Very true.
At the start of a new decade, we appear to live in interesting times (which makes me think of the Chinese curse).
The UK economy has been ruined by short termism and obsession with simple statistical measures, as has much else. Has the target culture in the NHS, or the Police, or the education system, really produced better results? For those involved with defence, short termism is everywhere. I cannot resist mentioning how absurd I think it is that the new carriers are being delayed so save a few quid in the immediate future but it will drive the overall build cost up considerably. There are numerous other examples of this type of policy making.
We have had a decade of presentation and no substance, dancing while the city burns. Will this year, or this decade, be any better?
The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have led many in the media, and the public, and most worryingly politics, to conclude that future conflicts will be both land centric and against opponents without a credible navy or air force. Is this not a case of preparing the fight the last (ie current) war?
After Afghanistan, just about every other nation has a coastline. After Saddam era Iraq, other nations will not have had economics sanctions and arms blockade, and no fly zones for over ten years. We ignore that at our peril. Have a look at Iraq’s Eastern neighbour. Over a thousand miles of coast (not including the Caspian), a large air force, and a navy that includes submarines of various sorts. The Revolutionary Guards also have naval and air forces. Large sums have been spent on sophisticated SAMs and modern fighter aircraft. Likewise North Korea is also a nation that is neither land locked nor has it been subjects of sanctions preventing it from obtaining arms.
The public seem to have concluded that there is no need for frigates, submarines, fighter aircraft, AWACS, to name but a few – ignoring the fact that all of these have been busy. I believe/fear that the next few years will show how dangerous these assumptions are.
Even without an enemy with advanced weapons, the assumption that everything will always be land centric may get us into trouble. There has been a lot written lately of insurgency in Somalia, a coastal state. Across the Gulf of Aden, Yemen also has an Islamist insurgency. Both of these would introduce new maritime aspects to the fight against terror. If they happened simultaneously it would cause real problems for shipping – including that carrying supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Also we forget certain potential terrorist threats at our peril. A terrorist flying an aircraft full of explosives is not a MiG, but personally I’d prefer a fighter to shoot him down, or (at sea) a ship with an appropriate missile system. What if terrorists acquired not only SAMs and anti armour weapons, but anti ship missile, as Hezbollah has already demonstrated. What about a dhow packed with explosives heading towards the Iraqi oil platforms or a ship full of NATO supplies, heading for a Pakistani port? The way to deal with this sort of attack is for an escorting warship to sink it with gunfire (or Sea Skua), or an on call strike aircraft to take it out.
In a few months time we will be having a general election. Does the thought of new Government excite me? Well, no, to be honest. I fear that a short sighted defence review will follow – analogous to Nott’s 1981 defence review.
Public support for the Armed Forces is higher than it has been for years. Is public understanding also increasing? I don’t think so. Does the public understand that the RN and RAF are fighting services in their own right, and need to be, and not simply support arms for the Army?
Originally writtten here.
Sign In
