Modern Military Organization
Its Relevance to the 21st Century
Introduction
The very basic role of the military all over the world is to provide for its nation’s defense and defend its sovereignty. That is its very raison d’être. The military professional expertise is built and imbedded around that role. But the military profession is expected to pursue other roles in support of its particular society, roles quite outside the traditional concept of the military as a force for the defense of the nation.
A generation ago, the terms “military intervention” and “conflict resolution” would almost never have been expressed in the same breath. The domain of conflict resolution has its roots in the peace movements that dotted the 20th century, most of whose members found the use of force detestable. Militaries have intervened in the domestic affairs of other countries time and time again, but rarely have they done so in an attempt to end a complex emergency or intractable conflict (2003). Since the close of the cold war, military intervention for humanitarian ends and conflict resolution has increased dramatically. This can include the use of troops in traditionally unconventional ways such as disaster relief, peacekeeping missions, engineering missions, public health care and many others. While its non traditional role increased, the traditional combat role of the military was ebbing due to the prevailing peace time in most parts of the world. The military’s role in helping to avoid wars does not decrease the role of the military profession as a fighting force, in fact, successful deterrence depends in part on the profession’s ability to fill its fighting role. General Thomas D. White, while he was Chief of Staff of the Air Force, was fond of stating that “forces which cannot prevail will not deter”.
The Modern Military and the Threats of the 21st Century
Globalization caused by the forces of liberal trade and technological advancement have reduced the world to an unprecedented extent and have resulted in a high degree of interconnectedness and interdependence between states. Many countries are finding it difficult to handle these security challenges on their own as such threats surpass borders. Security challenges have, thus, become more diverse and multifaceted in an interconnected world – political, economic and even environmental factors have an impact on the security of the nations. These new strategic realities dictate that closer cross-border cooperation and multi-dimensional responses are increasingly needed to ensure national and regional security. Internationally, the strategic landscape was altered with the end of the Cold War. Instead of bringing about an end to conflicts, this event brought about new uncertainties as countries continue to adjust to the strategic realities of a post-Cold War world.
(Terrorism) Terrorism is loosely defined as an attack to governments that are legitimate and accepted by the people they govern. They seek to undermine and destroy a political system and even a way of life that is desirable or good . Terrorism involves political aims and motives. It is violent or threatens violence. It is designed to generate fear in a target audience that extends beyond the immediate victims of the violence. The violence is conducted by an identifiable organization. The violence involves a non-state actor or actors as either the perpetrator, the victim of the violence, or both. Finally, the acts of violence are designed to create power in situations in which power previously had been lacking (i.e. the violence attempts to enhance the power base of the organization undertaking the actions) (2004).
Terrorism has been a recurring theme in some areas of the world, even when it has occurred in different contexts. The area that now constitutes Israel and the Occupied Territories (the old Palestinian Mandate) has also had waves of dissident terrorism. The Arab and Jewish communities attacked each other, and both sides utilized terrorist tactics in the conflict. There have been the attacks by Palestinian groups, struggles between the secular PLO and Hamas, and attacks by Jewish extremist groups. The continuing violent campaigns by various groups, the failure of any successful negotiations for a future Palestinian state, and the limited prospects for such a state have created increased Palestinian support for the use of violence ( 2002).
(Hi-Tech threats) From nuclear bombs to biological weapons, modern military organizations and the society at large is being threatened by this unorthodox weapons of warfare. The more technologically complicated the weapon the wider the range of threat. Iraq, Iran and Sudan have always been rumored to posses such weaponries making them a threat not only in the Arab region but to the whole world. Military agencies on the other hand are also modernizing their troops to combat such threats. United Arab Emirates for example has the strategy to modernize its Armed Forces as part of the overall policy to boost the defense capabilities of the country by acquiring the most sophisticated conventional armament and technology.
