What is the MoD for?
Daniel Korski 2:00pm
Yesterday, Liam Fox vowed to install a tougher procurement system in the Ministry of
Defence and appointed the bureaucracy-busting Bernard Grey as Chief of Defence Materiel. The
Defence Secretary said that it is important to start from first principles if reform is to take place. The ministry, he said, "exists to provide the Armed Forces with what they need". But
is that right?
The MoD exists, first, to maintain civilian and democratic control of the armed forces; and, second, to support effective operations. Supporting the military is a corollary of the second task, but not the same thing. In desiring to reform the MoD and cut costs, there is a real risk the government loses some of the capabilities the department needs to deliver its core tasks.
The MoD’s first task is understood in theory but has been eroded in practice since the Brown/Dannatt spat a few years ago. It is, to quote Samuel P. Huntington's seminal The Soldier and the State, to assist "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority". But British military leaders bestride the scene in a way that politicians never could. Military chiefs hold forth on all manner of issues, many the preserve of politicians, and do not shirk to use the media in their efforts. The MoD, poorly led for years, and with a demoralised staff, has not been able to counterbalance the military chiefs while Ursula Brennan, the new Permanent Secretary, has yet to impress.
This is potentially a problematic development. During the Cold War, the MoD's main job was to ensure any order for a nuclear attack was given by ministers not officers. Today, the MoD must similarly ensure that key decisions are made by civilian masters. It is up to politicians, not military leaders, to decide the length of Britain' stay in Helmand or the potential impact of withdrawal on counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan. But the weakness of the MoD makes it more difficult for politicians to maintain control of the military and some even fear that military leadership will eventually come to dominate the NSC decision-making process.
The MoD's second task - supporting operations not the operators - is not even understood in theory. There is an important if subtle distinction between supporting the military and supporting military operations. The best thing for the military may not necessarily mean giving them what they want. The key is to look at how best to achieve outcomes, i.e. successful operations, even if that means going against what the military leadership wants for itself. Here, again, politicians need to be helped by a well-led department.
Lest anyone think this is a defence of bureaucracy and waste, let me be clear: there have been woeful failings in the MoD that have to be corrected. The appointment of Bernard Grey is an important step, as are moves to reform the department. But in the current climate there is a real danger of emasculating the MoD (through cuts, poor bureaucratic leadership and a negative press campaign) to the degree that it will not be able to fulfil its core task, which is not buying what the military wants, but to maintain civilian and democratic control of the military.
Previous
Peter From Maidstone
December 17th, 2010 2:22pm Report this commentWhat does democratic control of the military mean when the demos have no control over the Government?
Balaclava
December 17th, 2010 2:25pm Report this commentI'm surprised Mr Korski is concerned about UK military control under our elected representatives, when so many of our elected representatives are giving up democratic control of the whole country to the EU.
Based on our current lot of politicans versus the military staff, I know which I would prefer to run things, quite happy for a business like Tesco to take over...
Rhoda Klapp
December 17th, 2010 2:39pm Report this commentI don't really see why the appointment of a Chief of Defence Materiel has to prompt a long and obvious discussion of what the MoD does outside the procurement sphere. Decides when we drop nukes on people? Give us a break, the answer is a) never and b) if we are so desperate that a) does not apply, it must be obvious: immediately. Yes, we need an MoD, yes it has duties. Have they been properly discharged lately? Doesn't look like it. Time for a change, a big change.
Scary Biscuits
December 17th, 2010 2:52pm Report this commentIt is not the MoD that provide political control of the armed forces; it is the Secretary of State. As long as senior officers are prepared to do what the minister orders, then from a constitutional point of view, all is well.
In confusing the existence of a bureaucracy with its stated task you are making a classic left-wing error.
The real problem with the MoD is that the civilian side has encroached on parts better performed by the military. For example, a civilian engineer may be cheaper in peacetime but in warfare he is less useful because he doesn't carry a gun and requires more soldiers to defend him.
The non-military bits of the MoD, such as the Met-Office, should be sold-off or out-sourced. The core activity, providing a fighting force, could then be strengthened. The biggest weakness of the MoD is the Procurement Executive (and has been for 200 years when the French built better ships than we ever could). This should just be closed altogether with the military making the decisions and civilian contractors supporting them, as the US does to much greater efficiency.
Frank P
December 17th, 2010 3:19pm Report this commentWhat is Daniel Korski for?
PretendRespect
December 17th, 2010 3:32pm Report this commentFirst; Scary Biscuits - The Procurement Executive hasn't existed for three years now, get your facts streight before posting please.
Second; To say that the MoD's military leaders have too much power and not enough balance from the civvies is entirely mis-guided. The only military officers who are willing to speak out against the government are those who have retired!
TrevorsDen
December 17th, 2010 4:04pm Report this commentBroadly correct Mr Buscuits.
The armed forces exist to carry out the will of the politicians. The bureaucracy of the MoD exist to support that.
Procurement is part of that and has been found woefully wanting - politicians can take some of the blame for this in that they put priority on home based industry in strategic constituencies over efficiently providing timely and appropriate equipment.
The chiefs can also take blame in that they specify the wrong equipment, ie wrong planes wrong ships (carriers) wrong AFVs (ie FRES).
On the subject of engineers Mr Biscuits I think the army probably need more dedicated combat engineers.
TrevorsDen
December 17th, 2010 4:12pm Report this comment' The key is to look at how best to achieve outcomes, i.e. successful operations, even if that means going against what the military leadership wants for itself.'
I am not sure you are explaining yourself properly Mr K, but I think I agree with you.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan we needed mine proof patrol vehicles, MRAPs. The generals wanted FRES. Its taken too long to get the vehicles we want. But I think that when the chiefs say they want things its difficult to overturn them and who amongst civilians are qualified.
Whats needed is hard nosed justification. Politicians have a clear role. But its clear that civil servants 'generals' and business are in cahoots to smother debate.
AngloWelshDragon
December 17th, 2010 4:14pm Report this commentHaving worked with Ursula Brennan in the 90s I see no reason to believe she will be any better or worse than any PS who has gone before her.
yank
December 17th, 2010 4:16pm Report this commentMr. Biscuits,
I was with you all the way down until you said the US is doing it more efficiently. We're not. There's at least $100B of fat to be trimmed here, judging by recent reports. Entire commands should be closed down, including the civilian contractors that comprise much of their numbers.
Re procurement, I think we have the same problem as there, just the symptoms display differently. Civilians have too much input into procurement, and often sever procurement from military mission, to suit their political ends. In both situations, I suspect the top brass is complicit. Civilians are in control of their careers and futures, you know.
Simplicity and sunshine should be the cure, in both cases.
And the shyte-for-brains pols who facilitated an aircraft-less carrier force should be sent to the Tower. And if you would, please make room for the shyte-for-brains types here who are trying to ram through F-35 engines nobody wants.
Pat
December 17th, 2010 5:36pm Report this commentHaving the military under civilian control is of course essential. But it is vital that the civilians doing the controlling should be answerable to the general public- and thus should be elected. It is not in the interests of the general public that the military be controlled by a self appointed group accountable to no-one, which is what the Civil Service is. Apart from the theoretical danger that the Civil Servants in the MOD might use the armed services for their own ends, there is the real and present danger that it might equip the armed services with some other view than providing the general public with the best possible defense.
Mobus J
December 18th, 2010 7:15am Report this commentMr Korski,
While you're right to say the civilian leadership in the MOD has been far from great in recent years I think you judge Mrs Brennan too quickly. As the head of the civil service it will have been her - and not Liam Fox - who will have been chiefly responsible for recruiting Bernard Gray. That shows bravery, and a willingness to take risks, that has not been present at the top for quite some time. Let's see who else she brings in, and how the rest of the MOD is changed, in the next few months, before coming to judgement.
Back to top