zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » Britain and Future Conflict

Britain and Future Conflict

From the auspices of The Warlord, an interesting paper:

UK Ministry of DefenceThe Future Character of Conflict (PDF)

Deductions from Themes in Future Conflict

  • Future conflict will not be a precise science: it will remain an unpredictable and uniquely human activity. Adversaries (state, state-proxies and non-state) and threats (conventional and unconventional) will blur. The range of threats will spread, with increased proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), cyberspace, and other novel and irregular threats.
  • Even during wars of national survival or the destruction of WMD, conflict will remain focused on influencing people. The battle of the narratives will be key, and the UK must conduct protracted influence activity, coordinated centrally and executed locally.
  • Maintaining public support will be essential for success on operations. Critical to this will be legitimacy and effective levels of force protection.
  • Qualitative advantage may no longer be assumed in the future. Some adversaries may be able to procure adequate quality as well as afford greater quantity, whereas we will be unable to mass sufficient quality or quantity everywhere that it is needed.

I have a great fondness for the British.

They are culturally our close cousins and are a greater people than their recent governments would imply ( the same can largely be said of Americans as well). The current and former administrations have not nurtured the “special relationship” as they should have.

This is of course, an gross understatement: the Obama administration has been at special pains to kick British Prime Ministers in the groin in public ever since they came in to office in 2009. Now, in a fit of ill-considered budgetary niggardliness,  the British are merging part of their military power projection capability with that of France, in order to form something that will be, in case of “future conflict”, completely undeployable. Great.

Just wait, by 2012-2014, the cry in American politics will be ” Who Lost Britain?”

Perhaps we will be too consumed with Mexican narco-insurgency in Texas, Arizona and California  by then to care.

11 Responses to “Britain and Future Conflict”

  1. joey Says:

    "Just wait, by 2012-2014, the cry in American politics will be ” Who Lost Britain?”"No it won’t…. 

  2. Curtis Gale Weeks Says:

    "Even during wars of national survival or the destruction of WMD, conflict will remain focused on influencing people. The battle of the narratives will be key, and the UK must conduct protracted influence activity, coordinated centrally and executed locally."

    Well that IS interesting isn’t it?
    .
    On a side note: anyone who follows the pop music culture has noticed a severe uptick in a very perverse French-style cultural superiority tick in the Brits.  Their state-owned/-controled radio stations and television stations shun as much American music as they can without seeming too obvious, in order to support true blood Brit singers.  This is particularly true of new artists.  X-Factor contestants are given a leg-up, but former American Idol contestants (for instance) are shunned.  There has always been something of a delayed response, going either way over the pond, but lately it’s more of an enforced delay.  Of course, this may not have much to do with anything security-related.  I just thought the similarity to France’s strategy of cultural hegemony within its own borders, paired w/ this, was peculiar.

  3. J. Scott Says:

    Zen, your comments make sense, but the quoted stuff in the box seem to be little more than well-packaged common sense…:))

  4. zen Says:

    Hi Curtis,
    .
    "This is particularly true of new artists.  X-Factor contestants are given a leg-up, but former American Idol contestants (for instance) are shunned. "
    .
    What is "X-factor"?

  5. TDL Says:

    Curtis,
       How exactly do you come to the conclusion that the Brits are becoming increasingly anti- (or at least indifferent)U.S. at least in terms of pop culture?  If you look at the current top 10 singles in the UK they are almost dominated by Americans (even more some the top albums.)  The top 1o movies so far in 2010 are almost all American.  If there was an increasing tide of anti-(or indiffero-)Americanism in pop culture across the pond, then it would be showing up in the aforementioned lists.  Links below.

    Regards,
    TDL

    P.S.  Lou Reed is now working with Susan Boyle, hardly a decrease in cross-cultural experimentation going on.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles

    http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/?region=uk

  6. TDL Says:

    Mark,
    It’s another reality talent show.  I believe Simon Cowell is bringing it state side.

    Regards,
    TDL

    http://xfactor.itv.com/2010/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X_Factor_%28TV_series%29

  7. Lexington Green Says:

    The Brits bum me out.  So much potential to be a niche player with a global reach, under an American umbrella to cover the biggest ticket items.  So much potential to work with the Commonwealth countries to build unique capabilities second only to the USA in global reach.  Yet, they seem very small minded.  Maybe they are just a lot poorer and weaker than I imagine them to be.  But they were poorer and weaker than their peers in 1700 too, yet they leveraged what they had brilliantly.  Where there is no will, there is no way.  If only the DeHavilland Comet had had round rather than square windows, so much might have been different … . 

  8. toto Says:

    "So much potential to work with the Commonwealth countries to build unique capabilities second only to the USA in global reach."
    .
    Apparently you are assuming that Britain is in any meaningful way a separate entity from the US, perhaps even with some measurable degree of independence. Would you be interested in acquiring some bridge I just got hold of? 😉
    .
    The purpose of the recent agreement with France is to share some expenditures on  non-critical stuff. E.g. each country would have one main carrier, and they would take turn using the jointly-owned carrier while their main carrier is off for maintenance.
    .
    Nobody really knows what this "joint force" is about though. As for the scientific programme on nuclear weapons, it is pretty much assumed that any information shared with Britain will be swiftly transmitted to the US, but presumably nobody really cares about that for nukes (don’t expect anything remotely similar for commercially distributed military equipment).

  9. PurpleSlog Says:

    I am pretty sure that a joint UK/France force will be about deployable/functional as the EU RDF we have been hearing about for 10+ years.

  10. phil Says:

    "Just wait, by 2012-2014, the cry in American politics will be ‘Who Lost Britain?’" Not a chance. Britain is just not that important. This is a result of choices they have made and has nothing to do with the US.  Obviously the Brits don’t want to be "a niche player with a global reach." They don’t want "to work with the Commonwealth countries to build unique capabilities second only to the USA in global reach." These are nothing more than the fantasies of Anglophile Americans and the Brits apparently have no desire to live out that fantasy.   We need to resign ourselves to the fact that when it comes to championing our liberal international order we will do so without a loyal military sidekick. 

  11. zen Says:

    Hi phil,
    .
    Perhaps. There will be a hue and cry when the US next wishes help and Britain can’t be there, most likely disguising their inability with policy opposition. France has gained a veto on British foreign policy in return for…well….nothing.
    .
    But you are right, US military allies will be found elsewhere in the future, in regional powers with skin in the game.


Switch to our mobile site