Your statement about the IDF should be put in past tense. And that’s not just being snarky, it’s a point worth investigating when developing defence policy: how did the IDF go from being elite winners to a force that can’t attain objectives and seems to be (like Israel itself) tearing itself apart. There are clearly many lessons to learn there.
Our defence policy should only be decided once our foreign policy is clearly defined. Incidentally support for NATO under Article 5 does not have to involve supplying troops. One is obligated to help but the support one actually gives is up to ones own government.
For too long our defence policy has involved putting the cart before the horse.
The first time I've understood the point you have been making on defence, Pete.
You are absolutely right: the porousness of our borders and the lack of patriotism by government mean that fewer & fewer people will be inclined to join our Armed Forces. Thereby hangs our fortune, rise or fall.
So perhaps it’s time to question whether the UK needs overseas territories. The overseas territories were there to support naval power projection. The naval power projection was to support an economy based on maritime trade. At its apex it existed to guarantee freedom of navigation - a role long since ceded to the US. Along the way, judicious use of power projection was used to tip the scales in balance of power conflicts in key regions.
MI6 (and its PR wing in the media) still believes the UK can punch above its weight on that very last point, but other than that, we can probably agree that none of those other drivers still apply? No navy to speak of, not much in the way of a maritime economy to protect, etc.
Perhaps before deciding what the purpose of UK defence policy is, it’s logically necessary to decide what the purpose of the UK is?
Firstly they are historically rightfully ours and they are all free to seek independence if they wish.
Second five of the 14 are security assets and our contribution to Western security.
Thirdly, economically while they all contain commercial fishing rights the likes of the Falklands also offer oil.
Fourthly, something I've just learnt is that the 11 islands grant the UK control over 6.8 million square kilometres of ocean via their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). This covers roughly 2% of the world's total ocean surface. However, how each territory utilizes these maritime resources varies drastically.
Excellent and cogently swift identification of the problems behind the spending so far as defence goes. Really the most efficient solution would be a determined build up of independent operational capability combined with a national patriotic agenda and a 20 year pause on foreign interactions while both national loyalty and military capability are restored. We aren’t going to get that. Instead it will be more commitments to fight with an empty scabbard while the UK fragments into sectarian chaos, as the most likely result of current realities continuing.
Your statement about the IDF should be put in past tense. And that’s not just being snarky, it’s a point worth investigating when developing defence policy: how did the IDF go from being elite winners to a force that can’t attain objectives and seems to be (like Israel itself) tearing itself apart. There are clearly many lessons to learn there.
Our defence policy should only be decided once our foreign policy is clearly defined. Incidentally support for NATO under Article 5 does not have to involve supplying troops. One is obligated to help but the support one actually gives is up to ones own government.
For too long our defence policy has involved putting the cart before the horse.
The first time I've understood the point you have been making on defence, Pete.
You are absolutely right: the porousness of our borders and the lack of patriotism by government mean that fewer & fewer people will be inclined to join our Armed Forces. Thereby hangs our fortune, rise or fall.
So perhaps it’s time to question whether the UK needs overseas territories. The overseas territories were there to support naval power projection. The naval power projection was to support an economy based on maritime trade. At its apex it existed to guarantee freedom of navigation - a role long since ceded to the US. Along the way, judicious use of power projection was used to tip the scales in balance of power conflicts in key regions.
MI6 (and its PR wing in the media) still believes the UK can punch above its weight on that very last point, but other than that, we can probably agree that none of those other drivers still apply? No navy to speak of, not much in the way of a maritime economy to protect, etc.
Perhaps before deciding what the purpose of UK defence policy is, it’s logically necessary to decide what the purpose of the UK is?
We need to protect all our Embassies and the same force can cover our overseas territories which are rightfully ours for any number of reasons.
What are you even talking about?
We need our overseas territories.
Could you expand further? Do you mean from a security point of view or a cultural one.
Firstly they are historically rightfully ours and they are all free to seek independence if they wish.
Second five of the 14 are security assets and our contribution to Western security.
Thirdly, economically while they all contain commercial fishing rights the likes of the Falklands also offer oil.
Fourthly, something I've just learnt is that the 11 islands grant the UK control over 6.8 million square kilometres of ocean via their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). This covers roughly 2% of the world's total ocean surface. However, how each territory utilizes these maritime resources varies drastically.
Does that help answer your question?
Israeli companies are developing the Falklands oil fields, so I'm not sure what benefit there is to the UK?
Whatever, Colonel Blimp. Back to the 18th century with you.
Thanks Niall, very useful.
The article is an excellent high level statement of analytical principles. Bravo. A solid starting point.
Excellent and cogently swift identification of the problems behind the spending so far as defence goes. Really the most efficient solution would be a determined build up of independent operational capability combined with a national patriotic agenda and a 20 year pause on foreign interactions while both national loyalty and military capability are restored. We aren’t going to get that. Instead it will be more commitments to fight with an empty scabbard while the UK fragments into sectarian chaos, as the most likely result of current realities continuing.