• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The RUSI journal >The Overdue Defence Reviewold Questions, New Answers
【24h】

The Overdue Defence Reviewold Questions, New Answers

机译：逾期未审国防部回顾旧问题，新答案

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Defence reviews have a considerable history in the United Kingdom. They have been undertaken for both good and bad reasons: good reasons such as the need for strategic reassessment, and bad reasons such as political party manoeuvring. Defence reviews also have been known to both clarify and to obfuscate: to spell out clear defence assumptions, for example, while wilfully obscuring the question of the resources to be devoted to them. They are also noted for the prominence they claim, but seldom genuinely give, to the most precious asset of the UK's defence posture: its armed forces personnel. All these competing tendencies can be expected to emerge in any future defence review and it would be politically naive to expect otherwise. Nevertheless, the defence analyst has an important role to play in helping to keep the process honest. The analyst should not try to tell officials and senior officers how to do their jobs and will never have sufficient access to the detail to allow them to make 'insider policy' arguments convincingly. Nor should they try. Analysts are at their most useful when they keep nagging away at the principles and assumptions that seem to underlay defence policy, either in documents, statements, or in sheer official body language. In these, and a hundred different other ways, the big politico-military questions emerge with greater clarity. A defence review, of course, might choose to duck them as they emerge, but a defence analyst never should.
机译：国防审查在英国有着悠久的历史。进行这些检查的原因有好有坏：诸如对战略重新评估的需要之类的正当理由，以及对政党的操纵之类的不正当理由。众所周知，国防审查既可以澄清也可以混淆：例如，阐明明确的国防假设，同时故意掩盖分配给他们的资源问题。他们还以其所宣称的突出地位而著称，但很少真正地给予英国国防姿态中最宝贵的资产：其武装部队人员。所有这些竞争趋势都可以在未来的国防评估中出现，否则在政治上天真。尽管如此，国防分析师在帮助保持程序诚实方面仍可以发挥重要作用。分析师不应试图告诉官员和高级官员如何工作，也永远无法获得足够的细节以使他们有说服力地提出“内部政策”论据。他们也不应该尝试。当分析人员不停地以文件，声明或纯粹的官方肢体语言为基础的原则和假设时，他们会发挥最大作用。通过这些以及其他一百种不同的方式，更大的政治军事问题浮现出来。当然，国防评论可能会选择躲避它们，但是国防分析师绝对不应该这样做。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The RUSI journal》 |2008年第6期|p.4-10|共7页
  • 作者

    Michael Clarke;

  • 作者单位

    Development at King's College London;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 军事;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号