A Band-Aid Defence

Professor Wilhelm Agrell, a well known Swedish defence analyst, criticize the Swedish Armed Forces for the recent transformation. There is a lack of balance between national and international focus. The cancellation of the conscript system can result in a non-existent connection between the civil society and the armed forces. Without a strong hand to guide the direction of the armed focus this will only lead to disaster.

I agree with his analysis. The change has been too quick and forced by lack of money, not grand strategy. If nothing is done there will be many separate pieces of the armed forces, but no cohesion.

There are many examples:

- Archer artillery units. The Army has ordered 24 units. They will be delivered to the only existing artillery regiment in the Army. Together with Excalibur GPS munition it is one of the best systems in the world. But what can Sweden do with 24 units? Where will they be used? The system is too political aggressive (for Swedish politicians) to be sent to Afghanistan or other international missions. 24 units are also too few to be useful for the national defence. The only reason in my view to buy Archer is to keep the artillery knowledge in-country for possible future needs.

- Rbs 23 "Bamse" air defence system. This is only a "demo"-system and has been delivered to the only existing air-defence regiment in the Army. Today Sweden lack a qualified air-defence system. There are of course the upgraded Rb-97 Hawk system, but as everything else too few and no-one realy knows if the missiles are still working. After all they have been used for the last 30 years and upgraded many times from Rb-66 "Hawk" to Rb-77 "Improved Hawk" to Rb-97. The reason for the lack of interest is that air defence is not needed in Afghanistan. Today Sweden there is no capability to defend even the Swedish capital in case of an emergency. The UndE 23 radar unit is very good and should be bought in higher numbers in order to fill the gaps in the Swedish radar network.

- Visby corvettes. The future or end of the Swedish Navy? When they were developed they were technical advanced with composite hulls and stealth design. This was a typical example of the Government supporting the Swedish defence industry. Unfortunately, delays and lack of money has resulted in ships only. There is no attack capability (no torpedos and no Rb15 MkIII missiles). There is no defence capability. The Bamse Air Defence system has not been integrated and most probably never will. The Visby corvettes are too small to be used on international missions in high seas and their capability is not good enough to be used in the national defence.

- Gripen air defence data-links. When the Gripen system were upgraded to international capability with Have Quick and Link 16 someone forgot to upgrade the national air defence system. This resulted in the infamous "capability gap" (in Swedish "förmågeglappet"). The Gripen C/D aircraft is a very good aircraft, but without support from the ground based radar network the situational awareness degrades. Fortunately the public debate has forced the Swedish Government to set aside money to implement HQII and L16 in the two, soon to be one, air defence centrals. International communication capability is good for international missions, international training and also to receive international help in case of an emergency. The Swedish supreme commander want a focus on the nordic military cooperation. But Denmark and Norway are part of NATO and Finland still want a strong national defence due to their close neighbor Russia. However, one thing that has not been solved is the cryptos that are to be used with HQII and L16. Sweden is not a member of NATO. Who will deliver these cryptos? If Sweden can develop crypto keys of our own, will NATO and USA be able to listen to swedish national secret transmissions?

There are positive signs with upgrades to the equipment being used. But it is still a question of to what use the upgrades has been ordered:

- HKP 16 - UH-60M Blackhawk helicopters. The Armed Forces has ordered 15 units. This is a very good helicopter that has a lot of combat experience. But the reason for ordering the helicopter is the big delays of the HKP 14 - NH-90. The system is planned to be sent to Afghanistan in 2013. But the Swedish unit in Afghanistan is planned to leave the country in 2014! What will they be used for after that date? My hope is that the Armed Forces will cut down on the planned number of systems. Sell HKP 15 - Augusta A109 and keep HKP 15 and 16. Upgrade HKP 14 to naval warfare capability, which is needed due to the very long Swedish coastal line.

