-
Weary, cynical and cyclical
From a November 2012 post: A recent piece of research, based on opinion polling:
Quote:
The research found that nine out of ten people respected the UK Armed Forces and eight out of ten had a high or very high opinion of the Services. The UK Armed Forces was also more respected as a profession than doctors, lawyers or the police. It seems that support for the UK Armed Forces is significantly higher among men, older people, those with lower educational qualifications and people who align with parties on the political right, as found in overseas studies.
The study also showed that 58% of the UK public were opposed to Iraq and 46% disapproved of operations in Afghanistan, with women, older people and people supporting minor political parties significantly more opposed to the missions. Despite this, more than 90% supported military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of their agreement or disagreement with these missions.
The British public's stance reflects several factors, which includes an element of war weariness - even if the military is shrinking - over two failed wars and the apparent wish of this government to be ready to intervene again. The grim Syrian civil war has strengthened this; in marked contrast to the Bosnian conflict where public opinion favoured intervention before the politicians.
Then there is the 'trust & confidence' the public have in politicians which has shrunk steadily in the last decade, if not longer.
Quote:
Do you trust your local MP? In 2003 44%; in 2012 37%.
Do you trust national politicians? In 2003 27%; in 2012 19%.
Adapted from:http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...s_Nov_2012.pdf
-
We have our doubts
The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence has published a report on 'Army 2020', it is pgs long, so I have cited the conclusion only and in part. Paragraph 6:
Quote:
We remain to be convinced that the Army 2020 plan represents a fully thought-through and tested concept which will allow the Army to counter emerging and uncertain threats and develop a contingent capability to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The MoD needs to justify how the conclusion was reached that the Army 2020 plan of 82,000 Regulars and 30,000 Reserves represented the best way of countering these threats.
Link:http://www.publications.parliament.u.../576/57603.htm
Curiously the committee used an unofficial website ARSSE for:
Quote:
During the course of our inquiry, the Army Rumour Service hosted a web forum to enable us to hear the views of interested parties on the Army 2020 plan which we used to inform our questioning of witnesses. The forum received 494 comments from 171 contributors.
From the final conclusion:
Quote:
143. Army 2020 represents a radical vision for the future role and structure of the British Army. It departs significantly from the announcements made in SDSR 2010 and we have considerable doubts about how the plan was developed and tested, and whether it will meet the needs of the UK's national security. The evidence presented to date has been far from convincing. Our principal concerns are twofold:
· First, the MoD has failed to communicate the rationale and strategy behind the plan to the Army, the wider Armed Forces, Parliament or the public.
· Second, we remain concerned that the financially driven reduction in the numbers of Regulars has the potential to leave the Army short of personnel particularly in key supporting capabilities until sufficient additional Reserves are recruited and trained.
144. The Government has said Army 2020 has to work and that there is no Plan B.
Link:http://www.publications.parliament.u.../576/57607.htm
-
The latest entry from abovesaid blog: Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Quote:
GLOBSEC: The Road to Bratislava
...
History is only senseless and cruel if the politics and strategy that make history are driven by short-term prescriptions in which the easy politics of the moment trumps strategy and security. In standing up to Greater Russia it is time for all Europeans as Europe to stand tall and resist the precedents of macho power Moscow is seeking to re-establish in Europe. Fail and it will not simply be the poor people of Ukraine who suffer the consequences. The very idea of ‘Europe’ will have been demonstrated a hollow, empty lie – a good-time gamble unable and unwilling to stand up for the very values and interests it claims as its heritage.
It reminds me the lamentations of one European author from 16th cent. about the moral superiority and military prowess of Ottoman Turks, while Europeans are divided, depressed and apathetic. Where is Europe and where is Ottoman Empire now?
-
We have more horses than tanks
From an observer:
Quote:
Royal Tank Regiment (RTR) is now down to just one Regiment with 56 Main Battle Tanks. For the first time since WWII we have more horses than tanks.
There are two other tank equipped regiments in the British Army, but they are called cavalry regiments and do not have horses for operational use:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-9644238.html
I leave aside the Blues & Royals, the mounted cavalry of the Household Division:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...mXG2-r2Q6rwmAw
Well I suppose they could give some Cossacks a surpise if they reach London.:wry:
-
Ex-SAS Co writes: a military 'sugar rush' risks strategic failure
Ex-SAS commanders are not known for taking a high profile on current events, so this article deserves reading. It does refer to the UK decision to become involved last week. It is a moot point whether it also applies to the USA and others outside the region.
