UK military problems & policies

[davidbfpo]

A story I'd been waiting for: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5721192.ece

Which raises the question of command arrangements in Afghanistan, between the USA and the UK. Secondly the apparent deployment of a large US helicopter capability to the region.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

A roundtable discussion on wider UK defence policy, entitled 'Force for Good', with "think tank" experts, analysts, a couple of civil servants and the current Defence Secretary: http://www.newstatesman.com/pdf/defence09.pdf

Note this appeared in the traditionally left-leaning News Statesman weekly magazine and the event's co-sponsor is a private defence contractor; how times change.

The second link: http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/ is an update on issues of defence equipment decision-making and waste of money. Note this useful UK commentary's author is writing a book on Iraq and the website is not being regularly updated.

davidbfpo

[William F. Owen]

A roundtable discussion on wider UK defence policy, entitled 'Force for Good', with "think tank" experts, analysts, a couple of civil servants and the current Defence Secretary: http://www.newstatesman.com/pdf/defence09.pdf

Without going into superfluous detail I know two of those men, extremely well, and they are good solid lads. I also know a respect another man at that meeting but it's far more telling as to who was not there, and should have been!

[davidbfpo]

The ex-SAS major who resigned after completing a tour in Afghanistan has spoken before and was interviewed in The Daily Telegraph, the link is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/4951...its-hands.html

I select one passage: "The operations that we are conducting are so worthless. It's just crazy to think we hold that ground or have any influence on what goes on beyond the bases."

The interview appears, with an official response, on the BBC link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7929785.stm

Note the UK blogsite http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/ is active once more and makes scathing comments on UK defence policy, notably over equipment.

davidbfpo

[Jedburgh]

International Affairs, Mar 09: Blair's Wars and Brown’s Budgets: From Strategic Defence Review to Strategic Decay in Less Than a Decade

...The current state of Britain’s defence stands in marked contrast to the situation just a decade ago. In July 1998 George Robertson, Labour’s first Secretary of State for Defence in 18 years, presented the government’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) to parliament for approval. The SDR represented 14 months of work and enjoyed widespread support within the MoD and parliament, among the various London-based think-tanks and policy research institutes, and within the defence industry and academia. The strategy was praised for bringing foreign and defence policy together in a clear, coherent and affordable fashion. For several years the SDR was regarded as a model for defence planning, so much so that current Conservative defence policy looks set unimaginatively to replicate the SDR process.

Why is it that the government’s past performance in this field, so widely regarded as admirable in principle, has nevertheless proved so difficult to sustain in practice? To put the question another way, why is it that strategy and reality have apparently parted company so dramatically? To answer these questions it must first be understood that UK defence policy—at best a complex and uncertain process, as the next section explains—has always been a compromise of sorts between three policy imperatives: declaratory policy; military strategy; and the defence budget. These imperatives, each of which we discuss in turn below, have been the three main ingredients in the UK defence policy debate particularly the last.....

[davidbfpo]

A shortage of Apache pilots means nine helicopters available in Afghanistan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...frontline.html

davidbfpo

[Jedburgh]

UK National Audit Office Report, 14 May 09: Support to High Intensity Operations

This report looks at the Ministry of Defence’s (the Department’s) arrangements for supporting high intensity operations and focuses on four key areas: equipment, logistics, pre-deployment training and support to personnel. The intention of this report is not to examine military judgement or the outcomes of operations, nor does it look at the support provided to the many smaller operations in which the Department is engaged. Following on from the National Audit Office’s previous work on operations, the aim of this report is to examine the Department’s support to high intensity operations, since it is on this kind of operation that support arrangements are most stress-tested. For each key area of support, the report sets out the Department’s generic arrangements before examining how well these arrangements have been working on Operation TELIC in Iraq and Operation HERRICK in Afghanistan, primarily over the last two years.

[Coldstreamer]

...you shouldn't have joined! Think of it this way..

Within 12 months there will be a General Election, and assuredly a change of government - even if not a change of party.

Within 18 months there will be a Defence Review...not least as part of a post-election Comprehensive Spending Review.

And if past form is anything to go by, we'll hold onto the ludicrously outdated legacy capital projects, that guarantee the industrial base of perhaps 700 employees in margninal constituencies, and elicit saving by cutting...more infantry battalions!

So if you think its depressing now, just WAIT to see what's coming. God bless the baby boomers (honourable exceptions of those in or have worn uniform!). Bottom line - when we were flush, we were neglected. Now the West is Broke, wait and see. It'll be like the Crimea again.

[Ken White]

...God bless the baby boomers (honourable exceptions of those in or have worn uniform!)...

Though I have to say some of those exceptions, honorable as they may be, were / are not helpful to the forces...

I'm old and they just disappointed me -- my Gen X kids, OTOH, can get quite livid on the topic of Baby Boomers...

[davidbfpo]

Some of the recent posts here have moved onto a new thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...5347#post75347
on the UK failing strategy.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

An interesting comment on the UK defence crossroads, brought to the fore by a think tank report (IPPR: http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsa...ion.asp?id=676) and comments that hard choices were needed on what to spend on: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2009...asting-assets/

Be interesting to see if this elite muttering will be picked up by the wider public.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

This time an article in the RUSI Journal, by an ex-UK Army officer: http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Journal_Little.pdf (complete with photos of Kilcullen and Nagl). The last paragraph is worth reading, citing continuous re-invention, reflection and listening to outsiders.

