Sunday, 11 November 2012

The United Kingdom is still a Warrior Nation.



In a deliberately provocative article on Sat 10 November (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9667102/Max-Hastings-Farewell-to-our-warrior-nation.html) , Sir Max Hastings used a column in the Telegraph to argue that the UK is no longer a warrior nation. The gist of his argument was that defence cuts will lead to an unwillingness by political leaders to use force in future, and that our glories belong to the past, and not the future.

The author strongly disagrees with this very fatuous statement. At its most simple, the UK is a warrior nation. For centuries the ability to willingly inflict violence upon others who threaten our existence and way of life has been a hallmark of the UK national character. The means by which we have done this have changed out of all recognition; allegations that the military is now smaller than the end of the Napoleonic wars can easily be countered by the realisation  that the modern military is infinitely more capable than a Napoleonic era force.

Suggestions that we no longer have the ability to deploy in meaningful numbers are also way off the mark. One of the defining characteristics of the UK as a modern global power is precisely this ability to deploy. We have inherited, more through luck perhaps than judgement, a legacy of real estate, runways and ports which easily facilitate the movement of troops. As a nation we long ago made the decision that quality and not quantity mattered, and invested heavily in logistics, transport and the other enabling capabilities that allow the UK to go where it wants, when it wants.

For all the moaning in the Telegraph about how dreadful it is that the UK can ‘only’ deploy 8-10,000 troops on sustained operations, one should ask in return, how many other countries can do just this? The UK is one of a handful of countries able to operate this many troops, and sustain, resupply and replace them, at long distances. The only others are the US, possibly France and to a limited degree Germany. Humphrey grows increasingly tired of the same old mantras printed in the press about how ‘we couldn’t do this again’. You know what, we may not be able to send 30 or 40 escorts to the South Atlantic, or permanently station four armoured divisions in Germany, but in todays world, that doesn’t actually matter. Let’s focus on what we can do, and what can do now and have been doing for a decade.

Let’s look back since 2001, we’ve deployed 46,000 troops to Iraq to fight a high intensity war, and then fought a violent peace for a further four years. At the same time we’ve continuously kept over 10,000 troops in Afghanistan fighting a very violent, very intense conflict. This isn’t the sort of happy consensual peacekeeping that some other nations see as their military comfort zone. No, instead the UK has willingly put its troops into harms way to fight in some of the most challenging areas on earth. We have a generation of new soldiers, sailors and airmen who have fought in some of the most bloody and difficult operations carried out since WW2. A scan of the Operational Honours lists issued every few months shows just how difficult these operations are, and how in terms of courage, leadership and pure raw bravery, todays young military personnel are easily the equal of their illustrious predecessors.

Very few other nations could have sustained our commitment to Afghanistan without breaking their armed forces. The UK has done this, and still sustained a plethora of operations across the world, ranging from defending the Falkland Islands, to keeping peace in Cyprus. There has been major maritime work going on in the Gulf and Horn of Africa, while in the West Indies the RN and RFA continue to interdict drug smugglers and save lives with disaster relief. In Libya last year we demonstrated that we could not only fight in one theatre, but we simultaneously ran one of the most successful air / sea power campaigns ever seen, helping support the liberty of the Libyan people.

We may not be as large as we used to be, but it doesn’t matter as much as we perhaps think. Look at the UK and our overseas deployments since the end of the presence East of Suez, and you’ll see that we’ve managed to sustain a similar level of troops deployed globally now, compared to any point since the mid 1960s. We continue to work on all continents on the planet, we continue to be a partner of choice for many countries, and we continue to demonstrate global leadership. Our political leaders of all colours have a willingness to countenance the use of force when required, and perhaps more importantly our public backs them and supports the military.

To the authors minds, the phrase warrior nation does not mean ‘how many tanks you can put into a hypothetical battlefield against a long vanished army’. It means ‘the willingness of a people to see violence inflicted in their name, and if needs be participate, whatever the cost may be’. The UK as a nation is one comfortable spending money on defence, comfortable using its military across the globe and although saddened, can accept the fact that this use often comes at a high cost.

