"Next-War-itis" Gets Political

Imagine politicians having a debate on purchasing military equipment with the goal of looking for balance, with some members making the argument the defense procurement strategy sounds more like "Next-War-itis" rather than supporting the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, of coarse this debate isn't happening in the United States, but it did happen on Tuesday in the House of Commons. The honorable Ann Winterton has the floor:

I am delighted to have secured this important debate on a subject of the utmost importance. I believe that it deserves more than an hour and a half, but judging by the number of people present, we might have difficulty filling an hour and a half. I intend to discuss the directional objectives, structures and strategy of our armed forces, as well as the benefits to our nation and the financial cost involved. All those issues will be considered in relation to the type of equipment that the armed forces use at present or will use.

It is good timing and appropriate to the debate that the United States Secretary of Defence, Robert M. Gates, gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation in Colorado Springs, on 13 May, outlining the theme that I have been pursuing for the past four years.

She then cites a number of media articles that define the term, gives examples, and offers a bit of analysis. She then continues:

If the US Defence Secretary is thinking that way, what are we doing in the UK? Should we not pursue a similar line, or at least give that line appropriate consideration?

In an article in the Financial Times of 17 May, the Ministry of Defence was cited as stating:

“We are determined to do more to support our people here and on the front line. To do that, we need to better prioritise our spending plans. The examination of the equipment programme will focus on two issues above all: bearing down on cost increases to the equipment programmes; and rebalancing the equipment programme to better support the front line”.

In spite of the two split infinitives, I heartily support that statement.

The problem is that we do not know in which direction the military is looking. The only clue that we have had to date came from the Army in this month’s Soldier magazine, in which the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, is quoted as saying that Piranha V heralded the

“start of a new era”

for the Army. He also said:

“It maintains the progress of the Fres programme, which is my highest priority after support to operations. This will form the backbone of the Army’s future armoured vehicle requirements. While our protected personnel vehicles such as Mastiff are a very successful addition to meet specific operational requirements in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Fres medium-weight capability will allow the Army to conduct a wider range of operations in an uncertain and changing world.”

Those who have read Robert Gates’s speech will know that that is exactly the type of thinking that he is challenging. Let us have it spelled out exactly what sort of operations we are expecting in the future—or is this a case of next-war-itis?

General Dannatt, Lord Drayson—the former Minister with responsibility for procurement—and the Secretary of State himself have all stated that FRES, future rapid effect system, vehicles will play a dual role for high-intensity warfare and counter-insurgency. Although I believe that equipment that has been designed for counter-insurgency can be used successfully in high-intensity warfare, I do not believe that the reverse is necessarily the case, for reasons that I shall give.

Using Afghanistan as an example, it is not difficult to predict, in any counter-insurgency warfare, that if the insurgents are heavily defeated in straight-on conflicts, they will resort to other tactics such as the use of various explosive devices. The MOD has responded to that threat by purchasing Mastiff, Ridgeback and Bushmaster vehicles, and I pay due credit to the Secretary of State for taking such vital procurement decisions. There are now 282 Mastiffs, 157 Ridgebacks and 24 Bushmasters. In total, 463 such vehicles are ranged against 169 Vector Pinzgauers, which are fast cross-country vehicles but are not designed to protect soldiers from mines or improvised explosive devices. There are 180 mobility weapon mount installation kits, or MWMIKs—known as Jackals—and 2,000 proposed Piranha V vehicles. I emphasise that those vehicles are proposed, because they have not yet been built. That makes 2,349 vehicles in all. With the best will in the world, one could hardly say that that is a very balanced mixture, bearing it in mind that the whole future Army structure is geared to the latter type. I would hardly call that situation “making present operations the top priority”.

At that point other MPs get involved in the debate, it really is an interesting back and forth. If your not familiar with the discussion details, basically Ann Winterton is asking why the Army is buying all of these vehicles that are weak against IEDs and other irregular threats, and better suited for a large ground war. She thinks the Army needs a balanced strategy to support irregular challenges and potential major war scenarios. Balance is key.

I find myself longing for such passion in discussions regarding the safety of the troops, and thoughtfulness in defense procurement decisions by our own government during a time of war. In the US, our elected leadership is too busy regulating everything possible. There was once a time when government didn't spend all of its time telling Americans what they can and can't do, and let the courts sort out the small stuff. This insured Congress was engaged in the important discussions of our nation, which means politics would be about the voting on solutions to problems, and the discussion would always be the issues. Those days are long gone.

A brief look at politics today reveals a discussion on Capitol Hill about high energy costs, with the solution reflecting the position of both presidential candidates, do nothing. Now that's change we can believe in!

Another big story was the resignation of a volunteer on the Obama VP search committee. Wow, this is important why? Realistically, how important is a Vice President selection committee relative to the rising cost of food and energy to the daily lives of American citizens? Same paragraph... or same galaxy?

I saw McCain on the Today show this morning, and I never thought I would see a world where a presidential candidate is criticized for putting the safety of American soldiers first and foremost. I find it incredible the media covering the statement suggests he slipped up, implying that some other condition of the war is more important than the lives of American serviceman. Such casual dismissal in concern for human life, ignorantly and unwittingly, fully represents the dangerous path of partisanship politics prevalent today.

I imagine a world where "Next-War-itis" in the United States is a discussion with passion in Congress. One would think an issue that impacts over half a trillion tax dollars in defense budgets annually would be an important enough topic that my elected politicians took up the debate. That world I imagine is sadly a fantasy world, also known as the UK.