What does it mean for the military?

Same concept, different angles: video 4

How will the timing of this new Strategic Concept affect the outcome? Will it be able to deal with threats for decades to come? How will it change the way international organizations work together? And what will its changes mean for the men and women in uniform? All of these questions come under scrutiny in this section.

 Subtitles: On / Off

Same concept, different angles

How will the timing of this new Strategic Concept affect the outcome? Will it be able to deal with threats for decades to come? How will it change the way international organizations work together? And what will its changes mean for the men and women in uniform? All of these questions come under scrutiny in this section.

The new Strategic Concept is not just

about how it sees new challenges

and develops partnerships.

It would also play a central role

in determining

how NATO’s military forces adapt.

I think the military input

is extremely important.

As an example,

suppose we would make…

So you have first the Expert Group,

they advise into the new strategy,

then up to the Secretary General,

and the countries,

they draft a new strategy.

And suppose

that then the military would say:

This is a fine strategy, but we

cannot execute it. That’s useless.

It no longer makes sense for nations

to want to maintain

their own end-to-end military solution

and instead to begin to focus on

specialisation and niche capabilities.

And if that’s the path we’re going

down, and I think that's appropiate,

then we need to make use

of e.g. the NATO response force

and to leverage our investments

to allow those specialised units

to snap together.

Costs and collective responses

already seem high on the agenda.

One of the more important concepts

is the affordability of military forces.

How do you afford the military

of today or that integrates into NATO,

that can be used

in a cooperative way?

In the past, countries have relied

on companies to produce capabilities

without an understanding of

what would be total ownership cost.

It’s when countries, even the U.S.,

try to do everything

that you run

into an affordability crisis.

Necessary changes,

especially during the financial crisis,

will require the public

and private sectors to work together.

I believe

that it’s kind of an all-hands effort.

When you get right down to it…

Defence takes military, governments

and commercial resources.

And if job-cuts are necessary

it does not need to mean

that the forces are less ready.

What you can do is,

is rationalise the work force,

i.e. the jobs that are

necessary to produce that readiness,

and that future, and no more.

It’s when you try to do all things

and use it in the name of just jobs

that there becomes a disconnect.

In today’s security environment the

military needs constant modernising.

I would think that…

when you look at modernising a

force,

I would start with command, control,

intelligence,

surveillance and reconnaissance.

In the long term, the health

of the alliance, those commitments

to stable modernisation,

defence programmes...

That’s where your capabilities

come from. If you're not doing that,

in the long run you’re going to see

a significant penalty for that,

and the catch up costs, as nations

have found, can be substantial.

And ultimately, this is about making

sure that the military is not used.

When you look

at warfare as a whole…

...what you would intend to do is,

is never have a force that has to fight.

You always want a force that has

the information to avoid the fight.

One reason why we need

to do more within this alliance,

is that everyone can invest a little

so that the collective effort is more.

At a time of financial stringency,

when defence budgets go down,

we should do more in NATO, not less.

That is the fundamental purpose

of this alliance.

The new Strategic Concept is not just

about how it sees new challenges

and develops partnerships.

It would also play a central role

in determining

how NATO’s military forces adapt.

I think the military input

is extremely important.

As an example,

suppose we would make…

So you have first the Expert Group,

they advise into the new strategy,

then up to the Secretary General,

and the countries,

they draft a new strategy.

And suppose

that then the military would say:

This is a fine strategy, but we

cannot execute it. That’s useless.

It no longer makes sense for nations

to want to maintain

their own end-to-end military solution

and instead to begin to focus on

specialisation and niche capabilities.

And if that’s the path we’re going

down, and I think that's appropiate,

then we need to make use

of e.g. the NATO response force

and to leverage our investments

to allow those specialised units

to snap together.

Costs and collective responses

already seem high on the agenda.

One of the more important concepts

is the affordability of military forces.

How do you afford the military

of today or that integrates into NATO,

that can be used

in a cooperative way?

In the past, countries have relied

on companies to produce capabilities

without an understanding of

what would be total ownership cost.

It’s when countries, even the U.S.,

try to do everything

that you run

into an affordability crisis.

Necessary changes,

especially during the financial crisis,

will require the public

and private sectors to work together.

I believe

that it’s kind of an all-hands effort.

When you get right down to it…

Defence takes military, governments

and commercial resources.

And if job-cuts are necessary

it does not need to mean

that the forces are less ready.

What you can do is,

is rationalise the work force,

i.e. the jobs that are

necessary to produce that readiness,

and that future, and no more.

It’s when you try to do all things

and use it in the name of just jobs

that there becomes a disconnect.

In today’s security environment the

military needs constant modernising.

I would think that…

when you look at modernising a

force,

I would start with command, control,

intelligence,

surveillance and reconnaissance.

In the long term, the health

of the alliance, those commitments

to stable modernisation,

defence programmes...

That’s where your capabilities

come from. If you're not doing that,

in the long run you’re going to see

a significant penalty for that,

and the catch up costs, as nations

have found, can be substantial.

And ultimately, this is about making

sure that the military is not used.

When you look

at warfare as a whole…

...what you would intend to do is,

is never have a force that has to fight.

You always want a force that has

the information to avoid the fight.

One reason why we need

to do more within this alliance,

is that everyone can invest a little

so that the collective effort is more.

At a time of financial stringency,

when defence budgets go down,

we should do more in NATO, not less.

That is the fundamental purpose

of this alliance.

Videos in Same concept, different angles:

1. A battle of minds

2. Timing is Everything?

3. New age, new threats, new responses

4. What does it mean for the military?

Share this    DiggIt   MySpace   Facebook   Delicious   Permalink