‘Oh it ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, Babe. If’n you don’t know by now.’ Bob Dylan.
The UK Ministry of Defence has decided to shut down the majority of the activities of its Research and Assessment Branch, according to a report from Jane’s Defence Weekly.
The UK Ministry of Defences (MoD’s) Research and Assessment Branch (R&AB) is to close the majority of its activities.
The facility, which warned of Georgia-Russia tensions prior to the 2008 war and has recently provided forecasts on Israel, Iran and nuclear weapons, will wind down in 2011, but will retain some junior researchers.
The news, to be officially announced in the coming weeks, comes despite a multimillion pound investment in new buildings and extensive modernisation at the site in Shrivenham, where the R&AB are based. Final details of the R&AB are still being decided.
Networks of contacts with statesmen and decision-makers built up over decades are to be discontinued, while security research attachments of overseas officers have ceased, as have similar programmes for NATO students.
Former deputy chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee Air-Marshall Sir John Walker criticised the decision and said on 17 January: “Before sending our two new aircraft carriers off around the world as forces for good, it would be nice to know what they are sailing into.”
Some analysts believe that the ending of high-level research means the UK is abandoning its key strategic research role when other countries are greatly increasing theirs and that in future global crises the UK may not be able to predict or act as effectively as it has done in the past. One foreign affairs expert claimed that the government has decided that Britain will never act again internationally as a major power.
Foreign Office officials expressed their concerns privately, describing developments as a major blow. It is understood they have written to the MoD Academy formally, highlighting the value and significance of the information provided, but are yet to receive an encouraging response.
The MoD declined to comment.
If any further evidence were required that we place more value on things than ideas then this is it. If ever some really savagely capable opponent comes up against our expensively accoutred super high-tech forces while we’re engrossed with what’s happening on our plasma screens and strangles us with an OODA loop I don’t think it will be because they have some piece of kit which we do not. It will be because we just don’t have a clue. How exactly do you make good decisions without a depth of knowledge to base them on? Isn’t that what the Orient phase is all about?
Since it’s Friday here’s some not completely gratuitous Bob singing ‘Don’t think twice, it’s alright’.
Well, no, really somebody should think twice about this.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Seriously, this is what we decide to cut? Good analysis must be the most effective force multiplier we have! Last year we spent £554m on defence R&D (I know that’s not exactly the right stat, but it’s the closest I could find), out of a budget of £37bn.
(Stats from the beautiful ‘Where does my money go?’ prototype.
Twenty years of schooling, David, and they put me on the day shift. Twenty one, actually, but who’s counting?
While I agree this is nuts, there is one way in which it makes sense: If you have no intention (or capability) of acting on analysis, why pay for it?
Er, I wonder how many bodies this involves. There’s a certain amount of overlap of functions among MOD’s 80,000 employees, even at Shrivenham. May be a storm in a teacup.
Normally I think there must be two sides to a story, but I have to admit that I’m having trouble seeing the logic to this. Do they have something to replace it? Some civilian intelligence section to do this? Furthermore, how did a research branch even get on the cut list in the first place?
In and ideal world every large government department organisation should a Research and Assessment organisation. However, the MOD is under fiscal pressure and the smart use of other assets within the department i.e. well educated servicepersons and civil servants., will allow ideas to be generated organically elsewhere. It could be argued that increasing the diversity of those generating the ideas is likely to lead to a more robust product. Not an ideal solution but a pragmatic one.
To be relevant these days you’ve got to push your research down the throats of senior policymakers. Once it’s lodged, you’ve got to wedge it further. Unfortunately most of the research and discussion relevant to this body was largely irrelevant to the urgent problems of today. Too much research on the Former Soviet Bloc and a weak pool of relevant subject expertise. In principle a great idea but badly run, out of date and out of touch.
Which perhaps is why it might have been better located in London, not Shrivenham. There’s also an issue of scale – if you are THE Soviet experts, well and good for the time – but if the requirement is for broader analysis, it’s surely more cost effective to tap into wider academia, or the foreign affairs institutes — oh and get yourself a subscription to the EIU.
Agree – London would have been better. As i’ve said before here, the Strategic Defence Review should seriously consider establishing an academic outreach body pan-Whitehall that can coordinate outside research. It should be linked to the Central Analytical Staffs to give it credibility – Cabinet Office Assessements Staff, the Defence Intelligence Staff and Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. These people will ensure commissioned research is relevant and can’t be done in government. At the same time, academia must realise that government isn’t stupid and that much of the ongoing research in academia is ‘academic’ in the true sense of the word, much of it wide of the mark.
I am afraid this answer, and some of the others, shows utter ignorance of what R&AB does. Some tasters:
- Afghan Prism events to support almost every deploying Comd. to theatre. Highly praised and keenly sought.
-First identification of need for cultural training and education – now taken over by Cranfield
-Direct support to service chiefs in formulation of future policy
- development of UK strategic communication doctrine
-co-authors with DCDC of JDP3-40
-development of HOA research programme
-support to SF
-support to Comd 52 Brigade – read Mackay / Tatham paper.. the ONLY organisation in MoD that could assist him
-production of nearly 100 publications per year on a range of topics. Particular high points: James Sheer Russia a Reassessment and Kier Giles (Russia & Finland), Charles Blandy (Pedicted Russian invasion of Georgia)
- Only dircet UK MoD sustained support to CONTEST
- Estabslihed and maintained a cadre of resreve officers with specialist civilian skills for deployment anywhere in the world long before Gordon Brown’s 1000+ idea
- Provision of capacity building education in statecraft and governnace to Iraqi National Security Council – an 18 month long project
-development of china specialism….. now halted
Indeed in the words of one senior office … it reaches the parts the MoD cannot.
or the words of a US 2 * officer…. gee I wish we had one of these
I could go on….. the fact that you dont know this does not mean R&AB failed .. it means it worked quietly in the background doing what it was supposed to do.
As for losses:
30+ unqiuely skilled linguists and analysts from multiple nationalities including post doctoral economists, arabists, russian specialists, Iran specialists, agriculturalists, NGOs, academics, intelligence experts and military staff…..
.. cost to Tax payer £1.5m p.a.
.. value to Tax payer …. priceless
.. value to MoD … nil…. does not understand the word value only cost.
Finally, if oyu think this will just pop up in the wider MoD and have anywhere near the same capactity, depth and reach you are on another planet. Sorry.
As I said above, in principle I’m absolutely in favour of this type of entity, though in a different form with different governance. The examples you give however demonstrate that there is clear overlap with what goes on elsewhere, (albeit quietly and in the background). There are hundreds of experts within MoD, FCO, DFID and CO. If they were better able to pool their resources and draw on academia in a sensible fashion it would prove much more productive than the situation we’re in today.
I have been given the impression, though perhaps I am wrong or have been misinformed, that Boyd’s OODA Loop concept in particular and the need to think adaptively in general, is not rated highly by your MoD doctrine office crowd.
I agree with Andrew that it may be a storm in a tea cup. How many people are involved? Are functions being transferred elsewhere? Is this not an assault on research and assessment but in fact an attempt to rationalize it? I don’t know. It certainly doesn’t say in the report. It strikes me, however, that the line ‘MOD declined to comment’ kind of suggests that there isn’t any Plan B.
UK’s R &AB may be very expensive to maintain but what about the investment for establishing it, should we just forget it? Why do we have to spend so much on something and then not use it? Aside from this, it will be an disadvantage that no one is doing research on what is going on around. Everyone knows that knowledge is power. Why is now Britain backing out on this? There is really a need for those who have a say on this matter to think not just twice but a hundred times before finalizing the shut down of the R&AB.