Military matters

David Cameron is not as keen on fighting wars as Tony Blair. His hesitancy is born out of respect for the military. The last decade saw the British government fight five wars on a peacetime budget, thereby stretching the military to (and often beyond) breaking point. The cost of this was avoidable deaths and inevitable defeats. A few hundred troops on patrol in Basra were never going to pacify a city of three million. Without a surge in Sangin, the troops were left to be picked off. The defence review, due in October, comes at a crucial juncture for Britain as we decide our place in the world.

Around that time, Sir David Richards is expected to take up his post as chief of the defence staff, succeeding the inadequate Jock Stirrup. It would be, for Mr Cameron, a brave appointment. After being made head of the army, Sir David went on record saying that he envisages staying in Afghanistan for 40 years, and that the country ‘has entered my bloodstream’. Mr Cameron made it clear that he wants it out of his bloodstream before the next election. So why choose someone with clout and eloquence who may be political trouble? For a simple reason: this Prime Minister, unlike his predecessor, values ability before obeisance.

Sir David will take no pleasure in the biggest part of his job: wielding an axe over the military. Like Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, he believes that perceived defeat in Afghanistan will be calamitous for Britain’s status as a world power, badly damaging our ability to speak softly while carrying a big stick. If we have to hand over to an American military with greater equipment and resolve, our enemies will be emboldened. The world would become more dangerous.

In this era of austerity, there is a possibility that the Ministry of Defence will suffer the 25 per cent cuts that George Osborne warned about in the Budget.