Stop the cuts and boost the military’s strength

Seven years of relentless cost-cutting have damaged our ability to counter a resurgent Russia or China

Looking at the current parlous state of our Armed Forces, the old aphorism about military leaders always fighting the last war comes readily to mind. Only, this time, it is the military that is alert to the likely threats we will face in future years, and the politicians who appear out of step with a fast-changing world.

In the past few days a number of highly qualified military professionals on both sides of the Atlantic have broken cover to warn of the radical changes now taking place to the global threat environment, and the wretched unpreparedness of the Western democracies to deal with them.

In Washington, James Mattis, the US secretary of defence, says that resurgent military powers like Russia and China pose a more serious threat than terror groups such as al-qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), and the US military must be restructured to reflect this.

This sentiment has been echoed in London by a number of former and serving senior officers. Lord Houghton of Richmond, the former head of Britain’s military, used his maiden speech in the House of Lords to make the same point, warning that the Government must be prepared to tackle the new challenges to our wellbeing – an argument that received warm support from other members of the Upper House.

General Sir Nick Carter, the Army chief, has been even more explicit, arguing that recent defence cuts have raised serious questions about Britain’s ability to tackle Russian aggression.

As if to emphasise the gravity with which senior officers view our current predicament, Lord Dannatt, another former Army chief, contacted me from holiday in the southern hemisphere to offer his unequivocal support for the views expressed by Sir Nick, in particular those pertaining to “the dire state of our defence budget”.

So why the sudden explosion of concern? For Britain, it is a reflection of deepening alarm within military circles that the Government appears more concerned with balancing the books at the Ministry of Defence than making sure the military is fit for purpose.

It is not just the damage caused to our war-fighting capabilities by the seven years of relentless cuts that have been imposed on the military since David Cameron entered Downing Street in 2010. It is the fear that these meagre resources could be reduced even further if, in order to meet current spending targets, the Government insists on more cuts. Among the options said to be under consideration by the Capabilities Review being conducted by Sir Mark Sedwill, the National Security Adviser, are further cuts to the size of the Army, reducing the strength of the Royal Marines or cutting the number of available operational warplanes and warships.

This Government’s profound misunderstanding of the vital role the military has to play in the defence of the realm can be seen in the way Sir Mark’s review has been constituted. The idea was that he reviews Britain’s full spectrum of defence capabilities in the round, including the contribution made by the intelligence services, as well as “soft power” options such as overseas aid. Consequently, the military would be reduced in status, becoming just one of the 12 strands of national security contributors.

The idiocy of this proposition has, belatedly, been accepted in Whitehall, and the Government has now conceded that defence will have its own separate review. But just because the Government has been forced to admit the primacy of the military’s role in defending the realm, it does not mean Downing Street and the Treasury will cease with their quest for more “efficiencies” – budget cuts to you and me.

Ever since the Tories came to power in 2010, the Government’s primary objective on defence has been to save money. This quest, moreover, has been made easier by the ideological reasoning underpinning many of the decisions relating to defence spending, which can best be summed up as: “Can’t fight, won’t fight.”

The unpopularity of the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has led many senior ministers to conclude that Britain’s interests are best served by not involving itself in any more large-scale overseas military interventions. And when it is obliged to act, then it will use only the bare minimum of military force, as has been the case in the recent campaign against Isil in Iraq and Syria. The drastic cuts implemented in recent years certainly mean that the military would be challenged to mount a more robust response.

Such a hands-off approach might work against rag-tag terror groups such as Isil and al-qaeda, but they are unlikely to prevail against sophisticated military powers such as Russia and China.

So, rather than preparing another round of defence cuts to fill the Treasury coffers, the Government should instead be urgently looking at ways to strengthen our Armed Forces to deal with the very real threats now looming on our horizon.