| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
086947
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Labour government's 1998 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) marked the end of almost twenty years during which Labour had been little more than a bystander in British defence policy-making. The 'foreign policy-led' SDR marked an impressive and authoritative debut, emulated by other national governments. Ten years later, however, the SDR is a fading memory. British defence is out of balance and facing immense stress, and calls are mounting for a new strategic defence review. This article examines the difficult choices which a defence review would have to make. But a defence review also requires the governmental machinery with which to analyse and understand defence, and with which those difficult choices can be made. The article argues that this machinery is wearing out. Defence policy, planning and analysis in the United Kingdom have reached a state of organizational, bureaucratic and intellectual decay which may be irrecoverable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
019899
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
July 2001.
|
| Description |
208-214
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
022364
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Aug 2002.
|
| Description |
24-28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
020250
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Autumn 2001.
|
| Description |
79-98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
019841
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
April-June 2001.
|
| Description |
159-171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
018909
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
April 2001.
|
| Description |
33-38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
061166
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
099099
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has committed itself to a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDR) in 2010. The government and the country face very hard choices to bring United Kingdom defence and security policy back from the brink of bankruptcy-both financial and strategic (Gow). To succeed, it must overcome the failings of the past (Chisnall, Dorman, Rees) and take a truly open and radical look at all aspects of policy and process-including the Trident independent nuclear deterrent (Allen), relations with Europe (Witney) and the importance of cyber-issues in the future security context (Fisher). It must get strategic concepts right to provide flexibility with credibility (Stone). It must deliver 'what the military wants': true strategic prioritisation, radical defence acquisition reform, and credible balancing of resources and commitments (Kiszley). The scale of the challenge facing the United Kingdom in-and beyond-the 2010 SDR is why The Political Quarterly convened a workshop early in 2010 involving MPs, practitioners, retired military personnel, journalists, commentators, business people and academics, and publishes these associated papers. Most of all, to overcome the failings of the past, there must be a radical move beyond the welcome first steps of the Cameron-Clegg government to introduce a National Security Council and a National Security Advisor, to reconfigure relationships within government, across departments and with Parliament to have a government figure of accountability and responsibility-a Secretary of State for Security Policy, primus inter pares with other Secretaries of State-to make sense of the questions needing to be asked and answered (Gearson and Gow).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
023542
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Feb 2003.
|
| Description |
64-75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
023309
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan/Feb 2002.
|
| Description |
24-29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
020906
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Feb 2002.
|
| Description |
1-7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
051865
|
|
|