UK defence ministry: Using more mercenaries, drones may help sell wars to public

Using more mercenaries, unmanned vehicles and elite forces could make the British public more willing to support future wars, a strategic unit of the Ministry of Defense (MoD) suggested. In an internal discussion paper on how to sway “casualty averse” public opinion, the MoD development, concepts and doctrine center (DCDC) also recommends lessening the public profile of repatriation ceremonies for war casualties. The document, written in November 2012 and obtained by the Guardian newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act, regards how public opinion of wartime casualties can be manipulated. It also recommends the MoD have “a clear and constant information campaign in order to influence the major areas of press and public opinion”, Al-Alam reported. The eight-page document says to support a campaign to influence public acceptance of war, MoD could "reduce the profile of the repatriation ceremonies,” a reference to public processions of flag-draped hearses carrying war dead through towns near Royal Air Force bases where the bodies are returned home. Deborah Allbutt, whose husband was killed in Iraq in 2003, said the proposals to alter repatriation ceremonies are akin to "brushing the deaths under the carpet”. "They are fighting and giving their lives. Why should they be hidden away? It would be absolutely disgraceful,” she told the Guardian. DCDC’s paper recommends reducing “public sensitivity to the penalties inherent in military operations" and that MoD should "inculcate an attitude that service may involve sacrifice and that such risks are knowingly and willingly undertaken as a matter of professional judgment”. The paper maintains the MoD should clearly communicate reasons for going to war and convince the public they have a stake in the conflict. Thus, they will accept casualties more as a consequence of military action. In “cases where the public is unconvinced of the relevance of the campaign to their wellbeing they are not prepared to condone military risk and are acutely sensitive to the level of casualties incurred,” the paper said. DCDC goes on to claim the war campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should not convince MoD the public is now more “risk averse”. “This assertion is based on recent, post-2000 experience and we are in danger of learning false lessons concerning the public's attitude to military operations," the paper, which has no named author, said. DCDC recommended more use of unmanned autonomous systems, cyber-attacks and “contractors” to blunt worry over MoD casualty numbers. "Neither the media nor the public in the West appear to identify with contractors in the way that they do with their military personnel. Thus casualties from within the contractorized force are more acceptable in pursuit of military ends than those from among our own forces." The paper also suggested the public does not care as much about deaths among Special Forces given the risk involved, or perceived, in their activities. "The public appear to have a more robust attitude to Special Forces losses." Referring to a May 1982 helicopter crash, it says, "The loss of 19 SAS soldiers in a single aircraft accident during the Falklands campaign did not arouse any significant comment." Late in August, reports said that Britain won't join US in a possible strike on Syria. Any possibility of British involvement in a military campaign in Syria has been effectively ruled out after British lawmakers voted down the prospect in parliament to leave the US alone in a potential strike, reports said. By a 285 to 272 margin British parliamentarians at the time rejected the government’s motion to support in principle military action against Syria. MPs on both sides of the aisle expressed doubt over British involvement in Syria during a six hour debate in the House of Commons. British Prime Minister David Cameron called back lawmakers from their summer vacation to determine whether Britain would join US-led military action in Syria, if the US decides to do so. The vote could be a blow to Cameron’s authority after he has advocated UK military action in the event US forces deploy missiles in the Middle-East. Cameron asserted that such action would put a halt to human rights atrocities in Syria, while Labor party MPs said they required more evidence of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s guilt to intervene in the Middle-Eastern nation’s two-year war. Cameron, while advocating limited attacks against the Assad government, admitted he was not“100% certain” that Assad was behind a recent chemical attack, but that it was “highly likely”. After the defeat in the Parliament, Cameron admitted it was clear that Britons did not want action and said he “will act accordingly.” One MP shouted “resign” as Cameron pledged he would not order an attack. Phillip Hammond, the UK Defense Secretary, said the US “will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved”, however he did not think it would halt the process, “I don’t expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action,” he told the state-run BBC. The vote came just before US President Barack Obama was scheduled to meet with congressional lawmakers and other key leaders to brief them on possible military action in Syria.