Great mistakes in politics (No39) The Arjun tank fiasco

Posted on May 4, 2012 by

One of the great things about modern democracy is meant to be civilian control over the armed forces. In practise however, thanks to the insidious impact of the military-industrial complex, this control has often been weak at best and in some cases seemingly non-existent. Companies need to keep building new weapon systems in order to stay in business and so they lobby governments to keep investing, regardless of whether they need the hardware or not.

You can’t always blame private corporations for these kind of mistakes though. History is full of government defence projects spinning out of control due to politicians repeatedly making bad decisions. Just look at the huge budget over-runs on the Eurofighter or the fact that Britain is currently building two giant aircraft carriers at a cost of billions, despite the fact that we don’t need them. Probably the most famous example is the Indian Arjun tank.

India first identified its need for a new battle tank in the late 1960s. Development of the Arjun began properly in 1972 with the Indian government deciding to keep as much of the work as possible in-house. To say that the project was delayed is a bit like saying it’s a long way to the moon. Actually the USA built and went to the moon much more quickly than India managed to build the Arjun tank. Despite starting in the early 70s it didn’t enter mass production till the late 1990s and was eventually delivered to the army in 2004. Even up to 2010 they were still tinkering with the design because it didn’t meet their original specifications. As a result the military were forced to order vast numbers of Russian T-72s and T-90s in order to fill the gap.

This begs the question of why it took so long? Partly it was the fact that this was the government’s first attempt at building a tank which is a tricky process at the best of times. India has some of the most varied terrain and climate on the planet so creating a vehicle that was suitable for use in most of the country presented even more challenges. The military and bureaucracy also kept changing the requirements in response to the several new tanks Pakistan ordered over the decades.

In retrospect, the various Indian governments should have cancelled the project once it became clear just how delayed and over budget it had become. However they all suffered from the similar problem that it had become a point of national pride and cancelling it would be seen as a loss of prestige. Also they were all under the collective delusion that the final product was just a year or two down the line and if they didn’t keep funding it the earlier money they’d invested would have been wasted. I think this is one of the best examples I’ve ever come across of the old adage of not throwing good money after bad. The Indian government and civil service in this case simply lost all control of the policy process and continued with a bad idea because it was easier than stopping.

They did finally get the Arjun tank working by 2008 and according to reports it out-performed the T-90. Considering, however, that it took them forty odd years to build that’s not exactly a brilliant achievement. Regardless of whether it’s any good or not there’s no getting away from the fact that allowing a defence project to drag on for so long was a huge mistake. Apparently they’ve just started working on a new tank that’s going to be ready by 2020. Given the huge delays they had with the Arjun that might be a tad optimistic.

Here is a brief clip from 2010 with the Arjun starting its trial against the T-90:

For a full list of great political mistakes please click here

Posted in Great mistakes in politics, Great political mistakes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Taking a week off from blogging

Posted on April 25, 2012 by

This is just a quick update to let people know that I won’t be updating my blog for a week as I’m taking a short break due to work commitments.  All things being equal I should be back with new posts from next Thursday onwards.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Great political TV series (No10) The Alan Clark Diaries

Posted on April 23, 2012 by

By all accounts, his own included, the late Alan Clark MP was not a very nice man. Seen by some as vain, pompous and self-pitying, he was a mediocre historian, an ok parliamentarian and a great writer. He was, however, permanently convinced that he was destined for greatness and about to become a major player in government. In reality he never progressed further than junior minister.

In retrospect it’s not very difficult to see why he never made it into the cabinet. He always appeared to hold both his constituents and many of his colleagues in total contempt. He openly disagreed with the government’s defence policy on live TV, gave speeches in parliament while drunk and allegedly make some pretty racist comments. Not to mention the fact that he engaged in multiple affairs. At one point he was seeing a judge’s wife and her two daughters at the same time. His fondness for antique cars and dressing like a 1950s Agatha Christie character led many to compare him to Mr Toad.

