10 Years of ThinPinstripedLine
Ten years ago today, the first ever PinstripedLine blog was
published. The site was set up in late 2011 as a result of frustration on
several fronts. Firstly, the lack of understanding in the media about complex
defence debates, which translated into a poor public understanding of the complexity
of defence and why issues were not always clear cut.
Secondly the blog was designed to counter the narrative that
the UK and the MOD is a failure. There was a strong sense at the time that
somehow we had magnificent armed forces, but at some indeterminate point in the
system this competence vanished and was replaced by incompetents who seemed determined
to screw over the armed forces.
This was coupled with a view that the UK nationally was an
irrelevance, a nation whose views did not matter, and where influence was waning.
The UK was seen by many as a failing state without power or influence compared
to others.
Finally it was a desire to communicate clearly the case for the brilliant Civil Service, so often maligned and targeted as the reason for things going wrong – even when this was clearly not the case. The MOD Civil Service is, and remains, a magnificent organisation which does not get the praise it so richly deserves when it gets things right. The blog was an attempt to stand up for the MOD Civil Servant at a time when it was felt by many that they were convenient opportunity targets.
It is interesting to view the world of 10 years ago and look
at the assessment of the threats we faced and global security challenges at the
time. A Channel 4 news assessment from the time opens with
NEW WORLD ORDER: It’s coming… but we don’t know how fast.
As China becomes more assertive diplomatically, a weak US administration is
consumed by a wavering economy, social and political problems at home and the
inconclusive war in Afghanistan.
Fast forward 10 years and its entirely plausible to say that
the same paragraph could be reused verbatim as an opening line to an assessment
for the predictions of the world in 2022. While China has grown in strength, it
is not yet the dominant global superpower, and a hallmark of the last 10 years
has been the steady rise of democratic nations seeking to counter this
challenge, trying to find ways to slow the rise of Chinese dominance – whether this
is enough to preserve a global security construct where China is one of two
superpowers, or if it emerges as the dominant global power is yet to be seen.
The article also focuses on the security challenges posed around
the globe, including Somalia, Yemen and the challenges between the two Koreas,
as well as the risk of cyber security and drug trafficking. There are wider
concerns on Iranian nuclear aspirations, the democratic deficit in Africa and the
challenges posed by economic growth and climate change.
It is hard to not to argue that the world we face today is not
materially different from that of December 2011. We still have security challenges
across the Middle East, drugs continue to pose a threat to stability of
nations, the India / Chinese relationship remains strategically complex, and
Europe remains introspective in attitudes. The world is arguably no more, and
no less, a security challenge than it was in 2011.
For the British Government this is perhaps vindication that
its long term analysis made during the 2010 SDSR, and reaffirmed in 2015 seems
to be holding broadly correct. The threats we face are long term in nature,
they will not be solved quickly and they often require complex multi-faceted
responses, not just boots on the ground and a spot of airpower to fix.
The common theme throughout writing this blog has been that
decisions are long term and complicated. Planners in the MOD need to be able to
make decisions where the consequences of their actions may not be felt for 5-10
years and look ahead with confidence about the likelihood of their assessments coming
to pass.
As this blog started, the Royal Navy in particular was
feeling the pain of the loss of the Harrier, and the reduction in the fleet
pending decisions taken under the SDSR to draw the fleet down in size from 23 –
19 escorts.
At the time this site argued that the former decision
actually made broad strategic sense, given the need to focus resources in
Afghanistan, draw down there and then recover and regenerate forces pending
their redeployment in the 2020 timeframe. This timescale has, broadly, proven
accurate with the time needed for the generation of the Carrier Strike Group
taking many years to bring together.
Other decisions made then will take longer to fix – the decision
to pay off the Type 22C Frigates made financial sense at the time given the enormous
financial pressure facing the MOD. Better to pay off a small subclass of ship
with specific weapon systems (e.g. Seawolf) and reap wider savings throughout the
supply and training chain than keep them running over other ships.
Without doubt this was a painful decision, but it was the
right one to take given the circumstances planners faced at the time. The
challenge now though is the recognition that the wider impact of dropping to 19
hulls was too great, and the force needs once again to grow- first mooted in
2015, and reaffirmed in 2021, we are unlikely to see a material growth in the
RN escort fleet until the early 2030s.
In other words, changing the outcome of a decision is now sufficiently
long term to be measured in decades – we are likely to be celebrating the 20th
anniversary of Pinstripedline before the RN escort fleet grows beyond 20 hulls.
The aim of this site has been to try to provide context to why
this is the case, and why we cannot just ‘click our fingers’ and wish more
ships, tanks and aircraft into existence. Hopefully it has helped explain the
challenges and pressures faced, and how decisions are taken for reasons that
make good internal sense, even if they are perhaps not always communicated effectively.
