More Soul-Searching in the UK

First, there's discussion of the purpose of the military, which necessarily scopes the size, composition, and budgeting of the military.

Simon Jenkins's assertion that "the general is right and the admiral is wrong" misinterprets Britain's security needs (Naval nostalgia and edgy kit are no basis for sane defence, 20 January). The general, Sir David Richards, had "implicitly dismissed the navy and air force as strategically obsolete," wrote Jenkins. "He said they were obsessed with 'exotic capability that is rendered irrelevant by advances in technology'."

Everyone I meet across government and industry – including serving members of all three forces – agrees that, while Afghanistan is the priority, it's not the only game in town. Last week's green paper makes that point very clearly.

Afghanistan is a very small place relative to the rest of the world. The broader question is how do we protect our interests worldwide: you will always need to get your troops to wherever they do their jobs. You need to provide them with air cover and a base that can move, get them ashore quickly and resupply them for long periods.

Therefore ships – specifically aircraft carriers and amphibious ships – should not be seen as merely naval assets purely designed for state-on-state warfare. They are national assets capable of undertaking numerous roles simultaneously. "Big decks" give the nation strategic flexibility. They are floating pieces of UK real estate – airfields that you can move at will. They proclaim us as a serious nation that is confident and prepared to protect and promote its global interests.

Why wouldn't the army or the RAF want an asset which can carry Chinooks, attack helicopters, drones, humanitarian aid and thousands of troops at the same time? Call them cities of the sea, whatever you want, but they do not spend their time "cruising the world" on "goodwill visits", as suggested by Jenkins.

The military are, post-9/11, more than simply war-fighters. They provide "soft power" – the ability to influence events to our advantage from a diplomatic and economic perspective, and in this respect both the RN and the RAF provide far more flexibility and diplomatic options than do boots on the ground alone. Remember, Mr Jenkins, that we still have 14 overseas territories, global companies operating in far-flung parts of the world, globally competitive industries, and 92% of our trade coming by sea. How do you protect these interests with purely land-focused forces?

+++

Additionally, part of that scope is dependent on how much international cooperation you're dependent on.

Britain's armed forces must retain the ability to fight alone and not become overdependent on allies, Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, warned today.

Fox rejected one of the central planks of the government's green paper last week, that the UK will in future need to co-operate more closely with allies such as France to provide the full range of military capabilities.

In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London, he said that an incoming Conservative government would ensure that Britain remained a "first division" military power.

"We cannot accept the assumption in the green paper that Britain will always operate as part of an alliance," he said.

"We have unique national interests and have to maintain the capability to act unilaterally if required."

The green paper set out the framework for a full strategic defence review, which all parties are committed to holding following the general election.

+++

One way to cut the budget? Start with everyone that's not carrying a rifle.

Overspending on defence is not the root of our current financial problems. In the current year, defence spending is expected to equal £38bn, equivalent to 5.6pc of total managed expenditure and around 2.7pc of GDP, about the same percentage as when Labour took power in 1997. Although defence spending is higher than in earlier years in both nominal and real terms, proportionately it is well down from where it used to be. In 1970-71, it accounted for 4.6pc of GDP.
Since Labour took power in 1997, the number of people employed by the public sector has risen by 900,000. The number of people in the armed forces has fallen by 20,000.
What's more, there is an important social dimension to this squeeze. The influence of the armed forces in our society has been overwhelmingly beneficial, with its emphasis on group values, service and discipline. This is a valuable counterweight to the rampant greed of so much of the private sector and the extremes of wet, woolliness in the public services. The armed forces have done more good for the lower classes than a whole army of social workers.
The irony in including defence in the areas marked out for major cuts is that defence is a service that only the state can provide.

By: Brant