Unfinished article- Intelligent Investment in the era of Smart Defence.

This is unfinished and full of grammatical errors and some of the paragraphs are not fully finnished. Please take a look and feel free to comment/ advise. The title is-

How might NATO encourage nations, concerned about diminished sovereignty, to invest in Smart Defence? What mechanisms would make this kind of cooperation efficient and effective?

This article seeks to build upon NATO’s innovative Multi-intelligence All-source Joint ISR Interoperability Coalition (MAJIIC 2) project, with specific reference to MAJIIC 2’s implementation on a battlefield commander’s level. The multi-million euro effort which saw the cooperation of nine of NATO’s major members has issued in a new era of Intelligence sharing and highlights the impetus of NATO’s Smart Defence. However in this analyst’s opinion, NATO could be in danger of overlooking one of its most vital assets, the Battlefield Commander.  

                 

Whilst the cost of overseas intervention escalates, forcing NATO members to examine and reform their defence budgets; the actual need for foreign intervention has increased. Therefore to battlefield commander, the concept that he/she will be sent on more operations, with a shrinking pool of available assets, is a daunting notion. Also it cannot be ignored that when NATO chooses to act, the success of that operation will ultimately come down to the men and women who are at ‘the spears tip.’ NATO has demonstrated through the creation of MAJIIC and MAJIIC 2 that it is willing to provide the intelligence infrastructure for the battlefield commander, now it must demonstrate to what end it will strive to provide this information to those who need it most.

               

 Therefore in this author’s opinion the true Smart Defence is the rapid implementation of intelligence from those that gather information, to those that will use it. Hence as part of the multi-million euro programme, NATO should seek invest in this ‘gap’ by developing forms of personal electronic equipment that will provide the battlefield commander with real time updates (weather, ground, enemy strength, location etc) which provide possible solutions from the analyst, and highlights which assets are available to effectively deal with the scenario. I will give an example of how this could be used in the modern theatre, using piracy as the instance:

               

            Off the coast of Somalia, a Captain of a French war vessel receives a distress signal from a vessel, indicating that an act of Piracy is taking place. The Captain is conscious that every second counts and is willing to assist, but is unable to act personally as he lacks the correct resources (E.g. a helicopter team, UAV etc). However because of the intelligence substructure that MAJIIC 2 provides and through the use of the electronic system that this author is recommending. The Captain is able to; instantly select a set of assets that are available to him, contact the nearest vessel, an American destroyer, advise them of the situation and detail an effective response. Throughout the process the Captain is in constant dialogue with analysts of the location of the vessel, the weather and intent of the pirates.

Some may argue that these forms of equipment already exist and the entire process has been tried and tested in Afghanistan and other theatres, indicating a success and that NATO should focus its resources on other areas. Whilst to an extent I agree with this statement, I firmly believe that NATO runs the risk of complacency, in that it will become tied up in the higher end of intelligence gathering, which will overshadow the processes and people that will actually benefit from MAJIIC 2.  

Nations have already demonstrated willingness to commit to the idea of intelligence sharing, it is now up to NATO to use this commitment with care, correct investment in tangible electronic equipment that shortens the gap between the analyst and the battlefield, is a product that I believe NATO member nation states are waiting for.  Ultimately the entire process will create a stronger NATO community, as the procedure establishes the concept that no state will bear the economic and political burden of defence spending alone. It places NATO in the important position that collective security is not something that died at the end of the cold war, but is a vital and growing part of twenty-first century defence.  To the international community it indicates a NATO that is addressing the problems of this era, whilst also producing solid results. Most importantly however, this investment will save the lives of soldiers and citizens of NATO’s member states.