Uncategorized

Like many families, we were seriously affected by the IT meltdown this week that caused chaos in the travel industry, panic in the banking sector and anxiety in the NHS. The botched CrowdStrike update has once again put our reliance on modern technology in the spotlight, but there are many ways to ensure the effects of such a collapse do not lead to total systematic paralysis.

In 2001, I was part of the original programme that identified the risks associated with globalisation and this scenario was high up on the list of possible events that we considered. In designing any software programme, the requirements manager should always ensure that the intellectual property that went into the project is maintained safely and that there is a reversionary mode incorporated in the platform.

We are very good at ensuring our aircraft do not drop out of the sky when there is a glitch, so why do we not put the same effort into human processes? It is not all about imagination and costs; there has to be well-established protocols that are familiar and practised on a regular basis. Time, as ever, is the key resource, but this was NOT an act of nature, so there are no excuses for poor preparation.

The NATO Conference in Washington this week was inevitably overshadowed by the recent elections in Britain and France and the latest Presidential News. It was nevertheless disappointing for commentators that no major initiative was announced to mark the 75th anniversary of its founding.

Ultimately, this is the only credible organisation that can deter Putin’s Russia and protect vulnerable countries from being “picked off” one by one. Talking about expenditure is a complete cop-out because it is military capability, as in high readiness brigades, ships and aircraft, which will earn the respect of our adversaries, not theoretical budgets.

Too often NATO’s members have suggested that other Allies will fill their gaps for them, but in a crisis, each country will look to their own before supporting another Member. We need to get back to counting numbers and matching our potential adversaries with a coherent, long term strategy – as we did twenty years ago.

It will be very interesting to observe how the new government in London deals with the problems of Defence and Security. In the case of British Foreign Policy and Economics, the cabinet will wish to be seen as stable and predictable, so it seems it has been elected on the basis of different people, but similar policies i.e. “change, but no change”. It is certainly the case that historically, Labour Governments have not made dramatic cuts to Defence and I am hopeful this will be the case in the next five years.

The first tests for the new Secretary of Defence will be at Budget time and when he meets his American counterpart. He will need to demonstrate that he can win the difficult argument with the Treasury and that he supports our main Ally, despite a big difference in the approach to the Middle East. I expect there will be a close alignment on Ukraine and Russia, but notwithstanding MI6 paranoia, we will not be quite so adjacent with the US about China. The key issue though will be credible military capabilities. To be taken seriously by the Pentagon, the government will have to put its “money where its mouth is” and a good beginning would be to fund a replacement for our aging tank fleet.

We Need A New Tank

On Armed Forces Day, the political spotlight fell on what the Party Leaders said about veterans in the run up to the election. As ever, the media focused on money and social issues: homelessness; mental health; and housing for soldiers’ families. However, these concerns miss the most important point of all: how will a future government use the Armed Forces?

Most veterans are very stoic about their lives and accept the situation they find themselves in with grace and dignity. They certainly do not relish being used as political pawns and nor do they enjoy seeing the British Armed forces being diminished and becoming insignificant in world affairs.

If there is one thing that I would like to see the Government change, it is the attitude of school teachers, who are ignorant about what the Services offer and put off potential recruits with their negative mantra about life (and duty) as a soldier, sailor or pilot. My second request would be to stop thinking only about Ceremonial Duties in London and Special Forces operations and rebuild the armed forces to the capability level they were at before 9/11, when we had a fortnight-long Royal Tournament, rather than a single armed forces day. Only then will our adversaries (and Allies) take us seriously again.

Two media storms of interest this week – the Special Forces Saga and the Farage Non-Revelation.

The Director of Special Forces (DSF) has a unique position in Government. He controls what in other countries are known as the Republican Guard i.e. an elite force that is dedicated to serve the National Security Council’s priorities and do their dirty work behind the scenes. Be of no doubt that this important body can succumb to “group-think” and be seduced by the mantra: “you are either with us or against us”. The fact that the government never comments on their operations lends weight to the Media’s gripe that Special Forces are “unaccountable”, but the fact is their use of lethal force has to be approved at the highest level in Whitehall.