The title 'Get the politics right, then the plan for the military might work' and sub-titled 'Bombing IS jihadists provides a 'sugar rush', but the Government has been silent on what it knows is needed'.
Link:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...k-9759924.html
Here is one key paragraph:
Quote:
But to those of us that know Iraq, terrorists and extremism, and have fought organisations such as Isis within that country, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the situation does not look as positive, or the plan as robust, as that presented on Friday in Parliament. Projected by the theatre of Parliament, the deployment of six RAF bombers has taken on a military and political significance out of all proportion to their real military value. They provide us and our leaders, desperate to do something, with a military sugar rush, to be followed inevitably in six months’ time with the “war-downer” reality that things are not going as we wish them to, and that the long-term costs of our involvement are escalating, in ways that will need to be explained, or hidden, during a general election.
Then shorter passages:
Quote:
Bombing that is not geared to an Iraqi political purpose will only create propaganda opportunities for Isis, as it seeks to legitimise its hold over western Iraq.....Bombing alone will not break the will of Isis to hold its ground in Iraq, and it must be joined on the ground by the Iraqi military if it is to be decisive. What, then, of this essential task?.....Bombing and killing Isis and Iraqis without a political solution for the Iraqi Sunni is to risk strategic failure – to risk making the Iraqi Sunni see Baghdad as oppressors and not liberators. Bombing without an effective Iraqi army is to risk operational stalemate on the ground and a fixing of the front lines, both of which appear to define the course that we have set ourselves.
Personally I am deeply pessimistic from the comfort of my armchair about the UK resuming a military role in Iraq, for our national interests bar one which I will end with later. Secondly the Iraqi state shows no sign of changing and as Joel Wing reports on the main Iraq-Syria thread the state armed forces remain, well a mess. I fear we have done what ISIS wanted, as western powers return to the region with just bombs.
What is the UK national interest bar one? Joining in a coalition which the USA has advocated, so once again we stand beside you.
-
David,
All good points, and I think I can argue we already failed strategically when we failed to find WMD, and changed the balance of power in the region in a way that favored both Iran and sunni extremists. The current approach may have been well intended, but the underlying assumption or hope that Iraq would step up politically and militarily hasn't happened.
Can we recover from failure? England did during WWII, as have others throughout history. My question for you is should the West fight IS regardless based on the threat the pose to us?
-
Before I get serious on Bill's question
-
Bill asked me:
Quote:
My question for you is should the West fight IS regardless based on the threat the(y) pose to us?
From my armchair faraway Bill my response is political not military.
I am unconvinced that we, the UK, should join this alliance and take military action in Iraq, maybe with Syria being added.
First and foremost we do not understand the region well enough to navigate our way around and achieve the goal of a united, coherent Iraqi state. This weakness is partly historical and reflects the lack of information, let alone intelligence on what is happening now.
This academic piece has value 'With bad intelligence on Islamic State, West is flying in the dark':https://theconversation.com/with-bad...the-dark-32247 This analyst takes a more strategic viewpoint - what can intervention achieve:http://leftfootforward.org/2014/09/5...st-should-ask/ and from ICSR:https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/...ikes-stop-isis
Secondly I am not convinced ISIS poses such a threat to the UK and allied national security now or in the near future, that it demands military action. In the debate here last week a number of MPs referred to the threat to Turkey, which is a very weak argument given Turkey's own stance to date. Yes like all jihadists they hate the 'far enemy'. Have they the motivation and capability to attack us now? It seems to me they are busy enough carving out their emirate and contemplating how to attack Baghdad.
The allied military action taken so far has been criticised in many quarters; reflected in the other SWC thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=21196
I support giving aid to the enemies of ISIS such as the Kurds in both countries, although their objectives are quite limited and they are unlikely to want to attack traditionally Sunni Arab areas. As for the Iraqi state I see little action of consequence.
In Syria it is harder to decide on how to fight ISIS. I would oppose a "deal" with Bashir Assad and his rivals the jihadist-inclined groups. As many have noted a number of those groups may ally themselves with ISIS now. If that happens the non-jihadist groups are doomed. Assad rarely attacks ISIS, as Crowbat reminds us.
