General Sr Peter Wall is warning us about our war weariness.
A “moral disarmament” in the West that has resulted in a reluctance to engage in conflicts will be exploited by Britain’s enemies, the head of the army has warned.
Well, yes, he is a professional soldier and professional soldiers are trained for war. It’s their business. It’s what they do. However, it doesn’t mean that we should be involved in conflicts around the world. Switzerland doesn’t get involved in other people’s conflicts and no one is trying to provoke them. No one, so far as I am aware is suggesting that they are weak.
Wall is correct that we should be well prepared to deploy our forces effectively. A strong defence is a good thing to have. However, poking about in the Ukraine for instance – just to remind Putin that we are strong – is not necessary. Nor should we have put troops on the ground in Libya or engaged in Syria to demonstrate strength. Indeed, overt demonstrations of strength are not necessary at all. Merely, it is necessary to have adequate means of defending ourselves should someone decide to invade. That is all. Nothing more is needed. If Putin thinks as a result that we are weak. Let him. Unless he decides to invade us, it is of no consequence. He can think what he likes.
He said having “ready forces” sent a deterrent to potential adversaries that “will shape their behaviour towards us”.
Yes. We don’t have to go out and use them in every bloody conflict that’s going on in the world, though. And nor should we, for they are none of our business.
“adequate means of defending ourselves” – do you really think the UK could defend itself.
Or, more importantly, would even want to.
In addition to deterring an invasion, you may wish to influence other decisions made by nation states. If you want to ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’, you need a big stick. Unfortunately the apparent paradox that by carrying a big stick you won’t need to use it, is undone not just because fear of your big stick may trigger a countervailing response, but because politicians spending taxes on that big stick will want to use it.
Is the answer to become isolationist? The Swiss model is instructive, because whilst Switzerland’s geography and history have contributed heavily to its independet neutral stance, Swiss sovereignty is restricted by that stance: it is a rule taker, rather than a rule maker when it comes to international norms. When it does want to participate, It is forced to abide by rules that have already been decided by other states (or supra national bodies). That may be a cost worth bearing to avoid the loss of blood and treasure in dubious foreign wars (or rather occupations: the costs borne by the UK in recent years have been due to the latter). Or maybe we are just poor at foreign policy / strategy.