Labouring on Defence - Labour Party Defence Policy

The recent Labour reshuffle that almost was, almost wasn’t and then was again has thrust to the forefront the very real challenges facing Labour as a political party on Defence matters. The relationship that Labour has with Defence is perhaps more challenging than any other party – in the Conservatives the appointment of the Defence team is one of those posts that few raise eyebrows on, with the party being united broadly on Defence spending, the only question being ‘how much more’?

For Labour the relationship is more challenging. Historically the Party when in Government has been very good for the military – talk to many serving or retired officers and two things become clear. Firstly, there are a lot more labour party voters and members in the military than people suspect – its perhaps natural, with many recruits coming from traditional Labour constituencies and heartlands and being the target audience that would be tapped for support. There is inherent sympathy for Labour across all ranks – the military is not a monolithic conservative voting bloc, far from it. Yet despite this, many in Labour have perhaps often been suspicious of the military and its intentions.

Secondly, Labour in Government has traditionally been a good friend of the military. When one looks at the reviews done on Defence since the end of WW2, its clear that Labour has been far more proactive in addressing challenges and refocusing the military to deal with what needs to be done. The party has been responsible for setting up the nuclear deterrent, Polaris and Trident (never forget James Callaghan began negotiations to get Trident, and not Margaret Thatcher) and Trident renewal. It oversaw the 1966 Defence Review which famously withdrew the UK from the Middle and Far East – the right (and very difficult) strategic decision to focus on the real threats at a time of economic challenge. The New Labour ‘Strategic Defence Review’ of 1998 is held up as an example of how to do a good Defence Review, and remains probably the single most effective and ambitious defence review since WW2.

Labour Ministers have often been of the highest quality and highly regarded by the military establishment, who often have a very personal relationship with ‘their Ministers’ compared to other Departments. One only has to look at Dennis Healey, George Robertson and John Reid, who are regarded as some of the best Defence Ministers of the post war era of any party.

NATO is bedrock of UK security

So what is the problem?

Despite this very positive relationship, the Party is struggling to be taken seriously on Defence due to the rise of the hard left again. The constant tensions of unilateral disarmament dating back to the 1980s are once again exposing themselves, and became very clear during the reshuffle. To see a Shadow Defence Minister fired for supporting Labour policy on Trident, while a unilateralist came in to champion a cause that was clearly not policy was mildly surreal.

Labour is pushing a defence review that will once again look at the UKs place in the world and whether to have Trident or not. It seems a foregone conclusion that this review will call for a scrapping of Trident and abolition of nuclear weapons. A heavy cut in defence spending would also seem likely, and would see the effective end of the UK as a global military power.

If the UK were a nation in isolation, then this sort of policy debate could continue quite happily without wider ramifications. But the world today is interconnected and these arguments, played out in the Westminster village bubble will have wider impacts. All governments around the world pay heed to what opposition parties are saying, to understand what impact this will have if they become a government in due course.

For highly influential figures in the main opposition party to be debating leaving NATO, no matter how much this is denied, this has an impact. Other nations will assess this and wonder what it means for their own defence. In the current world, where NATO is a bedrock of security and a nuclear alliance (all UK nuclear weapons are assigned to NATO normally), to see one of the lead NATO nations political parties discuss both disarmament and withdrawal will cause dismay.

To the Russians and others opposed to NATO, this highlights a strategic opportunity which can be exploited. Russia has a deeply challenging relationship and attitude to NATO at the best of times, and would welcome anything which reduced what it feels is pressure on its Western borders that could challenge it. It is inconceivable that after the news this week, Russian planners are not already considering what they can do to try and use these statements to help undermine NATO and help reduce its effectiveness.

Similarly, many smaller states, such as the Baltic republics, live in a very real fear of Russian resurgence and aggression. They rely on the UK and others to provide their reassurance and support, remembering what it is like to be invaded and occupied by Russia and in turn they see it happening elsewhere in Ukraine. There will be real fear that the suggestions that a future UK government could disarm and walk away, no matter how informally they are made, could threaten their own national existence. This is not hyperbole, Russia has form for ‘absorbing’ its neighbours, and they rely on the nuclear alliance as their ultimate security guarantee. They will not welcome anything which threatens this position.

A few years ago it was easy to not be concerned about Russia – today it is far less easy. A nation home to despotic rule and human rights abuses which is making a habit of invading and destabilising its neighbours, which pays no respect to the international rules based order, and which has form for supporting despotic regimes and invading other nations is not an ally that should be courted. No one wants war with Russia, but we fail to see that Russia views the world in a totally different, and significantly more paranoid mind-set than the West. Many are guilty of assuming that because Russia is a European country, it has a European mind-set – nothing could be further from the truth. The Russian mind-set is one of scheming, paranoia and a desire to avenge wounded prides. A nation that has been invaded more times than it cars to remember is still very aggressive today.

Trident Submarine at sea

What could disarmament mean?

To adopt a policy of unilateral disarmament and deep defence cuts would mean radically changing and undermining the key policy guidelines that have driven the UK since the end of the second world war. It would in a stroke kill the relationship with the US, that provides the UK with access to highly valuable intelligence and other material – the US works with the UK because it trusts us as a responsible nuclear global power. If it felt the UK was no longer in this group, the flow of material would turn off and the UK would be far more vulnerable to attack.

The UK is a key player in the Five Eyes agreement on defence and intelligence co-operation – the loss of this, which would follow any such changes would have a hugely damaging impact on UK defence and security interests, and would also threaten our allies who rely on the UK to provide them with intelligence and capability. By walking away from our obligations, we put other nations at direct risk too.

NATO as a whole would be undermined, and France would become the sole European nuclear power. It would leave the UK unable to exert influence, which is a combination of diplomatic, economic and military capability combined, in a manner that protected UK interest. A denuded UK would not have the same ability to persuade others to act as it wishes (many forget that the UK is a hugely influential NATO member at present, shaping how the alliance responds), and we may find ourselves forced to adopt policies or dragged into issues that we have no wish to be involved in.

More widely, our allies around the world who look to us for help and reassurance would instead look elsewhere. This reduces our ability to influence and protect our friends (and many expatriate Britons) and reduces our ability to push for change. People don’t realise that the best way to lobby for reform and real human rights change in some nations is to be trusted and valued as a friend – this is the path to change, not hectoring from the outside. We will probably see many nations, particularly in the middle east, who rely on the UK as a nation of safety and influence put their investments and economic wealth into other locations – thus causing job losses and long term economic damage to the UK.

Finally, there is no guarantee that disarming would make the UK a safer place to be, or that it would inspire others to do the same. The Ukrainians were briefly a legacy nuclear power, and found that made no difference when they disarmed. South Africa acquired several home built weapons, but when it scrapped them it made no difference at all to global proliferation. Indeed, after the cold war when Soviet war plans became available, it was clear that in the event of a nuclear war, many countries without nuclear weapons, or membership of an alliance would have been attacked by Russia. To disarm wouldn’t stop the Russians from targeting the UK in a wider war, even if we were not involved in it.

UK military disaster relief efforts in Philippines

So what is the optimal policy?

The irony is that much of what Jeremy Corbyn and the hard left favours (peacekeeping at best, conflict resolution, disaster relief etc) is what the military is optimised for today. It trains extensively to do this, has a global range of assets and bases and capabilities and is able to intervene and help support exactly the sort of outcomes which they favour.

For instance, a modern warship is able to provide power, water, fuel and life support to devastated towns. It can help rescue refugees in the water or tackle piracy and crime. But it can also work with our allies to assure regional security in an increasingly difficult world and if necessary fight at a high level. Army training teams can go to Africa and train former rebels on the rules of law, preventing sexual violence and how to support democracy, not threaten it. The military does this right now day in day out, and does so at relatively low cost.

But those nations able to make a difference are those with capable militaries who offer more to support others. Those nations hiding at home are not sought out for support, or to offer teaching and guidance. People want to work with those nations who they know will protect them and be there to help them – for instance NATO. The UK would find if it downgraded its military that the desire of other nations to work, to learn and to help improve their world is limited. We can only help overseas at a distance (for example the disaster relief in the Philippines) if we have the ability to get there – this requires an extensive and expensive set of capability that doesn’t come cheaply. If this is lost, then we become a burden, not an asset as we’d need to rely on others to get us to the crisis, rather than doing it ourselves.

For the Conservatives, the current Labour woes on Defence are an utter gift. They rightly realise that the average voter they need to win over is broadly centrist – they want a leftish social and health care policy, but a relatively hawkish defence and foreign policy. Never underestimate how proud millions of ordinary voters are of the armed forces and what they stand for – people equate them to values that they are proud to uphold. Equally, people want to feel safe and secure – there is no great groundswell of active campaigning for Trident, but there is a sense of talking to people that they want to know it is there if required. It is an intangible thing, but the Conservatives have a golden opportunity to exploit this as an electoral asset.

To win an election again, Labour will need to bring those who voted Labour in 1997 back into the fold. They need to get the moderate centrists who are neither Tory or Labour at heart, but who can be persuaded either way, to feel safe enough to vote for Labour. The offer needs to compelling and one that makes those in swing seats feel that they can trust their security to a future Labour government.

Right now the Tories have quite literally years ahead of them to reinforce several messages about Labour defence policy; that it threatens the UK, that it threatens the very fabric of the nation, that it could pose a real threat to our way of life. The declining and parlous state of the international order, as demonstrated by the detonation of a hydrogen bomb by North Korea on the day that Emily Thornberry went to Defence highlights how easy this job will be for them. Expect years of the broadsheets and tabloids going to town on Labour defence policy and showing how Labour cannot be trusted to keep Britain safe.

The only way to overcome this is to go back to what made Labour so good at Defence in Government. A moderate centrist approach that emphasises the minimum possible nuclear deterrent, coupled with capable armed forces to protect ourselves, support our friends and deter our enemies, while enabling us to travel overseas to offer aid to those who need it. This was essentially New Labour defence policy and was so effective that Defence ceased to be an issue on which the Conservatives could campaign or exploit during the Blair years. Today that ground has been ceded, and defence is a policy area that the Conservatives will ruthlessly exploit to the detriment of Labours electoral chances.

It is hard to see how Labour on its current path can return to being a trusted party on Defence. The appointment of Emily Thornberry, a unilateralist who actively took money from a firm suing British soldiers and who sneers so openly at the patriotism which matters to many many voters demonstrates how out of touch Labour is at present on Defence.

Defence as an issue alone will not win an election, but it will go an awfully long way towards Labour losing one if something is not done soon.

An enduring blitzkrieg?

The Daily Telegraph had a commentary recently by Andrew Gilligan which complained that despite claims that the UK would ‘blitz’ targets in Syria, there is no sign of it actually occurring, and thus the UK isn’t a major military player in the campaign. These sort of articles are frustrating because they fundamentally ignore the realities of modern war. While its easy to want to imagine that the moment an operation is approved, the sky should darken with the weight of airpower descending to flatten the opposition, things aren’t really as easy as that in reality.

The perception during the World War Two and the Cold War was that airpower was something that could provide quick responses, wiping out armour and infantry with ease, and smashing enemy command posts with little difficulty. The first Gulf War did little to counter this impression, and if anything highlighted how easy it can be in benign environments with control of the air all but assured and no real air defence threat present to dominate the land environment. In those circumstances, where you have a clearly defined threat and set of targets, it is easy to employ airpower with significant effect.

The problem we face today is that the enemy is one who we cannot compile an ORBAT for in the same way as volumes were done for the Russians or Iraqis. This is primarily an intelligence gathering battle, slowly but surely understanding the war we are fighting, the way our enemy works and trying to understand his pattern of life and activities.

There is no point in expending vast amounts of expensive ordnance wiping out abandoned buildings or empty positions. The media often think war is like a video game where one enemy after another runs at you and needs to be shot or else. In fact modern war is a far more complex and challenging business – its often slow, with little discernible action occurring, interspersed with occasional outbreaks of sheer terror.

The difficulty for any aerial intervention is that it needs to know what to target, when and why. In a warzone where there are flexible front lines, and fighters who resemble civilians, and civilians who resemble fighters, trying to build up this understanding takes time. It also takes time to work out where to strike, which facilities are used, what are actually schools or hospitals and what the pattern of life is. Some may expect UK jets to roar into action and drop bombs as they wish, but in fact weapons release is the exception rather than the rule – why expend ordnance for no reason, or worse on targets that perhaps are not what you think they are?

The air war in Syria will be slow, it needs time to establish a routine and work out what to strike and when. We cannot assume it will be over by Christmas – to do that means working out what victory looks like and what it is we want to deal with when the war is over. Instead this is a slowly burning campaign, a missile here, a bomb there. It relies on our opponents to provide us with credible targets, not bombing indiscriminately in the hope of hitting something useful. In many ways it resembles the No Fly Zones over Iraq in the early 1990s, where for over a decade the UK and US fought a practically undeclared war against Iraqi air defences, often releasing weapons when required; this quickly became a forgotten campaign.

As the campaign progresses targets may become clearer, or they may become more fleeting as the enemy lurks away from the reach of the air. It is telling that even the US armed forces, who make up nearly 80% of the airpower in the region are operating at a relatively low tempo of strikes – this isn’t because of a lack of airpower, but because this is a campaign that is slow and effective. This will probably not be a war of dambusters and sweeping strikes, but a methodical approach which delivers results with minimal collateral damage and maximum effect on our enemies.

There is always a natural desire to want to do as much as possible as quickly as possible – the so-called ‘shock and awe’ approach – witness for instance the sight of Charles De Gaulle, the sole French aircraft carrier deploying to conduct strikes in Syria, in part as a response to the Paris attacks. In the short term, she adds considerable power and capability, but at the cost of  tying up the sole French carrier as part of a wider campaign, and needing to come off station at some point soon for repairs and refit, without a French replacement.

The UK approach, of keeping a numerically small but sustainable and enormously capable force deployed to the Middle East seems eminently sensible. It provides enough mass to deal with most credible threats that are likely to be faced (essentially an insurgent force with limited capability), but can be kept there for the enduring future. To deploy a larger multi-squadron force would be feasible, but would place strain on long term sustainment, and cause personnel disruption that could be difficult downstream – too many long deployments will always test the goodwill of people, who may easily be tempted elsewhere for the benefits of a family life.

We also forget just how capable modern aircraft are – focusing on numbers is but one part of the problem. The modern Typhoon and Tornado combination provide an astounding level of air defence, air to ground and ISTAR capability, and can quickly be retasked – for instance in Libya the Typhoons there were flying air defence and ground attack missions within the same sortie. You don’t need 100 aircraft to have an effect now when the modern missiles can easily hit the precise target they’re aiming at with little risk of missing. Previously you’d have had to drop ‘dumb bombs’ which would miss, or go back so many times that you’d need multiples of aircraft to achieve the same effect as one can do now.

We’re in this for the long term and unlike many of our NATO allies and coalition partners, we have sufficient mass and capability to deploy a sustainable and credible long term presence in the region. So while the initial numbers may seem small to some, don’t forget that this is an enduring commitment and that it will be there for quite some time to come in addition to a wide range of other operations going on around the world at any one time. For many nations, this sort of deployment is the one thing that they can do, instead of other deployments.

So for me at least, I’m not worried about the idea that somehow our contribution is worthless because I don’t think that’s the case at all. We’re pulling our weight here and around the world, and helping in a measured sustainable way.