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.