UK military problems & policies

[davidbfpo]

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:

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:

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

[Red Rat]

The US strategic situation is very similar to what it was in the run up to WW2, especially in terms of force projection. Then the US could cover either the Pacific or the Atlantic, but not both concurrently. The fleet simply was not big enough.

With the US pivoting towards a Pacific/Asia focus it would make sense for a degree of rationalisation. In the same way that during a large part of the Cold war and in particular during the height of the Vietnam conflict the UK took on the burden of the North Sea and Atlantic Gap so today a UK/European towards the Middle East and Africa would make sense. The UK could not do what the US does (the UK does not have an effective global reach anymore (we now tread softly and carry a very small stick)) but by focusing efforts we can take a degree of the burden from the US.

[jmm99]

... and the UK-EU would assume responsibility in the Med as well - a return to origins so to speak (in Corbettese).

Regards

Mike

[Red Rat]

Churchill on the bank notes and the White Ensign all over the Med - what's not to like?

[davidbfpo]

A short commentary by a British historian 'Britain's '9/11 Wars' in historical perspective: why change and continuity matter' :http://www.historyandpolicy.org/pape...paper-143.html

[davidbfpo]

... 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.

[davidbfpo]

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.

[jmm99]

My point re: the Med was simply and solely a necessary corollary of Red Rat's proposition re: the Middle East and North Africa ("Muslim Africa").

As a sidebar, "control" of the western littorals of Africa is tied to control of the Middle Passage and the South Atlantic (the US and Brazil seem the futuristic likely partners). "Control" of the eastern littorals of Africa is tied to control of the Indian Ocean (the "power points" are "South Africa", India and a "Greater Indonesia"). Those littorals are separate issues from North Africa (and from the African interior; exemplified by the Congo).

As to "control" of the Middle East and North Africa, a "Sixth Fleet" in the Med is a necessity. To be complete, one would also have to have (at least) localized control in the Indian Ocean (Arabian Peninsula and its Gulfs). Otherwise, one is dealing in a "pipe dream". One has to ask some basic questions before "Marching on Moscow" (or Beijing - I confess to both Montgomery and MacArthur sitting on my primary bookshelves).

As to methodology on the "basic questions", I liked this from Red Rat in the "5 Lessons from Astan" thread":

1) An insurgency is a political problem with a military dimension, treat it as such; understand the politics of the problem in order to understand the politics of the solution.

2) Set domestic conditions early for a long commitment. COIN takes time, nation building takes longer.

3) Build the police and judicial system first or at least concurrent with indigenous military capacity.

4) In a failed state establishing a government with no capacity to govern is not necessarily a good idea. A government with no civil service and no educated middle class to become a civil service is a government in name only, then giving it autonomy but no capacity is inviting failure.

5) Controlling [emphasis JMM] the population is as important as securing the population.

All of these principles are applicable in spades to "control" of regions - i.e., the Middle East, North Africa, etc.

Now, both of you know that I'm not an interventionalist where the US is concerned (and. rarely, a "nation builder"). As an example, the Med, Middle East and North Africa would be to me off-limits for the US, except for exigent circumstances (e.g., something akin to 9/11). A corollary of that is that I can't be an advocate for interventions by others - I don't believe in "war by proxy", absent "exigent circumstances".

That being said, vacuums in the Med, Middle East and North Africa will be filled by "someone" - not by the US as I see it. Thus, a good discussion point for you all UK-EUians.

Regards

Mike

[Red Rat]

The UK military referees to MENA - Middle East and North Africa which encompasses both the Middle East and North Africa (the Maghreb) and takes in most of the Mediterranean littoral.

I was struck by this Economist article on the French defence review. Three things struck me:

1) The defence review commission included senior British representation.
2) The article posits a pivot to MENA.
3) Growing talk of a US pivot to Asia causing the Europeans (probably under NATO and not the EU) to step up independent intervention efforts.