Containment of ISIS is achievable:
1) Reduce its newly acquired heavy weapons capability (artillery, tanks etc)
2) Support the Kurdish enclaves in Syria
3) Support rival groups overtly and covertly to attack / resist ISIS
4) Enforce a 'no fly zone' over Syria (build up to this)
5) Weaken its message, finances and flow of personnel
-
Forty years command experience
Quote:
A review of Taking Command, by General David Richards, with a foreword by Max Hastings. A model four-star general takes us through his 40 years in the British army
Link:http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/936...view/#comments
A book I might ask for Xmas.:D
I know he has his admirers - in some strange places - and critics. He can be remarkably direct sometimes.
-
Help! There's a (Russian) sub out there
Quote:
The British government acknowledged today that a submarine periscope had been sighted in waters near a main U.K. base, (
off west Scotland), touching off a massive NATO
hunt in November.....A pair of U.S. Navy P-3 Orions, as well as Canadian and French planes and two British warships, scoured the waters for days when the periscope was seen in November.
Link:http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...-in-uk-waters/
More detail:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...sh-waters.html
Embarassing as the UK has no maritime patrol aircraft. Even more as the only 'main' UK base in western Scotland are the Trident SSBN facilities in the Clyde. Taken alongside the current higher level of Russian flights and probing it is to say the least interesting.
-
Cuts could reduce Army to virtually useless
A rather clear, pointed commentary by a respected military correspondent that the planned budget cuts - across most government departments - will make the British Army and others almost irrelevent:
Quote:
The UK now becomes the unreliable ally that probably won’t be able to protect its own vital maritime interests.
Link:http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/617...#ixzz3Lb8psgAH
-
Help! There's a (Russian) 2nd sub out there
Oh dear, once again a suspected Russian submarine periscope appears near the transit route for the UK's nuclear missile submarines, based in the Firth of Clyde. This time a RN frigate was on station and needed two USN maritime patrol aircraft's help:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...submarine.html
-
Moderator at work
Prompted by creating a new thread for the UK's top soldier, General Nick Carter, giving a speech, I have combined approx. nine threads here. The title remains unchanged, although the emphasis here is on the Army.
-
The Future of the British Army: CGS speaks
General Nick Carter, the UK's top soldier, spoke on February 17th, on the theme of 'The Future of the British Army: How the Army must change to serve Britain in a Volatile World' and a 24 min podcast is here:http://www.chathamhouse.org/event/fu...volatile-world
The UK continues to see itself as the USA's leading ally and as readers will know some in the USA have expressed their doubts, both in terms of capability and political will. So there is value in listening to the intention, it is a moot point if it will be funded.
He does rather pack a lot in, in fact the speech sounds almost hurried. Following 'Chatham House Rules' the Q&A are not available. It is interesting that the venue is Chatham House, aka Royal Insititute for International Affairs, not RUSI or IISS.
There is a main thread 'UK military: problems & policies' into which this may be merged:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4819
-
The new doctrine of "Integrated Action" will be of considerable interest to the COIN community. It is influenced heavily (from what I can see) from Emile Simpson's book "War From The Ground Up" and to my mind seems to be most suitable for stability operations. I will be curious to see how the operational use the doctrine as the character of conflict assumed by the doctrine demands a whole of government response, and a response that is both swift and agile. To date Whitehall has proved quite incapable of this.
As for the UK's position with the US. The UK remains the only ally who can put a division in the field with the Americans and is technically more integrated than the other "Five Eyes" partners. On the political front the relationship seems firm, although Scottish Independence (they haven't gone away and the politics remains fevered and volatile north of the border, with increasing sectarian undertones) or continued strategic myopia by the UK Government (further defence cuts and absence from Europe) would undoubtedly relegate us.
-
Citing Red Rat in part:
Quote:
The UK remains the only ally who can put a division in the field with the Americans and is technically more integrated than the other "Five Eyes" partners.
Chatting with a "lurker" with military expertise they remarked the current emphasis on the UK contributing at divisional level meant the one UK division that can be deployed MUST be when an overwhelmingly national interest is at stake. Plus there isno follow-on division.
Secondly I do wonder if NATO decides it must have forces deployed forward in Eastern Europe, Poland notably, will the UK actually totally exit from Germany? Rotating from established bases in Germany is far better than other options.
