Daniel Korski

Talk about an own goal. Whatever Air Chief Marshall Sir Simon Bryant thought he was achieving when he told MPs that the RAF were "running hot" because of the Libya intervention, the result has been to fuel the debate about the appropriate role of military officers in the public debate – and, in the latest instalment of the debate, if the current military leadership is actually up to the job. It is an important question – nothing should be taboo in a democracy and since Britain has none of the parliamentary oversight that the US congress has over military leaders, this debate is an important form of scrutiny. In my experience in Basra and Kabul, many of our military leaders must take part of the blame for Britain’s failure.

If there is one global index it is best not to be on, it is the Fund for Peace's annual Failed States Index. It ranks 177 countries using 12 social, economic, and political indicators of pressure on the state. This year, the FSI ranked Somalia as number one for the fourth consecutive year, citing widespread lawlessness, ineffective government, terrorism, conflict, crime, and pirate attacks against commercial vessels as reasons for the country's billing. Finland, on the other hand, has displaced Norway at the bottom of the index. "Slight fluctuations in demographic and economic indicators, though minimal, lowered Norway’s scores, allowing Finland, with its continued stability, to slip in front of its Nordic neighbour.

In the little compound known as “Bantanamo,” located outside the UN headquarters in New York, a small sigh of relief was probably breathed last week. For, inside, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had just been told of the UN Security Council’s unanimous decision recommending that he be elected for a second term. Gabon's UN ambassador Nelson Messone made the announcement to the press after the 15-nation council met behind closed doors. The UN General Assembly will probably vote this week, confirming that Ban will run the organisation until the end of 2016.

And so Danny Alexander has further angered unions by making it clear that "painful decisions" are needed to reform public-sector pensions, including raising the retirement age. But his proposals should no come as a surprise. Rapid demographic transitions caused by rising life expectancy and declining fertility mean that the proportion of old to young is growing rapidly. But when the Lib Dem minister says that "people are living much longer now," he is in fact underplaying how dramatic the change has been in the last decade. According to the Office of National Statistics, the proportion of people in Britain aged 65-and-over increased from 15 per cent in 1984 to 16 per cent in 2009, an increase of 1.7 million people.

Recent wars have given rise to an unusual phenomenon in British civil-military relations: frequent, and often high-profile interventions, by serving or recently retired senior military officers in public debates. The latest has been the intervention of Britain's chief naval officer, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, who questioned the Navy’s ability to sustain the Libya campaign. Different prime ministers have dealt with this kind of outspokenness in different ways. Tony Blair was too weak to rein in Army chief Sir General Richard Dannatt, while Gordon Brown did not have the credibility, vis-à-vis the military, to do so either. David Cameron is different. He is at the height of his powers and determined that he, not the military leadership, should exercise command.

An old boss of mine once said to me: when you start a new assignment, seek out a fight — and win it. The same advice should be given to incoming Prime Ministers. U-turns, as Mrs Thatcher knew, just create demand for more U-turns. If the government is willing to revise its NHS plans, then why not reopen the Defence Review, or alter the pledge to spend 0.7 of our national income on overseas aid (or at least abandon the questionable idea of legislating for it)? But seeking out and winning battles, while avoiding too many retreats, is not enough. To be great, a Prime Minister needs good enemies. Mrs Thatcher had great enemies in Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock. Tony Blair did too.

Robert Gates may be one of the best defence secretaries the United States has had in modern times. But in slamming European allies, like he did in Brussels on Friday, he was wrong. I have since long upbraided Europeans for under-investment in defence capabilities and making the wrong kind of investments. And defence expert Tomas Valasek published a fine pamphlet a few weeks ago, showing how European governments could do more for less, including by cooperating better. But they chose not to. This is not only foolish — as we live in an uncertain world where the ability to defend territory, trade, principles and people is paramount — but it also puts at risk Europe's greatest defence mechanism: the goodwill and cooperation of the United States.

The Libya intervention has been in operation for a few months and the rebels have been making gains, most recently in Yafran. But progress remains slow and perhaps it is time to look again at how the lessons of Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan might have a bearing on Libya. The first lesson is simple: assume the worst. If you think that a regime will collapse quickly, plan for it to last a long time. If you expect a peaceful transition, plan for a violent one. And if you hope that unarmed monitors will be enough once hostilities are over, prepare for a well-armed peacekeeping force to be deployed. Optimistic predictions of the post-Saddam Iraq encumbered the planning process and meant the US-led coalition was unprepared for the contingencies that arose.