Acquisition of this sophisticated technology was a national security imperative necessitated by the need to safeguard the achievements of the country. According to Sheikh Mohammed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces” At no time has the UAE been a source of threat to any country. We do not harbour any sinister intention against any one. Therefore, our endeavor to modernize our military should be seen in the context of the need to beef up our national security as well as in the context of safeguarding our vital national interest. A strong UAE military will reinforce regional and global peace and stability”. He added, as if to conclude the humanitarian role of the UAE’s armed forces “The long-standing UAE tradition in the field of humanitarian works is a noble one. It is an investment that impacts positively on UAE relations with the wider human family. This kind of investment also brings nations closer and promotes cooperation and global stability”.
Role of the Modern Military Agency in the 21st Century
Peacekeeping in the 21st century is the new challenge for the military. Peacekeeping today does not simply involve just military or police actions. Instead, peacekeeping have evolved to be multi-dimensional where peacekeepers, amongst their traditional roles, help to strengthen the rule of law and to monitor human rights violations. Peacekeepers also take on issues related to disarmament, demobilization and reintegration. These are non-traditional roles of the military, but nevertheless necessary ones like assisting a devastated country to return to a state of normalcy. The new challenge for armed forces therefore includes how to prepare peacekeeping troops for these demanding and daunting roles.
Humanitarian relief is a significant area of concern for militaries in view of the many large-scale disasters that have occurred all over the world. For militaries that belong to the international community, it is expected of them to lend their helping hands for humanitarian relief mission. These major disasters, man-made or natural, do not respect political boundaries, and have the potential to inflict damage on local and regional economies, as well as the social stability and security of states.
Partnership and cooperation among states will make a substantial difference to its ability to deal with disasters. National armed forces can play an important role in a coordinated response to humanitarian and disaster relief contingencies, especially in large-scale and acute disasters, as they are disciplined, operationally ready and can contribute valuable assets.
The new strategic trends in the 21st century have also meant that the military needs to take on the added responsibility as a defense diplomat, a task usually performed by foreign affairs officers. Military officers can help to build the foundations for regional cooperation which is based on mutual trust and confidence. They can do so by forging close defense ties and promoting military exchanges and exercises. Defense dialogue and interactions will serve as additional channels for countries to resolve differences and misunderstandings. These ties could further solidify regional defenses among states or nations by cooperating in guarding its territories which are strategically significant to the region as a source of economic and political power.
UAE Armed Forces and Crisis Management in the Gulf
At the end of the twentieth century, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) enjoys a favorable strategic position compared to the rest of the southern Gulf States. The federation faces no immediate threat of invasion, overwhelming debt, organized domestic opposition or economic collapse. The emirates’ rivalries have largely abated and there appears to be the beginnings of a federal civil society. In addition, the United States ensures the federation’s security.
Unlike any other Middle Eastern state, the United Arab Emirates is a federation, consisting of seven tribally-based emirates that controls the southeastern portion of the Arabian peninsula south of Bahrain and Qatar. The federation covers 83,600 square kilometers and is bordered on the north by the Persian Gulf and Iran, on the east by Oman, and on the south and west by Saudi Arabia. The UAE is strategically important because it produces 10% of the world’s oil supply and has the fourth-largest natural gas reserves in the world. Over the past 30 years, the UAE has used these resources and strategic location to become one of the wealthiest states in the world. It was a founding member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and has supported Western security policies in the Persian Gulf. The emirates permits the use of its air bases and ports to allied nations, the country owns the only harbors in the Persian Gulf deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier. In the long run, the stability of the UAE is critical to the free flow of shipping though the Strait of Hormuz and the defense of the GCC from Iran and Iraq.
The UAE maintains armed forces of 64,500 personnel and combined with those of the GCC, have the daunting task of securing its country’s borders, which is a strategic importance in the world economy where the flow of the valuable oil passes by.
