Britain in Search of a Grand Strategy
There are three big things that stand out for me from the evidence. The first is that there was a strong consensus from the academics and the former defence officials that Britain has no real capability either for the creation of Grand Strategy specifically, or for competent strategic thinking more generally. They suggested that we do not have the institutional framework in place to create Grand Strategy and we do not have the functions within Government to train people – officials and politicians – in strategic thought.
Crucially, it was also suggested by the academics and former defence officials that we have actually got out of the habit of thinking strategically. In the past, when Britain had a more obvious formal global role, we were forced to think strategically. With relative decline and the consequent attachment of our foreign and security policy (to say nothing of our economic policy) to the US, NATO and the EU, we lost the capacity for independent thought. It was suggested by some of the former defence officials that Britain has something of an “anti-intellectual culture” which makes them sceptical about strategy-making; people prefer pragmatism.
Dr.Patrick Porter castigates the Tories:
Major war capability did not become obsolete with the end of the Cold War. The ‘north German plain’ symbol is the cliche and soundtrack of a dangerous complacency. Other states like China, India and Russia invest heavily in the kind of ‘kit’ that Osborne finds absurd. Russia recently fought a land war in Georgia, and puts its Blackjack bombers in British skies.
In fact, the dismissal of Russia as a has-been military power who went into history with the end of the Cold War is symptomatic of a complacency about power politics and major war, and we are still living with the consequences of our recent failure to take Russia seriously as a geopolitical heavyweight.
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
Joseph Foucheq:
October 1st, 2010 at 2:49 am
British grand strategy is simple: close the Scheldt to commercial shipping. The rest will take care of itself.
Lexington Green:
October 1st, 2010 at 5:54 am
I just read the first transcript. Very high quality discussion. The discussion was very blunt and colloquial and substantive. There was none of the grandstanding pomposity our congressmen engage in. And as you note the witnesses did not give hedged, vague, platitudinous answers. It was a discussion between knowledgeable adults about very important matters. We really could learn a thing or two from the Brits.
Galrahn:
October 1st, 2010 at 6:25 am
The mediums of defense and economics for Great Britain – air, sea, space, and cyberspace. If you can leverage those mediums to access markets, or deny control of those mediums to the enemy – the 21st century can be yours.
Most important though – avoid protracted land wars in Asia. They are brutal destroyers of any Grand Strategy.
Chris C:
October 1st, 2010 at 8:42 am
My only concern as is the fact this discussion is happening at the very periphery of Government at the moment. Hopefully people like Bernard Jenkin and Robert Halfon and others can push harder to get it into the minds of those at the centre of Government.
seydlitz89:
October 1st, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Very interesting post. Let me read some and I’ll make a comment.
There is a lot of very healthy discussion going on in London at the moment. Given the "Washington Rules" I doubt we will see anything similar in DC . . .
J. Scott:
October 1st, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Zen,"Socialism in Europe has brought not the withering away of the state, but instead a withering away of the state’s military power." Was it socialism? Or was it the umbrella of NATO and a heavy US presence on the Continent that allowed (even encouraged) the fiscal ability to embrace socialism without care for the military? From a demographic perspective, the Brits should start breeding; the fertility rate in the UK in 2004 was 1.74…so the long-view, as it were, may be premature.
Ken Hoop:
October 1st, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Yes, the authentic Founder’s American Nation grand strategy as opposed to that of the multicultural banking-financier Empire, would have had US troops out of Europe long ago.
Larry Dunbar:
October 2nd, 2010 at 3:52 am
In a way the Britts don’t need strategy, they have a Queen. As long as the Royal Family remains, Britan is Britan. I haven’t heard of anything underway such as the over-throw of the monarch, by the USA or anyone else in the world such as France or the Dutch, so, whatever their strategy is, it is still working OK.
They don’t "box" themselves in with a Constitution, like we do here in the USA. In a way, by isolating generationally into a city or nation state, targeting of generations becomes easier. The Britts simply let the Royals take care of the generational thing.
JoseAngeldeMonterrey:
October 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
In 1982, Argentina underestimated Britain´s ability to defend its territories abroad and invaded the Falkland Islands. At the time the U.S. navy didn´t think Britain was capable of fighting a counter invasion and retake the Islands with the British having 34 Harrier against the Argentinian´s more than two hundred fighters.I don´t know the details of the engagement but it suffices me to know that the British recovered the Islands in a matter of days, a month or so. And that ever since Argentina has never dared to challenge the British militarily again.I also remember how many Latin American states and political, cultural leaders supported Argentina, many other countries in other third world regions also supported Argentina and equally underestimated Britain´s military capabilities.After the Falklands´ war, many of those learned that Britain is still a military power in the world.
zen:
October 3rd, 2010 at 2:26 am
Galrahn wrote:
.
"Most important though – avoid protracted land wars in Asia. They are brutal destroyers of any Grand Strategy."
.
# 2 Do not invade Russia in winter. 🙂 We are in less danger of that than we are of the first.
.
Scott,
.
Point well taken. If we went back to 1979 and flipped through pages of TIME, NEWSWEEK or The Economist, we’d see US leaders agitated about low Euro defense spending and NATO countries not hitting defense spending as a % of GDP targets, except the US. Complacency breeds free ridership.
.
Ken Hoop,
.
True. I think there were existential reasons for NATO as a robust military alliance during the Cold War. Since 199, it has morphed into a de facto political alliance, a coordinating council of the West, chaired by the US and obstructed by the EU whenever major NATO members want a second bite at the policy apple.
seydlitz89:
October 4th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Strachan and the MOD officials had some good stuff to say, less so the politicos.
I doubt if Britain needs a "grand strategy" which I for whatever reason associate with "empires", not nations.
Britain imo needs a "national strategy" giving priority to what her leaders think best through open and public processes exactly like this. In terms of the prosperity of her people is not "Europe" the best way to go?