Wo ZUr JDls XG
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
Related papers
International Affairs, 2019
House of Commons Library, 2008
British defence policy has altered significantly since the Labour Government came to power in 1997. Those changes have been prompted largely by the shifting nature of the strategic environment over that period, and in particular the events of 11 September 2001. However, the strategic foreign policy objectives of former Prime Minister Tony Blair have also helped to shape the direction of British defence policy and have had a fundamental impact on the role, structure and welfare of the Armed Forces. This paper is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of defence policy since 1997, but an introduction to some of the main issues that have shaped the defence agenda in that time. It also examines the prospects for defence since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007.
Journal of Strategic Studies, 2021
War and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan proved to be the undoing of the 'Best Little Army in the World' (Akam, p.19). While Britain's soldiers could demonstrate their capacity to adapt under difficult conditions, they still could not deliver campaign success. In The Changing of the Guard and Blood, Metal and Dust we have two alternative explanations for these failures. One accuses the Army of indolence, arrogance and unjustified over-confidence. The other of systemic failings in strategy-making, political direction and the challenge of working within an alliance structure. Taken together both books offer excoriating analyses of an Army muddling through. As the public records for these two campaigns have yet to be released, however, these books are best seen as presenting another opportunity to reflect on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what they tell us about contemporary British society.
House of Commons Library, 2008
This paper is intended to provide an insight into some of the broader contextual issues that have influenced British defence policy over the last ten years. Specifically it considers the parameters of defence policy planning and some of the dimensions of modern warfare that have shaped its direction. It also provides an explanation for the difficulties in assessing the nature and size of the UK defence budget.
International Affairs, 2019
This article explores how the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence's (MoD) institutional vision of the potential future character of conflict is reflected in current defence policy decision-making and future force development planning. On the face of it, institutional arrangements in the MoD suggest that the results of ‘horizon-scanning’ and ‘futures’ analysis guide long-term defence planning in the design and development of the UK's future military roles and force structure. Our analysis points to the opposite. It suggests that it is the unchallenged assumption that the UK will remain a ‘Tier One’ defence power capable of deploying military power on a global scale and the MoD's long-term planning cycle that shape long-range forecasts of the future operating environment, rather than the other way round. Our explanation for this inversion is derived from the ‘New Institutionalism’ approach to public policy analysis. In taking this approach, we suggest that the outcomes of U...
In recent years, there has been a sharp growth in political and sociological interest in the British military. Set against the backdrop of the armed forces' increasing presence in everyday life, alongside the organizations' ongoing restructuring, the current paper focuses on the MoD's problematic attempts to recruit 30,000 reservists by 2020; what has become known as the Future Reserves 2020 programme (FR2020). We argue that these changes are driven in part by the need to cut costs in defence. However, we also suggest that they are a reflection of the changing nature of modern military organisation, and the manner in which armed forces engage with the societies of which they are a part, and with the citizens that make up that society. We locate FR2020 programme in the context of a wider narrative about the changing nature of military organisation in contemporary western democracies, identifying structural, circumstantial and normative reasons for change. We also examine the specific challenges of implementing FR2020 in practice, including issues of recruitment and retention, integration and support, and relations with families and employers, drawing on the experience of comparator countries to do so. We conclude by considering the implications of these changes, both for the future of UK armed forces, and for the evolving nature of militarysociety relations in Britain.
In response to the announcement of a Strategic Defence Review, this paper argues that the government should bring defence spending down in line with the average of NATO European allies, and puts forward economic and political reasons for doing so.
UCL European Institute Working Paper, 2017
Since the end of the Second World War, the UK has been a multilateral power par excellence, contributing to the construction and expansion of many of the most important institutions of international governance, and championing a rules-based international system. In its 2015 National Security Strategy document, for example, the British government identified the maintenance of this system as a core national interest, contributing to the UK’s capacity to ‘punch above its weight’ in international affairs. With Brexit entailing the UK’s departure from a major component of this system, a number of important questions must be addressed, including: • What challenges will Brexit pose to British foreign policy-makers and institutions? • What will be the future of UK-EU relations in the context of foreign, security and defence policy? • What will Brexit mean for how the UK engages with the wider world, and particularly the wider multilateral system? • And how can the UK government mitigate the risk of Brexit resulting in a significant loss of international influence, reducing the UK’s ability to defend, promote and pursue its interests globally?
1992
The first reference to a military industrial complex (MIC) was made by US President Eisenhower in 1961. He then referred to something historically specific: the build-up of a large permanent military establishment and a permanent arms industry, which raised his concerns for the unwarranted influence of these societal forces. Subsequently the meaning of the MIC evolved to refer to the vested interests within the state and industry in expanding the military sector and in increasing military spending, with external threats providing the justification. During the Cold War, when the defence was strongly focused on deterrence, this produced a set of specific state-industry relationships that in turn generated a beneficial environment for the development and strengthening of the MIC. With the end of the Cold War, the conditions for a strong MIC were less favourable, at least initially, with changes in the international security environment, cuts in military spending and arms production, and ensuing privatisation, commercialisation, and internationalisation of military activities as well as of arms production. This paper discusses how the MIC has been affected by these changes and the degree to which there has been continuity of old power structures and a continuing MIC.

Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.