I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT LIAM FOX, the Minister of Defence, had any hand in the leaking of his letter to the PM. He is right to feel angry, and according to reports some thirty of the Met’s finest are at the MoD seeking to find out who the leaker is.
However Dr Fox’s views have hit the mark. What they show is that at last we have a minister in charge at the MoD who puts military considerations before any party political ones, which is more than could be said of Gordon Browns’ puppet at the ministry, Bob Ainsworth
The full content of Dr Fox’s letter is highly critical of George Osborn’s demands as far as the defence budget is concerned. Dr Fox realises that if he is forced to make the cross governmental cuts announced by the prime minister, then the defence of this country and its worldwide capability, which the Foreign Office depends upon to back up its diplomatic rhetoric, will disappear.
Dr Fox’s letter has nevertheless been published and reads as follows:
“Dear David,
We are nearing the culmination of the work we promised to deliver on our approach to national security; the NSC meeting tomorrow is a key opportunity to set out the risk and consequences of that work for our NSC colleagues. This is not a letter I am copying to others ahead of tomorrow's NSC but I wanted to let you know my views, which are shared by my ministerial colleagues.
Frankly this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR (Strategic Defence and Strategy Review) and more like a 'super CSR' (Comprehensive Spending Review).
If it continues on its current trajectory it is likely to have grave political consequences for us, destroying much of the reputation and capital you, and we, have built up in recent years. Party, media, military and the international reaction will be brutal if we do not recognise the dangers and continue to push for such draconian cuts at a time when we are at war.
I am very grateful to Peter Ricketts and Jeremy Heywood for the help they have given officials who have worked strenuously to bridge a gap that is, financially and intellectually virtually impossible. I am concerned that we do not have a narrative that we can communicate clearly.
On 22 July the NSC endorsed the 'Adaptable Britain' posture because we decided that it was impossible to predict what conflict or global security scenarios may emerge in the years ahead.
That meant ensuring the maintenance of generic defence capability across all three environments of land, sea and air - not to mention the emerging asymmetric threats in domains such as cyber and space -with sufficient ability to regenerate capability in the face of these possible future threats were it required.
How do we want to be remembered and judged for our stewardship of national security? We have repeatedly and robustly argued that this is the first duty of Government and we run the risk of having those words thrown back at us if the SDSR fails to reflect that position and act upon it.
I suggest we start tomorrow's discussion by asking whether we are really prepared to see Defence spending reduced to this level. The impact on capability, particularly in the maritime domain, would be more substantial than one might imagine from the paper.
Our decisions today will limit severely the options available to this and all future governments. The range of operations that we can do today we will simply not be able to do in the future. In particular, it would place at risk:
The reduction in overall surface ship numbers means we will be unable to undertake all the standing commitments (providing a permanent Royal Navy presence in priority regions) we do today.
Assuming a presence in UK waters, the Falklands and in support of the deterrent is essential we would have to withdraw our presence in, for example, the Indian Ocean, Caribbean or Gulf.
Deletion of the amphibious shipping (landing docks, helicopter platforms and auxiliaries) will mean that a landed force will be significantly smaller and lighter and deployed without protective vehicles or organic fire. We could not carry out the Sierra Leone operation again.
Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan.
Some risk to civil contingent capability, including but not limited to foot and mouth, fire-fighting strikes, fuel shortages, flu pandemics, Mumbai style attacks and the 2012 Summer Olympics
The potential for the scale of the changes to seriously damage morale across the Armed Forces should not be underestimated. This will be exacerbated by the fact that the changes proposed would follow years of mismanagement by our predecessors. It may also coincide with a period of major challenge (and, in all probability, significant casualties) in Afghanistan.
Even at this stage we should be looking at the strategic and security implications of our decisions. It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.
