Alphen,
Netherlands. 19 November. Last week, General Sir David Richards, Britain’s
Defence Chief said, “We have a whole load of tasks expected of us. Our
political masters are quite happy to reduce the size of the Armed Forces, but
their appetite to exercise influence on the world stage is, quite
understandably, the same as it has always been”. Implicit in Sir David’s
statement is a fear that the British Government could be about to make the
greatest strategic error since the Suez fiasco in 1956, by implicitly and
effectively abandoning Britain’s strategic partnership with the US through
further defence cuts and insisting London can build a new defence relationship
with Europeans, many of whom are cutting their armed forces to the point of
extinction. It would be strategic illiteracy at its very worst reducing Britain
to the third rank of defence actors and critically undermining wider strategic
influence. Therefore, Britain needs a new Defence Covenant with a commitment
from both major political parties to spend at least 2% of GDP (and that means
real money) on defence for the next decade at least.
Britain
is of course facing difficult economic choices but it is precisely such moments
that coherent defence strategy is vital. Doing ever more with ever less is not
strategy. Just around the corner major crises lurk in the Middle East, North
Africa and beyond in which the British armed forces may not only be required to
act but given the strategic brand they still represent will underpin all other
tools of national influence. Moreover, defence expenditure in much of the world
beyond Europe is booming. The one thing this world will guarantee is strategic
surprise.
First,
Britain’s military strategy needs to be lifted above the current muddle which
still too often reflects an internal struggle between the services over money.
As Britain shifts emphasis post-Afghanistan from land to sea, driven by the
strategic choices being made by the Americans and the non-choices of Europeans,
a powerful Royal Navy will be critical to British strategy. And yet, in spite
of the two future super-carriers the Navy has only 19 serviceable surface ships
to operate and network across five domains; land, sea, air, space and cyber and
at least five oceans. The new Astutenuclear-attack
submarines are reputed to leak and are too slow, whilst the new Type-45
destroyers are too few in number. A reasoned balance also needs to be struck
between full-time and part-time forces. If the regular Army is cut again to
75,000 as is rumoured then placing so much responsibility for Britain’s future
operational élan on a new Reserve Army will be taking an enormous risk to say
the very least.
Second,
Europe’s great defence depression will lead Britain to rely more not less on
the Americans with NATO critical as a planning and command nexus between three
parties; North Americans and Europeans at very different levels of capability
and strategic partners critical to defence grand strategy. NATO, with Britain
and France at its core, will find itself the Atlantic wing of an American-led
Western grand strategy which will span the Pacific. However, to make NATO
Europe work London must lead by example and such strategy is only credible if
the British retain armed forces which are seen by Washington and others as
capable, adaptable, agile, sustainable, but above all powerful even if only
modest in size.
Now, with
vision and political and will all these problems can be fixed and the new
system made to work. And, given the equipment planned a powerful and affordable
future force is achievable. Therefore, the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security
Review must make an unequivocally clear statement of ambition to rebuild
Britain’s forces with funding to match. This will be the new Defence Covenant
underpinning a revised force plan that will seeFuture Force 2020 as merely a milestone en route to Future Force 2025and then Future Force 2030. What matters is a
clear force development strategy and no more cuts to the defence budget.
Cameron’s latest mantra is
that Britain is engaged in a global race. What about the defence race? The government claims it will
spend £160bn (c.$250bn) over the next ten years to rebuild the British armed
forces, and that having closed the £38 billion (c$60bn) black hole in Britain’s
defence budget money is coming available. However, the word is that the armed
forces will take a further hit in the next Comprehensive Spending Review.
Unfortunately, if London cuts the defence budget further not
only will Britain’s strategic future be in jeopardy, but with it NATO and the
alliance with the United States as London in effect chooses to tie itself
solely to a defenceless continental Europe in headlong retreat and given events
in the EU is fasting leaving Britain. History would not be kind. One deals with
uncertainty by dominating it with strategy and capability not by cutting and
prevaricating.
It is time for a new Defence Covenant and quickly.
Julian Lindley-French
