Leaner and more efficient armed forces are needed

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra made a blunder a few days ago when she told reporters that the Cabinet had approved the Navy’s plan to buy six secondhand German submarines worth Bt6.9 billion, though in fact the proposal was not part of the agenda at the Cabinet meeting. She told reporters that the submarine purchase had been approved, but more discussion is needed for new helicopters wanted by the Army.
Given today’s online media, in which real-time competition cannot wait, Yingluck’s comments were soon all over the cyber world. The statement had to be retracted. And so two hours later, deputy government spokesman Chalitrat Chantharubeksa walked through the afternoon rain to the Government House press room to correct the prime minister’s statement. He said that the Cabinet had not yet considered the submarine purchase plan.
 “The prime minister may have been getting mixed up between the submarines and the helicopters. In fact, she referred to helicopters,” the deputy spokesman said, adding that the Army’s request to buy eight French-made helicopters had actually been approved by the Cabinet.
It was reported that Yingluck even giggled about the blunder, saying she hoped she didn’t get the sailors too excited over the mistake.
The Navy is seeking Cabinet endorsement to buy six secondhand U-206 submarines, preferably before the end of September.
Yingluck’s blunder could perhaps be forgiven as an honest mistake. But military modernisation, which costs the taxpayer billions of baht per procurement project, is no laughing matter.
Defence planners, theoretically, do not think in terms of election to election as politicians do, because military modernisation and build-up requires one to think in terms of decades.
It also requires planners to think in terms of challenges and security threats immediately at hand and also potentially in the future. During the Cold War, it was clear-cut as to who was the “enemy”. Today, things are less clear. The definition of “enemy” today may not fit in with the old definition that came about as the result of opposing ideology and a resultant arms race. However, one cannot deny the fact that regional countries are all enhancing their military capabilities.
For Thailand, the debate should not be confined as to whether we can even afford these war machines, but how to make our armed forces more efficient within existing and reasonable budget limitations. Everyone is in agreement that the military should be capable and competent. The recent back-to-back crashes of three helicopters illustrate the kind of challenges at hand.
In the past, during the days of the Cold War, our military used one type of helicopter for all purposes. From utility to cargo, to gunship and transportation of men and VIPs, the UH-1 did it all. Today, the challenges are different and more diverse.
We are no longer talking about a traditional military threat, but a wide range of security and operational challenges that include patrols, search and rescue missions, reconnaissance and long-range flights over the ocean, as opposed to the mostly coastal missions of the old days.
It is no secret that we have hundreds of generals, and it does not take a great military strategist like Sun Tzu to tell us that this is absurd. A sizeable portion of the military budget goes to dead-end items like pensions and salaries for high-ranking officers, many of whom have no direct command or any significant responsibility. With its popular electoral mandate, it is time the Yingluck government demanded that the armed forces trim the fat and use the savings to strengthen their capacity.
In real terms, this means downsizing the number of generals and troops and outsourcing whatever can be outsourced to civilians. Our armed forces should be lean and mean, not bloated like a bureaucrat who believes bigger is always better.
Unfortunately, our bloated number of generals can’t seem to shake themselves out of their bureaucratic mindset, and our politicians can’t think beyond selfish political interest. Sadly, putting efficient national security measures above institutional interest, it seems, will continue to be a hope for the future.