Alphen, Netherlands. 30
June. In responding to the terrible events in Tunisia in which thirty or more
Britons were gunned down on Friday Prime Minister David Cameron talked of an
existential struggle, a generational struggle.
And yet he seems to completely under-estimate the scale of the challenge
posed by Islamic State, the Caliphate which was established a year ago this
week and the strategic Islamism they champion.
He also refused to state the blindingly obvious; Islamic State will need
to be defeated in the field BEFORE it can be defeated on our streets. That means
armed forces that must have the capability and the capacity to go back and
fight in the Middle East.
So, why does strategic
Islamism, and in particular IS, pose an existential threat (note the use of
Islamism not Islamic, which is a vital distinction)? First, strategic Islamism threatens to
destroy the state system across the Middle East with enormous political and
humanitarian implications. Second, strategic
Islamism reaches deep into now complex European societies. Third, there is no
doubt that IS would seek to gain and use mass destructive and disruptive
weapons and technologies against open societies. Fourth, there is no conceivable political accommodation with IS.
Prime Minister Cameron
as ever says all the right things, but as ever does very little to back his
words with action. For example, my
well-placed sources tell me that Cameron is sympathetic to the need to rebuild
the British armed forces. However,
Chancellor (finance minister) George Osborne has made further cuts to the British
armed forces in the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) a
leitmotif for his fixation with achieving an arbitrary budget surplus by
2018-2019.
Osborne apparently told
Cameron that if he agrees to the NATO target of maintaining Britain’s defence budget
at 2% GDP then he can “say goodbye to the budget surplus”. Osborne has even threatened
to resign if the coming Review does not confirm further swingeing cuts to Britain’s
forces. Worse, those around Osborne in
the Treasury by and large adhere to the end of history nonsense believing there
to be no real need to the world’s fifth largest economy and Permanent Member of
the UN Security Council to have powerful armed forces.
Rather, they believe
that a mix of strong intelligence services, an intrusive state and extended
policing can contain the Islamist threat within Britain, allied to the constant
downplaying of the threat posed by strategic Islamism. For example, a very well-informed contact of
mine tells me that far from there being 700 British ‘fighters’ in Syria and
Iraq there are some 2000 and that some 1000 have recently returned to Britain.
This is strategic illiteracy at its dangerous worst, especially when one considers
such retreat against the backdrop of a rapidly rearming, aggressive Russia.
Consequently, the armed
forces are forced to perform political fig-leaf operations. Cameron likes to say that Britain is the
second most active member of the anti-IS coalition. In fact, the US carries out some 94% of all
operations. Given the caution of the
Obama administration and the extremely lukewarm commitment of America’s allies
(both within and without the region) the entire strategy upon which the
coalition is founded has become fundamentally flawed with no real link between
the strategic objective of defeating IS and the forces and resources committed. Local fighters are incapable of defeating IS
in the field which now has at its command resources that increasingly give it
the appearance of a state.
The result is that IS
continues to cultivate the myth of military invincibility which makes it so
attractive to the aggrieved, the marginalised and the fanatical across both the
region, Europe and the wider world.
Therefore, until IS is defeated in the field and if needs be by a ground
force with Western troops to the fore then the allure of IS well beyond Syria
and Iraq will only grow.
Critically, Cameron has
to ask himself a profound question and for once honestly answer it; which is
the most important struggle – reducing national debt or fighting strategic
Islamism. If he is to honestly answer
that question Cameron will also for once have to take a strategic position
rather than a political position and with other European leaders stop running
scared from the memory of Afghanistan and Iraq. That means recommitting Britain
to fight the very existential struggle he proclaims with an existential mind-set
whatever the near-term political costs.
It is as though Winston Churchill had said in 1940 that Britain was
determined to fight Nazism, but only if it did not exacerbate the national debt.
First, Cameron must
commit more of Britain’s forces to the struggle and end the ridiculous
constraint by which IS can only be attacked in Iraq not Syria. Second, he must stop playing political games
with Britain’s defences, particularly the capacity of Britain’s armed forces to
undertake sustained operations. Given
the current threats ‘maintaining’ the NATO target of 2% GDP on defence simply
by cooking the books is a dereliction of duty.
Folding the aid budget, intelligence and the nuclear deterrent into the defence
budget simply to give the appearance of 2% in fact represents a massive cut to
the operational forces and their ability to act.
Finally, if an
increasingly obsessive George Osborne refuses to realise the world has moved on
since 2010 and that his fixation with his arbitrary budget surplus is in fact
yesterday’s struggle then he must be removed from office. If not Britain and indeed the wider coalition
will go on fighting strategic Islamism with one hand tied behind its back and
the only winner will be IS.
Prime Minister Cameron
made a solemn promise to avenge Friday’s victims by dealing with the threat at
source. To do so he must help defeat IS
in the field. Anything less and yet
again words will be seen as hollow as the promises he made yesterday to the victims.
Julian Lindley-French
