THE head of the British Army has foreshadowed the biggest change in fighting tactics since the cavalry was phased out in favour of tanks more than 80 years ago.
General Sir David Richards, the chief of the general staff, wants more troops, unmanned spy planes and high-tech cyber-defences to be paid for by slashing the budget for ships and fighter jets.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Richards said the UK's armed forces were facing a new "horse versus tank moment" to cope with the challenges of modern warfare. The success of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and the emerging threat of cyber-attacks against Britain's infrastructure made radical change unavoidable. "People say I'm only talking about war with non-state actors [such as the Taliban]," said Richards. "I'm not. I'm saying this is how even war between states is more likely to be fought in the future."
The general's views, particularly his call for fewer ships, aircraft and even tanks, may put him on a collision course with other armed forces chiefs. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the head of the navy, recently argued that the focus on Afghanistan risked leaving Britain exposed to other threats.
Richards, however, compared his critics to the cavalry officers who insisted, long after the introduction of the tank in the first world war, that it would never replace horses.
Advertisement
He believes today's opponents of change underestimate the way in which Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban, combined with the growing sophistication of cyber-terrorists, have rewritten the rules of war. "We've been in denial ever since the end of the cold war," he said. In the two decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military has fought a succession of stabilisation or counterinsurgency operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan.
"But in our heart of hearts, we thought that was an aberration and we'd go back to jolly old war-fighting like in the western desert or a hot version [with battle lines drawn] of the cold war."
With a defence review set to follow a spring general election, Richards will expand on his views tomorrow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
"Some are waiting for a conventional invasion of uniformed troops, ready to be repulsed by heavy armour or ships," he said. However, with few countries capable of spending the billions required to challenge America and its Nato allies in a conventional war, the general believes such attacks are less likely.
Instead, countries opposed to Britain and the US will have seen from Basra and Helmand "that for relatively little cost, unsophisticated opponents with very cheap weaponry" can pose big threats. Some 249 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2001.
Advertisement
"Why would you not learn a lesson from that and think, 'Actually, that's how I would bring down great nations and great alliances, much more subtly, cleverly and at much less risk'?"
Richards is adamant Britain will still need ships, aircraft and tanks - but fewer. What will be required are more soldiers, more helicopters to carry them and more unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, capable of revealing enemy locations.
Richards said he lived in "the real world" and envisaged significant spending cuts in the defence review - but argued that good soldiers were far cheaper to maintain than ships and aircraft.
"My instinct as a soldier is that you'll need quality manpower," he said. "Soldiers give you the most choice and the most utility in today's sort of conflict."
Richards said technological advances also mean that Britain will need to develop better defensive and offensive measures to ward off cyber-attacks, possibly from state sponsors such as China and Russia.
Advertisement
Whatever the outcome of the defence review, Richards is adamant that Britain and its allies must succeed in Afghanistan. He also played down concerns expressed by some UK commanders that they might be forced to give up parts of Helmand, such as Sangin or Musa Qala, to the US troop surge.
"While the Americans are going in in such quantity, there's no point in us hanging on to something simply because we've got an affection for it," he said.
"Success in Afghanistan would demonstrate our commitment to the organisations - Nato and the UN - that have guaranteed peace for more than half a century. Defeat would act as a match, lighting a fuse that could set light to parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, bringing down governments and undermining peace around the world," Richards said.