Military

Recent wars have given rise to an unusual phenomenon in British civil-military relations: frequent, and often high-profile interventions, by serving or recently retired senior military officers in public debates. The latest has been the intervention of Britain’s chief naval officer, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, who questioned the Navy’s ability to sustain the Libya campaign. Different prime ministers have dealt with this kind of outspokenness in different ways. Tony Blair was too weak to rein in Army chief Sir General Richard Dannatt, while Gordon Brown did not have the credibility, vis-à-vis the military, to do so either. David Cameron is different. He is at the height of his powers and determined

Last night, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said that the aircraft carrier and the jump-jets that were scrapped in last year’s strategic defence review would have made the mission in Libya more effective, faster and cheaper. His comments follow Robert Gates’ assertion that Britain and France were struggling to lead the Libyan operation without substantial American support. It follows, in the mind of Stanhope at least, that defence cuts are impeding Britain’s military capability. This morning, Rear Admiral Parry (rtd) supported Stanhope. He told the Today programme: “I believe that he should have said that the Strategic Defence and Security Review was flawed – it defied strategic

Robert Gates may be one of the best defence secretaries the United States has had in modern times. But in slamming European allies, like he did in Brussels on Friday, he was wrong. I have since long upbraided Europeans for under-investment in defence capabilities and making the wrong kind of investments. And defence expert Tomas Valasek published a fine pamphlet a few weeks ago, showing how European governments could do more for less, including by cooperating better. But they chose not to. This is not only foolish — as we live in an uncertain world where the ability to defend territory, trade, principles and people is paramount — but it

Britain’s former envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, has written an op-ed about NATO’s coming withdrawal from Afghanistan in this morning’s Times (£). The unspoken analysis is that: having failed to defeat the Taliban unconditionally in battle, it will be hard to secure peace and stability. Like Matt Cavanagh, who wrote an extensive report on the situation in Afghanistan for Coffee House last week, Cowper-Coles says that NATO is split between ‘shooters’, who perpetually ask for one more ‘big push’, and politicians, who are seeking negotiated settlement and military drawdown. Cowper-Coles gives a diplomatic angle, arguing that NATO must first prove it is serious about peace if the Taliban are to

Since last week’s attack on Yemen’s President Saleh and his subsequent flight, Sana’a has been on the cusp of anarchy. Perhaps as many 400 people were killed in riots last week and the killing continues. Western diplomatic services fear for the safety of their citizens in Yemen. The MoD has been preparing contingencies. Forces and materiel deployed in the Libya are moving east. Two fleet auxiliary ships, equipped with helicopters and landing craft, and 80 Royal Marines have been stationed off the Yemeni coast. Should the 800 or so British nationals in Yemen need to be evacuated, the marines will secure a bridgehead. A further detachment, currently on exercises in

The speech was not a classic but Barack Obama’s address to both Houses of Parliament covered the bases today. He started with a winning line, remarking that the previous three speakers in Westminster Hall had been the Pope, the Queen and Nelson Mandela which is either “a very high bar or the beginning of a very funny joke.”   As is traditional in these kinds of speeches, Obama paid tribute to the special relationship, lauding it as the embodiment of the values and beliefs of the English-speaking tradition. He went on to say that both the British and the Americans knew that the “longing for human dignity is universal.” Indeed,

I suppose you could call it an O-turn. First, the Prime Minister declared, in a speech aboard HMS Ark Royal last year, that a new military covenant would be enshrined “into the law of our land.” Then, there seemed to be a U-turn, with the government committing only to review the covenant annually, not to lend it legal force. Yet, now, a U-turn on the U-turn, with the news that it will be etched into the staute books after all. The defence minister Andrew Robathan tells today’s Telegraph that, “we are putting the military covenant on a statutory basis for the first time.” The formal announcement is expected in the