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 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.
Before I get serious on Bill's question
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
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
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.
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.