Military

Today, voters in the southern part of Sudan head to the polls in a referendum which will determine whether they should form their own state or remain part of Sudan, Africa's largest country. Secession – the most likely outcome of the referendum, and called for in the 2005 peace agreement that ended 21 years of civil war between the country's north and south – would mean that the government in Khartoum could lose not only territory, but also over 80 percent of the revenues it receives from oil exportation, as most of the oil is located in the would-be state of South Sudan. As a result, many fear that bloodshed will follow the poll.

Yesterday, Liam Fox vowed to install a tougher procurement system in the Ministry of Defence and appointed the bureaucracy-busting Bernard Grey as Chief of Defence Materiel. The Defence Secretary said that it is important to start from first principles if reform is to take place. The ministry, he said, "exists to provide the Armed Forces with what they need". But is that right? The MoD exists, first, to maintain civilian and democratic control of the armed forces; and, second, to support effective operations. Supporting the military is a corollary of the second task, but not the same thing. In desiring to reform the MoD and cut costs, there is a real risk the government loses some of the capabilities the department needs to deliver its core tasks.

Today I joined number of leading Afghan experts, from Ahmed Rashid to Gilles Dorronsoro, in calling on President Obama to change the American strategy in Afghanistan. Based on our work in and on Afghanistan, we wanted to make a number of points just as the White House begins reviewing its strategy: First, that the cost of the war is now over $120 billion per year for the United States alone. This is unsustainable in the long run. Second, despite these huge costs, the situation on the ground is much worse than a year ago because the Taliban insurgency has made progress across the country. The military campaign is suppressing, locally and temporarily, the symptoms of the disease, but fails to offer a long-term cure.

The leak that keeps on leaking has one or two embarrassing titbits about our domestic policymakers this morning. Yet far more noteworthy are the documents on Pakistan. While they don't tell us too much that is surprising – being mostly about the duplicitous game that country is playing with the West – they do highlight some potentially worrying trends. Chief among them is the growing influence of General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, the head of Pakistan's army. His name is littered generously throughout the US briefings, and it is often connected with dangerous conspiracy and double-dealing. One document, for instance, suggests that Kiyani was prepared to overthrow the Pakistani President, Asif Zardari, last year.

There is no diplomacy with maniacs. North Korea has been the grip of one or another lunatic for 60 years; with the succession still unsettled, Pyongyang is now a salon for the insane. The escalation of posturing, violence and the nuclear programme is a brazenly mad strategy to bribe other countries in exchange for good behaviour; it’s piratical. The world’s geopolitics may be changing, but the US President remains supreme among leaders. Yesterday, Iain Martin argued that Barack Obama had to make a strong and unequivocal statement about the situation, at least to encourage China to reprimand its errant ally. The President did so.

North Korea has again put itself at the centre of international relations. As the US pushed for a start to six-party talks, Pyongyang lifted the veil on a hitherto secret uranium-enrichment facility and launched an artillery barrage on a South Korean island,  injuring four soldiers, and damaging several buildings. The South Korean military scrambled fighter jets and returned fire and the situations remains tense. Conflict with nuclear-armed North Korea has intensified in recent years. North Korea launched nuclear and missile tests last year and sank a South Korean warship in March this year, killing 46 sailors. But the first ground-to-ground assault across the DMZ represents a new escalation in the decades-long, but usually non-violent conflict.

General Sir David Richards does like thinking in decades, doesn't he? A year or so ago, he was warning us that "the whole process [in Afghanistan] might take as long as 30 to 40 years." Today, in interview with the Sunday Telegraph, he says that the wider battle against al-Qaeda could last around 30 years. In both cases, he deserves our attention. To hear the head of our military suggest that the West's current conflicts will stretch across generations is sobering, to say the least. More noteworthy, though, is Richards' claim that a "clear cut victory" over Islamist terror is "unnecessary and would never be achieved" – but that we can "contain it to the point that our lives and our children's lives are led securely.

A blast of celebration – and of reflection – from The Spectator, written after the armistice in 1918. There is more than a touch of foresight in the warning that, "True peace and valid reconstruction demand … as much time, renunciation and self-sacrifice as the winning of the war." Thanks be to God, The Spectator, 16 November, 1918 The thought that has filled the mind of the nation on Monday, and has possessed it ever since, is the thought, Thanks be to God. Under a thousand names and forms, consciously and unconsciously, realised fully or only half realised, this it is that has given unity to the nation and made the moment mighty. Not to have recorded this fact, and to have left unsaid what we have just said, would have been impossible.