Looking across the site and the 519 articles written, there
are several common themes that remain constant. Firstly, articles on the Royal Navy
and the fleet we have, and the fleet we wish to acquire. There are many
articles explaining why things are not as bad as naysayers make out, that the fleet
we have today (and have had over the last 10 years), remains exceptionally
capable and is very much in the ‘top tier’ of global navies.
Trying to arrest fears and doubts about the state of the RN
is a common theme, in particular armament of vessels. Addressing the constant
demands for ‘upgunning’ ships to add ever more spectacular weaponry is a regular
theme, as the internet is full of people who believe that it is an easy and
insubstantial matter to materially change a ship class to add lots of extra
weapons. Trying to explain why this is a time consuming, complex, expensive and
ultimately arguably very pointless thing to do is likely to remain a long term goal
here.
Another core theme is trying to counter ‘crisis comms’ and
address some of the more hysteria generating articles that appear in the press.
There has been a constant flow of articles that when you read them seem to
imply the nation is doomed for ‘reasons’ or that Civil Servants are incompetent,
or that the UK is an utter failure because of something.
The constant challenge
is to try to address these claims in a calm objective manner, which sets out
alternative perspectives, and provides a different approach. To date the blog
seems to have done reasonably well at this, for example the reports that HMS QUEEN
ELIZABETH was ‘sinking’ were able to be quickly rebuffed.
The aim in doing these articles is to provide a speedy response, using open source media, in a way that helps challenge the argument before it becomes dominant. Sometimes an MOD response can take a while to emerge, providing an information vacuum that can be exploited. The goal with this blog is to offer alternative views that may not chime with the media article, but which provide a more balanced perspective than is reported. Hopefully it will long continue in this fashion.
A final constant theme of articles is that of our people,
and the good work that they do and trying to look at, and question, why we do
things in a certain way. This has ranged from questioning the ongoing
justification for the Parachute Regiment, to whether the Royal Marines have a
future, to suggesting that the RN needs to get rid of its carrier force. The
aim of these is to consider the debate, the merits and cons of a course of
action and spur further debate, not to necessarily take a side or strong view
either way.
Of particular importance is the focus on people and trying
to make the continued case for pushing for gender equality. This often winds up
some commentators, who from their perspective as white middle-aged,
middle-class individuals think its all a lot of ‘woke PC claptrap’. Clearly,
they have suffered greatly from discrimination in their lives.
Our workforce is only as good as the people in it, and if we
do not take every step to make it welcoming, supportive and inclusive of
everyone, and not just the men, then we are failing to make the best of our
talent and people. It is not ‘pc gone mad’ to want to create a workplace which
encourages people of all gender, races and sexual orientation to aspire to join
in order that they too can defend our nation.
This blog will always push the case for the diversity
agenda, because you do not need to be a white straight male to be able to
inflict hideous violence on our enemies – the sooner certain parts of society
accept this, the better.
In terms of the defence space, the big change that has yet
to be really embraced is this drive for bringing in people with skills in a way
that makes employable sense. The rapid growth of cyber (which is emphatically
not a new domain, given its been around for over 50 years), calls for people
with skill sets that may not fit the military mould.
At the same time the next generation of recruit is not the
recruit of 40 years ago -they are driven, committed and work incredibly hard,
but they are also more questioning of authority and challenge in a way previous
generations did not. It would be interesting to reflect if those who joined 10
years ago feel that there is a difference between ‘their generation’ and the
one entering recruiting offices now.
Understanding these changes, and how people work differently
will be central to the ongoing relevance of the armed forces – there is no
point delivering a career structure that has one point of entry, fairly slow
progression and limited opportunities for empowerment and control of your
career if this isn’t what the next generation want to have. The military need
to strike a challenging balance between a military career model that works for
the armed forces, and one that appeals to people who have grown up in a
digitally interconnected world.
Looking back, from a communications perspective, perhaps the most profound change has been that of the way that the defence debate is held in public. 10 years ago there were a small number of specialist defence journals, some defence journalists and most engagement was held on forums and not more widely.
Today the defence debate appears to occur in three different
spaces – the public who encounter defence via the mainstream media, the social
media space and channels (e.g. Twitter) and the specialist defence press, which
is getting ever smaller in its presence.
The challenge in this period has been, candidly, the emergence
of the ‘amateur commentator’ (or alternatively that horrible word ‘influencer’) who can shape the defence debate in a range
of ways.
These amateurs, of whom the author is one, owe no allegiance
to a publisher or broadcaster. We are not bound by deadlines or owners agenda,
and we are not reliant on appeasing the MOD / Industry to ensure continued access
to their facilities or material. Few are members of the Defence Correspondents Association,
and very few have any formal engagement with the MOD or press offices to
discuss their articles.
