- The nature of the 'enemy' has changed; in the past our enemies wore uniforms and had aims and structures which we could understand; generally we shared with our opponents certain cultural conventions and norms; this is no longer the case.
- The enemy 'uses our freedoms against us'--they employ asymmetric techniques 'making our strengths into our weaknesses'.
- The rate of technological change has shifted seismically; we now have 'real-time media scrutiny of war' so that small tactical actions in the field can within minutes or hours be shown on television and debated in Parliament.
None of this is particularly new, actually. Nonetheless, it was a very effective tour d'horizon of the dilemmas of contemporary warfare. Which is why I feel somewhat disappointed by it. At times it sounded like an impassioned plea for the British public, more precisely the British media, to be fairer towards and more understanding of the unprecedented pressures under which the Army is now operating. Hear, hear, I say--I couldn't agree more. But this was the Minister of Defence, after all, not some random academic. I was rather hoping at the end to hear how much political capital the government would expend to defend their own soldiery; how far would he risk his own political neck? He didn't say. In fact what he said was something like this: 'we should be more understanding but when crimes are apparently committed we need to prosecute and hold to account...' (This strikes me as logically similar to the government's weaselly response to the furore over publication of cartoons depicting Muhammed: 'yes you have freedom of speech BUT you shouldn't exercise it when it offends people [in which case why have it?].')
In other words, the message to the British Army was, it seemed to me, 'yes, we hear your concerns and we appreciate what you're doing but if you make a mistake you're still toast.' The speech was videoed and I believe we are going to try and post it on the website. I'd be interested to hear what the rest of you make of it.
4 comments:
Thank you for posting this David. I thought you might have something to say after hearing that the speach was to be delivered at Kings. I hope that I am not alone in posting a response.
I would agree with just about everything that you say (who wouldn't). However, I do have one small gem of perspective that you may wish to consider, particularly in light of your assertions that the British Army might be forgiven for feeling let down by Reid's speech. That is, John Reid is the Defence Minister (ie, the head of the Ministry of Defence) and as such his speech would have been the product of many hours of work under the heavy influence of his MOD staff, many of whom are serving military officers (and pretty bright with it). Interesting then, I think, that these may not be simply the views of a Labour Politician, they are also the limit of that which today's British Army feels empowered to publicly air, albeit through the medium of their minister.
What else is he/they/us to say that wouldn't attract public scorn? You're damned if you do and damned if you don't in this world. I like to think that it doesn't matter. The Army doesn't need or want public sympathy, politicians do (your point I think). I am not criticising Reid or his staff for his performance then. Indeed, I think it is entirely understandable. He is a politician who is where he is today for his looking-after-number-one prowess.
I know we don't like him much but Richard Dawkins had a good point (one of many I'm afraid) when he wrote 'be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals co-operate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism because we are born selfish.' (Dawkins 1989, from memory, page number unknown). Reid's staff may be the opposite from him however (aha, the makings of a useful team then). They are indoctrinated from an early age at Sandhurst or similar that courage, loyalty and integrity etc are the acknowledged measures of leadership quality and that the group is of a greater importance than the individual. Army officers couls be described as a 'morale elite' as celebrated contemporary author, TV presenter ('Child of Our Time' anybody?), life peer and geneologist Robert Winston does (Winston, 2002, also from memory, page number unknown), and are the closest you might come to finding altruism in modern society.
Richard Dawkins, 'The Selfish Gene' new edition Oxford University Press (1989), originally 1976
Robert Winston, 'Human Instinct' Bantam Press (2002)
It's interesting what you say, Nick. Yesterday after posting this I had a seminar with my residential MA students who had attended the speech. I asked them what they thought of it. They all poured scorn on it. I was taken aback, I must admit. They reckoned it was an apologia for the abuses committed by some members of the army and a pathetic entreaty by the minister to the media not to publicize things which would embarrass the government. In other words, what you said about what he could say withuot attracting public scorn is very apropos. They rather missed the point, basically. Evidently what he said, which I thuoght did not go far enough, was too far by half for these students. Bearing in mind that these are students of War not Social Work I was, I must admit, taken slightly off guard. I found myself wishing we were discussing things through the limited means of text rather than face-to-face as my reaction, unfortunately, to sheer, blinkered ignorance is a kind of stupefaction--it takes me a while sometimes to recover from the shock of other people's inanity. At least on-line I don't have to try and keep a straight face. I can make all the caustic comments I want while composing something sober and salient in reply.
Yes, you could say that it's all quite 'liberatingly limited', couldn't you.
You know, I share your dissappointment your students' opinion. They seem a bit too reactionary and for my taste. Pretty typical and, again, somewhat understandable I think. It takes a deal of courage, self-confidence and maturity to actually think for yourself and to have your own opinion. Even more so to actually voice that opinion in the company of your peers.
This I think is made all the more understandable when the student cohort are similar in terms of background and stage in life. By way of contrast, the experience of G1 and G4 (Personnel and Logistics) Officers on All Arms or G3 (Combat)centric courses-of-instruction (eg ICSC(L)) are bound by a slightly different set of pressures. Here a loggy officer will know that he is right, will have the courage to speak out but might fail to do so because he has learned through painful experience that to do so would attract the scorn of the G3 master race. And when you have an Army that, quite rightly in my opinion (I say this despite my being a loggy myself), directly focusses its limited resources on the development of war-fighting potential, you develop a doctrine that natuarlly favours all things combat (including the opinions of combat arm officers) ahead of scientific fact. You'll remember my blog about religion and doctrine? This is, again, what I meant (ie doctrine is more than dogma, it is a set of beliefs. Many of which need not be true).
Anyway, what's my point and why am I going on about it? I think my point may be that our chosen subject should not be bound by the confines of documented military history and those commentaries on it. As students of war (which is argueably the ultimate expression of human conscious intelligent interaction), we should be taking a lot of interest in the wider issues of what makes people tick and why, what drives us, what do we do as a reult of instinct and what do we do that is despite of our instincts, why do people (politicians etc) say the things they do and what might their true motives really be if indeed those motives were in their conscience at all? Let us read the core text and recommended reading with fervour because Gaddis, Crockatt, Lawrence etc all know their stuff and there is much that they say that can inspire us to think beyond that which is documented. Our purpose is not to read and regurgitate (albeit in an arty and flourid manner that flatters to deceive but fails to achieve (hey!)), as members of the human race we are all experts of varying degree and our own individual expertise in human social interaction (which I would remind anyone reading this, is our subject) is just as valid as any author who has limited his product to a commentary of an incredibly limited documented history.
Post a Comment