Stephen Pollard
Russia is probably the least of the threats posed to our stability because it is the most traditional and readable.
Yet because of these bizarre priorities we are now building aircraft carriers that don’t have aircraft, cutting troop numbers and ignoring equipment needs.
In 1985 we spent the same on defence as on health and education. Today we spend three times as much on health as defence and twice as much on education. Even without more cuts, defence spending will drop to 1.7 per cent of GDP by 2020. And with the main parties all saying they will protect aid, pensions and NHS spending, defence is a sitting target for further cuts.
No wonder that when David Cameron visited Washington in January President Obama told him the UK’s failure to keep spending at the Nato target of 2 per cent of GDP posed a huge threat to all of Nato.
According to one report, the President warned the Prime Minister that “if Britain doesn’t spend 2 per cent on defence, then no one in Europe will”. As of now, we are one of only four Nato members meeting the target.
Last year Mr Cameron demanded at the Nato summit in Wales that the other members step up their commitments. Which was, given that we are about to reduce our spending to 1.7 per cent, what one might politely call a cheek.
And this week General Raymond Odierno, the US army chief of staff, warned that in future British troops will be unable to contribute divisionstrength forces of more than 10,000 troops. That would mean our troops would have to operate inside US units rather than alongside them. As he put it: “I would be lying to you if I did not say that I am very concerned about the GDP investment in the UK.”
Barely a day passes without news of some further defence challenge, whether it is from President Putin, IS, Iran’s possible nuclear weapons or, in another sphere altogether, China’s cyber- war against the West. For us to cut defence spending now is a betrayal not just of our history as a nation that looks beyond its own shores but, more pressingly, of our ability to defend ourselves.
Yes, we need to make cuts to overall spending. The deficit is still not under control and any government that emerges after the election will have to get a grip. But governing is about priorities and there is no greater priority than defending our nation. Worse, to cut defence spending at the same time as the aid budget is expanded with helter- skelter abandon is sheer madness.
FOR one thing, there is an alternative to stuffing growing amounts of cash into the pockets of the corrupt officials who divert so much of the money we send over as aid. As Frederick Forsyth has argued in these pages we could expand the Royal Army Medical Corps and the Royal Engineers. If they were to be employed under the aegis of our foreign aid budget they could bring their expertise and skill wherever it was needed – real aid, practical help, delivered with total trust while maintaining the number of British troops should they also be needed in combat.
If nothing changes we are heading for severely depleted armed forces and a bloated aid budget. Find me someone who thinks that’s a good idea and I’ll point you to a fool.
‘ Even Obama worries
about our military’