Yours
Liam Fox
SUCH A LETTER WOULD BE OF little significance to an Old Labour government determined on a course of restricting the military capability of these Isles in the interests of international brotherhood. But for a supposedly Conservative government to demand such a decline in our nation’s defence spending, while ring-fencing oversees aid is not only bizarre but dangerous to this nation’s defence; which is what historically, has been the politician’s priority.
The number one priority for any conservative should be the country’s national defence. It may challenge Health and Education, but should never be put before Oversees Aid, which this so-called Conservative Party has chosen to do.
We are entering unsettled times, when we will rely once more on our armed services. I think it almost criminal for politicians (especially Tory ones) to contemplate cuts to our nation’s defences under the fraudulently named Strategic Defence and Strategy Review. As Dr Fox rightly suggests it is taking the form of Comprehensive Spending Review. It will not be the first time that politicians have deliberately confused the two in order to make cuts to the nation’s defences.
When the last government said it was commissioning two modern aircraft carriers I told myself I would believe it when I saw them. At the time I thought that it would be the government who announced them that would cancel them. But it now looks as if it will be a Coalition government, half of it calling itself Conservative, who will seal the fate of these two vessels.
Necessary cuts, as those to be announced by the Coalition certainly are necessary, but should be subjected to priorities, starting with the nation’s defences. Having rightly ring-fenced health as a priority, surely the nation’s defence comes second, before oversees aid, which has also been ring-fenced.
I would not want defence spending to be ring-fenced if it meant the MoD carrying on as normal; the department is overmanned and wasteful. The MoD’s procurement record is a national disgrace. Projects are overrun not by weeks or months, but years. In some cases, the technology is out of date by the time it is eventually deployed, at a cost overrun amounting to billions of pounds. On top of which the MoD buys British regardless of cost and effectiveness in order to protect British jobs. This may be patriotic but it slows down advances and, in some cases, renders them out of date by the time they are deployed, while short-changing our servicemen and women to the point where (in extremis) lives are lost.
Billions can be cut from defence; maybe not by as much George Osborn would like, but it must not be, and need not be cut, from the front line of any of our three services.
I am sorry to keep harping on about oversees aid, but I find it incredulous that when ring-fencing departmental spending is talked of, that oversees aid should be given priority over this nation’s defence.
Dr Fox spells out admirably the cost to this nation of its ability to defend itself as well as to its prestige that such cuts demanded would mean. Not only would they impact upon our country’s defences, but what pull would the Foreign Office have in the world if its backbone were allowed to be weekend? For there is no doubt that it is this nation’s military capacity that gives us a diplomatic presence on the world stage.
We punch above our weight, not because of the diplomatic sophistry of the Foreign Office, but because our diplomacy, if required, can backed up by our armed forces. Be it in alliance with NATO in Afghanistan, or on our own as with the Falklands.
THE GREATEST MISTAKE any leader of any nation can make, is to underestimate the times in which they live. George Osborn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is hell bent on his own crusade of personal achievement. His cause of financial rectitude is both just and much needed, but his judgement is wrong. Ultimately, our chancellor will one day hope to become prime minister, and what he does in the coming years will either destroy, or make that ambition a reality.
Dr Fox, on the other hand, has not underestimated the times in which he or we live and, as a true Tory, is thinking of this nation’s defensive capabilities. We are an island that has historically, almost uniquely, had to rely upon our navy. There has never been any safe time in which to live for our nation. We are, as an island nation, dependent upon our navy; we are also well regarded as a military nation, dependent upon our army; we, as an island nation that was nearly overcome from the skies in 1940, are permanently dependent upon the RAF.
This country’s defence is the bottom line. It is there when all else fails. Our defence capability is ultimately the measure of this nation’s survival. If we fall short we will, sooner or later, become captives of some other nation, as befell Poland, Holland and France 70 years ago.
A nations defences are what has historically kept them a nation. If we forget this fact of history then we deserve Mr Osborn’s premiership. But perhaps this Coalition, like the last government, is seeking to wean us off of nationalism and make us a province of Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment