Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Share

A British military expert who wishes to remain anonymous says the RUSI Journal article by Patrick Little that I spotlighted yesterday was good as far as it goes, but understates the parlous state of the UK armed forces.

He explains:

  1. Little's broadly correct. It's a very welcome piece.
  2. It's still very hard to get officers to speak out. Officers speaking off the record give testimony that bears no resemblance to some of the stuff that gets aired in the press. It's practically impossible to get anyone to go on the record with their criticisms, even in fora where the only people who are going to read the stuff are in the defence community. It's telling that Little is not a currently serving officer. There's been some progress, but if you compare what we're seeing coming out in this country with Military Review in its reforming pomp, we're nowhere.
  3. The forthcoming SDR is potentially an excellent opportunity to undergo a much needed strategic "re-boot". However, my early feeling is that the signs may not be good. The individual services have turned against each other in a fight for what are going to be limited defence funds and there's a massive "can't do" attitude on the part of too many of the civilians. It's feels like people have had the fight beaten out of them before they've even started. This is unfortunate, as my view is that SDR may be one of our last chances to get things right and if it falls flat there's a good chance it will taint much of what happens afterwards.
  4. The press over here are largely terrible. Defence journalists who don't know much about defence (there are, of course, honourable exceptions) and generalists who are just lazy as all get out and regurgitate stale talking points they've seen regurgitated over the wire services. None of this debate is percolating through into the public sphere. We've heard some stuff creeping in about how maybe, just possibly, all is not well in the uniformed services, but it's very minor stuff. All they're interested in is bashing the government. Not that the government doesn't deserve a good bashing, but the picture is a lot more complicated than one might think just from reading the papers and, especially, watching the television news.
  5. Officer education is a mess. Never mind the anthropology stuff. We've got a distinct lack of decent strategists. Large numbers of our senior officers have no proper strategic education.
  6. Little is correct in flagging up the disgraceful fact that nobody in the Army has been fired. We tend not to fire people as readily as you chaps (more fool us...) but the extent to which known mediocrities and jobsworths have been able to continue to coast their way up the career ladder borders on astonishing. Meanwhile, Majors and Colonels with extensive campaign experience are getting stifled by the system and heading for civvy street. Where's the British Petraeus? Well, maybe he's out there, but as likely he's probably working in a bank somewhere or farming chickens, having got pissed off and voted with his feet. Retention has been helped somewhat by the troubled economy meaning there aren't many alternative jobs to go to, but we've lost too many good people through a system that rewards ticking the boxes and knowing when to keep one's mouth shut."

I agree with his assessment of the British media, which generally seems to revel in its ignorance of military matters. One test of this: What was the last good book written about military affairs by a British journalist?

wilkins lee/Flickr

 

DOUGSAMUELSON

12:51 PM ET

July 16, 2009

the quick ax

Funny that yesterday we heard that some commanders got relieved too quickly in WWII, while today we're hearing that the British didn't relieve bad commanders quickly enough, "unlike you in the U.S." As you, Tom, documented in "The Gamble," we didn't have any division commanders relieved in the first three and a half years of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as contrasted to a dozen between January 1942 and May 1945. Somewhere between "loyalty down, let 'em work it out" and "if at first you don't succeed, you're gone" is a better doctrine than either extreme. How do we get there?

It's also amusing to me to hear a Brit complaining about how their journalists are worse than ours. Maybe so in military affairs -- not my specialty -- but how about the typical U.S. sound-bite herd coverage in politics? The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, isn't it?

 

STEPHEN SAIDEMAN

9:14 PM ET

July 16, 2009

Politicized Generals

I heard the same thing quite recently during a brief trip to London. A member of parliament was quite critical--that the generals are only saying stuff that they think the recipients want to hear.

 

JASON SIGGER

12:52 PM ET

July 17, 2009

what's the difference?

I read the gentleman's observations and I can't help thinking that he's describing the US Army and the US media. We're a lot more alike than different.

 

TOM RICKS

5:07 PM ET

July 17, 2009

easy to say

It is easy to say that, and there are similarities. But on the specific case of the defense media, I can look around and see several people who have written solid books. One immediate example: Rick Atkinson, who has won two Pulitzers for journalism, I think, and one for history.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More