DefenceSynergia

Exposing Incoherence in  Current Defence and Security Policy

“Defence of the Realm is the First Duty of Government”

This is the acknowledged purpose of all United Kingdom (UK) governments. The present coalition of  the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties has declared this publicly.

BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO ARTICULATE A CONSISTENT “GRAND STRATEGY” - THE CRUCIAL MISSING LINK - THUS  PUTTING THE DEFENCE OF THE REALM AT REAL RISK.

The overwhelming majority of the United Kingdom’s population supports a fundamental belief in democracy that allows freedom of speech for all under the rule of law.

A “Grand Strategy” will reflect these values and provide the “headmark” for realistic and practical policies.

GRAND STRATEGY IN PRACTICE

A combination of values and their associated capability requirements boil down to five 'Capability Requirements' that form the core of a  Grand Strategy:

1. 1.A strong vibrant diplomatic service capable of influence and able to promote our values and interests internationally using soft, flexible and hard power.
   

2. 2.Coherent and supportive government departments striving, in unison, for agreed British values.
   

3. 3.The support of a stable global market place based on internationally agreed open trade arrangements that can guarantee the security of supply of raw materials, food, energy, technology and information.
   

4. 4.The establishment of secure and defensible borders and trade routes maintained through alliances, backed up by properly balanced conventional and nuclear deterrent forces capable of independent action.
   

5. Making a full, yet proportionate, contribution to the maintenance of a     stable world order as defined by international treaty and law which guarantees that established sovereign borders will be respected and, if necessary, protected militarily.

Adoption of these “Capability Requirements” would go a long way to ensuring a peaceful and prosperous future for our people. If we wish to have peace then it is best to be militarily strong and be prepared for war.

    We say that our armed forces must be correctly sized and structured and have the best possible equipment to meet this challenge. Regrettably, however, our servicemen and women have been sent to fight wars on our behalf with sub-standard equipment and in too few numbers. This is unjust, foolish and plainly dangerous. Although some equipment is good, successive governments have been shamefully neglectful in not supplying enough that is fit for purpose or that supports the 'operational requirement'. As a consequence, our men and women, doing their duty for us, have suffered and are suffering unnecessarily.

We live in a dangerous world where events far from home draw us in to protect our own interests and those of allies. Just as our young men and women had to fight in 1914 – 18, 1939 – 45 and the Falkland Islands so have they had to protect innocent lives in .Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya... the list goes on.

We Are Seeing This In The Middle East and North Africa Presently

No sooner had the ink dried on the 2010 Strategic Defence & Security Review (SDSR 2010), which removed, completely, our ability to match foreign policy with flexible air power delivered by sea, than the need to safeguard civilians in Libya was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. As a result, a much more expensive and inflexible operation had to be mounted at great distance and unnecessary expense from the UK. We were fortunate that bases were made available in the Mediterranean but, at a great cost and this diverted funds from the UK economy to less deserving powers. This is the most recent and visible incoherence in our foreign and defence policy aspirations. If history is anything to go by, it will not be the last.

Why is Defence worth paying for ?

A Visit to the war cemeteries in France, India, Singapore, The Falkland Islands or The National Memorial Arboretum answers that question.

During the course of the last century, irresponsible savings measures in defence budgets left our nation vulnerable and uniquely reliant on the innovation and bravery of our young people. Now, as a result of this government’s recent savings measures in defence, we shall have 17,000 fewer servicemen; the Royal Air Force will have fewer transport aircraft and Tornado jets and no Harriers or Nimrods. The Royal Navy will not have an aircraft carrier nor any fixed wing maritime aircraft for all of ten years. And the Army will be weakened without a coherent equipment and manpower plan.

Because of these measures, morale in the forces is fragile and many highly skilled soldiers, sailors and airmen are leaving the services. However, were they to be properly structured, manned and trained, our armed forces would be able to apply conventional deterrence, thus minimising the risk of further conflicts and helping to prevent an inexorable escalation towards the threat of a nuclear exchange.

“We Repeat: To keep the peace, be prepared for war.”

But, we must be honest and concede that this preparedness comes at a price. So, is security worth paying for and how much do we pay?

HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT DEFENCE VERSUS THE OTHER USERS OF PUBLIC MONEY. THAT IS, YOUR TAX PAYERS’ MONEY

The defence budget has not risen in reality for nearly two decades because the cost of defence always runs well ahead of domestic costs.  In contrast, whilst the government was committing our Army, Navy and Air Force to endless combat with reduced resources, they were lavishing money on welfare, education and health. Over a ten year period, the last government raised spending on welfare, education and health by staggeringly large amounts; money was hosed at them. An over 150% increase in the case of the NHS for example.

Figures for 2009/10 Financial Year

In monetary terms, over 2011, Defence got £37.5 billion, Education £57.6 billion, Health £106.4 billion and Welfare a mind numbing £195 billion, BUT, the Defence Budget is being cut this year to £33.5 billion.

We in DefenceSynergia deplore that today's armed forces are incoherently sized and structured due to a government incapable of understanding the importance of a ”Grand Strategy”. We say that they allowed an overriding requirement to save taxpayers’ money to blind them to the realities of an increasingly dangerous world. Nothing illustrates this lack of logic more than the Government's undertaking in SDSR 2010 to restore funding, once austerity is no longer the highest priority, to equip a future UK  force with the very capabilities (aircraft carriers and naval aircraft) that they will have have gapped for 10 years!

It is, and will remain, our task to ensure that the government understands its obligations and lives up to its promises;

no firm evidence is yet to hand that they will do so.

Frederick the Great:

"Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments."

Will you speak up, support us, write to your MP and help DefenceSynergia ensure that the Government keeps its promise to defend the realm?

Now you know our web site pass it on to friends - www.defencesynergia.co.uk