OUR POLITICAL LEADERS seem to want their cake and eat it. They need to be taken seriously on the world stage while reducing our defence budget at the same time.
It was Douglas Hurd who once boasted that we punched above our weight as a nation now in the third rank of nations. He was of course right; we were indeed regarded as a nation with a contribution to make on the diplomatic world stage. But the words we uttered and the world that listened to them knew that we had what was regarded as the finest professional army in the world backing those words up. It was small in numbers, but like our rhetoric, it also punched above its weight.
It did so in the Falklands and gave immeasurable kudos to the politicians and the nation internationally. In Kosovo, it was the British army that took the lead in entering what was then regarded as a highly dangerous part of the world. We led the charge despite the scare stories about the formidable fighting prowess of the Serbs and yes, the inevitable comparisons with Vietnam.
Even if you, as many of you did, disagreed with our part in the Iraq War, or with our part (still being played out) in Afghanistan; you must all agree that the British army has punched well above its weight in both conflicts, and have done so despite the politicians.
LAST WEEK DAVID CAMERON offered up the possibility of a no fly zone over western Libya to protect those opposing the deranged colonel. But he quickly played down his suggestion as it became clear that our allies were none too keen on the venture. It was a show of bravado that irked the British people after being told that we were about to lose Ark Royal, our squadrons of Harrier jets, and 10,000 of our servicemen and women. While the numbers of our young pilots in training is being halved as well as other military equipment such as tanks and intelligence gathering aircraft.
The irony may have been lost on Cameron but it certainly filtered into the conscience of the British people within seconds of him proffering the possibility of such action against Libya.
Politicians are vain enough to believe that it is their pearls of wisdom and those alone that gain the attention and respect of other nations. But if there is no variant of the big stick backing up the warnings and threats they make, then they will be either pitied or ignored.
The EU knows this, which is why the leaders of so many member states are trying to create a European army. Even Douglas Hurd knew that words were not enough, for if they were not taken seriously where do you turn without a military capability?
Politicians have for centuries mauled our armed forces whenever they have put the country in financial straits. But to pretend, as Cameron did last week, that we could still carry on as if nothing had happened with the defence review that could limit our capacity to act upon the words of our politicians is as delusional as Gadaffi.
When I heard of David Cameron’s no fly zone suggestion, I felt insulted by it. For was not HMS Cumberland about to embark from Malta to Benghazi to rescue British subjects on her way home to the scrap yard?
The front of the man left me almost speechless. He was pulling a Blair but without the means Blair had at his disposal to back up his words.
AS I LOOK OVER THE past two decades at the growing failure of our public institutions and their qualitative decline as professional bodies; whether they be the civil service at national and regional level, or our education system at all levels: the one public body that has maintained and improved upon its professionalism has been our armed forces. Now our political leaders, not content with diminishing the standards in almost every territory of the public service, now wish to turn their attention to the one success story in the whole miserable public sector story.
Our politicians will soon find out (possibly when it is to late) that in the 21st century this country’s defences are as important today as they have always been.
When we embark upon a defence review it is supposed to be based upon what problems we may face in the future and to adapt our forces accordingly. But there is a suspicion that such reviews have come to be regarded by the politicians as a means by which they can reduce whatever deficit they have managed to create while in office.
I do not believe for one moment that the current defence review is calculated upon our future military needs - but rather on our current economic ones.
What the Coalition are presently engaged upon is wholesale public expenditure cuts; and I would at least respect this Coalition if they would own up to the fact that the cuts in the defence budget have little bearing on the future needs of our armed forces, but on the financial needs of the country…just let us stop pretending the opposite.
When David Cameron took office as prime minister he promised to ring fence spending on the NHS and overseas aid. I can understand the case for putting the NHS before defence spending; but the overseas aid budget?
The overseas aid budget costs the taxpayer between £7-8 billion a year. Would someone please tell me why the defence of our nation is secondary to overseas aid? The politicians are spending public money as if it were their own. They gather the public’s taxes in like a harvest and spend them as if they had personally tilled the soil for them.
NO POLITICIAN CAN DENY THAT the overwhelming majority of British people would put this country’s defences before overseas aid when it came to ridding their country of debt. But the politicians ignore such frailties of intellect among the people, supposing themselves better qualified to spend the electorates money.
The people of this country have their own priorities, priorities which, in a democracy, should be listened to and acted upon. If there is to be ring-fencing to protect necessary services, then defence surely takes precedence over the aid budget in times of economic restraint.
Does David Cameron think so poorly of his people that he does not see them worthy of such a priority over other nations? Especially when it comes to their defence.
No comments:
Post a Comment