How much £ will PM Cameron spend on defence?
With two momentary exceptions the British General Election did not feature foreign policy or defence matters and now we await a new 'emergency' budget statement in July, which is widely reported as announcing further budget cuts.
Oxford Research Group has a paper on the options, from a different perspective - which I would call retrenchment away from the UK pursuing intervention as an option:http://oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/pu...tion_austerity
Quarter of personnel 'preparing to quit UK armed forces'
Each year there is an official survey of attitudes within the armed forces, called The 2015 Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey and the BBC in a very slim report:
Quote:
The rate of personnel planning to leave, or who have given their notice, increased from 16% in 2011 to 25% now. Those planning to stay in the service for as long as they could also fell from 41% in 2011 to 34% now.
However, the survey of 11,877 personnel also found there had been an increase in morale, with 45% rating their morale as high, compared with 41% in 2014
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32851668
General Odierno: can the UK-US still work together?
General,
Yes the UK-US can still work together, provided that the relationship is out of public view - except for diplomacy - and "boots on the ground" whether a division or smaller is not sought.
I am sure this quieter 'special relationship' will suit the "suits" in our military, the agencies and maybe the politicians. The UK has disappointed the USA many times since 1945, for example PM Harold Wilson turning down President Johnson's request for British troops in Vietnam - even a store clerk please IIRC being the phrase.
Two big problems exist in this quieter relationship. First and foremost is how the US Congress will react if the UK "defaults" on the NATO goal of spending 2% GDP on defence and oh-so overtly says why should we pay to defend Europe? Second and not so predictable as it was till the May 2015 General Election, would Congress agree to selling the UK the next generation of SSBN missiles?
Britain is not under attack, but its place in the world is under fire
Two short comments on a newly found website on the UK's defence dilemmas, which are primarily financial and not strategic. The UK government currently is conducting, yet again, a Strategic Defence & Security Review (SDSR).
There is a longstanding thread on the UK's military problems:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4819
The website being:http://projects21.com/
Which states it is:
Quote:
PS21 is a non-national, non-ideological, non-partisan organization
The two articles then. The first written by a serving, so anonymous NATO military officer:http://projects21.com/2015/09/08/not...t-this-autumn/
SDSR means:
Quote:
Britain’s status as a global military power, which is part of the bedrock of its place in the world, is rapidly diminishing. This is not because Britain has chosen to decline—Albion is simply stumbling into irrelevance.
Here are three reasons why:
The British government doesn’t do strategy.
Britain’s huge defence budget has a huge ‘value-for-money’ problem which puts Britain’s military capabilities at risk.
Britain’s leaders remain reluctant to provide significant forces to support globally important missions, putting Britain’s leadership role in NATO at risk.
The second article is shorter and reports a discussion meeting with several ex-officers:http://projects21.com/2015/09/09/ps2...yond-the-sdsr/
Profound or Spin? UK's top General says
Quote:
There is no longer a simple distinction between war and peace. We are in a state of permanent engagement in a global competition....all the instruments of national power need constantly to be in play.. to re-imagine the utility of the armed forces beyond the simple construct of fighting wars or preparing for the next one
(Later referring to constraints on the use of force lay in the areas of societal support, parliamentary consent and ever greater legal challenge). Such constraints are particularly significant when the desire to commit to the use of force is in support of operations which some may consider discretionary to the national interest.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34265850
Remarks made in a speech yesterday by General Sir Nicholas Houghton, UK Chief of the Defence Staff.
Sixty add one: the UK to bomb Syria
The votes have been cast by 397 to 223, so by a large majority the UK is now committed to bombing Syria - targeting Daesh / ISIS. Just what that means is rather unclear for the UK. Our immediate RAF contribution is small, eight Tornados, plus support aircraft and limited reinforcements - flying from Cyprus.
Amongst the deluge of coverage yesterday I found these contributions helpful.
First in a surprisingly good speech in the House of Commons the Shadow (Opposition) foreign secretary Hilary Benn supported air strikes and was applauded - very unusual, if not unique in our parliament:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34991402
Tim Collins of Gulf War speech fame has a comment:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ue-leader.html
Adam Holloway, a Conservative MP, an ex-soldier and reporter, wrote and citing one passage:
Quote:
...for the last 15 years I have watched British governments join or create international "coalitions" that have used military force without understanding what drives each conflict on the ground. This ignorance has had disastrous consequences for tens of millions of people in the Middle East and North Africa. So last week, on the plane back from a visit to Iraq and Turkey, I knew that in (the debate) I would have stand up and say that I simply do not know enough about the big plan to fix the broken politics.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ver-again.html
Shashank Joshi, of RUSI, asks how robust are David Cameron's arguments:https://rusi.org/commentary/sound-st...-syria-strikes
My title derives from the 'alliance' against Daesh involving sixty nations, although to be fair very few contribute militarily, with some leaving for the Yemen and hence the UK being one more involved.
Talking to them; more than bombs and the PM's new clothes
Two pre-decision articles found today. One by Tony Blair's former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, widely credited as a key figure in the Northern Ireland peace talks, who argues and I quote the title & sub-title
Quote:
Bombing Isis is not enough – we’ll need to talk to them too; To dismiss Islamic State as merely a mad death cult is to deceive ourselves – they are highly rational and shrewd
His last two paragraphs:
Quote:
I am not arguing that talking is an alternative to fighting. Unless there is military pressure the armed group will never be prepared to talk. But judging by history, fighting is unlikely to provide an answer by itself. If I were an MP I would vote for bombing in Syria as in Iraq. But I would also want to know who is really going to provide the boots on the ground to fight Isis; and be assured of a serious political strategy to address Sunni grievances in Iraq and Syria. If we learn the lessons of the past and combine all these tools – military pressure, addressing grievances and offering a political way out – and do it soon rather than trying everything else first, we may be able to spare a great many lives in the Middle East and in Europe.
Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...tical-solution
Then MG Robert Fry, ex-Royal Marine, asks how moral is this decision? Here is a sample paragraph:
Quote:
So, taken against this background, let’s return to the likely impact of a marginal increase in one dimension of the military element of the overall campaign to defeat IS. It doesn’t take long to conclude that the cloak of moral certainty the Prime Minister has chosen to wear more closely resembles the emperor’s new clothes.
Finally, again from RUSI, this time by Rafaello Pantucci, asks:
Quote:
Will bombing ever get rid of Islamic State?
His last paragraph:
Quote:
The final key point is that the true longer term success of these campaigns can only be secured if an equal soft power campaign is launched to win over the populations in the affected territories. Ultimately a terrorist group will only be removed from an environment if they are unable to have a supportive population to operate within. In all of the aforementioned cases, subsequent to the hard power responses, a concerted effort was made to win over populations and this helped reduce the permissive environment for the group. This is the key to long-term victory over IS—and in the Levant this means making Sunni populations currently living under the group’s thumb feel as though the alternative governments they have on offer are ones that represent them. A bombing campaign will help start to dislodge the group’s mystique and power, but a long-term strategy also needs to win over the population.
Link:http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/wo...-islamic-state