The Government has issued a white paper on the future of our defense forces. Never in human history has the military technology developed so quickly or the cost of deploying it escalated so much. The United States military have had to scale back or cancel many of their acquisition programmes for the most sophisticated weapons – such as their new jets. Even new equipment which would save lives can be subject to budget considerations. Traditional enemies (at least if you believe Yes Minister) Britain and France have just signed a 50 year agreement that will them to share their military resources, such as aircraft carriers, in order to save costs. In all their cases purchase of equipment serves also to support their military research and production industries, which in turn provide their country with export earnings. Even Australia has a defense industry, but for New Zealand the purchase of equipment provides little or no economic benefit – we've even outsourced our uniform purchase to China.
One of the major arguments being used against the continuance of 'business as usual' for the military is the current spate of asymmetric conflicts; terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on which side of the particular conflict you are spinning), cyber terrorists, and other irregular forces who won't put on a uniform and play by the rules. Their impact in the news media has overshadowed the conventional conflicts that have taken place, both the initial invasion of Iraq (and of course the first Iraq war post Kuwait invasion), and the Russian invasion of Georgia. The cessation of conventional warfare has been predicted before – after the 'war to end all wars' in 1918 much of Europe wound down their research, manufacture, and deployment of their military, and found it difficult to scale up to successfully defeat Hitler – impossible perhaps except for the intercession of an outside party. The sophistication of modern conventional warfare puts this sort of escalation over a short period even less achievable.
Georgia particularly demonstrated one important aspect of modern warfare – even if your force is well equipped, if you can't field an integrated force that covers all aspects of operations (e.g. air cover for your ground forces), you will fail. For a small country such as New Zealand, where the operational costs of even Vietnam era aircraft was prohibitive, let alone the cost of purchase and maintenance of modern equipment, this does present a problem. Even if you can afford it, as the USA is finding out, being able to sustain it for an extended period is also prohibitive. If you ignore the furor over the mothballing of the expensive to run and totally ineffective Skyhawks, the military did quite well out of the previous government. The airforce is replacing its Vietnam era helicopters for up to date ones and it acquired transport aircraft which can fly in commercial airspace. The navy gained the ability to mount a limited expeditionary force, as well as significantly more ability to patrol New Zealand waters. The army gained new infantry combat vehicles, modern communications equipment and a guidance system for its anti aircraft missiles. Still not nearly enough though to independently mount a conventional war – or even defense of our own country.
The white paper recognises this by calling for interoperability with our allies – effectively becoming a limited resource within a larger force. This makes good operational sense if you can't afford to do it yourself – and if Britain and France can't afford it, we certainly can't. Militarily supporting other countries is also a good introduction for other aspects of a relationship -free trade agreements for instance - so it's also good foreign policy.
US Coastguard helicopter operates off HMNZS Te Kaha during an exercise
The paper also categorizes other types of operation our military would be involved in and how it would achieve it. It was disappointing that perhaps some ideas weren't explored enough. Resource protection and other interception duties might better be done by a Coast Guard type service. Surveillance might be better done through UAV's. A joint rapid response force with Australia wasn't explored. Counter terrorism might better be dealt with by a paramilitary force within the Police rather than an offshoot of the SAS. Before the advent of firearms, Great Britain required its adult men to put a certain amount of time aside for archery practice – golf notwithstanding, and was able to field a fearsome and effective force at short notice. Would it be more cost effective to expand the territorial army and reduce the size of our regular forces?
So why do we have a military force at all? The origin of human warfare is still a topic debated by scientists and philosophers, but it is possibly a hand down from our common ancestor with the other hominids. The aggressive acquisition of territory and resources appears to be common right through history and across all cultures, or at least all the successful ones who got to write the history. Having said that, the requirement to have an actual army, navy and airforce shouldn't be taken as a given. New Zealand is isolated geographically, and there are examples of less isolated countries which don't have them; Costa Rica for example eliminated its army after a particularly bloody coup and has since become one of the most stable democracies in South America (Fiji take note). The level of health care and high rate of literacy is a testament to the good you can do with the money you save.
Modern conflicts seem irrational. I can understand the Allied response to Hitler. I don't understand the mindset of a suicide bomber and I don't understand the mindset of a President or Prime Minister who would lie to their citizens to justify military action, or consider water-boarding acceptable. Religion, tribalism, nationalism, intolerance, racism, hate and hubris define modern conflicts. How do you combat this without it costing life?
Another reason for the unease I feel when thinking about this subject has nothing to do with strategic decisions about the mix of our forces, but the removal of a major brake on our engaging in conflict. Desmond Morris suggested a reason for our hesitancy to engage in face to face conflict;
“Every time one individual launches a physical attack on the body of another, there is a risk that both may suffer injury. No matter how dominant the attacker may be, he has no guarantee of escaping unscathed. His opponent, even if weaker, may be driven into a desperate frenzy of wild defensive actions, any one of which could inflict lasting damage.”
Of course, we've graduated to weapons which reduce this possibility but there is still the potential to die in conflict, and before sending in troops, leaders have to factor in the response to casualties in relation to the perceived gain e.g. attacking Iraq rather than another “axis of evil” power such as North Korea. This remoteness was a major criticism to IBM's, but the potential response to such wanton destruction proved (so far) to be an adequate deterrent. The next generation of weapons allows us to wage war without risking our troops, or causing massive indiscriminate damage, from a distance – “precision” guided weapons and cruise missiles have been joined by armed UAV's, remote controlled vessels and combat vehicles, which are now developing autonomous capabilities. Where is the deterrent to our using them - and do we want to be part of that?
I guess the final argument on why it's necessary for us to maintain our military must belong to a wildly out of context misquoting of Ben Elton; if Albert Einstein was mugged in a dark alley, who would win - Albert or the mugger? It doesn't matter how sophisticated or civilised your society, or how idealistic your beliefs, in an irrational world sometimes you need to be pragmatic in your idealism and carry a big stick.
No comments:
Post a Comment