-
I would be surprised if there were not steps to address the lack of a follow-on division. Certainly the troops are there in number, although not currently in configuration. What would be needed would be a deployable divisional HQ (I don't see why HQ 1 (UK) Division or HQ Force Troops Command could not meet this requirement). More difficult would be sufficient enablers (logistics, CIS, aviation, artillery etc).
A division would operate as part of a corps construct,which could only be fielded by either the US or NATO. One would hope that in both cases national interests would be both aligned and significant. Your lurker is correct in that as the UK's military strength dwindles, commitment of smaller elements constitute greter effort and greater risk. Much like the 20th century Home Fleet much of the strategic value remains in being a "force in being", would the UK really risk the tactical defeat in detail of 3 (UK) Division or the loss of HMS Queen Elizabeth?
I am slightly nonplussed by the UK focus on operating at the divisional level. It seems at variance with the general thrust of what passes for UK defence strategy.
I cannot see the UK not withdrawing completely from Germany, that train appears to have left the station.
-
General Odierno: can the UK-US still work together?
General Odierno has publicly voiced his concern over future working with the UK, an issue that Westminster-Whitehall would prefer not be asked, as it undermines the 'Special Relationship'.
Quote:
I would be lying to you if I did not say that I am very concerned about the GDP investment in the UK. In the past we would have a British army division working alongside an American division. Now it might be a British brigade inside an American division, or even a British battalion inside an American brigade. We have to adjust our programme to make sure we are all able to see that we can still work together.....(He described Britain's role as a key US ally as) about having a partner that has very close values and the same goals as we do. As we look at threats around the world, these are global issues and we need to have multinational solutions. They are concerning to everyone. We all need to be able to invest and work together to solve these problems.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31688929
The BBC cites the original story elsewhere:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-general.html?
There are several issues here, notably UK military capability as it shrinks and how much is spent on defence (2% GDP being an agreed NATO level).
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...y_cuts_464.gif
Avid SWC readers will know UK military reform and the politics are debated in the main thread 'UK military problems & policies', with 85k views and 200 posts:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4819
For at least two years now I have encountered mutterings about the UK's declining capability and perceived lack of political (and public) will to remain the US's willing partner. It is the irony of following the US into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as an ally, that the US military first began to ask were we a capable and willing partner. Diplomacy aside I do wonder if American politicians have asked such questions.
I expect if UK (and NATO) defence spending dips below 2% of GDP that the criticism of Europe relying on the USA for it's defence to become louder.
-
I missed PM David Cameron's response. Rather oddly amidst a wider article, ah well here it is!
Britain is still:
Quote:
a very strong partner for the US
Economy of effort there!
From the article:
Quote:
But that is a long way short of saying he will commit to maintaining defence spending at 2% of GDP
Link:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...fence-spending
Then I found a longer story, apparently given in Colchester as part of election campaign (the town is the ome of an army brigade) and apart from the laudatory list of projects is this:
Quote:
And as for working with the Americans, I know because I spend time with President Obama and others, how much they appreciate the fact that Britain is a very strong and capable partner and able to fight with them, when it's in our national interest, anywhere in the world.
Now I expect a few people would be puzzled at this claim:
Quote:
You can see that very specifically today in Iraq, where the second largest contributor in terms of air strikes and air patrols is Britain by a very large margin. You have to add up several other countries to get to the scale of what we are doing, second after the Americans.
The RAF have six Tornados in Cyprus, so old it has been widely reported only two are available at one time. As the House of Commons Defence Committee reported last week the UK's on the ground presence in Iraq is three people (I assume that excludes SOF) and for example the Australians have many more. See:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...state-iraq-mps
This report refers to the UK undertaking:
Quote:
6% of the air strikes against Isis.....British drones used in Iraq and of those flying over Syria – from October, when they were introduced, through to December. Over that period the UK flew 100 armed Reaper missions, launching 38 Hellfire missiles.
Manpower in Iraq (not Kurdistan):
Quote:
in December, found at that time there were only three UK military personnel outside the Kurdish regions of Iraq compared with 400 Australians, 280 Italians and 300 Spanish.
-
Spend 2% and pay less attention
A Kings of War blog article laments the political attention given to foreign and security policy in the General Election campaign so far:
Quote:
Whilst some people might look at the treatment of foreign policy, defence and security issues during the 2015 UK General Election campaign as a farce, is it not now becoming something much more akin to a tragedy?
