The analysis of the Conservative’s approach to Security, Defence and Resilience been a large undertaking. It is only a high level analysis, completed in short order, hopefully readers appreciate that further analysis will be worthwhile as more information comes out of the Conservative Defence, Security and Resilience team.
The analysis is split over 10 posts
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
To summarise our opinion…
There are some excellent ideas, many are long overdue and others just plain common sense. It provides some assurance that an incoming Conservative government will get to grip with the security, defence and resilience issues facing the UK, many of which seem to have been relegated in importance by the Labour government or simply ignored.
However
Many of the suggestions amount to nothing more than fine words and platitudes that almost any party could have voiced or one might find in any security review.
It is understood that this is a green paper or statement of intent and in the run up to an election has to be seen in that context.
Other suggestions seem ill informed, naive and superficial.
The UK Armed Forces are not the paramilitary wing of Oxfam or some adjunct to a European collective and we should not be thinking in these terms.
Finally, it does not cover funding.
We all know that Private Do More with Less is going to have to get on parade.
The appendix on Afghanistan we will leave for another post.
It is also interesting to note the absence of any reporting or analysis of any substance in the mainstream media. This is an important document yet the reporting has tended to focus on the Security and Stabilisation Force proposal or the cyber defence issue.
I just cant believe how bad this greenpaper is, I just cant find anything good in it.
“Some good ideas, some just common sense…”
Yep, great – now how are you going to fund it? Oh there is nothing about funding in here, even thought its a pre-election policy document? Oh, I see, BECAUSE its a pre-election policy document you don’t want to scare tax payers by talking about government spending……
Same old same old, nothing to see here, move along…..
After having read this green paper I am left with more than a few major concerns, points and questions.
•Continuation of the policy of EU integration and foreign rule.
•Putting pressure on the armed forces to look inward at the UK’s security this at a time when they should be focussing outward looking at and engaging with the wider world again.
•Committing the Armed Forces to provide more help to the bloated and comparatively better funded civilian agencies within the UK. Essentially treating the services as a pool of manpower when they no longer have the numbers or the distribution to be effective.
•The setting up of a reconstruction force is something I cannot agree with and as has been said the Armed Forces are not the paramilitary wing of Oxfam or any other aid organisation. Existing capabilities should be enhanced e.g. Royal Engineers and used more often in this role to gain experience.
•Essentially advocating more specialisation and a narrowing of skills. When at the same time they are being adamant that the world is becoming a far more unpredictable and dangerous place to be.
•Suggesting that we must be realistic about our capabilities especially where allies can provide them such as carrier aviation. However report also mentions that there will be operations in future that we will have an interest where the US may not or even the EU may not have an interest.
•No mention of that most important enabler and driver money, not even a commitment to maintain current budgets or a suggestion of how much money will be cut.-
•All the while the politicians are still cutting away at the armed forces funding and this looks set to continue. The services credibility and effectiveness is in question globally maybe not openly but people will be thinking about it not least in the US our traditional friend and military partner.
•The changes to organisational structure confuse me are they completely replacing old organisations or simply renaming them? Or are they bringing old organisations under a new organisation. In other words are they adding more layers and adding to the already shocking red tape or streamlining and replacing the system
•All this talk of Security, security, security made me look for any suggestion of what I would like to see namely a proper Coastguard which would arguably fit within this report and be a sensible suggestion.
I found the entire thing to be mostly rhetoric and wishes with we would like to do this and that while being firm on only a few points. I felt it lacked much detail and for a green paper released when an election is coming along is not a good thing if this is mean to reassure potential voters. I personally think that the paper was a broader security paper rather than a defence paper. I think I need to go and have a read of their website to educate myself on what they plan or think should happen in more detail.
Pingback: Britain’s future strategic direction #4 – Reading the tea-leaves of a resilient nation. « Jedibeeftrix's Blog