I was in Kabul and Helmand in 2012 in my role as Head of the Defence Cultural and Language Capability and saw at first hand how our Afghan interpreters were being treated, especially those working with the Special Forces. Unfortunately, the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan will have to confirm unlawful activity by Special Forces deployed not only from Britain, but also from our Allies as well.

There are two tracks to deal with this. The first is the official enquiry, which will be slow and bureaucratic; the second is the internal lessons identified process, run secretly by the Chief of the General Staff using DSF and someone like the Director of Operational Capability to identify important lessons. These will be implemented rapidly, so that when the official inquiry eventually publishes its report, the Ministry of Defence can look smug and say: “We have already dealt with these issues”.

The second storm about the causes of the Russia-Ukraine war is to me more worrying. Nigel Farage was correct in his summation of why Putin invaded Ukraine. Many commentators, including myself, have for a long time suggested that NATO was playing with fire when it courted Ukraine, so this is not news. Understandably, the government will not wish to say anything that could be interpreted as not supporting Ukraine; however, the dilemma that Farage highlighted will have to be faced eventually. Unless the West is willing to put bodies on the line, this war will drift on with little end in sight because Putin is achieving his aim by occupying large sections of the country within missile range of Moscow. We have to take this seriously and prepare properly, if we wish to deter Putin from further expanding his borders in Europe.

Both sides this week have issued statements that are designed to reassure the public that they are actively seeking peace. The reality, however, is that neither side is willing to compromise on their core demands. Russia will not tolerate NATO in Ukraine and Ukraine will not tolerate Russia eating away at it territorial integrity.

The reasons why both sides took up arms has not fundamentally shifted. Neither has there been any weakening of their economic support. Russia is still trading with more than half the world and receiving hard cash from many countries in Asia and Africa, including China, India and South Africa. Ukraine is still benefiting from the enormous economic support of the USA and the European Union. So, to my mind, the stalemate will last at least until 2025.

The D Day Landings and the Battle for Normandy are hugely symbolic for Britain and other countries that fought against oppression in the Second World War. The courage and bravery of the men who carried out the most complex amphibious operation in the history of conflict is rightly commemorated each year. However, it certainly was not the turning point of the war and nor was it any more “intense” than some of the battles in North Africa and Italy, such as El Alamein and Monte Cassino, so why has this anniversary become such a political event, rivalling Remembrance Sunday and Trooping the Colour for those who “must be seen” to attend it? Three important reasons come immediately to mind.

First, Geography; the battlefields in North Africa, Italy and Asia are difficult to reach and tend to be inaccessible because buildings have been constructed and vistas have changed, whereas the Normandy beaches are relatively unaltered and easy to reach.

Second, the nature of the task; its complexity meant that although the numbers of men who actually fought on D Day and the casualties suffered were less than other battles, many families back home felt they were involved. This is due to the plethora of supporting operations, such as deception, and the training camps and logistics tail that touched dozens of counties from the industrial north to the assembly areas in the south.

Third, the event provides a political opportunity to reiterate the resolve of Allies against authoritarian regimes and this sings to the need to support Ukraine against Russia. However, the political rhetoric we heard last week is not going to deter Putin in his current war because historical commemorations and ceremonial parades are not hard military capabilities. The only language that will alter Putin’s behaviour is the language of the Cold War. What we need are fully recruited regiments, equipped with the latest armoured vehicles that are maintained at scale, with a short notice to move. All military capabilities need to be tested through operational rehearsals, such as the old REFORGER exercises that were run by NATO. Only then will Putin take us seriously and our forbearers’ sacrifices will be honoured.

Omaha Beach

I gave a talk today about the Swing Riots in 1830 and it struck me how similar the country is now to those former times.

