A brief news post to recommend the coverage given to the CDS’s Xmas speech by The Thin Pin Striped Line & UK Armed Forces Commentary defence blogs. The full text of the speech can be found on Thinkdefence here.
Some highlights follow.
Early in this year the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre of the MOD produced a paper titled The Future Character of Conflict, an exploration of the threats Britain is likely to face in the next twenty years, in order to inform a future security and defence review. The document focuses on the changes in strategic priorities and capabilities of nations and non-state-actors, and how Britain might react to them. It is an extensive tract broken down into a series of disaggregated bullet points, so for the purpose of this post the most interesting themes have been collated for comment.
What follows is not an analysis of the of the text itself, rather a discussion of how those themes directly impact on the assumptions of the coming Defence review.
It is not news to anybody that Britain’s Armed Forces are about to enter a crisis, with decades of underfunding, followed by a decade of improperly funded wars, followed by the recession led Defence cuts, the result of which is to prompt a Defence Review in the near future.
Of all the analysis on Britain’s Future Defence Review (FDR) conducted by the IPPR, Think Defence, The Kings of War, Richard Norths blog-spot and The Times series on FDR, it is the RUSI series that ask the most incisive questions in my opinion, and this post in particular draws upon the second report: A Force For Honour in order to ask that most basic of questions from which all else follows; what place in the world does Britain wish to hold in the 21st century?
It means that you have found the place where I will publicly ruminate on the path of the future, and given that I am enthused by the topics of; military (jedidjah), politics (beefed) and technology (adjūtrix), you can be sure that they will be the prevailing themes in whatever posts may follow. What is the angle? In short, the fusion of the three themes above and how each is impacted by the others.
I’m a classical-liberal, so unfortunately I don’t have much time for your self assigned group identities, or the heirarchy of oppression that assigns worth to those groups. I’m interested in you as an individual, and your liberty. As an individual. And i’m willing to speak up on behalf of your liberty, not least because doing so defends my own.
I’m also not terribly interested in achieiving the approval of others in conforming my views to the accetpable norm.
The combination… well, you might choose to take offence. I’m okay with that, because I did not give it.