Again,
Another very good thread and I too have been wondering what a Strategic Defence Review will achieve?
The 3 key areas that instantly leap out at me are:
Given that the planning assumptions of the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the aspired 'Peace Dividends' have not been achieved (with the world becoming more unstable and prone to conflict) then why have we not had a SDR already?
With the pressure on H M Treasury to find billions to satisfy the national debt it is apparent that some defence programmes will have to be cut. Which one to cut must surely be based upon academic rigour only obtained as a result of Joined up SDR?
Closely linked is the re-alignment of expectations from H M Govt. If it wants to be able to play apart on the world stage and use its military as leverage then it either has to instruct H M Treasury to fund it or ignore all other threats and risks to this nation and apply the limited resources to fighting the current battle.
Bottomline, in the current environment H M Govt cannot have it all, and if it continues to accept the risks with servicemen and women's lives then it will continue to get caught out (as recent coroners courts are highlighting).
Sadly though, this is not resulting in H M Govt recognising its under funding and under equipping of its Armed Forces, it is attempting to reduce its own liability and acceptance of risk by wrapping serving personnel in risk averse, risky shift and risk management administration.
In doing so it is by default making its fighting personnel very risk conscience, even at the lowest levels - to the extent that potentially compromises tactical success.
Therefore, any future Strategic Defence Review has got to have a robust joined up approach (certainly not a Torpy 'Land Grab' paperwork exercise). Once we have established where we as Nation want to be in the future then we must either reduce our expectations (and our Prime Minister must stop using his underfunded military as method of obtaining a seat at the diplometic table) or we must truly work out where we perceive the future threats to be and how to comabt them. If this means reducing the Typhoon buy, or knocking the Carriers on the head or no more more nuclear submarines, then so be it.
If in this review H M Treasury look the MoD, RUSI, JDCC and all of the Main Building Strategic Think Tanks in the eye and say openly - sorry fellas, you can produce a very shiney SDR with lots of recommendations, but essentially there aint the money to pay for it, then...
That too must be accepted and actioned and if it means we become a Carbenari, local Defence Force for National interests only, then lets face up to it.
So, looking into my crystal ball, I really do not mind what comes out of the SDR (because atleast we are having one at last). But what I do care about is that it is conducted in a robust, Joint way with the recommendations fully actioned (and resourced).
If we do not, then we will just continue to take on risk, ultimately become a risk averse nation of 'warfighters' and more importantly have to look families in the eye when we as a military force try and explain our rationale as to why we were willing to accept the risk that ultimately resulted in their loved ones death (and I am not talking about the inherent risk of being shot at or bombed).
In an idealistic world we would all like to say that Doctrine drives procurement and force structures, but as we are all experiencing in the realistic world it is H M Treasury funding that is really driving what the h m Forces can and cannot achieve.
Therefore, with any impending SDR H M Treasury need to ensure that nugatory effort and time is not spent in producing an SDR that the Treasury knows that it cannot (and will not) fund.
From where I sit, I believe it will go one of 3 ways (or maybe a amalgam):
1. The Treasury significantly limit the growth and development of H M Forces and by stealth we become a localised Defence Force, with major programmes axed (CVF/JCA/Typhoon/FRES etc). UK stops being such a prominent player on the world stage and becomes a deployable arm of the US Foreign Policy (more so than currently).
2. SDR articulates future threats to UK interests, but HM Treasury refuses to fund and can only resource current operations, leaving future threats to future Govts. All major programmes axed, but politically spun with uplift in current big ticket items (Support Helicopters, FRES (-) and better pay and conditions for serving personnel).
3. SDR is purely a paperwork exercise and actually results in no real outcome. No one in H M Govt wants to be seen to either accept the risk of not funding for potential future threats or to be forcing personnel into an impossible situation by continued salami slicing of resources to make budgets reconcile.
We will see - but sadly after the whole 'One Nation, One Air Force' politics by my own service I fear that our inspired and trusted leaders will not be motivated by the strategic good of the country and will have to play a political tune that creates the impression that we can continuing to conduct all of the military tasks asked of with the current (and proposed) funding that the Treasury will bestow upon us in order to deliver those tasks.