George Burns is a member of the Conservative Military Friends and has just completed a course in war studies and command.
Back in January, top British military expert Patrick Saunders said: revealed In his opinion, our military was not in the best condition to fight traditional high-intensity conflicts. If a major war broke out, there would be too few soldiers, too little traditional equipment, and too little munitions, leaving Britain, for the first time since the 18th century, to play an insignificant role in determining Europe’s future. I’m going to have to bear it. We will be hapless bystanders watching as the United States, Poland, and other NATO allies launch an onslaught against Russia.
Sanders proposed a potential solution to reduce the likelihood of this unpleasant scenario unfolding: the development of a “citizen army.” Training the British public in basic military skills would mean that, in the event of war, a larger and more capable military base could be mobilized more quickly, thereby reducing the risk of being overwhelmed in the early stages of a conflict. It can reduce the risk of possible defeat. Importantly, it would also send a strong deterrent message to adversaries and reduce the likelihood of war breaking out in the first place.
It is important to note that developing a “citizen army” is not the same as conscription. There are many ways to provide military training to a larger population without having to march unmotivated volunteers to the local recruiting office. The introduction of compulsory military service is likely to be popular among Conservative voters, but with younger generations who appear to be increasingly skeptical about the role of the nation-state, let alone the potential obligation to protect it. It is unlikely to evoke sympathy.
If you want a clear explanation of why the concept of a “citizen army” seems self-evident, look no further than our military history. In both world wars, the regular forces of the British Army were virtually destroyed in the early stages. The country was forced to rely on its everyday citizens to stem the tide and achieve decisive breakthroughs in Flanders and Normandy respectively. And these were times when the British Regular Army numbered around 200,000 to 250,000 men, several times the size of the current British Army, and its numbers were 74,000 (and declining) in the Old It could easily fit into Trafford. Faced with the casualty rates currently seen in eastern Ukraine, there will be a shortage of trained professional soldiers within weeks.
Depressingly and predictably, this “citizen army” idea was quickly rejected by Number 10. The Secretary of Defense said Europe was in a “pre-war” era, even though the Defense Select Committee was blue in the face. Underscoring Britain’s unpreparedness for large-scale conflict, senior government decision-makers have decided to bury their heads in the sand. Unfortunately for us, significantly reducing the chances of Britain comprehensively losing the conflict is not one of Rishi Sunak’s five priorities.
The development of a ‘citizen army’ need not involve sensational headlines about the reintroduction of national service or the inevitable scrutiny over whether such a concept conflicts with British liberal ideals. For example, expanding the reserve system, while introducing a series of incentives and disincentives to encourage public participation, would improve Britain’s war preparedness without sending reporters to the streets of Portsmouth. It’s just one way to do it.
Other than a sense of patriotism and genuineness, companies have little incentive to get employers on board. After all, who wants to lose an employee for two more weeks a year while they go on vacation or training? Or, from a reservist’s perspective, get cold, wet, and tired? Who wants to spend two weeks of vacation a year just to do something? Companies need a set of financial incentives to get as many people into the reservists as possible, and reservists need to participate. Stronger safeguards should be put in place to ensure that employees do not have to risk their career advancement by doing so.
The Joint Cadet Force will provide a new avenue for more people to train in basic military skills and encourage more people to join the Reserves or Regular Army as they age. It also has additional benefits. Currently, there are more of his CCF contingents in state schools than in private schools, but only 500 are still active. Based on 2022 numbers, this roughly equates to one CCF contingent for every 6,000 children aged 13-17 (this is more than many CCFs serving only private schools). (This is the number before taking into account.)
Expanding this organization, which inculcates important values such as self-discipline, teamwork and selflessness, will expose more of the population to military service and skills while developing young people.
As always, the problem is funding. Without more funding, we cannot meaningfully and effectively prepare for conflict. Until the Government decides to take Britain’s national security seriously by increasing defense spending to at least 2.5% of GDP, discussions of how additional funds could be spent will remain in the realm of theory. There must be.
I hope the government wakes up and realizes what’s at stake before it’s too late. Once that happens and our armed forces are given the funding they need, we can start investing in a range of measures to ensure the UK is well prepared for the possibility of high-intensity conflict. There will be a lot of work to be done. And developing a capable and trained “citizen army” must be a key element of such a program. As Mr. Sanders aptly summarizes, “Regular armies start wars. Regular armies start wars.” The citizen army defeats them. ”
