Civil-Military relationship

Sir, – I commend Lieutenant Zoe Jones for addressing the extraordinarily important issue of the Civil-Military Relationship (NR 111/1). It’s nearly 30 years since I left the service, but it was an issue that concerned me whilst serving and I penned an article for the NR around the topic and the importance of the Just War concept in its nurturing, at that time.

I would offer two observations: Firstly, the continuing concern I have around progress on Diversity and Inclusiveness (D&I). For the last ten years or so I have been interviewing Royal Navy Officer and Senior Rating applicants for Incorporated and Chartered Engineer Registration with the UK’s Engineering Council (in itself a contributory equivalent standards/public confidence element of the relationship). D&I forms a mandatory element of the Professional Review Interview and I am regularly surprised by the complacency I hear. If you consider the recent Met. furore and assume that the 2% (roughly based on the published data regarding pending criminal investigations and the total workforce) who commit illegality are the tip of the iceberg then, say, a further 8% are probably not exhibiting ‘D&I Compliant behaviour’ for reasons of conscious or unconscious bias. So why would you not assume that somewhere around 8% of RN personnel are, today, not D&I compliant?

There doesn’t appear to me to be an approach that treats the issue in much the same way as, say, Safety, and assumes that human nature will be constantly tempting people to regress. With safety standards people regress, unless persistently encouraged, towards whatever takes less effort or time and with D&I they (and I include myself) regress to historic behavioural norms and unconscious bias unless similarly motivated. I am repeatedly told that the RN has great rules and a strongly D&I supportive culture supported by periodic briefings etc., but I fear there is something missing still. I occasionally ask for examples of an ethical challenge made in this area and the responses do not impart a sense of determined urgency here.

Unless the RN has reached a utopian position, a recent officer applicant who told me that, on transfer from an all-male vessel to a mixed vessel, he found the behaviour quite ‘normal’ pretty much made the point.

My second observation is the impact of the increasing use of remotely managed unmanned weapons, whether autonomous or controlled by humans. Whilst our brave men and women are putting themselves in harm’s way there will always be two positive outcomes. Firstly, irrespective of the justness of the cause, they will get the sympathy of many (hopefully most – viz Royal Wootton Bassett). Secondly the politicians will be more wary of using them.

The same cannot be said for someone sitting in the UK, out of harm’s way, delivering lethal force hundreds of miles away, no matter how much mental strain they are under (and I don’t wish to minimise this). My view is that the MoD should give serious consideration to a distinct separation of this element from the ‘Harm’s Way’ element for precisely this Civil- Military relationship reason.

Looking ahead, this relationship is only going to become more difficult to manage and particularly so as environmental sustainability and energy and resource consumption and wastage become more divisive and pressing issues. Our understanding of the Just War criteria will need to embrace these points and gain societal endorsement and alongside that one can imagine changes to the criminal code that will impact the Armed Forces.

Well done and thank you Lieutenant Jones: a 15 minute read maybe, but many years of thought and action. Yours faithfully.