When we give thanks to our forebears today who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, we must continue to realise that it’s not about the tanks we own, or the ships we possess. Any nation can have a large military, but it’s about a deeper willingness to accept and understand that there are times when it must be employed for a greater good, often at a cost of treasure and blood.

Humphrey believes that the UK is still emphatically a warrior nation in capability, people and attitude. Rather than looking to a near mythical past (which in reality was full of journalists decrying how poor the UK military was and couldn’t do anything compared to the good old days of Loos, Maekfeking, Waterloo, Agincourt etc), lets try and focus on the present. Consider that the UK still represents a hugely potent force for good, and that we are served by incredible people (both military and civilian) who dedicate their lives to preserving global security. We are far more than we as a nation allow ourselves credit for, and while we should not be ostentatious, perhaps we should be a little more positive about how much we can do in the world relative to other nations.

We are a great nation, full of great people prepared to do great things. Today, let us be thankful to those who have paid so much to enable us to be where we are now.

19 comments:

  1. Brilliant and very appropriate article, well done, Sir H.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent piece, I love Max but he is way off the mark on this.

    But remember where he is coming from when he trots out these portents of doom:

    "My own strongly held view, shared by some much cleverer people on both sides of the Atlantic, is that the only credible way forward is to undertake a drastic restructuring, which explicitly prioritises ground forces. We should plump for a properly funded fighting army with appropriate support, including helicopters and transport aircraft, and a big commitment to unmanned drones. In a rational world the RAF, already smaller than the US Marine Corps’s organic air wing, would be integrated with the army."

    This was from early 2010, so he will clearly have been disappointed by the outcome of the SDSR in a way that I was not.

    My comment on that article:



    "Soon, we shall be capable of deploying only a single battlegroup of 7,000–8,000 men for sustained operations overseas. Compare this tiny force to the 30,000 military personnel sent to the First Gulf War."
    Max, I luv you n'all, but that is a very poor argument.

    You explicitly stated our capability for sustained intervention, and then immediately contrast it to our capability for surged intervention twenty years ago.

    You should be more than well aware that the sdsr specified a surge capability for an intervention of 30,000, drawing an explicit parallel to the second gulf war.

    If there is a declining warrior spirit in Britain it results from a decade of protracted and nasty counter insurgency wars in dusty, faraway, places that the electorate could not perceive as important.

    This is what your boots on the ground buys, public rejection of a Britain unafraid to involve itself in the difficult decisions in geopolitics. More importantly, with the defence budget we have, keeping your boots would have gutted our capability for rapid intervention via naval and air forces.

    Face it, outside of the extremis of world war we are not an 'army' nation, which is why the army is going down while the navy is getting carriers.

    Sorry to be the one to break the bad news.

    Yours.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This article has persuaded me that Britain is still a warrior nation that can throw its weight around whenever it wants to. But I'm not at all sure that's such a great thing, for us or the world. Because, basically, the majority of our wars are stupid or bad (like America's). If we are to be a warrior nation and thus "a hugely potent force for good", we should pay much more attention to making sure that our military activities really are justified by self-defense or saving foreigners from tyranny.

    Why I don't wear a poppy

    ReplyDelete
  4. I, too, miss the good old days when we could wander halfway around the world, give Johnny Lee Native a damn good thrashing, plunder a native palace or two and be back in time for crumpets.

    But, because I've now outgrown my delusional adolescent fantasies about martial colonialism, I have Flashman to scratch that particular itch.

    "Willingness of people to see violence inflicted in their name", indeed. I'm sure that sentence was the cause of plenty of pinkness and stiffness from the safety of your Kent herb garden. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir H has done his time in Basra and Afghanistan, so I think that last paragraph is somewhat uncalled for.