As a result he was a pretty memorable figure; but what really cemented his place in British political history was his diaries. Released after he left government they were a no holds barred account of his time in the Conservative administration between 1983 and 1992. As well as his many sexual indiscretions, they also provided a useful insight into what was going on during the miners’ strike, the Brighton bombing and the Westland affair. Of particular note is the section covering the fall of Margaret Thatcher. Clark is incredibly forthright about events and himself. Unlike many of his colleagues he was very aware of his own weaknesses, but largely indifferent to them.

This six episode TV adaption covers not just the period of the original diaries but his later book leading up to his return to politics in 1997 as MP for Kensington and Chelsea and his eventual death of brain cancer two years later. The series proceeds in a roughly chronological order, each episode looking at a different aspect of his political life ranging from his relationship with his civil servants to how policy is created.

Alan Clark was an almost perfect example of the English cad. Had this series been made in the 1950s I’m sure Terry Thomas would have played him. As it is they’ve got John Hurt, who makes Clark seem much more sympathetic than he actually was.  He’s ably supported by Jenny Agutter, portraying his wife Jane, who somehow managed to put up with him for thirty years.

There are flaws to this production. One is that it was obviously done on a ridiculously small budget, perhaps not surprising since it was made for BBC4. A very small cast of actors are used and they couldn’t seem to find a decent Margaret Thatcher impersonator as all the shots of her are from the back. Luckily the whole thing is kept aloft by John Hurt and in particular his wonderful narration as he chronicles Clark’s career misadventures and the beginning of the Conservative Party ripping itself apart in the 1990s. While the diaries are still well worth reading, the TV series is an interesting alternative and it’s always worth your time to see John Hurt play an utter bounder. Some still admire Clark for ‘telling like it is’. I’m not entirely sure that being honest about your misdeeds necessarily makes you a better person. History will probably be the final judge.

Here is a clip of the real Alan Clark talking about his views on defence policy (I’m afraid the sound is horribly out of synch but Clark’s answers are astonishing candid for a British politician):

For a full list of great political TV series please click here

Posted in British politics, Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Great mistakes in politics (No38) The Strategic Hamlets project in Vietnam

Posted on April 20, 2012 by

All wars lead to mistakes. The Vietnam conflict probably led to more than most others combined. The number of studies devoted to where the French, South Vietnamese and USA went wrong would take years to fully digest. For those without the time to spare I’d recommend the documentary Fog of War which outlines many of their most critical errors.

I’d argue that the US were starting off on the back foot even before they decided to start bombing. Mainly because they’d lost the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese. Their original strategy had been to try to prop up the South Vietnamese government of Ngo Dinh Diem without getting involved in a potentially messy ground war. As a result of this President Kennedy sent several thousand ‘advisers’ to Vietnam. He also committed a huge amount of natural and financial resources.

One of the USA’s main ideas was the ‘Strategic Hamlets’ programme. Their analysis quickly showed that one of the main problems they faced was North Vietnamese agents infiltrating the South and converting the peasantry. It was felt that if the peasants could be gathered together in fortified communities they could be isolated and protected from the communist’s influence. There were a number of reasons why this project failed:

One was that it involved the forced relocation of large numbers of villagers. You have to remember that some of these communities had existed in the same place for centuries; so to suddenly be forcibly uprooted and moved away was deeply traumatic. They had both personal and religious ties to the land that were fundamental to their way of life. Apparently the removal agents, in order to demonstrate that returning wasn’t an option, burnt down their homes in front of them. Is it any wonder that some of them might start turning to the North?

Another problem was the inefficiency and corruption of the South Vietnamese regime. Despite the US investing millions of dollars for the programme, significant amounts were siphoned off due to corruption. Villagers who were forcibly relocated should have been paid compensation which never materialised. Money and resources that had been earmarked for village construction mysteriously vanished. Even when the resources were available, they tried to do too much too quickly and eventually ended up falling way behind schedule. In other instances they built villages on poor farming land or gave them no protection at all.

A key issue here was that the project lacked overall direction with confusion over its aims and goals. Perhaps the biggest problem of all though was that most of the new villages were quickly infiltrated by North Vietnamese agents. Pretty much the entire South Vietnamese government was riddled with enemy agents so any attempt to protect the peasants from their influence was arguably doomed to fail from the start. By 1963 the Strategic Hamlets project had been largely abandoned.

Unfortunately the failure of this plan created the template for future US involvement in Vietnam. Almost every mistake they made here was replicated again and again. This included not fully understanding the motives and methods of the people they were fighting,  and an assumption that superior resources and technology would ultimately win the day. For a fuller analysis of the collapse of the Strategic Hamlets operation I’d highly recommend reading the relevant sections of the Pentagon Papers.

Here is a clip of the USA attempting to explain their strategy in Vietnam:

For a full list of great political mistakes please click here

Posted in American politics, Great mistakes in politics, Great political mistakes | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Great political TV series (No9) The Prisoner

Posted on April 19, 2012 by

What can I say about The Prisoner that hasn’t been said a million times before? Groundbreaking? Visionary? Surreal? Utterly bonkers? Actually Patrick  McGoohan’s masterpiece is all of these things and more. It’s hard to imagine what a big career risk this must have been when it aired. Normally when actors decide to create, write, direct and star in their own vehicle, it’s usually a vacuous vanity project. Patrick McGoohan though had something to say and forty years on it’s probably more relevant than ever.

Up until 1968 he’d primarily been known for starring in a few Disney movies and the TV series Danger Man as dashing secret agent John Drake. Frustrated by his lack of creative control, he pitched his idea for a new show to Lew Grade of ITC. I’d love to know how that meeting went. The fact that Lew Grade went along with it is testament either to his willingness to take risks or McGoohan’s powers of persuasion:

  • Lew Grade: Thanks for coming in Patrick, I hear you’ve come up with an idea for a new TV series to follow-up your success in Danger Man?
  • Patrick McGoohan: Yes, and I think you’re going to like it. I play a spy…
  • LG (interrupts): So you’re playing the same character as in Danger Man?
  • PM: No, this is a different sort of spy.
  • LG: Fair enough, what are you thinking of calling him?
  • PM: That’s the main point, he doesn’t have a name.
  • LG (slightly surprised): The character you’re playing doesn’t have a name?
  • PM: That’s right
  • LG: What do the other characters call him then?
  • PM: No6.  He’s always referred to as No6 all the way through the series. The audience never find out his real name.
  • LG (beginning to sound concerned): And what’s the plot then. I presume your character travels the world having spy related adventures a bit like in Danger Man?
  • PM (irritated): No, this is nothing like Danger Man. I play a spy who holds certain secrets. He wants to resign from British secret intelligence for undeclared reasons. While packing to go on holiday he’s drugged and taken to a secret location called The Village where he’s held prisoner. The powers that be want to know what his secrets are and why he resigned.
  • LG (comprehension dawning): Ah, so it’s a bit like a prison movie with No6 trying to escape every week?
  • PM: Sort of. Really it’s a vehicle for me to examine a range of issues pertinent to modern society. The nature of the state, the importance of freedom, the role of the individual, the right to know, justice, democracy, education. So on and so forth…
  • LG (back to sounding uneasy): And the people who are holding him prisoner? Is there an antagonist of some sort?
  • PM: Oh yes.
  • LG: And does he or she have a name?
  • PM: They’re called No2.
  • LG : They?
  • PM: Yes, No2 will be played by a different actor each week to represent the faceless nature of the state. They’re also going to have a giant floating white bubble called Rover they use to track down and capture people who try to escape.
  • LG: Right…ok.
  • PM: I also want to push the boundaries of TV further than they’ve ever been pushed before. I want to do one episode as a western, one where no one speaks for the first twenty minutes, one where my character is played by someone else etc.
  • LG: And how long do you see this series running for?
  • PM: I’m only going to do one series. It’s all going to end in a dramatic two parter with extremely long political speeches, a pitched gun battle choreographed to the Beatles ‘All you need in love’, the village being destroyed and a nuclear missile being fired.
  • LG: (Clearly taken aback): Ok…wow…(gathers thoughts). I’ve just got one teeny tiny question. If the antagonist is called No2, is there a No1?
  • PM (excitedly): Now that’s where it gets really clever….
(Before anyone complains, I know that most of these plot points weren’t worked out till much later).

