The Guardian view on a UK citizen army: unpopular and unaffordable
Few will dispute that the international situation has darkened and is darkening. Neither Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nor the renewed Middle East conflict will end soon or conclusively. Across the Atlantic, a second Trump presidency is moving closer. As an era of peace ebbs, and with a widening prospect of an era of war, how should nations, including Britain, respond?
By being ready to mobilise against Russia, says the head of Britain’s army, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders. In a speech on Tuesday, Gen Sanders said that armed citizens still win modern wars, just as in the last century. Britain therefore needed to “train and equip” a new “citizen army” that would be ready to fight a land war against Russia. The current professional army, set to fall to 72,500 by 2025, is too small for that. Even a force of 120,000 would not be capable of fighting an all-out war. In the general’s view, it was not just desirable but essential for Britain to follow Sweden’s example and take “preparatory steps to place our societies on a war footing”.
This is dramatic language, as it is intended to be. Gen Sanders knows that this is an election year. He wants the political parties to hear him. He has complained about army cuts in the past. Now, six months before he is due to step down, he has done so again, more strikingly. His sense of urgency, although not all his proposals, also reflect real debate in military and defence circles, and not just in the UK. Britain’s armed forces minister, James Heappey, has spoken of the need to prepare a combined force of 500,000 troops and civilians.
This is all very well, but it faces two large and connected problems in the real world. A citizen army of any size could mean a conscript army. Britain’s military has only relied on conscription for about 25 years out of its more than 300-year history, and then only in times of highest national need. Is this such a moment? Many will be unpersuaded, to put it mildly. Postwar conscription was very unpopular and was ended in 1960. It would be at least as unpopular today, and political parties will be cautious in an election year. Rishi Sunak’s office was quick to reject such a move this week.
The separate but connected hurdle is competition for public spending. The army is less than half the size it was in 2000. Yet the spending tap cannot easily be turned on to reverse that decline. The economy today is stagnant, taxes high, and the public realm has been massively damaged by austerity. The case for tens of thousands of extra soldiers and trained civilians, and the kit to make them a credible threat, has to compete for resources with hospitals, care services, local government, schools and the green agenda, to name but a few. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned this week, current economic conditions mean that “all manner of policy problems will be more difficult to tackle and all manner of trade-offs will be more acute”.
None of this is an outright argument against some of what Gen Sanders is calling for. The international dangers are indeed mounting. Russia is a genuine threat, particularly to Poland and the Baltic and Nordic states. Deployable military numbers really matter. But rebuilding the public realm and fighting climate change are urgent too. The army chief is right to want more effective resources for the defence of European democracies. But he must take his place in the queue.