El Alamein: The end of the beginning

World War Two remains a significant story within Britain’s history. To this day, the war is imbued in our political ideologue, our history curriculum, as well the many statues and monuments commemorating the fallen.

Yet, within the patriotism and remembrance, the story of significant battles is often lost. The Battle of Britain and D-Day are far more prominent and visceral in our imagination because they represent what we see on our screens on bank holidays and at Christmas. No one ever remembers the Eastern campaign in India and Burma. No one ever remembers El-Alamein.

Yet history dictates that among Agincourt, Blenheim and Waterloo, a battle that took place in the parched and desolate desert of Egypt remains one of Britain’s finest military moments. So what makes it so important and does it occurrence really deserve to be elevated among Britain’s most celebrated military victories?

November 1942, like any month since September 1939, had not been a particularly good for the allies. For Britain, the hurried retreat from the beaches of Dunkirk, as well as the capture of Singapore by the Japanese meant morale was deflated. Despite the American entry into the war in December 1941, the burden on British and Commonwealth troops was immense. In the East, the German army was advancing towards the oil fields of the Caucasus’s and Rommel’s Fifth Panzer division was heading towards Cairo and more lucratively, the oil fields of the Middle East.

It was by no means certain, but for Hitler to obtain a constant supply of fuel for the Wehrmacht then the war in Europe was consequentially over. The fate of British India would almost certainly be decided too. At the time, it was not only the British command in Cairo’s biggest concern, it was Churchill’s.

Only a couple years before, British troops based in Africa were successful in maintaining their ground and in fact conquering further. In 1941 they had driven a weak Italian army out of Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) as well as driving Mussolini’s forces back from Italian-occupied Libya. Yet, just as the Germans had conquered most of Europe, Hitler sent one of his most trusted and celebrated Field Marshals to resolve the problem, The Desert Fox, Erwin Rommel.

The introduction of Rommel made a huge difference to the Axis’s fortunes and gave a huge awakening to the British troops. Rommel drove the German army through British lines and within 150 miles of Cairo. Churchill saw how his commanders were being easily out-manoeuvred and losing ground quickly and at a heavy cost to the imperious Germans. The fall and subsequent retreat from the important port of Tobruk saw Churchill place Cairo, the Middle East and consequently Britain’s future war in the hands of one Bernard ‘Monty’ Montgomery.

Monty is now often recited for his tactical marvel in Egypt as well as his miscalculation at Operation Market Garden and the so-called bridge too far at Arnhem. Yet, his military career had begun as a humble junior officer in the trenches of World War One. He had seen the devastation to life and the ill-thought out planning of generals to gain or lose needless ground. Perceived as arrogant as well as a maverick, his clubbability found himself fans within the troops, yet unpopularity among fellow officers. Yet, for his dislike, Monty was an astute and forward thinking battlefield commander.

His plans at El-Alamein were by no means revolutionary, but he prepared well, he knew the lie of the land and more importantly he was able to convey this message to the troops. The subsequent victory as Churchill exquisitely told the House of Commons went down as history as the start of the fight back:

“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.

However, for all its significance, El-Alamein is presented as one of Britain’s greatest military battles because it was probably the last time British victory when British commanders were fully in control (this includes the Falklands’ War). Military historians correctly point out that Montgomery’s fortune was to some extent secured because German lines had become too extended. The British Eighth Army had been preparing for the advance for almost three weeks. Not only were they well dug-in but had the higher ground. Even taking into consideration the events of the previous few months, this battle was not as significant as it was made out to be. The importance was not the battle, but the fact that the British had shown the Germans could be beaten.

Monty’s success should be recognised, but certainly not in Egypt and certainly not more than the British and Commonwealth troops that collectively became known as the Desert Rats. Monty’s significance as a commander must be for recognising that Britain’s role had been surpassed by the Americans. He recognised that Britain could no longer take the lead and as consequence must take some of the pain when leading British troops after the D-Day landings. The loss of almost 4,000 men at Caen during Operation Goodwood, though painful, reflected Montgomery’s foresight. It is to some extent unfortunate that the failure of Market Garden saw his reputation somewhat malaise. For others, his forthright and somewhat arrogant memoirs saw him try inflating his own significance to Britain’s war victory.

Today, tourist trips to the battlefield at El-Alamein are not overly subscribed to. The area remains just as isolated as it was 70 years before. Yet it should not undermine the importance of what occurred in those late months of 1942. Blenheim and Waterloo were more significant for Britain’s political standing and strength in the decades to come. El-Alamein lacked the grace and military nous of these victories, but certainly, this was a great moment and it was significant to how the war was won.

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.

The legacy of Mobutu: The DRC votes.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the vast and troubled country in sub-Saharan Africa, is going to the polls for only the second time in fifty years today. A country ten times the size of Britain, with a population just over 70 million, has suffered terribly since its independence from Belgium in 1960. Its vast reserves of natural resources that include timber, gold, diamonds and many precious metals should have created economic stability and wealth for its people, yet war, corruption on an enormous scale and destitution has left the people of the Congo at the bottom of the UN’s Human Development Index, earning a miserly $200 a year. The current President Joseph Kabila, who has been in charge since the previous leader (his father Joseph-Desire) was assassinated in 2001, looks set cement another term in Government and reaffirm his Premiership. However, the 40-year-old, Kabila is far from popular. Labelled as another African autocratic, he is distrusted in the east of the country and the ten million strong capital city Kinshasa. Pledging to introduce high speed rail to a country that notoriously lacks a road network, Kabila is certain to win through a mix of weak opposition and strong arm tactics. International critics are alarmed that Kabila has abolished any run offs between first and second place candidates and feel that the ruling party will do anything to hijack victory by any means possible, including ballot rigging. So why have the DRC and its people endured such an ignominious past and what does the future hold for this huge country.

In what became known as ‘The Scramble for Africa’ the small European nation of Belgium snapped up the huge region surrounding the mouth of the River Congo. Ordained Belgian-Congo, it became a playground for Emperor Leopold II in what can be deemed as one of Europe’s darkest periods of imperialism. Reconstructed in Joseph Conrad’s early 20^th century novella, ‘Heart of Darkness’ captures the impunity and sheer subjugation of human life in pursuit of mineral wealth, most notably ivory. After World War Two when the ‘Winds of Change’ were sweeping across Africa, Belgium had highlighted that Congo may require longer transition before independence. Instead of the 50 year period that Belgium had drawn up, the Cold War forced it to fast forward independence to 18 months. The country’s first Prime Minister and pan-African Marxist, Patrick Lumumba, was deemed as a liability by Western Governments and swiftly abducted then killed by firing squad, before his remains were put in acid to prevent him being deemed a martyr. The man the West backed and who would go on to rule for 32 years was Colonel Joseph Mobutu.

The rule of Mobutu can only be deemed as bizarre and shameful for all those who kept him in power. A powerful public speaker and strong campaigner, Mobutu was a bulwark against Soviet interests. If he was ever facing political strife then he could rely on French, Belgian or American paratroopers to put down any insurgency and all the while he could rule as he pleased. His reforms included the Africanisation of his country. He became Mobutu Sese Seko which translated to ‘all powerful warrior’ and Congo was renamed Zaire, Leopoldville to Kinshasa. He introduced cultural rules including collarless shirt similar to Mao’s China, he wanted to reaffirm an identity to country that for so long had been mismanaged and corrupted. It was Mobutu who brought Muhammed Ali and George Foreman to fight in Kinshasa in 1974 in what became known as ‘The Rumble in the Jungle’ to raise the country’s profile. Yet Mobutu was the most flamboyant and corrupt of them all. Economic mismanagement saw him ordering crates of money for himself from the central bank and building massive palaces in the dense jungles. He had fleets of Concorde, had a taste for expensive pink champagne and used the Zairian Treasury as a wallet on extravagant shopping trips to Europe.

