Military challengesSpecial forces should be at the heart of Britain’s military planning

By Ian Shields

Published 21 October 2016

What sort of military does the United Kingdom need to deal with a rapidly changing set of potential threats? As Western countries increasingly move away from the conventional foe — one that is easily identified, armed in a similar way and which, most critically, thinks in a similar way, and therefore in a conventional and predictable manner – it’s time to reappraise the sort of armed forces required for the future. It is no longer the size of your arsenal of firepower but how well it is employed that matters. Organizations such as Islamic State understand that well: their actions are carefully targeted to achieve maximum effect with limited resources. With technology on the Western side, the best counter to this present – and likely future – threat, will be to adopt in turn Voltaire’s maxim and concentrate increasingly on special, and specialized, forces.

What sort of military does the United Kingdom need to deal with a rapidly changing set of potential threats? Conventional military thinking still holds that the United Kingdom needs to retain what the Americans would describe as “full-spectrum capability” — that the country must retain a heavy armor and artillery option.

But as Western countries increasingly move away from the conventional foe — one that is easily identified, armed in a similar way and which, most critically, thinks in a similar way, and therefore in a conventional and predictable manner – it’s time to reappraise the sort of armed forces required for the future.

In other words, Britain needs to heed Voltaire’s advice when he said: “God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best.”

“Futurology” is an enjoyable pastime, but it’s a risky one, too. Can the United Kingdom afford to gamble on national security with only predictions as a guide? To a degree, there will always have to be an element of risk when choosing the shape of armed forces, given the lead-in time for military procurement programs and the increasingly long and complex training burden. But, equally, a bold analysis of present and likely future threats would suggest that Britain needs more specialized forces.

The most obvious of these would be special forces themselves: highly trained infantry and marines capable of undertaking covert, deep-penetration, long-endurance missions against an ill-defined opponent who blends into the background. This is increasingly the character of conflicts bedeviling much of the Middle East, the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa – and they demand precisely this sort of forensic, close-to-the-ground response. While it would be foolish to predict that this is the only form that conflict will take in the future, it’s the one class of conflict that is growing – and it seems unlikely to go into decline any time soon.

Asymmetric in form – with opponents who live within their own communities – organizations such as Islamic State (IS) are difficult to defeat with solely conventional means. But carefully targeted raids led by intelligence have a greater chance of success than full-scale armored attacks. IS for instance, often relies on kidnapping, targeted propaganda and high-profile surprise attacks designed to attract as much attention as possible. These call for surgical and targeted responses, exactly the type of mission that fits neatly into the special forces genre.