In retrospect it’s amazing that The Prisoner was ever produced. If he pitched something like it now he’d probably be thrown out of the office. Today it still stands as an example of what TV can do if it tries, and people with vision are allowed creative control.

Ok, some of the stories don’t always work, and at 17 episodes it stretched the concept a bit thin; but that really doesn’t matter. The Prisoner is easily one of the best political TV shows ever made, and Patrick McGoohan is the epitome of cool for having the sheer nerve to go through with it. I highly recommend that you watch it (but avoid the remake like the plague).

Here is No6 and No2 discussing the true purpose of the village and touch on the end of the Cold War and globalisation:

Here is the original trailer for The Prisoner:

For a full list of great political TV series please click here

Posted in Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Great political movies (No48) The Deal

Posted on April 17, 2012 by

For a man who was Prime Minister of Britain for over a decade, Tony Blair seems to have quickly faded from the public’s memory. With the exception of Iraq and the Northern Irish peace process, it’s actually quite hard to remember what he did with his ten years at the top.

The Deal charts his rise to power and his disintegrating relationship with fellow MP and leadership rival Gordon Brown. They both entered parliament in 1983 as part of the new intake following Labours worst electoral performance in almost a century. It was therefore natural that they’d became allies focussing on how to turn this situation around. After the sudden death of Labour leader John Smith in 1994, Blair efficiently outmanoeuvred Brown to replace him. Brown always saw himself as the senior player in their partnership and felt betrayed, creating a bitterness that lasts to this day. If it wasn’t true you’d assume it was the plot of a badly written Jeffrey Archer novel.

In the end they strike a deal that Brown will put his leadership ambitions temporarily on hold in return for the position of Chancellor and the guarantee that Blair would resign after the 2001 election. In the end it wasn’t much of a deal. Gordon Brown was always going to lose against the more charismatic Blair. The agreement they came to was more about keeping Brown contained so he would peacefully step aside avoiding a painful and divisive leadership battle. In retrospect Brown was staggeringly naive if he ever thought Blair would ever willingly step down to allow him to become Prime Minister.

Most political movies are about what power does to people. The Deal is more about the effect that not having power has. As the 80s progress you slowly see Blair becoming more and more pragmatic. As he points out after the 1992 electoral debacle, what’s the point of being in permanent opposition? The Deal perfectly captures the frustration of the Labour Party during this period. In 1983 they’d tried running on the most socialist manifesto in their history. When they lost by a landslide they were forced to stand by while Thatcher and the Conservatives set about dismantling the British manufacturing industry and eroding the post-war consensus. It’s not surprising that Blair seemed like a good option for many of their supporters.

The main problem with The Deal is that it was made at a very particular point in time when the public’s perception of the two men was significantly different. Blair was seen as all spin and no substance, the ultimate example of: ‘If you don’t like my principles I have others’. Brown on the other hand was perceived as grumpy but authentic, a proper socialist in the classic tradition of the Labour Party. Of course following Brown’s premiership we’re now much more aware of his failings, and that in many ways he was just as bad as Blair.

While David Morrissey is good as Brown, the film is really all about Michael Sheen. In one of his earliest performances he’s mesmerising, capturing Blair’s speech patterns and mannerisms perfectly (especially his smile). His early idealism slowly morphs into a quiet ruthlessness. You can also see why he was so successful. Say what you like about Blair, but he was probably the most naturally gifted political communicator of his generation. He could speak to almost anyone in a way that made him sound like he cared, and he was extremely good at listening to others opinions (even if he subsequently ignored their views).