Link:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2015/04/cclkow-the-2-doctrine/
Sometimes the leaders refer to their opponents stance on the Trident dettterent, without mentioning the Scottish Nationalist's adamant opposition to its basing in Scotland. Fewer wonder as defence is not "ring-fenced" from spending cuts how much post-election defence will be cut.
I expect that the UK will end up spending less than 2% even after fudging the figures. What the UK spends does not IMHO affect other European nations; it may annoy the USA though.
-
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
-
More on UK's military downsizing and just as important in my view, their reduced funding of BBC.
Video at the following link is Fareed's take:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/05...-0524-take.cnn
His article on the same topic in the Washington Post
Quote:
Okay, that’s a bit unfair. Leaders everywhere, including in the United States, understand that “all politics is local.” But spending a few days recently in Britain, I was struck by just how parochial it has become. After an extraordinary 300-year run, Britain has essentially resigned as a global power.
-
The UK has always possessed a much more realistic appreciation of geo-strategy than the US. I suspect they are also a bit weary of being dragged into an endless string of US-led foreign misadventures defined by our oddly emotional perspective on interests, and our overly "if it's made in the US, the local will like it" approach to foisting ourselves onto others.
As our opponents continue to rise, and our allies and partners continue to distance themselves to avoid being sucked into the messes we either create or are too stiff-necked to avoid, at some point we will begin to step back and reassess what being the US in a globalized, post Cold War world really means. And how to truly "lead" in such an environment.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
The UK has always possessed a much more realistic appreciation of geo-strategy than the US. I suspect they are also a bit weary of being dragged into an endless string of US-led foreign misadventures defined by our oddly emotional perspective on interests, and our overly "if it's made in the US, the local will like it" approach to foisting ourselves onto others.
As our opponents continue to rise, and our allies and partners continue to distance themselves to avoid being sucked into the messes we either create or are too stiff-necked to avoid, at some point we will begin to step back and reassess what being the US in a globalized, post Cold War world really means. And how to truly "lead" in such an environment.
I think your confusing issues here. I agree the British have generally had greater strategic insight than the U.S. for a lot of reasons (history, empire, think in longer time lines, etc.). However, to equate their military downsizing to American foreign policy folly is hubris in its own right. They're making those decisions based upon internal political issues, and I suspect their true strategic thinkers are actually quite concerned about their dependence on others for their defense. Furthermore, the reduction of spending on BBC World has nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy, and everything to do with what Fareed more accurately referred to as Great Britain stepping away from their status as great power. OIF may still be the biggest strategic mistake we ever made, and it certainly tainted UK's government when they went along for the roller coaster ride, and they were left holding the bag when the roller coaster derailed, BUT that one event is not what drove the UK to the decisions they recently made. As you pointed out, they're more strategic than that, and a decision to step away from their world power status based on our hubris would have been short sighted.
-
There seems to be a rolling back in the UK of the government's willingness to involve itself in foreign affairs in general, and 'kinetic' military intervention in particular, and this is acknowledged by government ministers.
As has already been said, it could be traced back to OIF and the impact that has had on public opinion, and it is excused at times under the guise of "achieving more with less" or "getting value for money" (i.e. "doing less" and "spending less"), but there isn't yet a public discussion of the risks of such a course.
It is one thing to the UK to decide to interfere less in the world, but quite another to hope that the world will not still interfere with the UK. A reduced capacity for defence might then become a destabilising factor, and in the long run potentially even more expensive than the money saved in the first place.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Invictus_88
There seems to be a rolling back in the UK of the government's willingness to involve itself in foreign affairs in general, and 'kinetic' military intervention in particular, and this is acknowledged by government ministers.
As has already been said, it could be traced back to OIF and the impact that has had on public opinion, and it is excused at times under the guise of "achieving more with less" or "getting value for money" (i.e. "doing less" and "spending less"), but there isn't yet a public discussion of the risks of such a course.
It is one thing to the UK to decide to interfere less in the world, but quite another to hope that the world will not still interfere with the UK. A reduced capacity for defence might then become a destabilising factor, and in the long run potentially even more expensive than the money saved in the first place.
