Foreign policy will determine military goals

An open letter to George Robertson, Secretary of State for Defence, from Admiral Sir James Eberle

Share
Related Topics
DEAR GEORGE,

You will soon need to publish the Government's Strategic Defence Review. Some of the main and difficult decisions will by now have been taken. However, how these decisions are presented can have a significant impact on the reaction of the armed services and the public.

Winston Churchill wrote nearly 100 years ago: "The army is not an inanimate thing like a house, to be pulled down or changed or structurally altered at the caprice of the tenant or owner; it is a living thing. If it is bullied, it sulks: if it is unhappy it pines; if it is harried, it will get feverish; if it is sufficiently disturbed, it will wither and dwindle and almost die. And when it comes to this last serious condition, it is only revived by lots of time and lots of money."

There remains much truth in that for our armed forces of today. This, however, should not exclude the consideration of any radical options. A recent top-level management study concluded: "It is no longer acceptable for leadership to be pre-occupied with maintaining the status quo. Senior managers are ideally placed to alter established beliefs and values in advance of generally recognised requirements for change." Service men and women will accept radical change, if it is reasoned, orderly and measured.

The effectiveness of our armed forces, which is respected worldwide, is primarily based on the skills and dedication of those who serve in uniform. They are now more stretched on operational and administrative tasks than at any time during the past half-century. Our service men and women are now required to go anywhere and do anything. You need to show that you have put people first.

It is widely expected that the Review will stress the importance of the "jointness" of military operations today - that is the ability to apply force on the land, from the sea and from the air. It is, however, only on the ground that sustained influence can effectively be applied.

Although the dimensions and characteristics of today's battlefield are changing, they compromise a common operational space in which the three services must operate. Nevertheless, each element of it demands different characteristics of its people. Soldiers fight the enemy on a personal man-to-man basis. Sailors have no such climate of personal conflict. And in the airforce, only a very few are normally in direct contact with the enemy.

Each of out of three individual services have unique and valuable contributions to make in the application of military force. These contributions can however only be maximised in a concept and doctrine of joint warfare.

We are also now clearly entering an era of expeditionary warfare. That is to say, sustained operations overseas that are mounted from the UK. They are most likely to be conducted in littoral areas, where more than half of the world's population live. This requires "flexible forces" capable of being rapidly mounted and deployed. Flexibility is, however, as much an attitude of mind as it is a defining characteristic of structure.

There is now widespread agreement that the requirement for expeditionary warfare can best be met by a series of offshore mobile platforms, able to operate fixed-wing aircraft, such as the Navy's Sea Harrier 2 or the RAF's Harrier GR7, to accommodate ground troops, to provide logistic support at sea and ashore, to carry out ship-shore movement of heavy equipment and to be fitted with proper joint command facilities.

This configuration, backed by a long-range air transport force, will not look very different from the shape of the forces that successfully recovered the Falkland Islands. The indications are that the Review is broadly moving down this road. I believe that you can expect general support for such restructuring.

This exercise has been labelled a Strategic Defence Review, and it is not at all clear that some of the broad, longer-term strategic issues are being fully addressed. The European Union must address seriously the military security role that it wishes to play vis-a vis the United States. The formation of a common foreign and security policy has not made much progress - and the conduct of the recent Iraqi affair struck a further blow to its credibility.

Meaningful steps towards the creation of a European security and defence identity are difficult to discern. The restructuring of the European defence industry does not keep pace with the growing American challenge. Progress towards the stated eventual goal of a "common defence" is glacial.

If the United States is to be placed in the position that it cannot rely on Europe to respond in a coherent way to future international challenges which may call for the deployment of military force, then Europe cannot expect to have significant influence or leverage over potential American unilateralism. Britain and France, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, have special responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security. This, it can well be argued, implies that they should therefore maintain a global capability.

This means the ability of being able to operate not only in the Atlantic and Middle East areas, but also in the Asia Pacific region. Is this responsibility to be accepted?

There is also the implication that Britain should maintain a capability of being able to operate "in the front line" alongside US forces in high intensity operations. With the American commitment to maintaining technological superiority in all areas of the military field, this will become increasingly costly. Are we willing to pay the price?

I realise that these questions involve foreign policy issues that do not lie fully in your departmental area. However, in an age of continuing change and uncertainty, in which the processes by which military means can be turned into political ends are becoming more complex and more difficult, it is very important that the strategic background to your structural review is clearly laid out.

It is only thus that the Chiefs of Staff can sensibly plan the shape and size of the armed forces to support effectively our national interests. There is nothing that undermines the confidence of the military in the political process more than being asked to undertake tasks for which they have previously been told they should not plan.

Your task is no easy one. There are many who wish you well.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

English Teacher

£22000 - £36000 per annum: Randstad Education Leeds: Secondary English Teacher...

Content Manager - Central London

£35000 - £40000 per annum + Benefits: Ashdown Group: Content Manager - Central...

General Cover Teacher - Grimsby

Negotiable: Randstad Education Hull: Qualified Teachers needed for Supply in t...

English Teacher Urgently Required - Secure Unit - Nottingham

£100 - £161 per day: Randstad Education Nottingham: Are you a fully qualified ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Richard Dawkins  

Richard Dawkins is wrong to suggest that there can be varying degrees of severity involved in rape

Sian Norris
 

Fist bumps will never replace the handshake - we're just not cool enough

Jessica Brown Jessica Brown
The children were playing in the street with toy guns. The air strikes were tragically real

The air strikes were tragically real

The children were playing in the street with toy guns
Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite – The British, as others see us

Britain as others see us

Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite
Countries that don’t survey their tigers risk losing them altogether

Countries that don’t survey their tigers risk losing them

Jonathon Porritt sounds the alarm
How did our legends really begin?

How did our legends really begin?

Applying the theory of evolution to the world's many mythologies
Watch out: Lambrusco is back on the menu

Lambrusco is back on the menu

Naff Seventies corner-shop staple is this year's Aperol Spritz
A new Russian revolution: Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc

A new Russian revolution

Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc
Eugene de Kock: Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

The debate rages in South Africa over whether Eugene de Kock should ever be released from jail
Standing my ground: If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?

Standing my ground

If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?
Commonwealth Games 2014: Dai Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Welsh hurdler was World, European and Commonwealth champion, but then the injuries crept in
Israel-Gaza conflict: Secret report helps Israelis to hide facts

Patrick Cockburn: Secret report helps Israel to hide facts

The slickness of Israel's spokesmen is rooted in directions set down by pollster Frank Luntz
The man who dared to go on holiday

The man who dared to go on holiday

New York's mayor has taken a vacation - in a nation that has still to enforce paid leave, it caused quite a stir, reports Rupert Cornwell
Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business, from Sarah Millican to Marcus Brigstocke

Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business

For all those wanting to know how stand-ups keep standing, here are some of the best moments
The Guest List 2014: Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks

The Guest List 2014

Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks
Jokes on Hollywood: 'With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on'

Jokes on Hollywood

With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on