In the first place, the climate was changing drastically with extreme events occurring on an increasing basis. This resulted in a disastrous harvest in 1829 and another meagre one a year later. There were regular “hurricanes” during the winter and one diarist recorded on 3 April that: “It was so cold to-day that cartloads of ice were brought in.”, but four days later “It was so hot by day as to be quite overpowering ; and so warm at night that one could scarcely bear any clothes, beyond the sheet, over one in bed.”

Secondly, there was something akin to the current cost of living crisis. Farm labourers earned eight shillings a week (40 pence), which left them with nothing after their rent and food was paid. Their clothes were in shreds and there were no treats for their children.

Thirdly, technology was putting people out of work. For example, the introduction of threshing machines meant that many families found no work in the winter months.

Fourthly, there was a sense that the political elite were out of touch and that ordinary people had no say in the decisions that affected them. This was particularly the case in the countryside where changes such as “Enclosure” were restricting the traditional freedoms and rights of ordinary folk.

There were many protest movements, which inconvenienced ordinary people, who were going about their daily business. Some of these turned ugly and were known as the Swing Riots.

And immigration from Europe was at its peak with the French and Belgium revolutions increasing this flow of refugees and displaced people. With a new king (William IV) and a national election that was hotly contested, there was a real worry about revolution being imported from abroad.

The good news was that within a decade, most of these ills had been resolved and the revitalised country embarked on a period of tremendous growth and prosperity.

The question is – Will history repeat itself?

One of the most frequent questions I heard from the public as a spokesperson for the Army Board in 1999 was about bringing back National Service.

At the time, the Chief of Defence was Charles Guthrie, who incidentally has exactly the same background as the new Head of the Army (Guards and SAS). His opinion was that the Armed Forces should be focused on warfighting skills and train for the worst case scenario. This view proved to be prescient as the following decade saw British soldiers, sailors and pilots involved in some of the hardest fighting experienced since the Second World War.

The idea of conscription is to instil a sense of duty and purpose in young people, rather than entitlement and indolence. This is a huge task, which in itself will further dilute the current Armed Forces capability that has been ravaged during the past ten years. It will also distract the MoD from its primary purpose, which at this time of extreme Global tension is both unwise and unhelpful to our Allies.

Attempting to force 18-year-olds to do what they don’t want to do will also open the Services to even more medical problems, litigation claims and negative media than they currently experience.

I believe the purpose of helping young people to escape from their “bubbles” is a tremendous idea, but the Armed Forces are not there as a grown-up guide, or scout movement. We need to deal with the causes and tackle the problem at its root. It is for the Department for Education to teach children in their early years about the importance of team work, loyalty, contributing to society and being the best.

Recruit Training 25 Years Ago

There is something very predictable about what is happening in Ukraine at the moment. The latest attacks by the Russian Army (with support from Cubans and other mercenaries) has been foreseen by many people, as the overwhelming numbers of soldiers and materiel begin to take effect and wear down the gallant defenders.

I always think that Putin likens himself to a Russian Tsar, rather than a Soviet Leader, but his method this year seems to be straight out of the manual that we studied in the Cold War. In a folded aide-memoir, we were told to imagine the approaching Soviet Army as an animal that constantly changes shape. It begins as a tortoise, with a thick outer shell protecting the important body as the head looks out for the enemy. In the deployment phase, it resembles a slither of snakes, which probe for gaps and weaknesses in the enemy positions. Finally in the attack, it is like a bear that growls to hold the enemy’s attention while its paws sweep in from the flanks.

In terms of his long term goals, I do not believe that Putin completely wishes to decimate Kharkiv and turn it into a “Grozny”, but he will do it if he believes it will tip the balance to win the war (and the peace). The short term goal is clearly to push the Russian boundaries further away from Moscow and to create as wide a buffer zone as possible, but there are other objectives, which are discussed in an excellent podcast by distinguished writers, Saul David and Patrick Bishop, that is definitely worth a listen at: https://www.goalhangerpodcasts.com/battleground?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email