This poses an interesting debate – one of the most fierce
debates occurred several years ago when the first F35 take off and landing occurred
on QUEEN ELIZABETH off the coast of the USA. Several well known journalists
were onboard, filming under an agreed press embargo to maximise their coverage
of the event.
After a picture of this event was seen on social media
before the embargo (which the author knew nothing about) lifted, and was retweeted,
the author came under significant direct pressure from the MOD press office to
his twitter account to retract it and stop commenting on it – apparently because
there was an embargo in place, it applied to all on social media.
Naturally this pressure was given a stiff ignoring, but it
highlights an interesting challenge -in a world where events rapidly unfold,
and it can take time for direct lines to emerge from the MOD, or where camera
phone footage leaked can shape the global news agenda, what is the role of the amateur
defence blogger in the defence communication space?
There is no right answer to this question – this blog is
something I do for pleasure, as a hobby, and a chance to set out my thinking on
paper – not to set an agenda, get ‘likes’ or gain five minutes of fame. I am
not paid for this blog, have no privileged access to Defence media briefing,
and can only comment based on the material that is publicly available. How do
sites like this fit into this ecosystem where they can comment inside an
organisations OODA loop, and provide a counterpoint to mainstream defence
correspondents perspectives?
There has in the past been some hostility from, now departed,
journalists on the defence space – perhaps we are seen as a threat – doing
something for free, or perhaps there is a sense of concern that if a blogger or
specialist site can provide timely coverage, in a way that can be rewritten,
then what is the value of having a specialist defence writer on staff, given
the expense this incurs?
Ironically at the same time this blog also attracts
significant hostility from those who dislike it pushing an alternative, and usually
positive perspective on events. I have always, and will always make clear that
this blog is not sponsored by, and has no links to the MOD. I am not, despite
some frankly borderline libellous suggestion to the contrary, a former SPAD
(how very dare they), and I do not have any access to MOD press briefing or
material through this site. I am clear that anything published here is openly available
via google, and not provided via off the record briefings or other updates – I believe
that this site works precisely because it has no special access to material or
information that others do not.
The usual argument made, often by journalists, is that sites
like this seem to be ‘anonymous’ in nature. My response is, and always will be,
the only reason that this site continues to use the ‘Sir H’ handle is because
that is what it is known by publicly. I
choose not to alter the identity of the blog in the same way as columnists choose
to go under a ‘nom de plum’ – because that is what the public have come to expect
of it.
I have never hidden away from the world, and have made many strong friendships from coffee meetings and beer calls to forming virtual RPG groups, through the defence social media space – one of the greatest pleasures of the last 10 years has been forming many strong and enduring friendships as a result of writing this blog
As of today there have been approximately 3.5 million site page
visits, and well over 6000 comments, most of which seem to be offering me the
chance to enlarge my breasts or meet a nice escort lady – there is a reason why
commenting without approval has been turned off – admittedly most of the more
obscene spam comments ended up on one early article called ‘hardly a lesbian
spank inferno’ (which was a niche reference to a scene from the outstanding BBC
comedy ‘coupling’) but which in turn generated years of spambot comments…
For some reason the most popular article of all time (with almost
70k views) is about the Royal
Navy run ashore in Mayport, Florida. In terms of site visitors, over 140k
hits have come from Russia, presumably the lack of travel opportunities to
Salisbury Cathedral have meant they are spending more time online surfing these
days (hello Moscow Centre!).
Its been a long 10 years – this is the 520th article published
on the site, and with an average length of roughly 2000 words, this means
comfortably over 1 million words have been written on the subject of UK
defence. Hopefully some of them have been of interest.
Finally this article will finish with a dedication to the
incredible men and women of the Civil Service. It is very easy to attack the
Civil Servant – they are misunderstood, they are easy flak absorbers for
unpopular decisions, and they are seen as an unaccountable body more Mandarin
than Mancunian in interests and outlook.
To this author, the Civil Service, in particular the MOD Civil
Servant, is diligent, hard working and committed to serving their nation
through thick and thin. So much of what is done around the globe both by
diplomats, and the armed forces, could not happen without the input and support
of the Civil Service.
They are often maligned,
abused and taken for granted, but the success that we enjoy as a nation is down
to a diverse and wonderful group of people who do their utmost to help. We as a
nation do not necessarily always deserve the public servants that we have, but
we should always be thankful that we have them in public service.
Keep it up.
ReplyDeleteMark Collins
Excellent article sir
ReplyDeleteBravo
ReplyDeleteI enjoy your blogs even if I may not entirely agree.
Love the blog and agree that MOD has some truly excellent civil servants who make the staff marathon look easy.
ReplyDeleteAs ever an excellent article ,we could not do without the Sir Humphreys ,that's for sure ,well done sir as ever.
ReplyDelete