I’ve been working with some clever folk from KCL’s Centre for Defence Studies on a project looking at the future of the UK’s Defence Estates. You’ll hear more about this project in the coming few months as we seek to finalise it and then roll it out to an unsuspecting (although increasingly suspecting) policy community.
Without going into the nitty gritty of the project or its preliminary conclusions, it did set me thinking about what we (as tax-payers, citizens etc) want from our defence estate, and from our defence community. When the War Studies Department was established all those years ago it made a lofty claim to capture the rich interdisciplinary underpinnings of war studies (wrapping in strat studies, defence studies, psychology, economics etc) and it was as correct then as it is now. The key question I have asked myself throughout the project aside from fitness of purpose is ‘how much peace does this buy’? And whilst it’s a simplistic question I think it should capture the essence of most defence thinking. We pay vast amount of money for defence equipment partly because of its cutting edge qualities but mostly because we aim to buy peace with it (whether it works in a deterrent form, or an offensive form). For the defence estates, the question of how much peace is it buying is partly one of whether the estates contribute to operational effectiveness (and as a base line should not hinder it) but also whether service personnel live in acceptable (and better than acceptable) conditions and whether the morale of the services and the communities they are drawn from, live in and serve is also boosted.
I was pleased to see that overseas development has gently nudged down this road, its purpose is now to contribute to regional stability, so what seemed to be inexplicable ring-fencing, now at least seems to serve a joined-up government goal. The Military Covenant Commission called upon a through-government commitment to the covenant, and I think it is only through a through-government approach that we can work out ‘how much peace we are buying’.
No sane individual would want to go to war on a whim, or because it seems like jolly good fun. The question should always revolve around ‘how much peace am I buying’, and if the answer is very little then that should be a cause to pause. Buying peace does not exclude war, nor does it exclude the manufacture of weapons, or the intellectual work in how to deploy them most effectively. But buying peace should not involve the sorts of cuts to manpower and capability to invite on an adversary to think that victory via a war is possible or desirable.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
‘How Much Peace Does This Buy?’
I am not sure if that is the right question. The Defence community not only ‘buys peace’ but in the UK (as in many other countries) is actively used in support of national interests. UK national interests are mostly in-line with peace and stability, but not always, and definitely peace and stability on preferential terms.
As a slight aside when I look at the Defence community and how it is broadening in scope to take in cyber conflict, stability and reconstruction, counter-terrorism (to name but some), whether we need a new construct for Defence. A Ministry of Defence and below that a War Office? It seems that we are stretching defence (and especially the military contribution to it) so far that soon the military will become ‘jack of all trades’ and master of none.
I view the question Doug is adddressing as being correct.
I think he is correct in that he is examining the question of protecting a “national security interest,” and is not examining how to advance a “national interest.”
A “national internist” and a “national security interest” are quite different.
In my view, a “national security interest” is directly tied to the peace and security of a nation. If such an interest is threatened, the peace and security—the very survival—of a nation may be at risk. Therefore, defense of vital national security interest requires a commitment to fight and, if need be, die to protect them.
A “national interest,” akin to what you mentioned, presents no threat to the national survival.
Principles as economic freedom, individual liberty, and human rights are very important, for sure, and because of our belief in the rights of people to be free and self-determining, it is in the best interest of our western nations to globally support and promote these rights. While promoting the national interest is worthy of political and economic support, it is not worth fighting and dying for. Imagine trying to convince a mamma in a small farm that her serviceman son died in a just cause because he was in Africa, setting up AIDS innoculation centres, a mission that had nothing to do with protecting the national security.
I suggest people do not support foreign military intervention to promote a national interest because there is no direct threat to the peace and security of their country. To build on what I said, the spread of AIDS in Africa while not a threat to the national security, is a national interest. Obviously, AIDS in Africa, while definitely an item of national interest, is hardly a threat to our peace and security.
I think Doug is appropriately examining the question. . .but that just me. . .Doug is my hero. ;-)
Don’t Doug me, son of Palin.. (dad of Palin?!) .. you know it urks me so! I liked your comment though, and I agree with the terms you set out… I hope Bristol improved…
I thought you might pick up on that. . .after all, after your previous “Don’t call me Doug” remark, I had to do something. . . ha!
Whoa. . .son of Palin, whoa. . .Oedipous urges. . .!
;-)
Bristol is still dark, cold and damp. Depart tomorrow for a week in London. Looking forward to a different cold, dark and damp city.
It may be possible to ‘buy’ temporary negative peace (defined as the absence/significant reduction of violent conflict) with armed force, but its much more difficult to ‘buy’ sustainable positive peace. Application of military force to contemporary, complex violent conflict can generally, at best, perform a ‘hold the ring’ function to allow political processes to more forward toward conflict resolution and, over time, reconciliation and transformation within and between affected populations.
I would also posit that the distinction between a ‘national interest’ and a ‘national security interest’ is rather more fuzzy tha Gunrunner suggests given the globalised national security narrative that has prevailed in Whitehall post-98 SDR and post-9/11 and reafffirmed in the 2010 NSS ‘risk analysis’ exercise. Depending on your definition (which will be subjective), perceived immediate threats and future risks can readily morph between the two abstracted categories of ‘national interest’ and ‘national security interest’ .
Perhaps we should also consider that most pertinent of questions asked by 80′s metal heavyweights Megadeth: “Peace sells…but who’s buying?”
The question Rob asked was “…what we (as tax-payers, citizens etc) want from our defence estate, and from our defence community.”
Looking at our historical use of armed forces then I would contend that we don’t just want to ‘buy peace’, with our armed forces, but that we have funded and used them to support our national interests. Less 3rd party insurance and more AA Homestart and Relay. The taxpayer is happy with this because he has consistently voted in govts who support this approach, and defence has never been a big issue (certainly not in the last 25 years).
MOD planning assumptions are for an enduring medium scale deployment for Land forces – that is not a commitment or a planning assumption that speaks of ‘buying peace’ per se, but more of supporting interests.
In terms of Defence Estates planning it is important. The training and lifestyle balance to support continual deployments are very different from those to support very occasional (national survival) deployments. If we lower the tempo of ops we can reduce tempo across the board, this results in a more static army, fewer training estates required (because instead of the current cycle of trg and ops based around a 24 month cycle we could do a longer cycle – less pressure on trg estate), look at moving soldiers from barracks to the community (look at the Irish Defence Force housing model).
Very nice, thanks for the article.
National safety depends on the politics (common sense), democracy, correct economy and responsibility in the choices.
To have a tall priority for the conflicts prevention, could be a first footstep to improve the geopolitics situation and counter-terrorism (to fight all the types of terrorism). Be successful in preventing conflict, will allow to have less losses in human life and expenses for the nation.