A guest post from IXION
This is part 1 of 4 (I think). In which I pose some questions and propose some views on the defence of the UK.
- What are we defending?
- Who are we defending against?
- How can we defend it?
- What are our defence forces for?
Without wishing to start my own SDR I would suggest that questions like what are we defending, against whom and why are simply not being asked enough. I am not trying to find answers for all the immediate crises and threats, merely trying to look into the middle distance to try and thing beyond current equipment limitations, without getting into nuclear powered hover ships territory, and not limited to addressing the threat from Iran because the threat may come from Brazil or Bohemia in 10 years time.
There is huge inertia within the defence community.
Equipment wise: – On a par with the Army officers who argued in the 1930’s that there was still a place on the battlefield for the ’well bred cavalry horse’. The navy sticking with sail long after the practical marine steam engine was in use.
Strategy Tactics and force structure: – There is an assumption by many commentators both professional and amateur, that; we have always had a policy / presence, because it has always been done this way, with this type of kit, then that is how it should be done.
The concept of defence itself; against whom? – Witness almost the requirement for bereavement counselling, for our armed forces when the Russians went home. Some middling/senior members of our armed forces simply refused to accept it for some years.
The IMHO quite ridiculous clinging to some sort post colonial role.
We must lose the historical baggage, the technical baggage, and the top heavy nature of our armed forces to be much much lighter on our feet, as the world changes.
Contents
Question 1- What are we defending?
What follows is ‘stating the bleedin obvious’
I take it that we are defending the following:-
Within UK itself
- The territorial integrity of the UK (including the Islands that shall not be named); from foreign state control / invasion.
- The freedom of action within the territories of the UK for the Democratically elected govt of UK from foreign influence.
- The safety and security of the citizens of the UK whilst in it’s territories from foreign state attack.
- The safety and security of the citizens of the UK whilst in it’s territories from foreign none state actors- Terrorists in other words.
- UK based non state actors home grown terrorists.
- The fellow travellers of the above serious organised crime
Outside the UK
- Protection of UK citizens abroad from physical attack.
- Protection of UK economic interests from physical attack, be it by actual action or status or presence.
- Promotion of status of UK both economically and politically.
- ‘Keeping the British end up’ in Nato/UN with the US etc
Some of those are sweeping statements and enclose several concepts you can perhaps add some more.
‘Inside the UK’
Lets start with the first 3 points together.
“We are an Island you know”
Eschewing all the Dark blue shaded historical bullshit what does it (if anything) mean?
It means unlike all the other western nations (excluding places like Ireland and Iceland), We simply have (since the Act of union) only faced only 2 realistic existential threats of invasion, each lead by Napoleon and Hitler. To this day we simply do not have a realistic short or medium term threat of state power lead, cross border invasion. No one is going to role up at Calais at the head of 20 armoured divisions for the foreseeable future. The Third shock Army has gone and it aint coming back, no matter how fondly the Armoured fighting vehicle crowd remember the time when it was.
The only state threat to the HMG ‘s writ and the safety of it’s citizens is Chinese electronic attack. We need to defend against this. (Leaving aside the idea mooted on the radio this week that the US elects some religious nutter as president who wants to Nuke the UK because Harry Potter’s Wizardry offends his Christian beliefs).
The forth point is a real threat that the various state and non state sponsored terrorist organisations can launch Mumbai or other style attacks these are accounted by almost all serious analysts as the most likely threat of actual attack. We need to defend against this.
The last to threats are for the security services and the police to deal with.
‘Outside the UK’
We need to defend against / promote all of these to the best of our ability.
Question 2 – Who are we defending against?
Really this is a good question, and it is one that is simply not asked enough.
Lets ignore the 20 divisions at Calais scenario.
Lets concentrate on the foreign threats to our foreign interests.
I do not intend to detail the lists of potential threats but they are obvious and out there.
Various countries / people who are in charge of big parts of some countries are really not very nice, and are pissed off at us, for various reasons both real and imagined.
They have very different capabilities and aims, these change so have to be flexibly dealt with. But these capabilities should not be underestimated.
Question 3 How can we defend against attack?
We can defend against it by: -
1) Maintaining Financially successful economic policy to support economic stability
2) Maintaining a successful economic policy to pay for armed forces
3) Maintaining armed forces operating by land sea and air appropriate to our real status in the world, and our real economic interests and, foreign commitments.
Let’s address the first two, I invite those who obsess about F35 CVF and FRES, to ponder this: The Euro crises could finish European defence spending for a generation, in effect driving the whole continent’s military equipment into the 2nd rate category, cutting manpower and capabilities, without a shot being fired.
Point three is what the next three posts will address in a force specific way.
Question 4 – What are our defence forces for?
Within living memory, (just) We have been not just a world power but THE world power. For a hundred years no one challenged in a serious way the Pax Britannica. An empire whose military power was built in part on:-
‘Whatever happens we have got
The Maxim Gun and they have not’.
Or as the great Military Philosopher Capt E Blackadder said:-
‘If you saw someone in a skirt you shot him and took his country’
This power has gone, Gone, GONE.
I have said it before on this site and I will say it again.
