The eagle has landed
David Blackburn 11:19am
Shades of Jack Higgins in Whitehall this morning: the Prime Minister is convening the
furtive sounding National Security Council, which will be presented with initial drafts of strategic defence review. As Richard Norton-Taylor puts it, the government has the opportunity to be radical and make this a ‘horse versus tank
moment’, which is ironic given that the tank is poised to pass into obsolescence.
In truth, the drama is some way off; the government has delayed decisions rather than take them. The nuclear deterrent is not part of the review – the politics and economics of Trident’s replacement proving too contentious for the precious coalition. Personnel cuts are being resisted and extortionate procurement systems have not been addressed - althought that is probably within the remit of Lord Levene's Defence Reform Unit. Additionally, the service chiefs, hoping to deflect cuts to another arm, have exaggerated their operational reach: the navy, for instance, insists that it must operate Trident, that it must have a functioning carrier group and that it needs a new flotilla of destroyers and corvettes to combat piracy and international crime. I doubt that Nelson’s navy was so ubiquitous.
The rumours that the review is a cost cutting exercise, not a strategic overview, seem well founded. We’ve heard a lot about cuts, but we’re no closer to discovering how and where Britain’s military will be deployed in the future. It’s up to Fox, Osborne and Cameron to give some direction.
Previous
CmdKeen
September 28th, 2010 11:38am Report this commentThe navy of Nelson's era was ubiquitous, command of the sea was a British claim for centuries and reality for pretty much two hundred years, definitively so after Nelson.
And Britain reaped the benefits during that time, Geoffrey Hornby is reckoned to be one of the best Admirals the Royal Navy has ever produced yet he fought no great battle. He was the Victorian Admiral who allowed the navy to appear all over the world conducting British diplomacy and low intensity warfare everywhere.
The Army and politicians are deluded if they believe RAF claims that they can run the show from fixed airfields in friendly nations. Look at the horse trading that went on with places ending in Stan over airfield access for Afghanistan - the US spent billions in aid and turned a blind eye to massacres.
justathought
September 28th, 2010 11:38am Report this commentI beg to differ that the"nuclear deterrent is not part of the review".
Lets sincerely hope that they listen to the Generals as reported in yesterdays Guardian "General Sir David Richards, the former head of the army who will take over as chief of the defence staff once the outcome of the review is announced next month, has said we are at a "horse and tank" moment, referring to prolonged debates after the first world war. He has also warned of war by proxy – Russia and China engaging in cyberwarfare, for instance, rather than firing missiles at the west; of states using guerrilla, even terror, groups rather than their own people. The need for more unmanned drones and better intelligence gathering, as opposed to bombs, is obvious.
TrevorsDen
September 28th, 2010 2:44pm Report this commentIts absurd to think our navy can be even remotely like the post Trafalgar navy (a navy which struggled to contain the US navy in 1812).
Even America struggles with that role now.
The danger is that we fall between 2 stools. We provide a topping, a sham of available force, but we do not have the depth to support our aims.
Afternoon Snooze
September 28th, 2010 3:33pm Report this comment"The Navy insists that it must operate Trident".
Slightly unfair to criticise the Navy on this point. Until the politics and economics of Trident's replacement have been resolved, it would hardly seem sensible to ask the RAF or Army to operate a submarine deterrent.
Neil
September 28th, 2010 4:34pm Report this commentWith respect, arguably Nelson's navy was ubiquitous. It was the strategic deterrent to Napoleon (via Cornwallis), it was a strike fleet (via Nelson), it did conduct long range operations at the end of the enemy supply chain (The Peninsular War) and it was remarkably successful at the suppression of piracy.
This debate boils down to the old continental v maritime power debate and in truth historically control of the sea and air is more important to the UK than maintaining a large field army
TGF UKIP
September 28th, 2010 7:06pm Report this commentThye Tories have already ceded their reputation on economics and crime and now this over-hasty, Treasury driven defence review will almost certainly lead them to ceding the reputation as the party that can be most tusted with defence.
One day, quite soon, the Stupid Party is going to wake up to the reality of their 2005 gullibility.
Back to top