Invictus,
Yes there is a general "rolling bacK" by this government and to be fair by the opposition too on some foreign affairs. 'Kinetic' military intervention is certainly one area, rightly so IMHO and the low-level military response to ISIS is a good illustration.
Other areas of foreign policy remain very active, on a daily basis and in the long-term - notably over Europe, with a looming referendum. Add in the migrant issue, primarily seen @ Calais and less directly in the Mediterranean. Do not overlook the substantial amount of national 'aid' for development, of around US$21b per year.
Far higher on the UK government's agenda is the economy - which may be better than others, but has persistent problems and more public spending cuts to come. Then there is the question of a political agreement over Scotland. It would be ironic if this Conservative government for whom 'the Union' was once so central oversaw its demise.
It is rare for foreign affairs and national security to occupy the political and media foreground for long. There are substantial public minorities who would prefer a different approach, mainly seen in 'single issue' campaigns. The current Russian war in Ukraine hardly arouses public interest.
There are many who consider some of the defence cuts made, now a few years ago, were wrong, such as the scrapping all maritime patrol aircraft and the construction of two aircraft carriers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
The UK has always possessed a much more realistic appreciation of geo-strategy than the US. I suspect they are also a bit weary of being dragged into an endless string of US-led foreign misadventures defined by our oddly emotional perspective on interests, and our overly "if it's made in the US, the local will like it" approach to foisting ourselves onto others.
I am not convinced that the UK now retains a realistic appreciation of geo-strategy outside of academia. Certainly it has been widely noted by many ( House of Commons Defence Committee, Chris Elliott and more) the absence of strategic thinking from recent (2005 onwards) decisionmaking. Current UK strategy seems to be based around being seen to do something as opposed to achieving anything.
Current UK politics is exclusively focused on three things:
- The UK in Europe
- Scottish Separation
- Reducing the Deficit
Until these are resolved I suspect that UK foreign entanglements will be seen as unwelcome and UK strategic retrenchment will continue.
This "Yes Prime Minister" scene sums up beautifully UK strategy ;)
-
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?
-
An alternative viewpoint from the Oxford Research Group:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...we_need_vision
Quote:
The UK has much to offer in today’s world: a first-class diplomatic service, a legendary intelligence service and a highly effective army. Despite our austerity economics, we still have the second-largest development aid budget in the world. There is much to be applauded.
(Two ideas) We could commit ourselves to become the world’s leading specialist in conflict prevention and resolution. Teams of highly trained mediators could work quietly behind the scenes talking to “terrorists”, exploring opportunities for ceasefires and potential peace negotiations.
.....the armed forces could be restructured from offensive fighting to a force for protection. It would work with local communities in parts of the world where violence looms and protect the people where possible, to ensure their security and thus create political space for early mediation.
Not exactly options General Odierno may relish, but in combination with willing mainly European partners this could have an impact. Biggest snag is this vision appears to depend on not replacing Trident, which currently is hardly unlikely - for the moment leaving aside the SNP's input.
-
It is appeasement
A letter from a ret'd RN Admiral, who in 2002 retired as the UK's most senior RN officer, appeared today's in the Telegraph:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...the-world.html
Two sentences give you a flavour:
Quote:
There are disquieting parallels between the situation that confronted our country some 90 years ago and that which now prevails...Today, although in very different circumstances, there are some uncomfortable similarities.
-
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/
-
The response on this UK defence blog is interesting; the author is scathing, as are some of the comments and some agree:http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/09/not-with-a-bang/
-
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.
-
UK SDSR: reactions
The long awaited UK Strategic Defence & Security Review was published yesterday, getting mixed reviews and some plaudits. From my "armchair" there are the curious: two new 'strike' brigades to be formed by 2025 and largely with the same helicopters we have today.
Reviews:
- Rather long and detailed:http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/1...-does-it-mean/
- The BBC's Mark Urban:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34901846
- RUSI's initial short assessment:https://rusi.org/SDSR2015
- In The Guardian a RUSI SME adds:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...review-britain
- The UK Staff College (Kings War Studies outpost) has three responses:http://defenceindepth.co/
Will our allies, principally the USA 'first & foremost' be convinced the UK is a capable and willing ally?
Yes there is a long running thread on UK Defence into which this maybe merged one day, but as many readers are Americans and we so like the 'Special Relationship' I expecta few here will be interested!
