Lesson of the Falklands

With Argentina's posturing over the Falklands once again coming to prominence, it is worth remembering that had the islands been adequately protected in 1982 and Britain's commitment been beyond doubt, an Argentine invasion would have been very unlikely.
 
Peacetime defence strategy is first and foremost about deterrence; war represents its failure.
 

The new strategy review

Clearly, the recently announced review of Britain's defence strategy is desperately needed.

Generals Richards comments on the way forward are insightful and let us hope only the start of a wider debate.

The result of his argument is that Britain should trade ships, tanks and traditional conventional war fighting capability in exchange for an army that can fight the counter insurgency type operations the UK has been face with in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cyber war also features in the General's comments. Most importantly is the recognition that the army needs 'mass' - something this blog has argued for since it started.

However, this author has one major reservation. In recognising that Britain has been prepared to fight the last war, it may only move forward to fight a war of the current type, which by the time the next threat arrives could equally be termed the 'last war'.

We must also be very careful that we don't also repeat the mistake of the post First World War generation. That is to create armed forces capable of projecting itself to many trouble spots around the work but, woefully inadequate to defend Britain itself. The army was mercilessly cut down in its conventional large foe capability and, out of necessity, appeasement became central to defence strategy in order to buy time and put the mistake right.

We cannot allow Britain's armed forces to become more capable of intervening in other parts of the world than of defending the UK itself. Whilst some threats can and must be dealt with far from Britain, others cannot be; that is one prediction that history can show us as a repetitive fact.

Perhaps before we decide 'how we defend' we need to revisit and establish what the defence of Britain, her territories and interests, really means. Only then will we have an all encompassing strategy with miltary and civilian bodies united in common goals.

Bob Ainsworth....Cretin

Having just listened to Bob Ainsworth and Liam Fox on the today programme, discussing Brown's announcement in Basra yesterday, one can only deduce that Bob Ainsworth is a cretin.

There can be no doubt that Brown's 'troop reduction' statement was timed to coincide with the tory conference and more specifically the defence speech by Liam Fox. Brown was well aware of the timings of the conference and therefore any decision to make his announcement at that time was therefore deliberate.

Will Brown stop at nothing to tighten his rains on power? He talks of a new kind of politics but from what has been seen so far it looks more like one party state politics.

A new prime minister the same old neglect

Brown seems to be in complete denial about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the last four years he has tried to disassociate himself with Blair's unpopular foreign interventions, keeping himself untainted, ready for his power grab, but surely now as leader of the country he has to get his hands dirty?

Apparently not.

Britain now has a war leader that doesn't even acknowledge there is a war.

His strategy seems to be to ignore Iraq until the troops are out -regardless of the extra dangers those in theatre face as the numbers decline.

As for Afghanistan the under commitment seems set to continue. After all, as Chancellor Brown did little to ensure the army was given extra resources.

Whatever happened to the responsibilty that was supposed to go with power?

Blair's call for national debate on defense

Blair has now called for a national debate on the future and nature of Britain’s armed forces and their role in the world.

So let’s get this straight. The armed forces have been asked to do more than they were 15 years ago, but on substantially less than they had 15 years ago. However, as soon as it becomes apparent that either spending will have to rise or the stretch will turn to snap it is time for a national debate. This seems to be an excuse to delay increasing spending whilst trying to look sympathetic to the predicament that the forces are in. It is political buck passing.

What is there really to debate?

The sums are very simple. If politicians want to collect the peace dividend when threats are considered removed (as was considered the case at the end of the cold war) then equally they must recognize that when new threats arise or new commitments are undertaken there must be a corresponding increase in investment.

The armed forces are overstretched NOW and action needs to start now to rectify this. The nuclear stalemate meant that Nato was very unlikely to go to war with the Soviet Union and yet Britain spent more on defense as part of GDP during the cold war than it has since. However, real operations have significantly and consistently increased since the end of the cold war. Very rarely has Britain demandedso much from so few.

At least defense is now on the national agenda and it is an issue that needs to be taken extremely seriously.

We live in a dangerous world and even if Blair style 'interventionism' is curtailed, threats to Britain's security are real and increasing. Capabilities to deal with the challenges of today are simply not enough. We need extra capacity to meet threats that have yet to arise and which will not afford us luxury of planning time when they do.

Least overstreched?

That the National Audit Office can claim that the Army is the least overstretched of the services simply because they are the least under staffed is false to say the least.

Has it ever occured to them that the 'desired' establishment might itself be too low?

At last a general worthy of command

General Sir Richard Dannatts interview in the Daily Mail has stated that Britain needs to withdraw its troops from Iraq sometime soon as their presence is only making the security situation worse.

That Dannatt is prepared to put his own career on the line for the sake of those he commands shows that at last the armed forces have a worthy leader. The government will no doubt be furious and accuse the general of stepping over the line by publicly voicing his opinions. He will be accused of trying to subvert the will of a democratically elected government.

So is the general right to voice his opinion publicly? Yes, he is absolutely right.

Firstly, he is right to speak out because he has a obligation to serve those he commands and to protect the effectiveness of the armed forces.

Secondly, he is justified because the government have already broken the traditional relationship between themselves and the army; they have abused the position of the army and its traditional subservience. The government politicized the public rhetoric of the army. They have turned the army's spokespersons into mouthpieces for government policy, even though they never gave the army what it needed to effectively carry out those policies. They have also used the army as a shield to defend the Iraq policy by implying that those who criticized were unsupportive of our service personnel. In short the government have exploited and betrayed our armed forces and as such cannot expect the relationship to be respected by the army either.

The objective of the army has never been met with sufficient resources and that the general now favors a withdrawal shows that he believes its unlikely to be. There were never enough troops to provide security even when the insurgents were small in number. Due to our lack of manpower those few created a larger phenomenon and any attempt to counter it now would only be too little, too late.

We now need to learn the lessons and look to the future. We must make sure that not only are our armed forces equipped with a lethal cutting edge but also that their number are great enough to cope with the countless operations to come. The days of politicians demanding so much from so few must end. Wartime armies aren't cheap and they aren't small.