- Patria AMV. 113 units has been ordered. When Sweden begun to lose troops in Afghanistan due to IED there was a public debate on how to protect the soldiers. BAE Hägglunds SEP was seen as advanced and not field tested. The Army instead selected the proven Patria combat vehicle. Personally I totally agree to this decision. But, during the Cold War it was important to the Swedish national security to have a defence industry of their own. The experiences from WWII is that when one needs to build up the defence, it will almost be impossible to buy from other countries since they also need vehicles, aircraft, ships etc. The Swedish Government has changed the policy from supporting local industry to buying COTS on the international market. The problem is that the new combat vehicles will arrive to the Army after they have left Afghanistan! Well, at least the Army have something for the next international mission.

- UK-owned BAE Hägglunds has received a contract on Bvs-10 to the Swedish Armed Forces. The IED threat and the bad roads in Afghanistan has resulted in that Sweden is leasing dutch Bvs-10 to be used in Afghanistan. Personally I am a little bit worried about this strategy. It has been tested by UK units with their Bvs-10 "Viking". The result was further loss of soldiers since the mine protection in a Bvs-10 is not as good as in a Combat Vehicle 90. These new units will most probably not reach the Army before they leave Afghanistan. But, they will be very useful in the national defence of Sweden since they have very good capability in cold climate and deep snow. When the next winter storm reaches Sweden, the Army will be able to help the civilian population in a better way. The Army used to be good at this, many of the old Bv 206 were sold when the Cold War equipment was thrown away on the second-hand market a few years ago.

As I see it the Swedish Armed Forces has bought a lot of new equipment and changed the personnel system to be more adaptable to support international missions. Each system has been bought with good intentions, but there is no strategy behind the combined use of the systems. What will the equipment that has specifically been bought to be used in Afghanistan be used for if there are no future missions a la Afghanistan? Also, after USA a few weeks ago announced that they will reduce their European forces and instead focus on the Middle East and Asia, there is a possibility that Europe on its own will not be able to lead operations such as Unified Protector in Libya or ISAF in Afghanistan. What will Sweden do with our professional soldiers? Sweden has focused on increasing the alert status of the Armed Forces and cutting down on the size, but to what use? The armed forces is to big for international operations and too small for national defence.

Every recent upgrade of the Swedish military capabilities can unfortunately be seen as a band-aid to cover the wound, not to heal the sick body.

Good Moral, Bad Physique

The Swedish Defence expert, Prof. Wilhelm Agrell has written an interesting article in yesterday SvD about the pro and cons of the reformed system for employing professional soldiers in the Swedish Armed Forces. His thesis is that Sweden is more vulnerable without the conscript system. The new defence will be much smaller and the soldiers will lack the civilian experience that has shown to be very valuable on international missions. Swedish soldiers has always been more than just soldiers which is very useful in operations other than war. They performed well in the civil wars of former Yugoslavia and has so far also done well in Afghanistan. However the Supreme Commander and the Minister of Defence, Mr Tolgfors, both say that the old system was too costly since all units that was sent on international missions had to be trained for that specific mission and afterwards the unit was disassembled and the soldiers went back to their civilian work.

But was this so bad? The civilian and the military world in Sweden did get a good blend that will be impossible in the future. It used to be so that a majority of the males in Sweden had done a year of conscript service. Everyone had knowledge about soldiering. In a crisis this would have been very useful. These crisis do not need to be war, but also natural disasters, accidents etc. A person trained by the military also know how to act in an emergency. How to do heart-lung reanimation, how to stop bleeding etc. The end of the conscript system lowers Sweden´s capability to cope with unexpected situations.

The conscript service was also a good way of introducing the soldier life to many possible recruits to become officers or specialist officers. A lot of the officers in the Armed Forces of today say, when asked about how they ended up in service, they realized during the conscript year that they liked what they were doing. Otherwise they would most probably never have joined the Armed Forces. The one year service was also e very good way for the officers to find the right recruits who they wanted to serve together with in the future.

Now the Armed Forces need to recruit the right boy and girls directly from the street. This will increase the need and cost of commercials to show what life in the armed forces is about. These commercials have been criticized in Sweden for being too "Hollywood". Life in the Armed Forces are not as glamor as the commercials show. Being a soldier is hard, wet and very often boring. To be interrupted by sheer moments of pure panic. All this for a salary of 17.000 SEK/month!

How will Sweden be able to recruit soldiers to work for 6-8 years with a very low salary? Countries like USA and Great Britain can use free school as a bait. But in Sweden all schools is free. The only cost for the students are loans that are needed to rent a apartment and get food. Maybe the government should pay for these loans? A retirement check of about 1 MSEK would be enough to avoid the need for loan. Ronald Månsson, commander P4 in Skövde thinks the soldiers will get valuable training that will be valuable the day they want to apply for a new job. In his article he focus on the "värdegrund" aspects, i.e. the soldiers will have the right moral view upon sexual and racial equality. This aspect might not be on top of a future employers wish list...

Unfortunately the drop outs from the basic 3 months soldier training has been quite high. According to a SvD article, the drop out rate has been as high as 20% during the second GMU - Basic Military Training. The main reason for drop out is that the recruits does not have the correct physique for the training. According to SvD analysis this might cost as much as 745 MSEK to train more soldiers to fill up the empty spaces. But according to the plan (see picture above) there should be 4000 recruits every year. Out of those 600 are expected to drop out. This is 15%. However this number is based upon both basic and continued training, so the drop out rate from basic training is too high.

What are the reasons for the drop outs?

- The physical standards of the young boys and girls are on an average much lower today compared to 10 years ago. A few years ago the Swedish recruitment office issued a report that stated that the average boy/girl was in bad physical shape and would not pass the conscript service. Less focus on sports and more on Internet might be one reason. That the parents also give their young ride with cars everywhere they are going might be another. Is it really the best trained boys/girls who apply for service? This does not explain all since the recruits have at least passed the physical tests of the recruitment centers. But, are these tests not correct according to the physique needed during basic training? Or is it more than just muscles that is needed?

- The wrong persons are recruited. In the conscript system everyone was exposed to military service and a few were selected. Do the recruits today have the same background as the officers recruited from the conscript system? The new system is supposed to be training the same "raw material" that earlier was sent to officers schools. The one difference is schooling. The Armed Forces are not trying to compete with boys and girls who are planning to go to university, but instead those who are planning to work in the industry. 17.000 SEK per month is not very good compared to most industrial work. The industrial workers do also not need to go to Afghanistan every second year.

- The recruits do not know what they are applying for. When they see the hard life in the Armed Forces they back out. It is maybe not the physique that is the big issue, but the moral will and endurance. Maybe the commercials are attracting the wrong type of recruits?

- Many young people today do not know what they want to do with their life. The unemployment rate is high and according to some officers that I have spoken to some of the recruits do the basic military training just because they didn´t know what to do. Maybe they will stay for a year or two, but they will not stay for the full contract period of 6-8 years.

The Defence HQ and the Minister of Defence all believe the costs will not be as high as SvD and FOI has predicted. Who will be right? Only the future will tell. Unfortunately it might be too late to reverse the course in Sweden. Once the conscript system has been put on hold it will be very difficult to start it back up again.

It is very interesting to see how Minister of Defence, Mr Tolgfors always try his best to stop all discussions about the new conscript system. In Sweden he has been known lately as Bagdad Bob. A man who does not change his message even if the reality changes around him. Unfortunately a lot of career officers has the same view upon things as Mr Tolgfors. The commander P4 statement that moral standards is the most important aspect of a recruit is typical of the Swedish Armed Forces today. Where is the killer? Where is the will to endure hard times in order to achieve the mission goals? Where is the fighting spirit? Quality of material and training is one thing, but the mental will is what differs a good soldier from a bad one. Mr Tolgfors focus too much on a small well trained force suited for missions in Afghanistan. One thing is for sure. Quantity always beet quality. Ask the German commanders of WW2 what happened on the Russian front. Or why not ask ISAF what happened in Afghanistan.

One might say that I am pessimistic. But the truth is that Sweden has adopted a recruitment system that is very much alike the one in USA and UK. But we have a completely different society in Sweden. Sweden lack the poor people that see no other future then being a soldier in the army in order to pay for future studies. How come the system used to work? For one thing we did not have any professional soldiers. We only had officers and they stayed in the system due to comradeship and that they liked what they did at work. These qualities can beat a low salary. But not a too low salary when they start building a family.

My personal view is that every boy and girl should do GMU, 3 months of basic military training. This can bee seen as a "pay back" for the money the government has invested in each end everyone with free social health care and free education. In this way there is no need for false commercials and the training officers can select the best recruits to go on for being soldiers, specialist officers and officers. All those who do not continue with military service will as an bonus get basic training that will be good for the entire society. In case of an emergency these boys/girls will be better suited to handle the situation.

Other Bloggers about the same story: Sinuhe, Cornucopia and Wiseman.

Financial Hostages

Some analysts believe that the global financial interdependency will lead to a more stable world. Why start a war with someone that you do business with?

But this way of thinking could also be reversed, why not do business instead of war with the same strategical goal as the war itself?

In the Baltic Sea Gazprom is building the Nord Stream gas pipeline that in the future will transport natural gas to customers in Germany and France.

That will allow more Russian gas exports to bypass Ukraine, through which 80% is currently routed. Differences with Kiev encouraged Moscow to speed up the project, as well as South Stream, running north and south of the EU bloc.

In January 2009, Russian gas supplies to Europe came to a halt for almost two weeks as Moscow and Kiev rowed over prices and transit terms.

Of course this project is good for the economy of Gazprom, but there are a number of other advantages.

- Russia do not need to rely on Ukraine where most of todays gas go through.

- The pipeline will give Russia a reason to patrol the Baltic Sea close to the Swedish island of Gotland. On Gotland Gazprom has built a facility to control the pipeline. This site is located in the small town of Slite where the unemployment has been high. Between 70-90 MSEK will be invested in the Harbour in Slite. Rumors is that Gazprom has invested this money in Gotland not only to ensure the operations of the pipeline, but also to buy goodwill and interest from the local politicians on Gotland. The Baltic states are very worried about this development, but the political discussion in Sweden has been silenced by the financial interests. During the Cold War a Russian presence in Slite and an upgraded harbor perfect for bigger ships to anchor would not have been welcome. Today a lot of people in Sweden believe that anyone that is against this kind of strategic shift of the balance in the Baltic Sea is nothing to worry about. It is only for the best and will improve the relation between Sweden and Russia.

- The pipeline has closed the bridge between Russia, Germany and France. Russia is now buying French Mistral Amphibious Assault Ships. French companies are working together with Russian companies in the delivery of Su-30 MKI to India and Su-30 MKM to Malaysia. If Russia would ever fine a need to use these Assault Ships e.g. against Georgia there will be very little opposition from Germany and France. On the contrary they will in the future have to high financial interests in Russia to oppose against a Russian action against smaller ex-Soviet states.

- The delivery of gas also put Russia in the position of being able to influence the possibility to produce electrical power in Germany and France. Since Germany will in the future close down all atomic power plants they will be even more in the hands of the Russian. This method has been used against Ukraine in 2009 and against Belarus this Wednesday.

China has been using these methods for many years. They have invested heavily in USA. Not only to be nice to he Americans, but also to be able to put pressure on USA by affecting the financial market. The last few years the American military forces personnel has been more affected by the drop on the real estate market due to the crash of the sub-prime loan system than by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Sweden the politicians are very aware of this problem. The financial problems of Saab Automobile could be solved by letting the Russian financial Oligark Vladimir Antonov or the Chinese company Pang Da invest in the company. Saab Automobile is desperate to get money and this will of course result in a very good opportunity for the Russian and Chinese. Who knows what clauses will be in the secret parts of the contract? In the future this could result in Swedish interests being controlled by the Russian mafia or the Chinese communist dictators. Neither is wanted by the Swedish politicians and maybe it is from a political and strategical point of view better to let Saab Automobile slowly fade away then to loose control of the politics in western Sweden to foreign influence?

The usefulness of military thinking in business and vice versa has been known throughout history.

Carl von Clausewitz found a lot of similarities between war and business.

"Rather than comparing [war] to art we could more accurately compare it to commerce, which is also a conflict of human interests and activities; and it is still closer to politics, which in turn may be considered as a kind of commerce on a larger scale." On War, Book I, Ch. 3

In China the indirect method has always been preferred to direct assault. The Chinese always remember the wise teachings of Sun Tzu.

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

in more modern times we have John Boyd who invented the OODA-loop for fighter combat. But he later went on in his teachings and used the theories for the OODA-loop into economy. In economy it is more known as PDCA, Plan - Do - Check - Act. When he goes the next step and try to make it into thermodynamics he maybe went a step to far..

Many soldiers has, based upon their war experiences, made a good civilian career as business leaders. They have learned how to lead men and how to take quick decisions. (Note: this does not apply to peace time officers who are not allowed to take any decisions at all by the system).

Why start a war to win territory or natural resources when you can buy them? Why start a war when it is cheaper to buy peace and you will gain the same advantages? On the other hand for some companies war is alway the best thing for business!

In Sweden the Department of Defence is in reality controlled by the Minister of Finance. Maybe Sweden should go one step further and not only control the budget of the military, but also use the military to gain financial advantage? There are a lot of discussions in Sweden about Cyber Warfare, information warfare and IT-soldiers. Why not use this kind of capability in order to make "war" the 21:st century way?

Always remember:

"War is business and business is good".

Safe Sex

"Safe Sex" are methods for having the fun without the risks of getting pregnant or transmitting deceases when having intercourse with someone. I have noticed that there are a number of similarities with the ineffective "safe sex" methods and the way Swedish politicians act when using Swedish military forces in international missions.

Lets compare!

Two methods are very often used when Swedish politicians decide upon when and where to send troops:

- Fertility Awareness. Many politicians believe that they can "sense" when there is a right or a wrong time to enter a conflict to avoid the most troublesome time periods when there is a high risk for unwanted results. Unfortunately each conflict has its own characteristics and time-line. The subject matter experts are the military, but the politicians not only want to decide when and where, but also how to use the troops. Unfortunately they have very little access to the other parts in the conflict and the analysis can be very wrong.

- Coitus Interruptus. This method can represent the Swedish politician belief that it is possible to pull the troops out of the conflict before the situation goes out of control. However it is very difficult to do this in time and most often the damage occur before the troops has left the country. It is also very hard to find a decisive indicator to decide when to leave the conflict. To early and you will lose a lot of international credit, too late and you will expose your soldiers to unnecessary danger.

The Swedish politicians need to decide what they are aiming for, since the goal decides the methods to be used.

- If the goal is to avoid getting pregnant, then castration is a very good method. Cutting the manhood off avoids even the slightest possibility of getting into to much trouble. If it is done correctly before the man comes of age, then it will also decrease the sexual desire in the same way as what was done with the eunuchs of the old Arabic harems. The cut down of the Swedish military forces is a very good but also slow way of achieving this political goal. Unfortunately the eunuchs are not very good soldiers and will have problem to defend the harem when the evil invaders arrive to the Sultans palace.

- If the goal is to avoid getting sexual transmitted deceases then the best way is to avoid sex altogether or to wear some kind of barrier. Avoiding sex is not very funny and is not recommended for anyone who want to have a social life. The barrier method is very effective, but even the best condom can brake down. You can never have 100% guarantee that the barrier keeps you out of harms way. The best way is maybe to let someone else do the job! However, in the long term this will result in a bad reputation and all the girls will avoid any further contact.

It is very difficult to get a politician to admit to having "sex" or even wanting to have "sex". The subject is very sensitive and most often the politicians just want to talk about the money involved.

Maybe one need to take some calculated risks? Try to get to know the girl to see if there is any risks involved and then just go for it?