There is amongst some of the posters on this site a layer of post colonialist, almost racist self delusion that somehow:-
1) Much of the world gives a stuff about what we think
2) We have some capability plus button that allows us to ‘ Punch above our weight’ etc etc, simply because we are British and Johnny foreigner ‘don’t like it up em’; or will run at the first whiff of grapeshot’.
3) Johnny Foreigner cant buy / use good kit and won’t fight when he gets it.
4) ‘We are a world power you know.’
We have just had / are still having 2 disastrous elective foreign adventureistic wars (more on Libya later); based in part on attempting at being as TD put it ’All fur coat and no Knickers’ world power . These wars have been/ are going to be disastrous for UK defence.
We have to stop doing this!
We have UK govt policies on everything going on everywhere this means we have to have people in the foreign office working on everything going on everywhere. Like wise some power point warrior will no doubt be shining his arse on a seat working out the military options for say UK intervention in Somalia / North Korea etc.
We once gained a world wide power and a world wide set of commitments as a result. However Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
Some of those commitments remain even though the world is no longer pink. Unfortunately so do some of the attitudes. But But But! Cry the rosy colonial glow crowd (and I quote):-
“We are not bloody Belgium you know!”
Well IMHO its about time we got our heads round the fact that we sort of are.
Future far away foreign adventures (insofar as we should get involved in any) will be as part of alliances and not just Nato US etc. TD’s forward presence ideas rely on local alliances just as much.
Questions to be asked:
Why do we have to have a policy on North Korea? They do not give a stuff what we think and we will not be intervening there?
Why do we have a policy on Palestine.? I am sure the leaders of the middle east are all very polite and all that but save as we are part of the EC, or mate of the US they really don’t care. The Israeli’s in particular have an attitude of -
‘We are better mates with the US than you are, so jog on pal’.
These are two examples there are many more.
Also the technological cat is out of the bag.
For example:-
Modern civilian technology is advancing at an ever increasing rate. There is an old joke amongst Astro – Physicists is that what with the advances in technology, and the time dilating effects of relativity, there is no point in attempting a manned mission to Alpha Centuri; as it will be passed on the way there by the first scheduled passenger services!
A lot of modern civilian technologies are frankly superior than what would have been regarded as super secret high tech only a decade ago, and they are changing the world. Kenyan tribal cattle herders now carry satellite phones. Such countries are never going to bother with national land line systems or terrestrial TV systems they are old technology.
The idea that the west can embargo / control high-tech weapons technology over anything but a short period is fantasy, it’s done a bang up job stopping the Iranians Nuclear program!
Look at what the rebels did with Google earth in Libya. Check out your local Maplins Just think:-
- GPS Blue Tooth Phone, so you know where you are and what direction you are heading. Check
- Decent high resolution digital camera to ID target. Check
- £200 model helicopter check
£1000 or so plus a few hundred computer nerd hours getting it all to talk to one another, = A serious over the horizon targeting capability for an anti ship missile, Fire control drone or recon RPV
Could T45 spot it? Could it even target it? Who cares! Blow £70 grand an send 70 of them and wait for the T45 to run out of missiles. It is just one example (ok I know it will not be quite as simple as that), but technologically tricks like this will only get easier and cheaper and the results more capable. A real example is the IED arms race in Afghan and attempts to jam RPV control signals by the Taliban.
So the west can embargo from BAE, Ericsson, etc.
Who cares clever nasty people will buy it from Argos!
From the point of view of conventional weapons suppliers they are increasingly out of the loop anyway. There has been talk of a global frigate or even a Colonial sloop. Something for sending to ‘strange sounding places with far away names‘. When I banged on about the possible threats to a CVF battle group from so called third world countries I got derided, I would refer those heavy on derision to the recent news from Syria….
When and if we venture in defence of our interests out of the North Atlantic and the Med we had better go mob handed and loaded for bear or very carefully and cleverly and with the permission of the local big wigs.
In other word TD’s forward presence ideas.
IMHO these are a real attempt to deal with declining military and economic power and to maintain ‘bang per buck’ (not in the technical equipment sense more in the influence sense), and whilst TD may not agree with everything I say I tend to find myself agree with most of what he writes…
Pt 2, 3, and 4 to follow.
Hi IXION,
Agree with your conclusion
“In other word TD’s forward presence ideas.
IMHO these are a real attempt to deal with declining military and economic power and to maintain ‘bang per buck’ (not in the technical equipment sense more in the influence sense), and whilst TD may not agree with everything I say I tend to find myself agree with most of what he writes…” even though it would seem to build only very lightly on the arguments you make at some considerable length.
One detail: RE “the possible threats to a CVF battle group from so called third world countries I got derided, I would refer those heavy on derision to the recent news from Syria”
- a CVF battle group could deal with it
- as we will only have one at a time available (?) and not for a long time, I have been banging on about the minimum capabilities required for a LOG or anything similar, under a different name (amph. ready grp?)
When you’re in an alliance, the defence of your homeland happens at the frontier of the alliance.
If your homeland’s borders do not constitute alliance frontiers, the defence of your homeland does not happen at your homeland.
THAT is why the “we are an island, you know” line is misleading BS. The defence of the UK against external military threats (and all else should be an issue for law enforcement) is a collective alliance defence.