I suspect the article may get some media coverage - as there is some attention to the issues.

RUSI is a Whitehall "think tank", traditionally conservative and in the past due to close links with the Ministry of Defence not exactly open to criticism of policies. Often used as a platform by officials and senior officers to make statements, where General Dannatt has spoken and the incoming CGS General Richards recently: http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E496B...4A4253226F582/ (Must declare an interest, I've been a RUSI member for over thirty years).

Commentary on (as ever): http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/

davidbfpo

[William F. Owen]

This time an article in the RUSI Journal, by an ex-UK Army officer: http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Journal_Little.pdf (complete with photos of Kilcullen and Nagl). The last paragraph is worth reading, citing continuous re-invention, reflection and listening to outsiders.

Interesting. Mentions an article of mine!

[davidbfpo]

This week has seen a series of developments:

a) The valedictory (final) speech by General Dannatt, the UK's top soldier: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...peechAsCgs.htm

I draw attention to (summarised): What leaps out though is something about which we have been vaguely aware..this comes early in the speech ....There was a belief that this could be conducted on the basis of "Go Fast, Go First, Go Home"...Having been locked into a flawed "mantra"..the armed forces geared to be able to deliver on this basis, now to find that they are faced with "long wars” for which they are neither equipped nor trained – nor fully understand. And I quote

"We should be under no illusion: we are at war and if we want to succeed, which we must, we must get onto a war-like footing - and as I said to the Officer Cadets being commissioned from Sandhurst last Christmas 'you enter an Army that is at war - even if not everyone in our nation realises that'".

As ever see the commentary on: http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.co...on-at-war.html

b) An article 'National defence in the age of austerity' by two defence academics (hat tip Kings of War): http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files...ish_dorman.pdf and an earlier paper 'Blair’s wars and Brown’s budgets, 'From Strategic Defence Review to strategic decay in less than a decade' : http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files...ish_dorman.pdf

Remembering David Kilcullen's remarks on more bandsmen in the USA than 'X' check in the first article Pg. 15 Tables One & Two for the incredible manpower structure the UK forces have.

c) The much-hyped report by the House of Commons Foriegn Affairs Committee (with a Labour chairman), that we are doing too much in Afghanistan and note released when parliament is on it's long vacation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-say-MPs.html and slightly longer: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-1766248.html

The report is the top headline on Drudge; UK parliamentary committees have negligible power and governments can easily ignore them. By time Parliament returns who will remember this? Very few.

Other articles refer to an extra 2,000 troops going to Afghanistan, at the US's urging and allegedly vetoed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. If they go to Helmand Province, with three extra helicopters (Merlins), this is crazy IMHO.

Previously commented upon in http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...t=british+army and other threads, notably in the Afghan context: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7644 and http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...hlight=british

[George L. Singleton]

Provided a crash program is up and running to train up Afghan soldiers and security forces (para-military and police), extra UK troops in Helmud Prov. is a sound idea and exactly where those extra soldiers are needed right now.

[Teen_Virtuoso]

Provided a crash program is up and running to train up Afghan soldiers and security forces (para-military and police), extra UK troops in Helmud Prov. is a sound idea and exactly where those extra soldiers are needed right now.

Do they have any personnel to spare though?

[davidbfpo]

Do they have any personnel to spare though?

From an outsider's "armchair" yes there is capacity, in manpower, whether there are the right people for a training and mentoring role is a moot point. As others within have commented somethings are broken. I fear the UK has not thought about sending 2,000 trainers, which is clearly indicated elsewhere as necessary.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

Bill Rammell, Armed Forces Minister, spoke at RUSI on the role of defence in CT; a very broad brush and nothing startling. There is a part about HMG explaining policy on Afghanistan better: http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E4A6F3C9D55E2D/

The speech was picked up by the main media, but I missed it. A speech at RUSI is hardly public engagement, although the Q&A session featured critical, polite questions (mainly from the press).

davidbfpo

[JMA]

Almost half of UK military personnel are ready to leave the forces, a Ministry of Defence survey suggests.

Quote from BBC article: "Among the concerns raised by the 9,000 servicemen and women surveyed were the frequency of tours, levels of pay and the quality of equipment and housing."

I suggest that one needs to separate these factors into two groups. One is for those who appear to resist doing what they were employed to do in the first place and that is to act as a soldier on a op 'tour'. Sooner these go the better.

One would then be left with addressing the other major concerns which unless addressed could denude the military of those with the necessary military skills and who are willing and able to use those skills.

[JMA]

There is no sign of recruiting picking up, although there are too many junior officers to go around (odd I thought and confirmed by Wilf as affecting the Royal Marines too).

What caused this recruiting problem, no - a crisis? Multiple factors and IMHO includes the recent regimental reforms which reduced local links in favour of bigger is better (one reason ostensibly was to improve recruiting across a wider area).

Increased and more dangerous 'tours' should not be ruled out as a cause of the drop off in recruiting.