mean that everything and anything can be micro-managed and second-guessed from Whitehall. In the 'old' model in India in the last century men in their twenties ruled over millions. The PO or District Officer or whatever was left to get on with it because of the sheer impossibility of running the situation any other way. Ditto military commanders. Of course there was the occasional upset like Whitelock's personal initiative in invading Buenos Aires. The rot set in with railways and the Suez Canal.

**cupoftea** · 10-08-2010, 12:43

Originally Posted by seaweed

I think what has screwed the old Political Officer idea is modern communications which mean that everything and anything can be micro-managed and second-guessed from Whitehall. In the 'old' model in India in the last century men in their twenties ruled over millions. The PO or District Officer or whatever was left to get on with it because of the sheer impossibility of running the situation any other way. Ditto military commanders. Of course there was the occasional upset like Whitelock's personal initiative in invading Buenos Aires. The rot set in with railways and the Suez Canal.

Which shows the quality of the leadership. Good leaders know how to delegate. One of these days they might learn to stop this signals abuse, in the manner of a teenager learning how to drink.

**ASICarrot** · 10-08-2010, 13:14

Well I think the new lot are committed to not micromanage anywhere near as much because as Blair's sofa government showed not only does this lead to diminishing returns in efficiency of operations (military, civic, commercial) it leads to brand toxicity unlike any in political history.

The Americans still do rather will at putting someone in charge of something, they fuckit up its their fault and the administration only takes a minor hit - congressional parties tend to be completely isolated via this method.

The problem is we are no longer in charge of anything and dont have the money to fund any other adventures to prove this point.

**cupoftea** · 10-08-2010, 13:47

Originally Posted by ASICarrot

Well I think the new lot are committed to not micromanage anywhere near as much because as Blair's sofa government showed not only does this lead to diminishing returns in efficiency of operations (military, civic, commercial) it leads to brand toxicity unlike any in political history.

I remain unconvinced by their calibre.

Originally Posted by ASICarrot

The Americans still do rather will at putting someone in charge of something, they fuckit up its their fault and the administration only takes a minor hit - congressional parties tend to be completely isolated via this method.

True - a bit like John Nott's approval of RAdm Woodward for the Falklands task force : big enough to blame if it all goes wrong but too small to eclipse him if it goes right. The last shower were just too eager to claim the credit for any success to delegate properly.

Originally Posted by ASICarrot

The problem is we are no longer in charge of anything and dont have the money to fund any other adventures to prove this point.

We're still in charge of ourselves (just). The cost of Gunboat Diplomacy is peanuts and the rewards potentially great. It is essentially Viking style shore-raiding piracy writ large (and I think it's about time we rediscovered our roots).

However, the term Gunboat Diplomacy or even Strategic Raiding belies the subtlety of this stance - more often than not it is suited muscle, just doing business.