EDITORIAL

We have repeatedly warned from this page that illegal migration has shaped itself into a national security threat that unceremoniously pushes aside “humanitarian concerns” and the hypocritical touting of the issue by various “NGOs” and other self-appointed “experts” and ready critics, not to mention the UN itself.

Yet another catastrophic military intervention by the West, this time in Libya, and the widespread internal destabilization of other Arab countries, have created the conditions for the illegal migration threat to assume unprecedented proportions. The developing crisis has finally attracted the attention of “central” European powers to the fast approaching breakdown because of uncontrollable waves of North African undocumented migrants crashing onto European shores.

Vassilios Damiras
(Defense and Counterterrorism Consultant in USA)

Copyright: www.rieas.gr

Genesis

The “democratic peace” hypothesis encourages hope for a new age of international peace among nation-states that adopt democratic values and beliefs. It argues that democracies are more likely than non-democracies to resolve disputes among themselves in a peaceful manner. Its core assumption--that democracies do not fight wars with each other--constitutes the closet one can get to an “iron-clad law” in international relations. The policymaking world strongly adheres to this viewpoint, as demonstrated by U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Vassilios Damiras
(Defense and Counterterrorism Consultant in USA)

The national security history of twentieth-century Greece can be divided into the pre-1974 epoch and post-1974 period, when full civilian control of the military emerged, too late to forestall a disastrous military misadventure in Cyprus, but in time to end the continual internal political conflict that had made Greece vulnerable to military seizures of power. The post-1974 period brought a new era to the Greek military and the Hellenic defense doctrine in order to face the new military threats mainly from Turkey.

Intelligence analysis as we address an increasingly uncertain world, devoid of the “stabilities” of the Cold War and bipolarity, demands new ways and a new mindset.

It is not at all certain that the US Intelligence Community is sufficiently prepared for the task looming ahead. The same can be said of Western intelligence agencies in general. The tenor of debate about future requirements and methods is bound to increase, just like the need to device novel ways and methodologies of educating intelligence analysts. An old adage says that an intelligence product is as good as the people who put their brains behind it -- and as simplistic and obvious this might sound, it continues to be one of the toughest equations to tackle and successfully solve to the benefit of sound government decision-making and, ultimately, the defense and promotion of national interests.

Suddenly, Greece, by order of George Papandreou, finds herself involved in the Libya imbroglio led by the old hands of colonial Europe, France and Britain. Papandreou, speaking in parliament, announced that Greece won’t stand on the sidelines as a “deft neutral” but, rather, will contribute to the military operation against the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi -- whom Papandreou, only recently, was recognizing as a close friend of his late father and himself.

Recently, we have been running more and more into a fundamental question about Greece that is asked invariably by foreign interlocutors: “Do you have leadership in your country? Is there one, anyone, who can carry the ball and push through to save your souls?”

Serious outside observers -- those without an attachment to solicited news stories, “authoritative” reports from Greek “experts” on the dark government payroll, and official diplomatic correspondence identifying the Papandreou regime as “bold” -- are amazed at how Greece tries to negotiate her darkest hour without a helmsman, without a helm, and with the deck disintegrating under her feet.