Save for defeating airborne/amphibious troops and intercepting military aircraft Northeast of Scotland there’s no ‘frontier’ thing on the island, thus the island status ain’t relevant.
The UK could not survive another Battle of Britain economically anyway (air war offence has become too effective), thus defence of the UK has to happen farther away – think of European NATO and EU as a buffer zone that needs to be defended.
Ixion
If no one cares what we think or just pays us lip service what is the point of deploying fwd presence ships to influence people as the premission of local big wigs is hardly likely considering were irrelevant.
We should not see forward presence as a purely naval capability, its a concept that sees us influencing, mentoring and assisting local forces reather than an increasingly costly and dificult strategy fo direct intervention that saps our financial strength
TD
I agree with your sentiment but ixion starts from a position that no one is interested in what we say or do therefore fwd presence is by it nature pointless.
@TD, I glad you added that last bit as I think forward presence means different things to different people. We are not talking about deterrence old colonial style by basing cruiser / carrier groups around the world. It has to be more subtle than that with forces that can look after themselves, but there to support other countries not dictate to them. We keep our big stick at home or hidden (just in case we need it).
We need to think about 3 tiers of defence – home/EEZ defence, global presence / patrolling / monitoring and go anywhere (limited) big stick. To be useful the big stick should be able to be used by itself or when needed bound with other big sticks to make a club.
If you cast your mind back to the future of posts and various other things I have said I start from the position of a strong core force that is built for defence and small scale overseas operations like NEO.
Next step is to select a limited number of capability plus areas that we concentrate on to the detriment of others, these capability plus are those that we use as influence levers in coaltions
Finally, we shift focus to forward engagement (maybe thats a better phrase) where mentoring, building capacity, training and joined up defence diplomacy are the key.
Deciding on the relative resource proportions for eahc of those three focus areas is of course an interesting debate
Mark
I think TD has put it right.
The forward presence is about the active promoting of UK diplomatic economic and cultural interrests. each forward presence group of all three armed forces would be in the area as guests of the local powers, NOT there to enforce the will of the Great White Queen.
S O
What external millitary threats?
Seriously:-
Where?
Whom?
How are we fighting them now?
If were going to be invaded and conquoured next week i want to know about it!
ACC
Could you expand on your 2nd paragraph. (Sorry I don’t get your point must be me being a bit thick)
Repulse
Read my army post up next about sticks of various sizes.
Hi Repulse,
I hear what TD says right after your post, but i think your classification would be very useful as most defence assets can be mapped to two of your three categories, but not that many to all the three, as in
“We need to think about 3 tiers of defence – home/EEZ defence, global presence / patrolling / monitoring and go anywhere (limited) big stick. To be useful the big stick should be able to be used by itself or when needed bound with other big sticks to make a club.”
Why do we have a policy on North Korea or Palestine?
Wholly independant policies regarding troubled regions are not always going to be worthwhile due to our very limited capacity to enable or force events on our own. However, we shouldn’t be afraid of holding a British line if required – I would have preferred to have seen a mid-way UK policy preceding the Iraq war, rather than following either the US or Franco-German lines.
Our involvement with Israel/Palestine though is already through the EU or quartet – perhaps the kind of joint method we should use more often.
Hi IXION,
If you mean the “one detail”
- a CVF battle group could deal (at range) even with the kind of sophisticated land-based threat that was described in the Syria post
- a LOG/ Amphib. group on its own (or before we get the supporting CVF) needs to be able to get close to be useful (partly because vertical insertation capability is quite limited)
- CrowsNest or whatever next ASaC is called is finally coming (one day) to be able to coordinate the limited defences to work on an area basis, with enough warning time. Regardless, various land-based missiles (ranging anything from 3 km to 100+)would still put the task force at serious risk, and hence blunting its usefulness in power projection (especially if it just the stick, and not part of a club)
Hi BB,
Couldn’t agree more “through the EU or quartet – perhaps the kind of joint method we should use more often.”
We already do a lot of training and mentoring in countries that we simply do not publicise our presence in.
Our fate is inextricably linked to Europe and beyond. It’s been the case for seven hundred years at least, arguably much further back than that. Anyone who cannot see we must engage globally can’t see beyond the end of their noses. We must defend against a myriad of threats, all far less explicit than previously and thus probably more dangerous. Our risk perception is skewed by our comfortable, fat lives.
TD – you do seem a tad contradictory in some respects, perhaps you just need to explain your stance a little more carefully, as I am reading:
“no one gives a frak what we think” = isolationist
“the answer is forward presence” = sticking our noses in
When I ‘think’ what your trying to say is that we should look to our interests, but to do it in a sensible way, and do it away from the borders of the UK.
Many of the threats come under the heading of terrorism / extremism, and our “system” see’s them as law enforcement issues, with maybe military support (SAS etc.)
Sven of course is also correct, we are in NATO, so if there is a threat to Canada, Poloand, or Turkey’s borders, there is a threat to ours – would you advocate changing that ?
Finally, and lets face it, we have had numerous discussions on these subjects, if we have to scale back our military (not “defense”) ambitions, is it not about time we give up our seat on the UNSC ?