Like most dictators, ideology gradually blurred because power was everything. As long as he was in power, the West turned a blind eye to what was going on internally. If he ever felt a threat from others, they were either bought off or executed. Towards the end of his rule, Mobutu, like many dictators before him, became obsessed about plots to kill him. He retreated to his palace in the forest and let most decisions be taken by his generals.

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that Western Governments no longer needed to fancy favours from these decrepit despots. Economic collapse and the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi forced hundreds of thousands of refugees into the East of Congo around Goma. Mobutu, now suffering from cancer, was unable to put up any resistance against the Tutsi-led armies from Rwanda and Uganda, and fled in exile to Togo and then Morocco.

The question that many commentators asked was what a post-Mobutu Zaire would look like and whether it would work? Africa’s biggest kleptocrat had plundered, yet he had stabilised tribes and created an identity for his people. The day he fled, the rebel leader Laurent Kabila declared himself President, yet peace was short lived.

What is now recorded as the bloodiest conflict since the Second World War, and seen as Africa’s world war, drawing in nine countries and reportedly leading to over five million deaths, and shamelessly ignored by most Western media outlets. Many of the belligerents have been accused of invading/co-operating purely to loot the DRC’s mineral wealth, in fact Rwanda recently handed back some money it had made from stolen diamonds. To this day, the UN’s largest peace-keeping force operates within the country, with nearly 20,000 uniformed personnel on the ground and costing over $1 billion a year. Most reports to the outside world highlight the use of rape as a weapon of war, in 2009 there were 8,900 recorded incidents of rape. Yet, in a country so huge, it is difficult to determine the number of sexual crimes that have taken place, countless have been infected by HIV.

The great new Empire of China has also been criticised for its relationship with the DRC Government. A multibillion dollar bilateral contract that exchanges infrastructure work for valuable minerals. Many criticised China for taking advantage of its African partner.

So as over 32 million people head for the polls to vote for the candidates (including Mobutu’s son) it is hard to believe that a cross in a box is really going to make a difference in a country that has a tortured history and hopeless future.

Iraq off our backs.

History came and went yesterday as US combat troops left Iraq seven years after they embarked on removing Saddam Hussein. After losing over 3000 men and women, many questions will be asked whether America, military, economically and psychologically has the appetite for intervening or fighting in foreign fields. The departure is part of a wider planned exit strategy to reduce America's footprint in the world, particularly the Middle East, and though admittedly hurried, Iraq has improved over the past few years from the democratic process seeing a decline in militia violence and economic boosts from the oil industry. Despite America's full withdrawal at the end of 2011, Iraq is still a violent place, where simmering religious and ethnic tensions could potentially destabilise future political progress. It is still too early from an American military perspective to conclude whether combat operations were successful or not but America and Barack Obama will need to continue the fight in Afghanistan.

The problem with exit strategies as General David Petraeus recently said is that they should be settled on military grounds, not by political decisions. NATO forces have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, yet strategists believe the country's future can only be resolved with the Taliban around the negotiating table; yet to what extent is this desirable? The historical precedents of Somalia, Sudan and Yemen must not lie comfortably with historians. Surely all that time invested would appear futile if Afghanistan descended into the midst of its recent history. What about all the soldiers who have died for a better place for young Afghanis, it would appear all in vain for a quick fix exit. Last week, nine aid workers (including several women) were murdered by the Taliban, as a new UN report illustrated that violence against woman and children has increased by 30 per cent; three quarters of these acts have been committed by the Taliban.

Political impetus seems to take precedence over these matters. Maintaining a fighting army costs billions of pounds and heavy casualties does not enhance the war's popularity. With an enemy that is increasingly using abhorrent tactics and a political situation that seems neither effective or evolving, a withdrawal seems hopeless when there is no plan in place which surely means Afghanistan will dot our futures' for some time to come.