How the British Army will Fight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kedBlURaRaE
These interviews impressed me as being balanced. Those interviewed realize that Afghanistan isn't a template for future conflict, and logically state the requirement for having a full range of military capabilities.
Comments from an armchair
Bill,
I have now watched and listened to the film clip twice. It raises a number of issues succinctly, although some of the footage was odd - the Russians in Kosovo and the IDF. Being an official product, when the MoD prefers to be in hibernation from public comment, it is a shame alternative voices do not feature. The speakers, with one exception, being MoD employees or contractors.
After a recent, speculative press report 'British Army's fleet of Apache helicopters 'could be scrapped' it was almost amusing to hear the remarks on "heavy" assets versus Apaches:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-scrapped.html
What was more valuable was the very careful skirting round the issue of, from various voices:
Quote:
an ability to go with them (USA)...making a strategic difference to the USA....an ability to do a task alone..
There are dissenting voices that think the shrunken UK military have - now and will clearly do so soon - fallen below the US minimum level for a contribution.
Reductions in public spending are driving this process, not a change in strategic direction nor a change in public opinion - which gives defence a low priority. I suspect that politically no-one wants to ask, let alone hear either the British professionals or US politicians answer the question is the UK a meaningful ally when it comes to a fight? A fight not for national survival, hard to conceive of today, more likely an intervention with the USA somewhere.
Hypothetically had the UK not pushed others in NATO in 2005 over "making a difference" in Afghanistan; the decision for ISAF to go south, would the USA have done so alone? You can argue that the minimal campaigning by the USA in Afghanistan better suited your national purpose.
East of Suez: did we leave, now we're smarter?
I can recall the British decision to end its defence role 'East of Suez' in 1968, mainly due to economic factors and to cut defence spending - much to the dismay of a few partners and before Gulf War One only a smaller presence was left in Oman, the Gulf and (with the USA) on Diego Garcia.
Two Gulf Wars later, the interventions in Iraq and - still - Afghanistan the UK is there in force in the midst of an economic recession, with substantial cuts in defence spending. You might think now was not the time to expand the British role in the Persian Gulf, wrong!
RUSI, a Whitehall "think tank", has published a paper; in summary:
Quote:
The UK is approaching a decision point where a significant strategic reorientation of its defence and security towards the Gulf is both plausible and logical; and, for the first time since the UK unceremoniously left the Gulf in 1971, a coherent strategy for a ‘return to east of Suez’ is emerging.
There is a useful short podcast and a paper on:http://www.rusi.org/publications/oth...517AA8D59D1B3/
A BBC report notes:
Quote:
We are already committed to the Gulf. But we are just not doing it very well. There are 160,000 British citizens living there so if there is a crisis we will be involved, so we need to be better positioned to mitigate the threat.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22333555
Responsibility in the Med?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
... and the UK-EU would assume responsibility in the Med as well - a return to origins so to speak (in Corbettese).
JMM,
I see little reason why the UK should return to a military role in the Mediterranean, let alone try to assume some responsibility in other spheres. After all there are three albeit rather lame - in economic conditions - nations, France, Italy and Spain.
After the lessons seen over the Libyan intervention, the EU has yet to emerge as a truly capable, independent military partner.
The UK: now we're smarter?
Yes the UK has a number of strategic, national interests across the world, but IMHO a return to the Gulf, Med, Africa and other places ignores our much reduced military capabilities - not exclusively due to economics - and far more significant issues at home.
What is proposed is not smarter.
This one's for you, Bill Moore
Female Special Forces; and at 2:21:
Quote:
Soldiers from 1st SF call them "Killer Barbie Dolls".
:)
Regards
Mike
The first-order duty of people to speak truth unto power.
The title is taken from testimony by Lord Hennessey, a journalist-cum-historian, who with two others gave evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence on:
Quote:
a strategic inquiry, Towards the Next Defence and Security Review.
Not an exciting matter for the great British public and I expect many others. Within the testimony are many gems on how the UK does and doesn't do defence policy:http://www.publications.parliament.u...i/uc109001.htm
Here is one passage, Quinlan's law (named after a MoD civil servant of note):
Quote:
A theorem: In matters of military contingency, the expected, precisely because it is expected, is not to be expected. Rationale: What we expect, we plan and provide for; what we plan and provide for, we thereby deter; what we deter does not happen. What does happen is what we did not deter, because we did not plan and provide for it, because we did not expect it.
Another witness, an academic strategist, Professor Julian Lindley-French, who is British and currently based in The Netherlands, has some enlightening remarks, especially on alliance matters. His blog is:http://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk/
In one post the Professor is straight-talking:
Quote:
The Royal Navy’s motto is; if you want peace, prepare for war. Thankfully, Britain today does not have to prepare for war. However, in a world full of friction if Britain is to help prevent conflict injurious to its national interests it must think and act strategically. Therefore, SDSR 2015 must finally look beyond Afghanistan and not simply re-fight it better. Indeed, the switch from so-called campaigning to contingency operations will make the 2015 review as close to a grand strategic year zero as Britain has known for a century. It is an opportunity to be seized not squandered.
Link:http://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk/...-of-spear.html
No wonder Whitehall-Westminster prefer to make grand statements, but as our American allies know capability is needed with will. Just whether the UK has a strategy today is a moot point, plenty of policy or is it called retrenchment?
Hat tip to 'Red Rat' for the pointer to the testimony.