      Delete
  5. Max 'Hitler' Hastings has been full of shit for some time. When has this country ever been a Warrior Nation?! What a load of rose tinted nonsense from him. Perhaps he's referring to the inefficient militia we kept for hundreds of years, or the wretched Elizabethan expeditions or the never ending dispatching of poorly prepared armies right up until 1940. I'm not attacking our record, we'd learn quickly and certainly the lads have been full of pluck, but a Warrior Nation?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Without wanting to get into the ethics of the question, as that is an endless debate, it is pretty clear that as a matter of fact the UK (and England before it) has an unusually long and strong track record of sending our military personnel to fight overseas, and/or paying other people to do that fighting for us, even if we haven't always been that effective. Since I don't know what a 'warrior nation' is, I don't know whether that makes us one or not. But seen from almost anywhere else in the world it certainly makes us a highly interventionist one (to use a deliberately neutral term). And HMG certainly intends to maintain the ability to do so in a way virtually no-one else seeks to match.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think far too many people here are focussed on the wording rather than the message. Its amazing to see the amount of anger and strawmanning that two innoccuous words can conjour.

    Regardless, Hastings manages to refute his own arguments. One would think he would research his claims better, but considering how quickly the defence correspondance of the Telegraph is disappearing down the toilet this hardly comes as a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Anonymous - "Max 'Hitler' Hastings has been full of shit for some time. When has this country ever been a Warrior Nation?!"

    To help answer your question, Lawrence James has noted that such sentiment has abounded since at least the time of tacitus. ;)

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warrior-Race-History-British-Abacus/dp/0349114862

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excellent stuff Sir H. Hope the holidays went well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Lawrence James has noted that such sentiment has abounded since at least the time of tacitus"

    I never accused Mr Hastings of being the first idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I think far too many people here are focussed on the wording rather than the message."

    If he has a proper message he should write a clear and concise analysis and put across his ideas with focus and evidence. Not write a load of populist shite and expect educated people to swallow it. He can do far better than that, I enjoy his books, but the screeds he writes for the papers are beyond the pale.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I never accused Mr Hastings of being the first idiot."

    Fine scholar that lawrence is, my point was really intended to highlight a view that dates back to tacitus.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was talking about Tacitus!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nice article Sir H!

    You're right, the whole focus of the debate shouldn't just be about what we (past tense) could do, or what according to some people we 'should' be able to do now.

    Their absolutely needs to be recognition of that fact that proportionally the UK is far more capable than a lot of the other players out there. We aren't out of the game just yet!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm having a hard time picturing the journalists pining for the good ol' days at Agincourt :)

    A modern army that's able to field 10,000 soldiers overseas for an extended period, and surge to 30,000 soldiers, and support them with air and naval power, is a first rate world power. That the U.K. refuses to actually destroy the treasury to field American-style force levels is a measure of good sense, not a declining martial spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I made several comments on the MH article last week - what is this man on? The problem with MH is that he has a sentimental attachment to the Army as an institution and little understanding of the defence needs of the UK in the 21st Century. Most of his articles and broadcasts are very skewed towards the Army and often notable for what they leave out - usually the RN and the RAF!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think that some people here should recall history: http://www.bestessay.com/essays/causes-of-the-falklands-war.php
    Btw, the post is really interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I find it difficult to reconcile the author's tone in this article with the tone I just read in his piece concerning the Parachute Regiment. Here, you claim that the UK is still a warrior nation that possesses the will and the capability to project it's power around the world, yet in the other piece you remark that perhaps having only a company of airborne troops is simply embracing reality, and that transporting a full battalion of paratroopers is beyond Great Britain's capacity now. Furthermore, you suggest that losing more than a handful of paratroopers or pilots would be unacceptable to the leaders of the UK in today's world.

    Perhaps I am merely confused, but it does seem as if your tone has changed dramatically in the last few months, from defiance to acceptance.

    ReplyDelete