Border Disputes
The UAE’s foreign policy, much like its domestic politics, has been defined largely by border disputes and the politics of the individual emirates. Currently the UAE has territorial disputes with three of its immediate neighbors: Iran, Oman and Qatar; in the past, it has clashed with Saudi Arabia as well. The most serious such conflict, however, is the long-standing dispute with Iran over three Gulf islands: Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. Since 1992, this dispute has come to define the UAE’s entire relationship with Iran. Abu Musa has a population of around 600 people, and is situated at the mouth of the narrows of the Strait of Hormuz. The other islands are closer to the Persian Gulf’s sea lane, but only one of these, the Greater Tunbs, is inhabited, with about 350 people. There are few significant resources on the islands apart from red oxide (coloring pigment) and oil, and only Abu Musa can accommodate large ships. Abu Musa is a critical and strategic territory. The control of these islands by bad elements could have a severe impact to paralyze the smooth flow of shipping with in the Gulf region. This large ship usually carries oil to many different parts of the world and to countries which needs oil supply to run their economy. At present, the presence of the United States armed force with in the region is helping in maintaining the balance of power and the flow of shipping in the Arabian Gulf.
In contrast to the federation’s dispute with Iran over the islands, the UAE has been able to address its territorial problems with Saudi Arabia and Oman by direct negotiation and by skillful use of Abu Dhabi’s oil wealth. Saudi Arabia is the federations’ most important neighbor, and relations have been close for many years. Saudi-UAE territorial disputes were largely put to rest when Zayid ceded Zarrarah oil field to Riyadh in exchange for Saudi recognition of UAE sovereignty over the Burami Oasis in 1992. The UAE’s territorial disputes with Oman, on the other hand, remain an open issue. Zayid built a close rapport with Sutlan Qabos, to whom the UAE president has given substantial subsidies as well as political and military assistance. This relationship has helped Zayid resolve two serious border clashes in 1978 and 1992. Today Oman and the UAE conduct joint military exercises, and their citizens travel between the two countries without visas. Nevertheless, the border is not delineated and is a potential source of future conflict.
The Balance of Power in the Gulf
UAE’s diplomatic ties with the United States have somehow maintained the balance of power in the Gulf despite threats from Iran and other fundamentalists group. The United States is the only country that possesses the capabilities necessary to defend the federation. The two states’ relationship blossomed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when Abu Dhabi supported the “Tanker War” and provided important financial and logistical assistance to Operation Desert Storm. In 1991, Abu Dhabi signed a loose defense pact with the United States, which permits Washington to base troops and equipment within federation boundaries. The UAE has also emerged as one of the world’s largest markets for U.S. arms manufacturers; Abu Dhabi purchased 0 million in U.S. arms between 1992-94 alone. Since the Gulf War, Jebel Ali port in Dubai has become crucial to the U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf because it is the safest liberty port in the region and the only harbor in the Gulf deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier. Fujairah, which faces the Indian Ocean and is connected to the Gulf coast by a modern road, would be critical to American operations were the Strait of Hormuz closed off. In addition, U.S. warplanes fly out of UAE air bases on support missions for Operation Southern Watch over Iraq, and it has pre positioned materiel on UAE soil.
The UAE has tried to balance Washington’s power in the Gulf and reintegrate Iraq into the regional balance of power by cultivating commercial and military ties with America’s regional and international rivals. This move deteriorated the US-UAE diplomatic ties. UAE was against the US sanctions on Iraq, and US supports of Israel. The UAE also maintains close commercial and political ties with all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Japan. It also has tried to lessen its military dependence on the United States by signing “mutual defense pacts” with France, the United Kingdom and Turkey. However, the pact has done little to enhance the UAE’s security or lessen its reliance on the United States. Britain, France and Turkey cannot safeguard the UAE’s territory on their own because they lack the capability to project power into the Gulf without U.S. assistance.
The challenges facing the UAE as it tries to balance the great powers and ensure its security in the future will be ones of geographical scale and military capability. Put simply, the United States and Iran are much larger and more powerful than the UAE; they will pursue whatever policies they feel are in their interests regardless of what Abu Dhabi thinks or how many advanced weapons it purchases. Although some states and international organizations may be able to check American and Iranian power, none can realistically guarantee the UAE’s security or prevent unilateral military action by either Tehran or Washington. The United States is, and will most likely remain, the only country with the ability to meet the federation’s security needs in the foreseeable future.
UAE’s Military Policy
(Modernization) The UAE military’s principal challenges are identical to the federation’s chief dilemma in foreign affairs, geographical scale and military capability. No matter how much money the UAE spends, its armed forces will never surpass, or even achieve parity with, the federation’s most likely adversary, Iran. Nor will the UAE ever be able to achieve parity in numbers or in the quality of its soldiers, with any of its neighbors. Thus, the UAE military’s primary mission is to serve as a tripwire that can hamper an invading army and hold its ground until reinforcements arrive. Unfortunately, the UAE’s armed forces cannot meet either of these objectives effectively.
Though UAE defense spending has held relatively steady since 1992, the UAE traditionally devotes a great deal of its resources to defense, as much as .9 billion or 13.6% of its GDP and 66.9% of its yearly budget. Contracts expected to be announced this year commit the UAE to spending billion by the year 2000. This accounts for 10% of the UAE’s estimated oil income during that period. Unfortunately, the politicization of arms purchases has undermined this investment in modern weapons. The UAE has switched primary suppliers four times since 1980, and maintains weapon systems from a dozen countries. Abu Dhabi’s insistence on unique and high-tech weapons impedes procurement as well, and pointlessly increases costs by creating diseconomies of scale. Even if procurement were not so heavily politicized, the UAE military would not be standardized because individual emirates buy weapons systems without consulting the federal government. Dubai’s Lion tanks, for instance, are not compatible with Abu Dhabi’s Declerck tanks; nor does Abu Dhabi’s air defense system protect Dubai. The army has three types of tanks alone: the Lion, the Declerck and the BMP. None of these tanks is standardized or interoperable in terms of supply or sustainability. Though this problem will subside as Dubai cuts its defense spending, it will take years to reverse.
However from 1996 to 2000 period, UAE undertake their defense modernization plans, while Oman waited until the 2001 to 2005 period to begin its procurement and modernization drive in earnest. This has had important effects on the success of their procurement efforts, which took place in a post-Cold War buyer’s market. The smaller GCC states successfully manipulated this market to secure access to cutting-edge Western military technology at more affordable prices and benefited from the lessons of post-Cold War operations. In comparison, Saudi Arabian arms purchases were largely decided within the first year after Operation Desert Storm, before post- Cold War market and operational trends had made an impact on the arms industries. The result has been that Saudi Arabia now fields an unwieldy and financially unsustainable Cold War military, while the other GCC states are building trimmer post-Cold War forces that were designed to undertake missions more relevant to the future external threat profile.
(“Intelligence Sharing”) A key area of future is the integration of GCC military intelligence systems with US ones. Overlaying this process will need to be the development of multi-level organizational intelligence-sharing systems that allow US and Gulf coalition partners to share some, but not all, of their intelligence, a subject that has been under discussion for some years. In the sphere of technical intelligence collection, the GCC could play a very significant role in coalition intelligence gathering as long as it continues to procure advanced sensors and other command, control, communications, computerization, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. The US Navy plans to maintain what it terms “expeditionary sensor grids” in each area where it is habitually present, and GCC forces could make up a significant part of the Gulf sensor grid, providing persistent sensor coverage to the US’s other command, control, communications, computerization, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance system, even when the US may not be able to keep low-density high-value intelligence gathering assets in the Gulf.
The Gulf States are beginning to procure the same advanced sensors that the US Navy is using as the eyes and ears of the sensor grid. The E-2C Hawkeye 2000, aircraft likely to be deployed by the UAE and Oman, will be able to feed data directly into the US system, as could other locally owned sensors if they are purchased and effectively absorbed into service.
The advent of the 21st century brought about an unprecedented economic and civilization growth unsurpassed in the history of mankind. But all of this human civilization advancement is very fragile considering the bigger threats that the “enemy” can generate. The military as an institution is dynamic and very flexible by adopting itself to the changes in the world. As the old adage says, “the only permanent thing in the world is change”. And those that can’t adopt losses.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment