Page 43 - The Cormorant Issue 14

excellent insight into the planning and processes that the MOD implements to progress from policy definition to implementa- tion of capability. It was particularly interesting to understand the overall process; from the identification of national defence and security threats / interests, through the formulation of the defence policy, identifying the mix of capabilities required, right through to the allocation of appropriate budgets. Of particu- lar interest to me was the lecture given by Tom McKane (MOD Director General Strategy) on the Strategic Environment. It was interesting to understand how security is now very much at the forefront in today’s global interconnected environment. Forcing Britain to widen its security view not just to defence, but now includes items such as cyber space, serious crime, terrorism and environmental threats/issues. Also, as someone who has spent a lot of time working with DE&S it was fascinating to hear the opposing views of their success by different speakers.
During the Course there was provision for Syndicate Room Dis- cussions. These were invaluable as it gave us all time to both assimilate the information provided during the lectures and to discuss the content amongst ourselves, thus helping us to gain the most insight. The mix of MOD and Industry person- nel allowed open discussion from both perspectives, giving all of us an appreciation of the issues each other face every day. The Visimal Exercise served to cement everything that we had learnt during the lectures. Whilst the scenario was fictitious, the exercise contained enough relevant detail to make it a credible situation. This enabled us to see firsthand how the current world
defence and security environment is evolving, leading to threats that are significantly different to those we would traditional expect. This was an excellent exercise and very well executed.
I came away from Shrivenham with a number of conclusions. The World is a fast moving place, and it is vital that our defence and security policies keep pace with it. It is clear that MOD and industry need to work closer together. However, this will require a change in behaviours on both sides which may not be easy, but is certainly necessary. To move forward successfully both Industry and MOD will need to be transparent and honest accepting that the mutual goals are fundamentally different, i.e. Industry must ultimately satisfy its shareholders verses the MOD aspiration for low cost and value for money. The focus must be on the areas of commonality and the shared objectives. This will not be easy, but unless we achieve this type of behaviour on both sides, neither party will get the best solution. There is also a requirement for much stronger joint working and two-way com- munications (e.g. joint development of specifications, develop- ment programmes and even contracts). In summary both sides need to gain mutual trust of each other through open discussion and developing a reputation for delivery.
I would recommend that BAE Systems and the wider defence industry continue to support the Course. It enables Industry to see where future defence requirements are leading, and it also helps build better relationships between the MOD and industry.
A Civilian Perspective on the ACSC or ‘How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Clausewitz’
By Matthew Savill
As a civilian on the ACSC I might have expected to face the same problem an Englishman holidaying in Europe does. He finds himself confronted by a collection of tribes who speak a number of bewildering languages, with their own customs and traditions, who left to their own devices will happily fight among themselves, but when he appears they are suddenly of one mind – he is the enemy, Perfidious Albion! Perfidious civil servants could legitimately be the current cry; after all, we are portrayed as the pen-pushers and bureaucrats who inevitably make things difficult for ‘Our Boys and Girls’ who are sweating on operations. We might even be nearly as bad as academics (it can’t be coin- cidence that they’re also civilians!).
So what then, is this civilian doing on the ACSC? Recent com- mentary has suggested that we have lost the skills and grammar necessary to conduct a strategic discourse on the use of the Armed Forces. This debate has mostly been framed by military officers, implicitly talking to other officers (and perhaps their polit- ical masters); I would argue that it isn’t clear if the Civil Service has even possessed these skills to lose. There is a tendency to leave all talk of strategy to the military, whilst we preach about the ‘continuity’ and political understanding provided by the Civil Service, a claim that tends to ring hollow as yet another fast- streamer flits through on a twelve-month posting. The Civil Ser- vice is rightly spending more effort on skills training, but we have neglected knowledge: we are not taught about the nature of the military instrument, the principles of war, strategy and policy or doctrine. Too much is expected to be picked up through osmo- sis, which seems to me to undermine the professional trust which
civilians and the military should enjoy. If we don’t understand the military, how can we provide the right advice? Abdication of this responsibility to understand does not seem like an appro- priate way to enhance the ‘comprehensive approach’. It was that desire to understand, after seven years and two operational tours spent playing catch-up, that brought me to Shrivenham.
As a less knowledgeable member of the Course, my experience has perhaps therefore been more rewarding, as elements that might have seemed repetitive or nugatory to some have been fresh to me. Conflict and the International System may have been a more comfortable introduction to the Course, given my background in history and politics, but I found much to be inter- ested in during the Front Line phases too. Somewhat tragically, I want to learn about the Manoeuvrist Approach, mission com- mand and even the fundamental roles of air power. Control of the air? More please! Of course, I write this before three months of campaigning...
Hopefully, I have been able to bring an outside perspective and a questioning attitude towards some shibboleths, even if some of those questions have come awkwardly close to coffee time in the Cormorant Hall! Having finally been taught what the strategic level is, you realise that half the staff officers in Main Building bandy the term around unthinkingly. For example, it’s worth asking if we really do generally use SF for ‘strategic effect’ as we claim? The course has also brought home, if any emphasis were needed, the com- plexity of translating policy into actual decisions on capability (yes, I even learned something from the Defence Planning & Strategic
41