The language used by the defence community excludes the public and is a significant contributing factor to groupthink. It removes the public from proper scrutiny of defence and avoids the obvious / stupid question such as how can ever increasing output be delivered from ever decreasing inputs? The expansion of the debate to include more voices that are not steeped in the language of defence can only benefit all. Thank you for this helpful contribution.
Many aspects of defence related matters have been drawn together in this article. Is the article's point about the use of words, systems or the continuing failure of the military to use plain English to inform a wider audience. I applaud the use of plain English which appears to have disappeared from so many aspects of journalism, papers, inquiries, legal terms and the weakening forms of governance.
The reams of paper, pictures and tables in the recent SDR and all former ones may be fully read by a very few UK nationals, having taken far too many people and resources to produce. Government departments still over-produce unnecessary volumes of stuff ... and to what outcome? NATO uses key points and statements in briefing notes - that is probably sufficient for a wider audience, with greater potent factors being retained for practitioners.
Surely the requirement is to be succinct, clear and keep to the point.
With a brief return to the latest SDR - it is not likely to be funded to the level desperately needed. The PM has no interest in ensuring the full safety, security and longevity of national security as his welfare priorities lie elsewhere. Meanwhile, the MoD wastes too much in paper production when much of it is never fully read by a wide audience - can that lesson ever be learned?
This is an excellent essay. It addresses an issue that the Centre for the Public Understanding of Defence and Security is attempting to address.
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/centres/strategy/research/public-understanding-defence-security/
The language used by the defence community excludes the public and is a significant contributing factor to groupthink. It removes the public from proper scrutiny of defence and avoids the obvious / stupid question such as how can ever increasing output be delivered from ever decreasing inputs? The expansion of the debate to include more voices that are not steeped in the language of defence can only benefit all. Thank you for this helpful contribution.
Excellent post, and the problem is shared by other countries!
Many aspects of defence related matters have been drawn together in this article. Is the article's point about the use of words, systems or the continuing failure of the military to use plain English to inform a wider audience. I applaud the use of plain English which appears to have disappeared from so many aspects of journalism, papers, inquiries, legal terms and the weakening forms of governance.
The reams of paper, pictures and tables in the recent SDR and all former ones may be fully read by a very few UK nationals, having taken far too many people and resources to produce. Government departments still over-produce unnecessary volumes of stuff ... and to what outcome? NATO uses key points and statements in briefing notes - that is probably sufficient for a wider audience, with greater potent factors being retained for practitioners.
Surely the requirement is to be succinct, clear and keep to the point.
With a brief return to the latest SDR - it is not likely to be funded to the level desperately needed. The PM has no interest in ensuring the full safety, security and longevity of national security as his welfare priorities lie elsewhere. Meanwhile, the MoD wastes too much in paper production when much of it is never fully read by a wide audience - can that lesson ever be learned?