Sorry, really finally, despite the EURO crisis, UK is still “rich” when we look at the majority of the rest of the world, there are many avenues to increasing economic security, and in the long run cyber security should be a major element of this – but that is actually not a military tasking either (a Government one, but not a military one).
Jed, this is from IXION.
I don’t think we are quite yet at the point where no one gives a shit what we think, say or do but how we go about protecting and promoting our interests should be given a bit more critical thought instead of clinging to the past, as Ixion very correctly points out that we still generally do.
Jed
Having ‘interrests’ is fine.
Trying to defend , further them is fine.
It’s more about how that I differ from current apparant mainstream thought.
It is difficult to see whether you are ‘wog’ or not to see how ‘ Do what I say or I will slap you’ can have anything but a temporary benefit leading to long term diminuation of influence.
A ‘Hye there were here to help’:- With your piracy/ smuggling problems, maybe help out with some medical issues. BTW have you seent his great kit were using that you can buy form BAE with export credit guarrantees. Of course if Big British Corp gets that oil/mining/ agricultural concession we wil be able to help themand you more etc… And we can keep a world Eye view on that nasty neirghbour of yours who claims half your territory etc etc.
That’s living within our real world role and maybe making a profit on the deal..
Phil
What risks
I keep posing the questions where are the truly millitary existential threats to UK, or for that matter Turkey or Canada?
I want some kind of list of threats to the Uk’s or her nato allies existence that require to have a large standing high end millitary force of all types ready to fight at the drop of a hat…..
Regarding question 4.
If I may speak in defence of “quasi racist wog slapping”.
The UK still has a vast technological lead over everyone else.
Our technological equals/betters are the US and France.
No one else is in our league. No one else is even playing the same damned sport!
Russia hasnt built a ship bigger than a frigate for 20 years, China cant make jet engines, India cant even make Power Point presentations to decide what aircraft to make and Brazils greatest feat is a pissing Spitfire powered by alcohol!
I dont know what invasions of Afghanistan/Iraq/Lebanon/Gaza you watched, but the ones Sky News showed me were quite clear, Johnny Foreigner ran away and hid or Johnny Foreigner exploded.
Johnny Foreigner can buy good kit, hell, me and a few others are fighting a lonely battle to try and get the UK selling it to them, but history shows they are rarely interested in ponying up the cash for the good stuff, and when they do, they rarely use it effectivly.
Happy to be corrected.
Johnny can lead us on a merry chase through mine fields, sniper fire and ambush, but stand in our way, shout “though shalt not pass” and hold the bridge?
Show me when that has ever happened.
You talk about “we are an island, but you dont really understand it.
To invade 99% of the countries of the world, their neighbours mass a land army on the border, walk across and start shooting people.
To defend against invasion, 99% of the countries of the world mass a land army on their borders and shoot back.
We are not the 99%!!!!
There is no land border to cross
And that gives us an advantage that cannot be overestimated and must not be squandered.
Let me repeat, the primary offence and defence strategy of every other nation on this little blue/green planet can not be used to attack us, nor can it be used to defend against us.
To attack the UK, France needs an entirely different force than the one it would use to Attack Spain, or Defend itself from Germany.
But our advantages do not end there, oh no.
Almost every country in the world dislikes us, but, with the possible exception of Ireland, every country in the world hates someone they share a border with more than they hate us, and oh look, Ireland, our only land border….
Remember the Falklands, part of the reason we won, was that Argentinas cold weather troops were tied up on the Chilean border.
All around the world, we have lots of countries who dont like us, despise each other, and exist in a “balance of power” type situation.
And then one of them pisses us off, we turn up with our pocket division, our 600+ cruise missiles and announce we intend to smash some poor buggers C4 network to pieces, shoot down their airforce and engage and destroy their Guards Division in an 18 hour armour engagement, and all the neighbours who dont like us, but hate the poor bugger we’re about to introduce to the 21st century equivilant of the maxim gun suddenly remember all those border disagreements that have been quietly festering for centuries and that now is a perfect time to press the issue.
That is how we won our empire, we tipped the balance in hundreds of little wars, as the intelligent realised they could join our little empire, and we’d hand over the weapons they needed to subjugate their traditional enemies.
DJ
Altogether
“land of hope and clory mother of the free’.. etc etc.
Ok where do I start…
The UK still has a vast technological lead over everyone else. Our technological equals/betters are the US and France. No one else is in our league. No one else is even playing the same damned sport!’
So the Germans can’t build armoured vehicles, The japs subs etc, No one can Buy US technology, and the local argos is shut..
After we have slapped our wog what happens next? We sail home for tea and scones and the about a week later or so contries forget their border disputes and remember that those honky colonial bastard did it again.
We may have won the Nameless Isles back but did you not notice the latest missives from south america about how the colonial bastards should give back the Malvinas…Bet that amkes selling stuff easier when your talking to the govts.
Ixion
Im afraid your statement and that of TD are very different. Influencing mentoring and assisting TD said. You see the UK promoting diplomatic, economic and cultural interests. Your list has absolutely nothing to do with military forces its better left to FCO, DFID and the culture secretary. While these maybe a soft power application they do not require FWD presence military personnel but still require influence to be affective.
If you use training teams then your looking to gain influence within a countries military establishments by fostering better relations and perhaps training their future leaders so you can ring them in a crisis and row them back from the edge or gain on the ground intel of future intentions. If you deploy a fwd presence ship or intelligence gathering a/c you are again attempting to gain influence in an area. Either by saying to countries were watching you play nice we wont let you either intimidate your neighbours or foster relations with organisations that may threaten our interests we have a stake in this region too.
You also can use your ship and/or helicopters to provide disaster relief ect again trying to buy influence over a nation or its people we helped you out once you can now do this for me ect. Or we can provide a ship or sf team to help security in a country or on its shore from terrorists or pirates. Even large scale deployments for exercising shows countries we can put force on the ground relatively quickly. Again influencing some countries actions towards other countries.
If however as you start from the position as you have that people are just polite to us and have no interest what so ever in what we do or say then the idea of fwd presence is in itself pointless. I would add this fwd presence concept only works if you have absolute disaster over the horizon the big stick, should someone interfere capture or destroy any of your fwd presence assets you need to show your teeth a la west side boys and serra leone as its the most up to date example I can think off. In my view we already have the mechanism to foster this kind of concept all around the world its called the commonwealth but was several neglected as it didn’t fit with cool Britannia I would title are future role as informal engagement.
“I keep posing the questions where are the truly millitary existential threats to UK, or for that matter Turkey or Canada?”
And I keep saying that we are a globally engaged country, our interests are global and our entire way of life absolutely, totally, utterly and fundamentally is linked to global events, good or bad.
I fail to see why this isn’t good enough for you? There are approx 193 different state actors, all with access and control of various portions and parts of resources we need to keep our way of life going. Remove our ability to influence on a global stage and you sign this country’s death warrant.
Britain has never been able to have as much of war as she likes.
We must be able to operate globally.
We must have enough mass to matter in a coalition.
We must have enough staying power to truly influence events on the ground.
We must maintain the ability to regenerate the entire spectrum of war operations.
Against whom? Any bastard who threatens our way of life. And any bastard who threatens the way of life of one our allies.
It takes far longer to regenerate a capability than it does for a threat to emerge.
@ Phil – I think I agree
Canada has a lot of potential problems with the status of the northwest passage, as the ice melts more and longer, giving a potential world class route for travel from Europe to the Pacific but through what Canada considers its territorial waters .. Problems with the US to name just one and China as another
Turkey has major interests in Iraq but has a large ongoing conflict with Kurdish separatists and despite falling out with Israel may get pulled into a Syrian Palestinian conflict to say nothing of the troubles that it may have with Iran and its long range missiles
As for us, I use gas central heating and that is now shipped via Suez and could come under threat at any time, to say nothing of the many and various seaways we take for granted any one of which could be used for political leverage in someone else’s dispute.
Absolutely direct threats minimal
Threats that are part of the global market and its ongoing machinations many – who would now doubt that Greece is an economic threat to the UK – how did that happen? And what is the right response?
Someone gets sick in a Spanish resort and German lettuce growers are in trouble or some such, I don’t think direct threats are enough of a description of when we may have to use force to push through our best interests against those of others
Ixion
germany does make good armoured vehicles, but to my knowledge, it doesnt build great ones, not sure there are any stand out armoured vehicles?
What else?
Does japan make great submarines?
People can buy US tech, they can buy ours, given their other concerns, can they beat us with it?
When has a first world power lost a high intensity short war against a second world?
Portugal in goa?
Is sailing home with bitterness behind us such a bad thing?
I cant set the world to rights, i can protect the uk.
There is much I subscribe in this post. But the conclusion is not properly backed by evidence.
Where exactly is there a requirement for forward presence? And where is this ‘forward’ geographically? Is Afghanistan ‘forward’? Does ‘forward’ means ‘overseas territory’?
The point you are making and which is core of TDs idea of presence is the french model. But is it applicable? Today, the UN list of colonial territories is made up largely of british ones, because we have a major difference on how we organize a state compared to France. We could find a french-like solution (their overseas territories are part of the mainland), but we lack the will. Let’s face it: we cannot even keep Scotland in the boat or get Jersey or Man in, so what?
Forward presence only works if the capital has something at stake. To be honest, I cannot even see this, apart from fantastical energy-resources on the bottom of the Falklands, which may secure british pensions through BP stocks.
Apart from this, we have no requirement to fight terrorists in Afghanistan. This whole war-on-terrorism is a big fail. We have betrayed the foundations of our country. We should revert all security laws to pre-2001 level, double the MI6-budget and live with the same uncertainty as we do today.
We should not try to be a world police. It would be OK, if we avoided delivering weapons to despots and open vast lucrative defence markets we are yet not dealing with due to political correctness, Taiwan being the primary example. If an aggressor threatens our friends, including the FPDA-nations, they should find us prepared to instantly make their lives hard.
For this, we should focus on places, where low numbers and high-tech achieve maximum advantage: undersea and space.
mcz
the falkies might like to join, but mann is very happy ‘as is’, as are the channel islands.
None of the ot’s want to break away
IMHO we are members of the UN and our enemies are so designated by the United Nations Security Council. Unless a country directly attacks the United Kingdom or an its allies.
Have we the military capacity and political will, I don’t know.
France has never the political will for anything, we’ll always half, our doctrine is zero death, we have normally equivalent to 16AAB with the 11ème brigade parachutiste but without helicopters support, we have no equivalent to 3 commando Brigade.
But we have a pretty good equipment.
UK has the political will to project a large number of soldiers and you agree to lose many men, but you have an aging equipment, not aircraft carriers, you will not be able to lead the large-scale operations for ten years .
i hope the authors thoughts on this subject aren’t adopted by the politicians.
if they are then the UK should (if i’m reading him right) scrap the carriers, scrap the F-35 buy, freeze defense spending in general, disband the Army, reduce the size of the Air Force and Navy, and only have the Royal Marines or maybe a Parachute Battalion and Special Forces in its military.
everything else is really just law enforcement on steroids.
funny.
i slam the UK because i think they’re stepping back from the world stage and aren’t living up to the example of the Iron Lady. Ms. Thatcher would puke if she read whats being advanced on these pages.
i see Belgium being used as an example. how about you aim higher and just be the UK of recent years. this financial mess is world wide and is a result of the failed experiment called globalization unwinding. nothing more. the world needs the UK to remain engaged, forward leaning and ready to commit militarily when needed.
this semi-pacifist streak thats being disguised as being prudent fiscally is alarming.
rethink this guys!
“Apart from this, we have no requirement to fight terrorists in Afghanistan.”
–Terrorists attacked western targets several times culminating in September 11 where a group proved itself capable of utilising what amounted to a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
–That group was given shelter and harbour in Afghanistan.
–That shelter and harbour gave the group the stability and cohesion needed to plan and execute their attacks.
–Eliminating that sanctuary destroyed the two main attributes that allowed that group to initiate a WMD.
–Invading Afghanistan thus had the effect of removing the, or one of the threats of WMDs being employed against Western civilian and political targets.
–Building a Government and society that can function on a basic level and who will in future reject such terrorist groups has a direct effect on that threat not developing once again in that area.
I think the above is beyond doubt.
What people can’t stomach is that this kind of strategy takes enormous amounts of treasure and effort, lives and above all, time.
When people argue against Afghan they are arguing against seeing through an objective to its logical conclusion. They moan that its all too hard, the problems too difficult, it costs too much etc etc etc They are not arguing against the basic premises behind the invasion.
As I have pointed out, until it started taking time, until more soldiers started dying and it started to cost more money the objective in Afghanistan was on the whole accepted.
Some people can’t stomach a fight. Thank God there are people who can.
my position is quite clear:
we face no existential threats, but others do, so there will always be a requirement for someone to arbitrate disputes from the end of a gun barrel (lets call this the UNSC for now).
given that we face no existential threats, and that we have a population that is (still) accepting of elective warfare, it is at least appropriate that britain should consider itself for the role of gun-barrel arbiter.
however, an appropriate ambition is not the same the as a realisable one, but on the other hand we will remain a top-ten economy beyond 2050 and likely a top-five military spender in the same timeframe, so perhaps it is a realisable ambition too.
but why should we distort our armed forces towards the kind of expeditionary structure this role demands?
1. because we face no existential threats
2. because, as an island, we cannot be taken by surprise
3. because somebody has to do it
4. because, outside the US, we have the second most capable expeditionary capability
5. most importantly, because the electorate will accept it
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Europe/0710ch_yougov_survey.pdf
i am all in favour of TD’s description of forward presence, not all disputes are best solved by the scream of an incoming tomahawk, and disputes are always best resolved without reaching this point.
solomon
thatcher wasnt keen on paying for ‘team gb: world police’ either
the interventionism was after her.
Jedi
when the result of the fight is known in advance, its less likely to happen in the first place.
i’m not a fan of gb or his philosophy but i always wonder how the world’s intelligence agencies could all be so wrong about Sadaam’s weapons of destruction.
no one is investigating that part but i wonder if Thatcher was in office and saw the same evidence with MI-6 saying yes he has them, would she not have also intervened?
Phil
We lack the force to invade conqour occupy and rebuild afghan.
The US lacks the capability. It has tried, is trying it will fail.
The USSR tried untrammeled by any of the rules of engagement that restrict us.
So tough, they may be a threat, but we aint big enough or tough enough to go after them.
As for having the stomach for it, nope.
Because it our troops who are dying and having bits blown off, it our treasure that is paying for the privilige. If it had any chance of success I would be cheering it.
Oh and the US would be out there failing to do it any way without us so we should have let em.
Solomon
Wait for the other posts. Not that bad I hope!
I am just trying to ask why we have ended up where we are and is it really where we want to be.
It is not enogh to assert as some do that the world is a big scary place full of big scary people who hate us and want to do us down… Don’t actually care if half of them do; dont’ care if the other half even have some idea / capabilty to harm us; much of our ‘defence capabilty’ is pretty useless for stopping them.
Phil
you are reading abit like one of those US rednecks who have lots of guns to ‘protect his family’. No job, no health care, no decent education, but boy is he ready to take on anyone who threatens him…
( Once met one who had a job and 72 guns yep 72. He bought a huge pickup just to be able to carry some of them).