The supporting players are so-so. Dexter Fletcher plays Charlie Whelan as a cockney wide-boy, while the guy portraying Ed Balls is mostly notable for looking nothing like him. Oddly the actor playing Peter Mandelson looks like him when he has a moustache but not once he’s shaved it off. Michael Sheen would later go on to make two more films about Blair; The Queen and The Special Relationship. He also seemed to make a career out of playing real life characters like David Frost in Frost/Nixon.

Looking at events from the perspective of 2012 is now seems that Blair left office at exactly the right time; just before the British economy collapsed. As I argued earlier, his lack of substance as a politician might well be his defining characteristic and enduring legacy. It would be interesting if they could make a final film about Blair’s last days in office, perhaps they could call it The Man Who Wasn’t There.

I couldn’t find a trailer for The Deal, but the entire film is available to watch on 40D

For a full list of great political movies please click here

Posted in Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Great political movies (No47) Path to War

Posted on April 16, 2012 by

Path to War begins with Lyndon Baines Johnson’s inauguration ball in 1965. In his speech he toasts his forthcoming administration, boasting that it features more talented and educated staff than any other government in US history. As Will Rogers once noted, ‘There’s nothing quite as ignorant as an educated man once you get him off the subject he was educated in’. Path to War is the story of how the brightest and best America had to offer, took the nation into the quagmire of Vietnam on a road paved with good intentions.

The first point that should be made is that it’s directed by the late great John Frankenheimer. He specialised in political thrillers and during the 60s made The Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days in May and The Train. He spent most of the 70s, 80s and 90s in a long career slump, but returned to form with movies that were again centred round American government and politics. Path to War was his final film and stands comparison with the best of his early work. It also serves as a useful companion piece to Oliver Stone’s Nixon. Both are about potentially great men who destroyed themselves through poor decisions.

LBJ is mainly remembered these days for replacing Kennedy when he was assassinated, and the subsequent disaster of Vietnam. Dismissed by some writers (who usually have an unhealthy obsession with the Kennedys), as being a Texas hic, Johnson was a brilliant politician when it came to negotiating and deal-making. His leadership of the Senate between 1955 and 1961 was a perfect example of a politician who knew exactly how to use the carrot and stick to get what he wanted. The scene in the film where he cajoles and threatens Alabama Governor George Wallace, played by Gary Sinise, is a master class of political persuasion. The other reason Johnson deserves a better historical reputation is for his domestic programme, ‘The Great Society’. In only four years he introduced a range of policies that would transform America, many of which still endure today.

However Vietnam will always be his legacy and Path to War spends most of its running time focussing on the decisions that led to war and how it was conducted. Dominating the film is Michael Gambon as LBJ. I’ve often wondered why British actors are so often called upon to play American Presidents. Whatever the reason, Gambon is fantastic and I’m surprised he didn’t win any awards for it. Alex Baldwin plays his Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, a man far too confident in his own abilities and the importance of statistics when determining policy. It’s a great performance by Baldwin although I’m still not entirely sure he was right for the role. He spends a lot of the film looking like a High School quarterback pretending to be a nerd. For anyone interested in McNamara’s retrospective take on events, I’d highly recommend the documentary Fog of War.

Donald Sutherland plays LBJ’s friend Clark Clifford who is initially sceptical of Vietnam before slowly turning into a ‘hawk’, encouraging ever greater troop commitments. The film successfully conveys that this was arguably the central problem of the Vietnam War; no one really understood the enemy or what victory looked like.  Each step seemed like a reasonable sacrifice that would end the conflict. When each new plan failed it was decided that they had to escalate otherwise their previous sacrifices would have been in vain and they’d lose face on the world stage. For a film that is essentially made up of scene after scene of meetings, it holds the attention and succeeds in explaining both why the war happened in the first place, and why it went so horribly wrong.

Here is a brilliant scene where the main characters discuss the arguments both for and against further involvement in Vietnam:

For a full list of great political movies please click here

Posted in American politics, Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment