The greatest threat to security is the misconception that no such threat exists.
These were the opening words of a security lecture that I attended a few months ago. Just as the most important thing in (information) is being aware of the threat, lack of public awareness of defence issues is a major threat to the Armed Forces, because it makes them vulnerable of cutbacks, often by back door means. Even worse, common misconceptions mean that the defence community receives neither the support nor the recognition that they deserve from the public. Hence the above statement applies to national and international security.
The reasons for this are not simple. Apathy, bad
PR by the Services, poor journalism and the "Me me me" culture are all, in my opinion, partly to blame. But problems with support from the public are reflected at a political level, just look at how few MPs attend debates on defence issues. Yet defence affects us all - both directly and indirectly.
People commonly believe that there is no threat to the UK. It may well be true that, apart from terrorism, there is no direct threat at the present, but there are many threats to UK interests. We are very dependant on imported oil, the sources of which may need to be defended. Electricity generation relies greatly on imported natural gas. Most UK imports/exports are by sea. Remember the chaos caused by the 2000 fuel protests? Imagine if that disruption to the oil supply was caused by an act of aggression by a hostile nation, and we could not respond as we did not have the troops/ships/aircraft?
Imagine if a major ally/trading partner was attacked and we could not respond? What if a regional conflict elsewhere was escalating rapidly? In the inter-dependant world of the 21st century, such events could have grave implications, political, economic, humanitarian and security, for all of us. There is trouble and strife all over the world, some of it will involve us. Who can say where British forces may be needed? Or what for?
Many do not realise that many potential aggressors have sophisticated capabilities - modern armoured vehicles, missiles of various types, aircraft of various types, missile armed ships, submarines - the list is a long one. Because they don't realise the threats that potentially exist, they are unaware of the need to have suitable defences.
On a more basic level, a large part of the public simply does not understand why we spend so much on defence. Apart from not understanding the threats that exist, people lack an understanding of how defence accounts for only a small part of public expenditure and represents an even smaller percentage of GNP. Defence is always the budget looked at when the Treasury wants to make savings. Maybe it is due to the fact that it is politically easier to cut defence spending than other areas of expenditure. Despite the fact that the Armed Forces have an involvement in other areas of Government activity, Education, Health, Law and Order to name a few.
On the
Sea Jet thread I have made reference to a recent public survey carried out for the Royal Navy. It sought to determine how much the general public know about the RN. The results were staggering - or at least I thought so. Whilst virtually everyone knows the Navy is there to "defend the nation" it would seem that few people knew what that meant day to day. Very few people listed counter drugs operations as a naval activity. The majority did not seem to know that the Royal Marines are not part of the Army, and did not know what the Fleet Air Arm is. Maybe this is why it has been so vulnerable to penny pinching. Whilst the Navy may have more of an image problem than the other two services, I would guess that the Army and RAF are similarly misunderstood.
Many people lack basic knowledge. They seen unaware of the different Armed Forces, what the different services do, what types of unit and equipment there are, and the different Reserve forces. More importantly they seem to be unaware of all the deployments and commitments we have (despite the fact most of the are mentioned in the papers, on TV etc). This is in spite of these issues being discussed on news and current affairs type TV programmes, in the papers, in documentaries, and sometimes in articles in (mainstream, non defence) magazines. They also seem unaware of the massive cutbacks of the last thirteen or so years. Compare the number of front line units today with those in 1990. Compare the number of operations too (see below). Incidentally, were did the so called peace dividend go? Did it actually save the taxpayer any money?
Overstretch is something of which many people are unaware, despite things like TA personnel being deployed to Afghanistan (and other delightful places), the then Chief of Defence Staff warning that we would not be able to conduct another major operation within a year or so, large numbers of infantry being needed for peace keeping/support and reconstruction in Iraq, the First Sea Lord stating that the Navy lacks enough ships for all the extra tasks that were unforeseen several years ago, etc etc etc. Because the public are unaware of the deployments and operations, they are unaware of overstretch. Or they do not understand it - perhaps not understanding that you cannot commit 100% of your forces to operations 100% of the time.
On a slightly different note - but one still highly relevant, the public often have a distorted view of personnel issues. People often seem to think people only join up because they are thick, or that they must be thick "cos you couldn't get a job and had to join....". I have seen idiots come out with this line more times than I can count. Yet they seem to ignore that a significant number of people fail the psychometric tests in the careers office and are considered to be too.....ahem....not suitable to join. And that is before interviews, medicals, basic training and so on. None of which are easy in any way. And yes, I am talking as someone who got kicked out.
And of course training never really stops. Each new promotion, new role, new unit/ship/aircraft type involves more training. As does new equipment, deployments to new areas, refresher courses, all sorts of things. Compare this with civilian life where employers are frequently reluctant to invest in training.
There is the issue of service personnel being considered louts, drunks, thugs and generally an unruly lot. This seems like a hypocritical attitude considering the appalling standards of behaviour seen in the UK these days. Go to any major town or city after closing time and you will see truly disgusting things. If members of the Forces act in a similar manner, is it not a reflection of society as a whole?
During the recent Fire-fighters' strike, there was a great deal of nonsense said in the media, on the internet and so on. Certain members of the public seemed to have some strange thoughts. Some said that covering the strike showed the services are overmanned, ignoring the fact that units were prevented from going on exercise or deployment, peoples' training was seriously disrupted and people were prevented from taking the leave and harmony time which they were entitled to. Also certain people seemed to think that serving personnel get free food and accommodation, do not pay domestic bills, and do not pay tax - all of which is complete nonsense.
Likewise certain FBU members claimed that they would not be able to fight fires or use modern equipment, or had no training to deal with NBC incidents. Some people probably believed them.
The media has to take at least some of the responsibility for the above. Apart from gaffes - such as describing RAF helicopters as Army ones, or Navy ones as RAF ones, or other combinations, describing RAF Regiment folks as "Army personnel defending airfield x", getting the names of units, places, vehicles, aircraft, etc. wrong, and other dumb mistakes - the quality of reporting on defence issues is often low.
Some of it is due to lack of knowledge. You would have thought that anyone writing an article on a defence issue for a newspaper would do some research first, perhaps starting by looking at the
PR stuff available. But no, it would seem many are incapable of even this. Contacting the corporate communications (as it gets called now) people is often too hard for them as well.
Worse still is the sensationalist approach taken by many. Stories are exaggerated hugely, presumably to sell more copies. Journalistic hyperbole rules! Every base or unit gets described as "Top Secret", every operation as a "daring raid" - even routine ones, and given the chance every tabloid hack will try to mention the SAS. If a routine infantry patrol finds an arms cache you can bet that tabloid hacks will think up a headline like "Top secret SAS unit capture massive weapons cache in daring raid". It might sell papers, but does it inform the public of the real nature of things?
To add to this list of media sins, there is speculation. Frequently this speculation is based on flawed logic and incorrect information and assumptions. Assuming that they don't just make it up, that is. Often this speculation serves no purpose, except of course selling papers. All they do is cause people worry and anxiety, which they can do without. During the initial combat phases in Iraq the media seemed to like speculating on what weapons aircraft were carrying and similar. Why? When personnel were killed, particularly in the helicopter crashes or when the Tornado was brought down by a Patriot, the media speculated who it was, what type, etc. Apart from getting it wrong often, the stress and anxiety they caused the families is something they should hang their heads in shame for. Likewise the harassment of service wives and families by journalists - this happened to people I know. This was neither justifiable or forgivable.
Only exceptionally good news is reported - but negative stories are often blown out of all proportion. There's no news like bad news, or so it seems.
The Government would be well advised to think about what would have happened to the Tories if we had lost the Falklands war, which we would have done if the proposed cutbacks had been fully implemented. They would have been booted out of office or at least come close to it. The current Government should think about that. The cutbacks that they have made, or any future ones, may result in the political landscape changing overnight.
In peacetime however, defence will continue to be low on the list of political priorities. Personally I suspect that this is largely for the reasons outlined above, and until action is taken to improve the level of public awareness I fear that the overworked and underequipped British soldier/sailor/airman will continue to be taken for granted by the public and shafted by the system, and the defence budget will continue to be vulnerable to Treasury led cuts.
Edit - September 2013
The change of Government in 2010 did not improve things, with a defence review that was largely decided at the last minute, on political grounds.
It seems that major (and damaging) decisions, such as scrapping the MPA capability with only a vague idea of regenerating it at some future date, or ignoring the advice from the Admirals and scrapping the Harrier without first having worked out how the skills needed for fixed wing carrier operations would be retained and developed for the future (still an unresolved issue), or opting to switch to F-35C and a CTOL future without investigating the issues, were not subject to proper analysis.
Lack of understanding by public, media, and politicians remains an issue.