So if it was all going well and was easy and painless you’d support it? The objectives we are fighting for are either worthy or not. I suggest they are. Just because it’s hard to do doesn’t make it any less worthy to do. Just because the threat is not in our face does not make it any less dangerous, in fact it makes it more do because people will not perceive the risk.
I don’t own any guns mate beyond an air rifle as a kid. But I do support all the other things you mention. Which is why I support global engagement because all those things are dependent on things well beyond our borders.
Mark
Sorry Missed you post.
I am not say we do not have influence or that we should not seek more. Just that, what we have is nowhere near as big as some think, and we are trying to keep it/ get more in a self defeating way.
Td’s Idea calls for FO and intelligence funding as well as milittary.
Nice post IXION, diversity of opinion being useful for sparking debate.
Some of the issues that have come up in the article and comments that drew my eye;
- Britain’s technological “lead” is being over stated by some. Yes, we do have the ability ourselves to make some very fancy stuff, but so do a lot of other countries. People routinely play down Russia’s technological ability, but let’s not forget that they effectively pioneered the use of helmet mounted sights, have developed AESA radars of their own, have put men and machines in space (the US is currently reliant on them to resupply and change crews on the ISS) have built nuclear weapons, nuclear powered subs and developed missiles that can shoot down ICBM’s, and the list goes on. The fact that they don’t have the money of the US to fund every project all at once doesn’t detract from the fact that they have significant technological skill.
On a different note, I see what people are saying about “our borders” being effectively those of our neighbours. Libya had nothing really much to do with us other than a bit of oil, but it was close to the borders of Italy which makes it by extension our problem. Any attack or threat on a NATO member is effectively one on us.
@IXION:
There’s no immediate realistic threat (only imagined ones and some work for LE).
That’s why I personally have been arguing for a basic military for a long time. I want a force that’s sound on a small scale, and well-prepared for a quick expansion (size about x4) within at most two years.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/08/bundeswehr-structure-what-i-would-do.html
That’s a bit easier if you pay more attention to land war than naval war, of course. The dwindling of the Western shipyard industry make a quick (<2 years) naval build-up even more difficult than only a few decades ago.
Phil
IT was nevr going to be easy and over quickly, it was always going to be minor bloodbath, Just look at the latest US general who has been sacked for speaking his mind about the uselessness of The Afghan administration…. See daily Telegraph for details.
Sorry but destroying equipment cash and above all men, in the name of an unwinable war is not being tough, nor is opposing it weak.
I don’t think it’s “unwinnable”. Nobody pretends that Afghanistan is going to emerge looking like Andorra but the insurgency is being smashed and there is a government firmly in power that is unlikely to allow a terrorist group to set up a cosy little headquarters from which to plan attacks on western citizens. We need to get away from this very 1945 notion of everything being all nice and tidy at the end of a conflict, it has little historical precedence. We’re on the way to getting our two biggest objectives sorted.
phil
I don’t want to take this post off at a tangent but look at the news about Maj Gen Fuller
‘there is a government firmly in power’
It will be firmly in power untill about a week after the US leaves then whatever they will be called if not the Taliban will take over and carry on hating the western infideland everyone else for that matter.
One of the questions is what does victory in afghan look like/ How will we know when we’ve won?
Yes we do have influence and while not at the level of American we have significant economics and military capability. I do agree that all efforts diplomatic humanitarian and military force needs to be brought together and acted on simultaneously and in a considerably more rapid way that is currently the case. We need a fundamental shift in the way the military does things to an information age warfare stance far removed from the cold war thinking we need to get smart and responsive.
We are defending the security and integrity of the UK its dependant territories but most importantly our way of life.
We are defending these against a constant competition both home and abroad from belligerent nations and non state actors who will threaten our prosperity, our culture the fabric of our civilisation through fear and disruption of the very basics of modern life in the UK .
Every act we engage in will be reported over an instantaneous global news network and any mistake we make used as a recruiting sergeant for the forces we fight or weaken support back home.
What do we need to defend against such things a new stream lined command chain with a first-rate intelligence and information management system allowing on scene commanders to take decisions’displaying excellent judgement. These will not be typical military operations instead we need to target multiple points of influence simultaneously to reduce the threat to a manageable level quickly so as it can be pasted to local indigenous forces. In short the military needs to change events for the better.
The military need to be able to counter the terrorist’s and criminals with rogue global corporate sponsors who promote disruption and mass effect using NBC or cyber methods. This will require operations on a global scale in failing or failed states using our global network of alliances and non-state parties. If we do not engage these threats they have the ability to plan and carry out terrorist attacks such as 9/11, 7/7 or Mumbai or disrupt our global trading network be they ships or stock market transactions wiping billions of the UK balance sht.
These capabilities need to be carried out independently be legitimate and proportional all the while respect sovereign constraints of countries we operating in or from.
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t think a government which has control of 200,000 plus security forces versus a localised, criminal based insurgency will immediately fall when we leave. It won’t have western values but it’s not a western country. And it will more than likely reject any attempt by terrorists who want to harm us set up home. Especially since that Government will be flush with western money. And before anyone decries paying off another government it was a perfectly common practise from Roman times right up until recently to instal a government and keep it sweet by greasing the wheels. There’s no point trying to play western rules with a non western player. Like I said this 1945 notion of complete victory has done us much disservice, complete victories being more notable for their rarity.
What will victory look like. We’ll leave behind a pro western bribed government in charge of a homogenous and relatively large security force able to deal with the remnants of any insurgency which will be further undermined in the few instances where nationalism plays a role by the departure of the foreigners. And that government will have every interest in rejecting all terrorist groups because we’ll pay them and they know we’ll be back if they don’t. And they’ll have every interest in staying in power because they’ll be dead if they don’t. Either way as long as they play ball who gives a shit, and they have those very compelling reasons to play ball. Do you think the Romans cared a toss about the internal politics of the various barbarian tribes as long as they were obedient? That the tribal chief might have been skimming off the cream and appointed his brother religious chief or whatever.
Phil
You are in minority if you think the 200,000 plus armed forces will hang together for more than a few months after the US decides to go. And i rpeat my point the US would have gone in without us, and done it any way.
I get derided for the vietnam parallels but
ANA = RVN is a good one and the South vietnam regime had as much support and reason for hanging on.
All this Faux real politic of the ‘who cares if he’s a son of a bitch so long as he’s our son of bitch’ reality does not impress.
The world has moved on the Taliban are one facet of the forces at work in afghan. The place will fly apart so fast when we leave if you are standing nearby you will get hit by shrapnell.
As for being anywhere near a victory is that the one we were near in 2007, or 2008, or was it the one in 2009 or 2010?
You know the one where the Taliban were on the edge of collapse the ANA was nearly trained and ready to take over, we had killed all the Talliban leadership, etc etc?
Im am sure we are due the annual
‘one more push and we’ve won’
press release from Army big wigs.
After all 10 years is no time at all to be involved in a war
Phil said: “Do you think the Romans cared a toss about the internal politics of the various barbarian tribes as long as they were obedient? That the tribal chief might have been skimming off the cream and appointed his brother religious chief or whatever.”
Oh yeah, that worked well for the Roman Empire in the end didn’t it !
IXION.
I’m in the minority? So you’ve done a global survey then?
Afghanistan is not a teeming hell hole. Most of it is actually quite peaceful and no more a terrorist shooting range than Manchester was in 1972. And most of the rest is blown out of proportion by an hysterical media who cannot get their breathless heads around the fact that a bomb here or there is hardly Armageddon and that most Afghans neither know nor care about raids in Kabul. We constantly apply western liberal fat, rich values statements to events over there – oh but a bomb has gone off the Taliban have gained the initiate; oh another bomb has gone off surely we are all doomed now; but it’s just all SO hard why should we try it’ll will take them years anyway to fly another plane into three thousand human beings so we can just buy our Starbucks and worry about X-Factor for a bit longer and deal with it all later, just like the bloke hitting the snooze button repeatedly in the morning.
I don’t see why Afghanistan should be singularly unable to keep a standing Army in being when other far Eastern states have managed it for thousands of years. Especially since they won’t be paying the wages, the west will. And especially since Afghanistan had a standing army for quite a very long time before. Large standing armies = control and power and that’s fine by me because those in control and power on the whole are more interested in keeping it than causing mischief and letting international terrorists set up home.
Vietnam was very different. Unless Pakistan invades Afghanistan your parallels are pointless.
As for all the snipes about when is victory due – I don’t remember all these victory press releases, I just remember briefings given that indicate progress is being made. But then, I imagine in your Tower of Cynicism these notions of progress don’t wash because by God, there was a bomb in Kabul on Thursday and so that’s set us back another four years.
I’ll state it again, ten years ago nobody mainstream argued against our objectives in Afghanistan – it’s only since the going has gotten hard that people have started to piss and whine and get impatient because it wasn’t done yesterday. Our entire perception of reality and how long it takes to do something is somewhere up on cloud Cuckooland. Surely we must be able to invade a country, defeat a COIN operation and train a new army in like, a year something when the new series of Friends comes on.
IXION,
I would echo Phil from the point of view that everything you ever hear about Afghanistan in UK media is either about Helmand, or Kabul. Helmand has 1.5m people and Kabul a million. There are 30m people in A-stan.
There is a degree of political correctness to this Wiki entry ” Urban areas are experiencing rapid population growth since the Karzai administration began in late 2001, which is mainly due to the return of over 5 million expats.”
- so, refugees are expats now?
- there is some truth to it as the educated elite had plenty of reason to leave the country, and they did not necessarily spend the last couple of decades in a tent, South of the border. I.e they will be a key ingredient in getting a functioning state up and running (while the West pays for the army)
Phil
Its not a hell hole. But..
When did it last have a stable national govt, whose writ actualy ran outside Kabul?
Why should when we leave be different?
I have not been there, thankfully no one has shot at me that i can recall although Jamacan Gangster did once stick an Uzi in my face..
But all of the reports (and I discount most of what is put out by the BBC for the reason that they tend to be appocolyptic about a few hoodies kicking of in London, let alone gunfire in Afghan).
The more thoughtful stuff frankly laughs at the notion that some sort stable national govt will result when we go.
The ANA are very vairiable, with some units fighting well and other about as reliable as a Tony Blair prommise.