Over the coming months Think Defence will be running a series of posts on a Future Defence Review.
We have already made a start with articles covering a range of topics that might inform such a review.
Introduction
Future Threats
The UK’s Place in the World
Missions and Requirements
Starters for Ten
Ideas, Suggestions and Hair Brained Schemes
All posts will be categorised as FDR (see menu) for ease of reading.
Our objective has always been merely to stimulate debate, we don’t claim to hold any special knowledge or insight so hopefully the posts will generate a healthy discussion.
The scene setting posts have generated quite a bit of debate and the general opinion of much of the comments is that the UK should retreat to a role of ‘Strategic Raider’ able to mount expeditionary operations of short duration, leaving any ongoing operations to others.
Attractive in many ways, it would allow force structures and equipment plans to remain largely as is, provides for the armed forces to retain a degree of flexibility, able to flex up or down as required and finally, avoids protracted engagements that generally have a high casualty rate and poor chances of success.
The problem with adopting this stance is that it forces a degree of isolation on the UK, the likely reality is not going to be short sharp interventions and back home sharpish for tea and medals. We are entering a period of enduring conflict where even interstate conflict will take on the characteristics of unconventional asymmetric warfare.
So if we are to remain a part of NATO and maintain a strategic relationship with the USA we must recognise that whilst we must maintain a steel core of conventional ‘high end’ full spectrum capabilities for infrequent small scale UK only operations or to provide elements of a wider coalition, the bulk of our capabilities should be configured for so called unconventional operations on a continuous or enduring basis.
This will be the background to our forthcoming suggestions, ideas and har brained schemes!
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
3 Comments
I think the author of this post is correct the consensus is for Strategic Raiding but what I think varies is the definition of Strategic Raid and all that it entails.
My definition of a strategic raid seems to be broader and longer in duration than my fellow commenter’s. For one instead of a hit and run raid to act like a scalpel on the enemy destroying key infrastructure and facilities to remove or reduce the enemies ability to fight or counter attack. I think a hammer approach would be wiser this entails a longer lasting effect but still includes taking out the same targets as a hit and run raid with the same precision. What I mean by a hammer is staying for a time to ensure enemy military units are found and materially destroyed ensuring they cannot easily regroup and counter attack simply leave longer term cracks and concussion than short term slashes. The idea would be to remove all the military capacity for a counter attack or for an enemy to be able to regroup and think what they are going to do next.
I would like to add I’m not against the other options I just feel out of the list of possibilities Strategic Raiding would be the most plausible and sensible route in my opinion. Counterinsurgency warfare is fine I don’t mind our military getting involved in that sort of fight but experiences with Afghanistan have tainted my opinion and I suspect has tainted others opinions. I would like strict and enforceable by law regulations to be placed on deploying troops for any length of time and in any large number. I would suggest a limit of around 12 months and 6,000 men, if either of these are met or passed then there should be a vote or referendum of some sort carried out to Authorise the use or extension of a military deployment. The reason I have chosen these numbers is because 12 months is a long enough time to get a strategic raid done and do some cleaning up afterwards and any longer would mean military personnel doing more than one tour of duty. The number of deployed personnel I have taken from the rough figures that we are ‘running hot’ or overstretched deploying 13,000 personnel so just under half should be sustainable without problems especially for 1 year. If these figures are breached then as I said a vote of some sort as well as a public briefing given on why we are somewhere, what we are doing there, how long we plan to stay and when we plan to leave e.g what conditions would need to be met. If no consultation or explanation is given by a Government then there should be consequences ranging from the Government being dissolved and a general election held to temporary handing over of command handed over to the military authorities. If an operation is approved for longer than 12 months and more than 6,000 personnel deployed then I feel the MoD should become a Ministry of War and an all party defence committee formed to oversee the deployment to conclusion. This Ministry of War would have more powers to ensure the mission can be carried out successfully including the ability to overrule other departments and ministers to get the required resources.
Well it might seem a bit bonkers to some people but hey everyone is entitled to an opinion
“Well it might seem a bit bonkers to some people but hey everyone is entitled to an opinion”
Not bonkers in the slightest, not terribly likely to happen in the real world, but the real world is worryingly bonkers.
Makes complete and total sense, although the landing assets required to land 12,000 troops might be a bit beyond us.
“The problem with adopting this stance is that it forces a degree of isolation on the UK, the likely reality is not going to be short sharp interventions and back home sharpish for tea and medals. We are entering a period of enduring conflict where even interstate conflict will take on the characteristics of unconventional asymmetric warfare.”
The world is entering a entering that state, but I dont agree that the UK is.
A strategic raiding force couldnt end the afghan civil war, or bottle up the resurgent IRA.
But, it doesnt have to.
The Afghan Civil War is for the regional powers to solve, or not, our only interest was in response to the attack on us on September 11th 2001, (NATO, attack on one attack on all).
On the morning of October 7th, the Taliban were undisputed rulers of, for the area, a pretty reasonable empire.
On the evening of December 7th, their leader and the last of his forces ran from the capital and hid, his army broken and scattered or dead.
As a strategic raid, thats pretty impressive, and lets face it, no progress has been made since then.
If the IRA start kicking up a fuss again, find out who’s supplying them with arms, it was Libya last time, probably be Iran this time, and impress upon them why it would be wise to stop. If they dont, then rain hell fire down upon them, for a week.
Perhaps land a force to ensure you have overturned all the big stones looking for where they are hiding.
Preferably in support of an internal coup that wants to avoid you blowing up every power plant, bridge, telephone exchange ect.
Your right the real world is bonkers but it’s bigger and the majority of people think it’s not the world that is bonkers but some of us. :D
12 months and 6,000 men, I do think we could manage 6,000 men when it comes to crunch time especially since I’m including the idea of replacing HMS Ocean, RFA Argus with something like the Mistral class and adding another 2 for good measure. Each ship can carry around 1,000 men in overload configuration and I would only expect 2 ships to be available maybe 3 if an operation is planned. Combined with the Bay and Albion classes as well as troops dispersed on other vessels I think we could make it to around 6,000 men.
I agree mostly with the points about Afghanistan although the actual 9/11 events I feel are still a little shady and suspicious. I don’t deny that it happened I just think there are things hidden from the public and there is evidence to point to some very suspicious goings on. Yeah It might sound a bit crazy and conspiracy theoryish but time will hopefully reveal more and maybe the truth will be told but I doubt it.