-
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
-
Rip Van Winkle Awakes
I am Rip Van Winkle.
I return to the wider world after some time away to discover that the UK has declared war. At least one would think so judging by both the debate in parliament and the media coverage. The UK has not declared war, it has merely extended the geographic parameters of an already extant campaign. The UK has had a national debate over a tactical decision. This does not bode well over the future ability of the UK to apply force in support of national security, let alone national interests.
As for the overall strategy - the military strategy to defeat ISIL seems to be to be in place and working, albeit at a slower pace then most Western governments would like. The military strategy is however occurring in the absence of a broader grand strategic effort for stabilization, and as many have pointed out:
What is needed is not a counter-ISIL narrative but an ISIL competing narrative.
-
Well they should not be profound. Countries are always in a state of permanent competition, to think otherwise is dangerously nave.
I echo General Houghton's comments on constraints as to the use of force. The trajectory of UK debates and decision making on the use of force are remarkably uninformed in every respect. The rhetoric used is increasingly hyperbolic, it all seems unsustainable without a reset.
-
In general I agree with the GEN's assertions, and they differ little from LTG Rupert's assertions in his classic "The Utility of Force."
Rupert argues that our militaries, government institutions, and multinational organizations are still largely designed to facilitate industrial era war, not war amongst the people (or what I prefer to call new wars). They also are increasingly less capable of dealing adversarial state actors like Russia that operate in what is now commonly referred to as the gray zone.
A couple of key points from Rupert's book and subsequent presentations I have heard.
During industrial era wars, military force achieved our strategic objectives directly (WWI, WWI), but now the utility of force is to set conditions that enable other elements of power to achieve the decisive result.
Wars now endure because we attempt to achieve the decisive result with military force, when there is no military solution. This points back to the claim (fact IMO) that our governments are not properly structured to fight and win modern war.
Rupert uses the terms confrontation and conflict to provide a useful model. Confrontation is the war, and conflicts are battles within the context of the confrontation. We are still stuck in the win all the battles and lose the war, because we don't how to use force to set conditions for other element of power to achieve the decisive result.
I like Rupert's theory, but one thing I question is our ability to achieve decisive results with economic aid, government assistance, etc. even if the military, the interagency partners, and multinational partners could work together. This reminds me of a clear eyed view of China's civil war presented the book Wars for Asia (1911-1949), where the author pointed out that our State Department vigorously sought a political agreement (power sharing) between the Chinese nationalists and communists. Both Mao and Chiang knew this was a pipe dream, their political systems were not compatible. Someone had to win and someone had to lose. I think we tend to assume that there is political settlement short of total victory for many of these wars, while the opponents laugh at our naivety. In "some" cases we either need to pick a side, or stay out altogether.
-
Watching, not bombing
A simple explanation why the RAF's contribution is practically valuable and here is a single passage:
Quote:
....the most significant British contribution to the campaign may not be in the form of armed jets. The Royal Air Force has been using its considerable surveillance capabilities against IS since the beginning of the campaign, and while a few more bomber planes may look flashy on newscasts, they may not make a huge difference in practical terms. Airplanes devoted to electronic listening, on the other hand, do add a hugely important capability to the international coalition rallied against the Islamic State.
Link:https://news.vice.com/article/a-litt...syria-air-war?
IIRC Vice News is an international agency and I have yet to see any decent MSM reporting here.
-
The three strikes ally - a "meaningful difference" said David Cameron
Interesting to see that the BBC and Daily Telegraph both have articles today asking this question, albeit with different headlines:
1) The BBC:
Quote:
Are UK bombs making a difference in Syria?
Later rather pointedly:
Quote:
It is of course still early days. But given the limited number of UK air strikes it begs the questions: why was the government so keen to expand the air strikes to Syria, and why the agonising over a vote that appears to have changed relatively little?
Link:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35166971
2) DTelegraph:
Quote:
RAF bomb raids in Syria dismissed as 'non-event'
Since MPs voted for war over Syria RAF Tornados and Typhoons have mounted only three strike missions
Later citing a regional SME, Jon Lake:
Quote:
Britain’s air campaign in Syria so far is basically a non-event which can have had little, if any, impact on the balance of power on the ground.
