Daily Archives: 3 February, 2010 3 February, 2010 · 7:08 pm Defence Green Paper predicts tough choices and big changes The Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth today published a Green Paper ahead of the upcoming Strategic Defence Review. It can be read in full here.
Titled "Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defence Review', the paper sets the terms of reference for the tough review on Defence spending and policy that is due to take place after the next General Election.
Obviously, the more discussion, debate and thinking that goes into shaping the review, the better. I do question how worthwhile Defence-based discussion will be, as the review is bound to be driven by Treasury policy. None the less, It is important for the Government, the MOD and the services to take a serious look at the issues involved.
Key Questions outlined are:
What contribution can the Armed Forces make to internal security within the UK?
How can the Armed Forces be more effective in supporting conflict prevention?
Do our international relationships need rethinking?
How closely should our armed forces integrate with allies?
The paper seems to conclude that the Armed Forces will have to become leaner and meaner, and to not become too focussed on specific threats but be able to react to new ones. The paper also underlines firmly that the days of the UK acting alone are long gone, and that in future all operations will be in partnership with allies. This will involve building closer links with the US and Europe in particular. This represents a huge change in sovereignty as we know it - the UK is no longer able to defend itself alone. Is this a reflection of changing international circumstances? Clearly, however, some big changes will have to take place.
The most perplexing conclusion of the review is that foreign policy, defence and international development should be more closely integrated. Why has this been dreamt up all of a sudden? The Iraq Inquiry has shown just how disparate these Government Departments have been. Especially when dealing with asymetric threats that require civil and military co-operation. This is especially sad, as the UK had long led the field in low-intensity warfare.
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said: "There is no more important function for Government than Defence. This Green Paper will stimulate debate about the future of Britain's defence ahead of a Strategic Defence Review in the next Parliament. Afghanistan is the top priority today but we must also ensure that our Armed Forces are ready to confront the challenges of tomorrow. The current and emerging threats we face are characterised by uncertainty and will require a more flexible response from an adaptable Armed Forces."
Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, said: "I welcome this Green Paper. It is a first and a significant step on the road to the forthcoming Defence Review that will shape our security in the years ahead. The issues the Green Paper raises are of fundamental importance to all citizens of this country, and I look forward to a vigorous and widespread debate on them in the coming months."
One does wonder, however, just how much input Sideshow Bob and His Airship Sir Jock will have into the review - for one, the Defence Secretary after May will probably be Tory. Will the Treasury simply hand the MOD cuts and expect them to make them? Probably. It is particularly galling for Ainsworth to talk about Defence as the most important function for the Government - this is not borne out in spending or decision making.
All the same, there will probably be some sharp debates over the next few months. Given the tribal nature of British armed forces expect to see the heads of the Navy, Army and Air Force to attempt to outdo each other. While this loyalty is admirable, it comes at the expense of a broader 'UK Defence' thinking. Loyalty should not come before objectivity. Units such as the RAF Regiment, for example, should not escape just because the RAF stamps its feet to keep it. Current expectations are that the RAF and Navy will bear the brunt of the cuts, but who knows what clever lobying may bring about?
Filed under Afghanistan, Army, debate, defence, Navy, News, politics, Royal Air Force
Tagged as armed forces, Army, defence, mod, politics, RAF, Royal Navy
3 February, 2010 · 1:44 pm Fierce debate over UK Defence spending The Prime Minister had denied that he 'guillotined' the Defence budget while British forces were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. An ex-MOD civil servant had earlier made the claim while giving evidence at the Iraq Inquiry.
Conservative Leader David Cameron said: "Isn't it becoming clear from the Chilcot inquiry that the government in general, and you in particular, made a series of bad decisions that meant our armed forces were not equipped properly when they were sent into harm's way?" Former Ministry of Defence permanent secretary Sir Kevin Tebbit called the £1bn cut "arbitrary", and that "I think it's fair to say that the Treasury as a whole didn't want us to get as much as we got." It would seem increasingly that the Government was willing to make huge commitments, but not to fund the armed forces to carry them out. It is also broadly accepted that Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, had more control over public spending than any of his predecessors. Not only was he able to control spending, but Government policy by default. Gordon Brown's denials come after a stream of witnesses at the Iraq Inquiry have stated that preparation for the war was severely hampered and inadequate.
It would not be in the Prime ministers interests to admit that he did not fund the armed forces properly: politicians are rarely blessed with honesty over such matters. But why ignore the clear findings of an Inquiry, that he ordered, before it has even finished?
Filed under Afghanistan, debate, defence, Iraq, News, politics
Tagged as defence, gordon brown, Iraq, politics