When it comes to it we are concerned about outputs, ends rather than ways or means. Will I be well? Can I and my family get an education? Am I safe in my home? Perhaps less frequently; will there be a war that has a fundamental effect on my life and the lives of others?
Perhaps we have a preference for the how the outputs are delivered, the ways, and we have an interest in the resources required to produce them, the means, nevertheless as long as the ways and means are legal and ethical the ends are the priority.
So why is public discourse dominated by frenzied debate on ways and means, with little or not attention paid to ends? Defence is a case study for this phenomenon. The relentless focus on the amount of money spent on defence is an angels on a pinhead discussion. The presentation is that spending 2%, 2.5%, 3% of GDP or any other figure on defence translates to effective military capability. The U.K. proudly states that it has met the NATO target of 2% of GDP to be spent on defence and takes the moral high ground with others that fall short of that arbitrary target. Whilst an input target may have been met, and it is questionable if it has or not, it is clear that UK military capability, the output, falls well short. Billions of pounds are spent on defence annually and yet the U.K. has a small to medium sized, top heavy military that is packed with exquisite technology in the air and marine domains (when it works) and fails to meet its NATO commitment of providing an armoured Division or any land force that would be capable of extended engagement with a ‘peer’ adversary.
The discourse has shifted to ways and means. It is time to ask if the outputs are acceptable; if the ways and means are delivering the ends. Once we are honest about outputs, we can ask if the ways and means need to be adjusted to deliver the ends.