Perhaps the RAF has a far better role to play, the MoD says so:
Quote:
The Ministry of Defence said that the RAF’s contribution to reconnaissance over Syria is more significant, with some reports that it is providing up to 60 per cent of the coalition’s entire tactical reconnaissance capability. It declined to specify the number of reconnaissance missions flown, however.
Having merged in a thread which asked 'Can the UK-US still work together' to this main UK defence thread, it is a coincidence the question is being asked again.
-
Would Britain Really be Back as a Traditional Carrier Power?
Devastating analysis of the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier programme; yes the one where the ships float minus any aircraft (F-35 Lightening). A few things I'd quibble with:http://cimsec.org/21192-2/21192
There was gossip that their building was 100% political as Scottish shipyards were involved and the builder, British Aerospace, had "stitched up" the contract so tight cancellation would be more expensive than building them.
-
Lions, Donkeys, and Dinosaurs
If you haven't read that pretty devastating polemic on British defense procurement and BAE, I urge you to do so.
-
Lions, Donkeys, and Dinosaurs: missed that
Granite State,
Thanks I missed that book! Amazon UK shows it was published in 2007, with good reviews:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkey...+and+Dinosaurs
For USA readers:http://www.amazon.com/Lions-Donkeys-...+and+Dinosaurs
-
Peter Hitchens on renewing Trident
Quote:
Trident may seem to David Cameron to be a very useful weapon for attacking Jeremy Corbyn. But does it keep Britain safe?
Actually, no. There is a good, hard, patriotic argument for getting rid of this unusable, American-controlled monstrosity before it bankrupts us and destroys our real defences. And lazy, cheap politics shouldn’t blind us to these facts.
************************************************** ***********
WE do not even control Trident, relying on the USA for so much of its technology and maintenance that we could never use it without American approval. How independent is that?
Meanwhile the Army is visibly shrivelling, demoralised, ill-equipped, historic regiments hollowed out and merged, experienced officers and NCOs leaving. Something similar is happening to the Navy, saddled with two vast joke aircraft carriers whose purpose is uncertain, even if they ever get any aircraft to carry. The RAF is a little better off, but not much.
This is caused mainly by the giant bill for renewing Trident, which will probably end up more than £100 billion, at a time when we are heavily in debt already. If there were any obvious or even remote use for it, then maybe this could be justified. But there isn’t. We could easily maintain a small arsenal of H-bombs or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, just in case, for far less.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....-of-money.html
Pretty persuasive to this Yank.
-
Of course it is recent accounting innovation to bring Trident into the core defence budget. Previous nuclear programmes were kept separate simply because while their strategic utility was not questioned, neither was their lack of tactical utility.
The problem with Hitchen's analysis is that he is basing the utility of Trident on the world now, not the world in 20 years time. Having started my erstwhile military career facing 3rd Shock Army on the Inner German Border and then less than 15 years later finding myself with German Fallschirmjaeger on the Tajikistan border operating alongside Uzbeks against the Taleban, I am not sure I would want to make that prediction. :rolleyes:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Red Rat
Of course it is recent accounting innovation to bring Trident into the core defence budget. Previous nuclear programmes were kept separate simply because while their strategic utility was not questioned, neither was their lack of tactical utility.
Certainly any such drastic change in budgeting raised eyebrows, as consistency is for very good reasons a key principle in accounting. Such a shift should have a much better arguments on it's side as the previous stance supposedly also had its pros.
There is no doubt that facilitating the ill-conceived and poorly executed austerity policy of the recent government was a major factor in this decision. Maybe supported by the ability to show 'strong British commitment' to it's Nato partners by puffing up the percentage of British military spending by subtracting x on one side and adding x on the other.
Even if it's sounds ridiculous this shift pretty likely had already on impact on British defence spending. The specific accounting logic certainly influences more or less the way countries and companies operate. In this case the rest of the defence budget should be under heavier pressure then with the former accounting policy.
-
A short interview with the British Army's top soldier (CGS), the headline is focused on legal actions against soldiers, but I thought this was of note:
Quote:
One of the challenges I face as CGS is that, paradoxically, we’ve never been more popular, with 91 percent approval rating. But I also think that I cannot remember a time when we were less well understood.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ral-staff.html
-
Between a superpower and “Belgium with nukes.”
Hat tip to WoTR for this superb critique of UK national security policy as it tries again to decide what it needs to do and then do it:http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/the...ion-and-power/
He starts with: