Amsterdam, 11
October. The Duke of Wellington, he of
Waterloo fame, once said “I mistrust the judgement of every man in a case in
which his own wishes are concerned”. I
have just had the honour these two days past to chair an excellent conference
here in Amsterdam entitled “Future Land Forces”. What made it particularly interesting is that
I learnt a lot from a lot of excellent people.
Professors are like generals in many ways, put a title in front of a
name that is longer than six letters and suddenly they think they know
everything. The best (and I am most
certainly not claiming that for myself) understand that to stop learning is to
fail.
As ever I was robust in
my chairmanship. I pointed out to the
assembled military and civilian great and good that I had a Wellingtonian
distaste for the endless battle between armies, navies and air forces over who
gets the most of an ever-shrinking pot of my taxpayer’s money. Indeed, I find the whole inter-service
bickering not only utterly misplaced these days but downright irritating. In future no-one can afford to “own” (in
military-speak) land, sea or air. That
is why I asked the conference to answer a question; why do we need armies? In future 'we' will 'it' do all from the air, n'est ce pas?
Two things stood out.
First, the vital role smaller militaries such as the Dutch have to play. The Dutch have their foibles (I know I am
married to one), not least a tendency to lecture the rest of us about how to do
the things they are not doing better.
However, they lack that mixture of hubris, narrowness vision and a lack
of means from which Britain too often suffers.
It is pressure that encourages a delusion that one can go on maintaining
the same level of strategic and military ambition however small budget cuts render
the force. I hear a lot these days in
the stratosphere of self-interested politicians about doing more with less.
From my experience one tends to do less with less. Because the painfully pragmatic Dutch military
have absolutely no delusions of grandeur they are in a very good position to
see the world as it is. Unless the rest
of us properly re-balance strategy with capability at some point it will lead to
disaster. For the Dutch it is only a
shame their politicians are so weak in matters strategic.
The second wake-up call
was an excellent presentation by a Brazilian general. Talk about the changing of the guard. The General wanted to share a problem with us. How does one manage seven “strategic projects”
at once? Amongst the Europeans in the
audience there was an audible “what?” It
is at moments like these that one sees the shift in the global balance of power
in practice and one glimpses the complex and multipolar future that awaits us
all. If the Brazilian military are
anything like their soccer team then we should all seek membership of Mercosur.
There were of course
some serious take-aways from the conference.
Critical innovation does not have to be expensive and should be focused
on the soldier and his/her needs. All
armies are looking at how to develop best practice throughout the ‘business’
but they are still not very good at sharing their thoughts with friends and
allies. Indeed, they are still by and
large far too conservative for the age in which we live. Military education is vital right up the
command chain but what is on offer these days from we academics is by and large
woefully inadequate. And, in the absence
of big enemies (apart from the wretchedness of austerity) there are no big
drivers towards the kind of radical military transformation leading to a truly
seamless air, sea and land force within the state and much deeper integration
beyond that strategic logic would suggest.
We are all going to have to muddle through but at least we can try and
be more intelligent about it.
Wellington was
right. Armies have to stop looking for a
battle that suits them and render themselves much fitter for the battles that I
genuinely fear lie ahead this century. And
we all must stop recognising only as much threat as we can afford. Mind you what Old Beaky would have done with
an air force is a thought to ponder.
In the end I got the
answer to my question about why we need armies from a recently retired British
general and good friend. “It’s the
geography stupid!” he told me, in so many words. People tend to live there.
Finally, do not allow the
word ‘smart’ anywhere near ‘defence’. And,
if I hear one more officer talk about ‘thinking outside of the box’ I fear I
might find myself in one!
PS good news that the BAE-EADS merger has collapsed. That deal was never going to fly!
Julian Lindley-French
