This reports states that Britain’s armed forces are considered to be below strength for the tasks they have been ordered to perform. Nothing very surprising about that, given that although Blair has been almost indecently keen to deploy troops, sailors and airmen to various theatres of operations, he has not backed this up with a corresponding deployment of resources.
As a minimal statist rather than an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, I accept that providing for the defence of this country is a basic task of the state, but that of course leaves wide open how exactly that task is carried out, by whom, and at what cost. Does it mean things like standing armies, or navies, or large airforces, or anti-missile batteries dotting the coasts? Does it mean an armed citizenry called upon to defend the nation at short notice? Does it mean getting into alliances with other powers to share this role, or focusing entirely on one’s own resources?
It is Friday and we like a good debate ahead of the weekend. Let the comments fly! Try not to get hurt.
Johnathan Pearce:
My libertarian instincts have always favored the Swiss model of armed citizenry. One might argue that such a system constitutes a specific kind of draft, and thus prefer professional armies as practiced in most of today’s Western countries. However, I believe that even compulsory armed service in a citizens’ militia — a true one, like in Switzerland — is a lesser infringement of liberty and carries an infinitely smaller danger of abuse than monopolization of firepower in the hands of a standing army.
Another serious objection to the Swiss model is the fact that such a model is possible only for a country that practices complete neutrality and non-interventionism in foreign affairs. While I strongly favor non-interventionism in principle, the obvious question is whether such states could successfully resist the expansion of powerful and aggressive empires hell-bent on global domination. The citizens’ militia of each individual free country would be very difficult to submit, but arguably the worst of such monsters — most notably the Third Reich and the USSR — could be stopped only by assembling a broad coalition of nations ready to deploy troops across the globe. This obviously requires professional or draft-based standing armies.
For island nations, like Britain and Australia, the importance of standing armies has always been minimal, and this is historically so. For such countries, domination or air & sea approaches is sufficient fordefence against invasion. This dictates strong air & sea defence, such as a strong fighter and fighter bomber airforce, missile defence systems and submarine forces. Strangely enough, this is where the British and Australian militaries have some strength.
The problem is forward defence, such as the actions we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The debate then turns to whether such military actions are within the remit of acceptable scope of defence for a minimalist state. Clearly in anti-terrorist activities, police, espionage and special forces are most useful defences. As recent events have shown, standing army military adventures abroad to counter rogue states and target terrorism are a magnet for terrorists in themselves and provide both training and propaganda material for our enemies, unintended consequences of state intervention indeed. However to develop an effective special forces demands a suitable recruitment base, which is typically at least a moderate standing army.
Does it mean things like standing armies, or navies, or large airforces, or anti-missile batteries. No it means providing things like decent anti-flak suits such as Dragonskins, instead of the rubbish they have due to sweetheart deals with certain firms. It means providing a level of equipment which will enable the job to be done – APCs, tank camouflage etc.
Why have a standing army at all? Surely it would be a much more efficient use of resources to have a few highly trained special forces units which could be used like a scalpel rather than a hulking great army which, because of its size and the logistics required, can only ever be used like a sledgehammer. We have reached a stage in our technological developement where we can actually deploy maximum force with minimum manpower. The tommy on the ground is no longer necessary in the prosecution of conventional war, in fact it may be safe to say that war in the traditionally conventional sense (two armies going head to head) no longer exists, its all about precision strikes, cruise missiles, destruction of infrastucture and propaganda nowadays. We can settle our disputes with far more subtlety if we only try.
As to current spending on defense, our armed forces could have far more reliable equipment, far quicker, if they bought it off the shelf and adapted their operating procedures to the equipment rather than deciding on how to do things then wanting quipment designed to match. Take crossbow for instance: They could have a system that is tried and tested and just as secure if they gave every soldier an off the shelf PDA with some custom software on it, the batteries would last longer aswell. The current wrist mounted unit can only be used for 5 mins every hour over 12 hours. Thats 1 hour of battery life. How long does a PDA battery last in comparison? Sorry for the rant but while I find the fact that we have an army at all mildly distasteful, but necessary, I find the incompetence with which it is managed by the mandarins in the MoD (not the soldiers, I’m sure they’re just as frustrated with the bureacracy as everyone else) even more so. If we have to spend huge amounts of money on an army at all we should bloody well get our moneys worth.
PS: When I was in the Air Cadets I was shocked to discover that the rifle used by our forces, the SA-80 (and its derivatives) was manufactured by Fisher Price. Who also make childrens toys. The irony was not lost on me a few years later when the weapons started failing in the desert.
I think we need to look at defense in the the light of self-sufficiency in terms of energy, water and food, plus the raw materials that run what industries we have for wealth generation.
Britain has, IIRC, mostly projected force overseas in terms of protecting or obtaining access to resources or defending the trade routes over which they travel. China will be a threat to all in that regard, as they care not not “the other”.
Most if not all wars are about resources or loot (parasitical access to resources, if you will). A country that has wealth needs to protect its accumulated wealth and protect its access to future wealth and that is the responsibilty of any government that raises taxes. One “nation” founded on a quest for loot is Islam, as we know.
Switzerland is a safe place to stash its neighbours’ treasure, so is rather unique.
Still, if the UK builds more Nuclear power stations and has a strong, capable Navy and Airforce, it need not project quite so much in terms of mass land forces.
In a way I agree with the concept of militia, but I do worry that the Muslim Ummah will take priority for their “brothers” over the UK national interests and mixing guns therein may be a problem now. How does Switzerland deal with it, anyone?
On a final note, I believe the EU relishes the idea of weakened national identity so it can rely on any particular ‘territory’ being incapable of resisting it’s remit due to a large “fifth column” of disinterested residents. Dilute and conquer, as it were.
Automation and decentralisation are key in any future decisions on the forces. But I am of the opinion of letting the army earn extra money, via (approved) mercenary missions. Not unlike GWI.
Ivan,
“One might argue that such a system constitutes a specific kind of draft, …”
A compulsory militia system would indeed just be a version of the draft –it is in Switzerland. Once government compels people to do military service it claims property rights over its citizens. Once this is done, there needs to be a network to enforce this property claim. This effectively disables the militia as an instrument of control over government power since the government already owns and controls those who make up the militia. A voluntary militia alongside a standing army would be an entirely different thing though.
Given the complexities of modern warfare
I seriously doubt a civilian militia would be up to it.
Switzerland hasn’t fired a shot in anger in 500 years.
It’s all very well to say “Well that’s the way they do things there” when the way they do things havent been tested in any real situation.
Besides they are by now the default banker of the world. The holder of coats in our global playground fights.
Troops on the ground will always be needed, however smart our technology gets. Iraq is failing because it needed more troops not less.
TimC:
Yes, this is another serious objection to a system of armed citizenry: it is a recipe for disaster in a country where identity politics is pursued by ethnic or religious groups. (I’ll refrain from entering a very non-PC discussion of how this isn’t the only way in which a multicultural society — I’m not talking about multiethnic and multireligious societies in general, but specifically about the modern leftist ideological concept of “multiculturalism” — naturally requires an uncomfortably powerful and centralized government.)
As for the Swiss, their militia includes only citizens — and the Swiss citizenship is one of the most difficult ones to obtain in the world. They have many guest workers from all over the world, but virtually none of them are ever granted citizenship. The Swiss apparently like it that way.
I’m all for well armed citizenry — as a protection from government and each other. But military might, under civilian control, is essential to face current exigencies.
The international liberal order is under siege from militant religious extremists and I am surprised that I have yet to see a mentioned.
Fewer and fewer nations will step up to the plate on this. I would hate to see the UK go the way of Canada and bow out.
Go Anglosphere! Arm up!
As an American, with all that’s happening in the world today, I hope that we leave Europe to itself. The English included. We bailed your sorry asses out of the fire twice in the 20th century. It looks like you all want to give in again and hope for a protector to come to your aide. Figure it out on your own this time. You’re on your own.
Not an Anglophile.
I *am* an Anglophile and I am sad to see England as the canary in the coal mine. I deplore the loss of freedoms there and worry about your future. I correspond with many friends in England and we commiserate over our respective problems. I do understand that English values are not American values – even if we do sort of speak the same language. Until the past decade or so I thought English values were the superior, or at least the more mature.
I’ve also read up quite a bit on the 20’s and 30’s, and found that Europeans, the English included, didn’t like Americans very much then either.
Be careful what you wish for. Anti-Americanism is going to make it more difficult to get us to come in. I’m not sure we would help out next time as it seems you won’t help yourselves now. All it takes around here is 51% voting no…and at the moment you’d get about 70% voting no if France asked.
I’m sure that many of you feel that America has deserved all of the criticism and is heir to all the slings and arrows you wish to throw. I respectfully disagree, but neither should you expect us to come running when you call. Europe is going to need to cowboy up a bit before the cowboys will ride in again. It could easily come down to the familiar call but with a different answer….
“Fancy a trip to Europe?”
“Nope, not this time.”
anonymous, I guess a lot of Americans – I assume you are – feel bitter that so many Europeans are not grateful for what the US did in the first and second world wars (although you did get involved a bit on the late side). That is understanderble. Put in a slightly less bitter way, your moan should be heard by those Europeans who slag off the United States but bleat when the US decides to take an isolationist policy.
Mind you, as a Brit, our governments have usually backed you, and look what has happened to Blair as a result. The US has kicked its closest ally in the teeth with things like the steel tariffs. So undersand us if we don’t all feel warm and fuzzy about Bush and Co. at the moment.
The Armed Forces being undermanned is nothing new. In the 1980’s the RAF operated to an average FMDL (Forecast Manning Deficiency Level) of up to 10% at a time when we were fighting the Cold War as well manning Fortress Falklands. And all under a penny-pinching Conservative government that would make the current lot look like Father Christmas.
Since I stopped receiving the Queen’s Shilling, I take a rather different view on retaining a standing army. Forget arming the loyal subjects (if there any left who fit that description); this is the home of outsourcing. Lets buy our forward/expeditionary defence from the 3rd world, or maybe more realistic, Eastern Europe. Cheap labour and no more worrying about British squaddies on war-crimes charges. Mercenaries for the 21st century.
What is a full-bodied son?What again is to flavor son?What just is quite tasty==the wow let you enjoy full flavorgame