Posts in this forum and reports in conventional media suggest desperate attempts at partisan point-scoring have eclipsed other types of responses to the news.  Remarkably, scant reference has been made to the possible effects the changes can have on RSLAF capability in terms of its primary purposes and duties as they relate to defending the nation, or even reflecting government policy and national obligations such as through the force projection that comes with participation in international peace support and peace enforcing missions.

A nation’s armed forces have a chance of being at their best when focussed on threats to the territorial integrity, stability and security of the country or even the region. There will be greater likelihood of effectiveness in achieving desirable outcomes when the armed forces are not unduly concerned with the machinations and partisan interests of government, opposition or anyone else. Yes, believing the political leadership that must direct military action is not engaged in tampering with the command elements and structures is often a good place to start and adherence to this concept must be sufficiently illustrated.  Those failing to grasp what is being said here are invited to examine the lack of military interference with the political process in India against the situation across the border in Pakistan.  In India, even the crisis of assassinated prime ministers did not as much as produce murmurs from the military forces.  Not so for Pakistan whose armed forces tend to stir themselves into a round of silliness every time the wind blows.  We might also want to ask how the South African Defence Force was able to near seamlessly serve loyally a man whose destruction, along with that of the organisation he led, had been the focus of their efforts for close to half a century.

Whatever the reasons for the apparently sudden and brutal clear out at the top of the RSLAF, there is little reason to deem as unreasonable anyone who chooses to think of it all as not so much a plan but more of a plot.  As perceptions rather than the truth usually matter most with these situations, the reactions that followed the announcements added to the not very convincing handling of this matter left me feeling it will take a lot more than a battalion (pardon the pun) of spin doctors to fix this one.  It must be said that the not very skilful and utterly reckless wading into the fray by people with undeniable political allegiances, but not a lot of knowledge of the psyche that drives the “band of brothers” that the armed forces tend to be, has done nothing to help ease the enthusiasm of a rumour mill that is already in overdrive.  Statements justifying the actions by the Defence Minister and/or Defence Council side-by-side with blatant illustrations of contempt for the opposition can only take the thinking of many down the path of plot at a when national security interests would be safer if most choose to believe there is actually a carefully thought out plan. Those opposed to the government and seeking to discredit its every action are no better as they too foster the thinking that the affairs of the armed forces are determined by partisan biases rather than genuine national and regional security interests and obligations. It suddenly seemed that unleashing the “attack dog” had become the primary tool of Sierra Leonean politics.

Of course, those who took or initiated the decisions that have led us to where we are must understand they carry primary responsibility for giving thought to the signals or messages their decisions and actions are likely to send.  If it is true that there is more than one way to skin a cat, then why go about it in a way that leaves a mess in your living room? Once reasonable questions become difficult to answer, rumour and speculation will find a way to satisfy the sometimes desperate appetite for explanations.

The supposedly sudden realisation that a significant proportion of the top brass had hit age fifty-five would suggest a not very wholesome story or incompetence of a remarkable degree within the personnel branch at nation’s Ministry of Defence.  You either accept this or opt for thinking all these people had this significant birthday within a few days of each other.  Of course, we could search for the rule that says retirement will be on a particular date after one’s fifty-fifth birthday but I am convinced no amount of page flicking will get us there.  Once done with speculating on the “Age Fifty-Five Rule” and how it is the reason for the week’s developments, we must then remind ourselves that the rule does not apply to all who were asked to “right turn, salute, and march three paces” towards the sunset.

Brig Mondeh in mural as Commander 5 Infantry Brigade

Apparently absent from the thinking behind the decision are key elements of defence and military planning that no one seems prepared or able to explain. A concept that guides most military thinking and manoeuvres is that of “one foot on the ground” at all times. Successful militaries have adhered to this concept in peacetime and during conflict with the purpose and emphasis being the continuity that is often critical to maintaining stability or sustaining the momentum that helps secure that upper hand. The shake up just announced results in too many working parts thrown into concurrent motion and the real professional will wonder where traction, if any, is getting achieved. The chain reaction of promotions, postings and changes at the level that must remain the most stable has produced an atmosphere of rumours, speculation, conspiracy theories and overtly political noises that is far from satisfactory.  An After Action Review (AAR) would be more than a very good idea and will carry much credibility and usefulness if it boldly concludes with frank statements on how “business as usual” cannot be fostered by the “what and how” inflicted on a very potent sector of the state apparatus.

Whatever the case, the school playground silliness that has dominated what some would like to call a debate or discussion is frightening for its revelation of how few of those who obviously see themselves as smart have failed to appreciate the risks. The armed forces must be treated as belonging to all the citizens of the country.  They should be free from political manoeuvring and given, among other things, the time and space to focus on maintaining or enhancing their capability in an environment that allows them to do so professionally and competently.  If they get treated as the ball two or more sides wish to throw around for own selfish purposes, then God help us all the day the ball is dropped on a part of the pitch that does not have national interest written all over it. The forces are there to serve the country and swear allegiances to whoever the President is and will take orders either directly or indirectly from the holder of the highest office in the land. When allowed to work, it is a system worth admiring and preserving. When it gets tinkered with and starts to go wonky – and the history of many places including Sierra Leone will confirm this – so much that is so very wrong could come out of institutions designed for selfless service.

I must conclude by stating that I personally believe a shakeup of sorts was long overdue. It is more the manner of how it has been done and the perceptions (getting) formed that perturb me. The proven and tested military planning tool of phasing should have been used as it would have ensured continuity and almost certainly suppressed the overactive rumour mill.