Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Military flexibility, not crisis prediction, should underpin national defence strategy

The 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review is to be published on Monday.
The 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review is to be published on Monday.

The UK Government has been accused of “overconfidence” in its ability to reliably predict threats to Britain’s security.

A new report published by the Commons defence committee today urges ministers to focus instead on developing military flexibility.

It has been released in the run-up of the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and it brands the current approach “flawed”.

Committee chairman, Tory MP Julian Lewis, said the review needed to deliver a structure for the armed forces in which they could adapt and react appropriately to crises.

The report – entitled Flexible Response? – identifies increases in extremism, cyber-attack and the potential for Russian aggression in Europe as threat areas.

It also notes the growing instability in the Middle East and North Africa, potential for conflict in the South and East China seas, as well as the prospect of hybrid warfare undermining the international rules-based order.

A series of “general vulnerabilities” are outlined, including inadequate training opportunities for the armed forces – as well as a lack of numbers – and insufficient expertise in Whitehall.

The committee will mark the review, due to be published on Monday, against its checklist.

Mr Lewis said: “There is overconfidence in government that it can reliably predict which threats will transpire. History has proven that this approach does not work.”

Dunfermline and West Fife MP Douglas Chapman, the committee’s SNP member, insisted the need to focus on the most fundamental aspects of defence was becoming “increasingly clear”.

He said he could not understand how spending up to £167billion on Trident renewal could be viewed as a higher priority than recruitment and retention of service personnel.

Northern isles MP and Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael described flexibility as “essential”.

The former Scottish secretary said: “We live in an ever-changing world and sometimes the pace of change can be phenomenal. We need armed forces that are capable of protecting us in that world.”

The report challenges the UK Government’s methodology of assigning threats to three groupings.

It says the government’s ‘tiered’ approach to mapping the threat picture – soon to be set out in the National Security Strategy – is “flawed in assuming that the probability of potential threats becoming actual ones can reliably be predicted.”

Therefore, military flexibility rather than crisis prediction, should underpin the national strategy, it concludes.

In the 2010 SDSR, the Government pledged to undertake such a review every five years.