Military men are supposed to be good at fighting. Right now, with Britain at war, it may sit uneasily in some stomachs that the figures at the very top of our military are expending such energy in fighting each other.
The battlefield is cuts. At an evening event on Monday, General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the General Staff, publicly called for the preservation of infantry boots on the ground, at the expense of more expensive tanks, ships and aircraft. Yesterday, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, responded with a speech at a breakfast, pointing out that an investment in large-scale naval hardware offers Britain the potential for the projection of power across the globe. Next, it will doubtless be the turn of Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the Chief of the Air Staff, to make the case for air power. Perhaps at some kind of brunch.
The public nature of all this may seem undignified. As the heads of their respective Services, nonetheless, each man has both a right and a duty to argue his corner. According to projections by the Royal United Services Institute, budget cuts of 10-15 per cent in real terms should be expected over the next six years. Most likely, this would mean personnel cuts of more than 30,000, and around 20 per cent fewer ships, aircraft and ground units. Exact details will not be known until the next Strategic Defence Review, which all parties agree must take place after the election.
Indeed it must. But this delay is being used, by both major parties, as an excuse to enter the election with an effective non-manifesto on one of the most important issues that any government must address — the defence of the realm.
It is easy to diagnose a failure of leadership at the top of the Armed Forces, in the way that negotiations have descended into hustings. But another failure must be diagnosed among their political counterparts — the Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth for the Labour Party and his Shadow Liam Fox for the Conservatives — in their failing to allow the British electorate any say about what sort of power Britain is to be.
Advertisement
Both men, admittedly, may find their hands tied by their respective political bean-counters, Alistair Darling and George Osborne, both of whom are wary of specific spending pledges. In the next strategic review, nonetheless, the Armed Forces will endure the most savage cuts for at least a generation. Whichever party wins the next election, there are huge decisions in the offing. Britain’s four Vanguard submarines (which launch Trident) are due to be retired in 2019. Will they be refitted or replaced? How many will there be? Eighteen months ago, the MoD signed a contract for two 65,000-tonne supercarriers for the Royal Navy, at a cost of £3.9 billion. This is a project that this newspaper has supported. Is it to survive, even while British troops are involved in a land war, at a time of stretched resources?
Some argue that reform could be bolder, that Britain’s tradition of three separate Services is archaic, and that one combined Service, in the mould of the US Marines, would be more suitable. Such decisions should form the centrepiece of an election. Thus far, from both parties, we have only hints and deferral.
Once could argue that now is a time for defence spending to increase as a percentage of GDP, rather than for it to decline. Where there are cuts, there is much debate to be had over where they should fall. This is a debate in which, over the coming months, this newspaper will have much to say. It should not just fall to us.
As much as anything, the next election should be a national security election. That both parties could enter it with a manifesto void in place of their military policy is worse than undemocratic. It is shocking.