UK military problems & policies

[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.

[Bill Moore]

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.

[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.

[davidbfpo]

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.

[Red Rat]

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

[davidbfpo]

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?

[davidbfpo]

An alternative viewpoint from the Oxford Research Group:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...we_need_vision

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.

[davidbfpo]

Interesting to see that the BBC and Daily Telegraph both have articles today asking this question, albeit with different headlines:

1) The BBC:

Are UK bombs making a difference in Syria?

Later rather pointedly:

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:

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:

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:

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.

[davidbfpo]

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.

[Granite_State]

If you haven't read that pretty devastating polemic on British defense procurement and BAE, I urge you to do so.