The Comprehensive Approach: the Point of War Is Not Just to Win but to Make a Better Peace
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
House of Commons Defence Committee The Comprehensive Approach: the point of war is not just to win but to make a better peace Seventh Report of Session 2009–10 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 9 March 2010 HC 224 [Incorporating HC 523-i, ii, iii and iv, Session 2008-09] Published on 18 March 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) (Chair) Mr David S Borrow MP (Labour, South Ribble) Mr David Crausby MP (Labour, Bolton North East) Linda Gilroy MP (Labour, Plymouth Sutton) Mr David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Mr Mike Hancock MP (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Mr Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, North Essex) Mr Brian Jenkins MP (Labour, Tamworth) Robert Key MP (Conservative, Salisbury) Mrs Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend) John Smith MP (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan) Richard Younger-Ross MP (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge) The following Members were also Members of the Committee during the Parliament. Mr Colin Breed MP (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall) Derek Conway MP (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup) Mr Kevan Jones MP (Labour, Durham North) Mr Mark Lancaster MP (Conservative, North East Milton Keynes) Willie Rennie MP (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline and West Fife) Mr Desmond Swayne MP (Conservative, New Forest West) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/defcom Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mike Hennessy (Clerk), Georgina Holmes- Skelton (Second Clerk), Karen Jackson (Audit Adviser), Judy Goodall (Inquiry Manager), Richard Dawson (Senior Committee Assistant), Christine McGrane (Committee Assistant) and Miguel Boo Fraga (Committee Support Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Defence Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5745; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Alex Paterson on 020 7219 1589. The second part of the title of the Report was inspired by a reading of Plato’s Laws. The Comprehensive Approach 1 Contents Report Page Conclusions and recommendations 3 1 Introduction 9 Background 9 Our inquiry 9 Other evidence 10 Definitions of the Comprehensive Approach 11 Development of the Comprehensive Approach 12 2 In Whitehall 18 Strategic intent and planning 18 Who is in charge? 21 Changing departmental cultures 24 The International Development Act 26 Structure and funding 28 The Stabilisation Unit 30 Learning lessons 33 Making the case in the UK 34 Personnel 35 Training 39 Departmental information technology and information management systems 41 3 Working with international organisations 42 The United Nations 42 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 44 European Union 45 NATO-EU 46 Working on the ground 47 4 On the ground 49 Making it work 49 Working with NGOs 54 Working with local nationals 58 Working with local women 62 Conclusions 66 Formal minutes 67 Witnesses 68 List of written evidence 69 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 70 The Comprehensive Approach 3 Conclusions and recommendations 1. The MoD and the Armed Forces, the FCO and DFID all recognise that engagement in future conflicts is likely to require the use of the Comprehensive Approach. It is, therefore essential that a shared understanding exists across Government and, in particular, within the MoD, the FCO and DFID about what the Comprehensive Approach is. This must be underpinned by joint policy and doctrine. In recent years, the UK has always operated in coalition with allies and international organisations making a common understanding of methods and desired outcomes and of the Comprehensive Approach crucial. The UK has been at the forefront of thinking on and the development of the Comprehensive Approach, and it must continue to work with allies to embed its use in the major international organisations—the UN, NATO and the EU. (Paragraph 175) 2. The forthcoming Strategic Defence Review should form part of a wider and more comprehensive security review looking at the UK’s desire and ability to participate in operations requiring the use of the Comprehensive Approach. The Review presents an opportunity to ensure that the Comprehensive Approach is embedded in future Government policy and that the Armed Forces are designed, trained and equipped to perform their role in such operations. (Paragraph 176) 3. It is crucial that, in all situations requiring the Comprehensive Approach, certain elements should be agreed at the very earliest stage based on a thorough and all- embracing assessment of the situation. These elements include leadership, objectives, a defined end state, strategy, tactics and the nature of personnel required. This assessment may need to be amended in response to changing threats and other circumstances but this should not prevent an early assessment taking place which reflects the needs and expectations of local nationals. Communication is a key component of any strategy and needs to include plans for conveying the strategic intent of the mission to local nationals and also to the British public in an informative but fair and balanced way. (Paragraph 177) 4. There is evidence that the Comprehensive Approach is beginning to work in Afghanistan and elsewhere but there is still much to develop especially in Whitehall and in working multi-nationally with allies and international organisations. We have heard a lot said about the importance of the Approach but if it is to continue to work in Afghanistan and in future areas of conflict, then the policy must be given the leadership, political clout and resources it needs. In responding to this Report, the MoD must set out how the Comprehensive Approach is being addressed in the Strategic Defence Review. (Paragraph 178) Development of the Comprehensive Approach 5. The Comprehensive Approach is widely accepted as valid in most situations where military force is required and in other situations such as those requiring post-conflict reconstruction and stabilisation. The National Security Strategy re-iterated the need for a cross-government approach drawing upon the capabilities of the Armed Forces, the FCO, DFID and others. We recommend that the MoD, the FCO and DFID, 4 The Comprehensive Approach working together with the Stabilisation Unit, produce a Comprehensive Approach policy and doctrine. Many of the ingredients for such a policy and doctrine already exist but are not brought together in one place. The doctrine should take account of our recommendations in the remainder of this Report. The MoD should incorporate the Comprehensive Approach policy into its Strategic Defence Review. (Paragraph 30) Strategic intent and planning 6. It is evident that the need for a clear strategy and vision has been recognised for Afghanistan. It is important that all parties share an understanding of the context and nature of the challenges faced. In future situations where the Comprehensive Approach is adopted all relevant government departments and the Armed Forces should agree a clear set of objectives with appropriate measures of achievement and with a clearly defined end state set in the context of the nature of the challenges faced. The need for post-conflict reconstruction and stabilisation should be recognised and incorporated into the planning at the earliest stages. These objectives may need to adapt and evolve but it is essential that the agencies pursuing the Comprehensive Approach have an agreed and feasible end state in mind at every appropriate juncture. (Paragraph 41) Who is in charge? 7. We understand why, for major situations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is inevitable that the Prime Minister should take overall responsibility for the use of the Comprehensive Approach. We note there has been a debate about whether this is necessary, whether it provides effective leadership and clarity for all missions and whether it might be appropriate for the Prime Minister to appoint a lead Minister. We consider that at the start of each operation using the Comprehensive Approach, the Government should formally decide and announce what the appropriate governance arrangements should be. Certainly as missions evolve these matters should be kept under review. (Paragraph 47) 8. As part of its role in facilitating cross-departmental assessment and planning, the Stabilisation Unit should support the relevant Minister and Whitehall committees in the operation of the Comprehensive Approach. The Government should consider whether the Unit should be placed within the Cabinet Office to ensure it has sufficient political clout with other departments. Likewise, leadership focus and effectiveness in some missions might be enhanced by appointing a special envoy or representative. This person should have direct access to the Prime Minister. (Paragraph 48) Changing departmental cultures 9. The Government should consider whether there is any benefit in putting this on a more formal basis. (Paragraph 49) 10. We recognise and welcome the progress that has been made in making the Comprehensive Approach a reality. The MoD, the FCO and DFID have all made The Comprehensive Approach 5 efforts to reduce cultural and operational differences but all acknowledge more needs to be done.