Three alternative views plus a cartoon
More commentary today, some good, some expected, you decide which they are.
Ex-Para officer, now a Labour MP:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...-cheap-britain
An ex-brigadier, now at IISS:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ighting-future
More a strategic comment by an academic:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/07/no-...-vital-organs/
Finally try this cartoon:http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/car...l-defence-cuts
Apologies my IT skills are not enough to cut & paste this into a post.
Farewell to our warrior nation
A scathing article by Max Hastings on the UK's defence policy; a taster:
Quote:
David Cameron’s Government is cutting the regular Army to its lowest manpower strength for centuries: 82,000. When the downsizing is complete, more than 20 per cent of our soldiers will have gone. I must confess that I am profoundly sceptical whether it will prove possible to recruit the 30,000 reservists the Defence Secretary promised this week.
Soon, we shall be capable of deploying only a single battlegroup of 7,000–8,000 men for sustained operations overseas. Compare this tiny force to the 35,000 troops deployed in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles in the 1970s, or the 30,000 military personnel sent to the First Gulf War in 1991.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...or-nation.html
Significant implications for US strategy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
Thanks for sharing David, and while I can emphasize with UK's concerns about whether this is enough capacity based on the current and projected security environment, in my opinion this has significant implications on US strategy also. We have been endeavoring more to pursue "shared" security responsibility with our allies and partners, but the reality is most of our allies and partners have very little capacity to share, and the trend in most cases is downsizing, while potential adversaries such as China and Russia are significantly increasing the size of their militaries, not to mention the continued instability throughout much of the world that we will feel compelled to stick our noses into.
For too long both the UK & USA have leaned on each other; with one major exception when each has used large-scale military force, respectively Suez and Vietnam. Often the UK has made strategic choices to act and since the end of 'The Cold War' intervene simply as the 'Special Relationship' was seen to be at risk if we didn't.
The USA, especially with the historically close military to military relationship, has looked for support from the UK - from the low profile to the high profile, mass support seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Westminster-Whitehall-Cheltenham circles the 'special relationship' is seen as (pause) embedded for ever.
As an aside the differences between the DoD and State Dept in the Falklands War are a good illustration of how this can alter the situation.
In a curious way the UK's downsizing of military capability could enhance 'smart power' and doing more with less for the USA. This I suspect explains why UK SOF and intelligence escaping downsizing (and a few other capabilities).
Politics though come first.
It is easy to see US officials and politicians asking if the UK and others will not share the burden, do we need to engage with them? Engagement of course takes many forms, two examples: intelligence sharing and sales of equipment.
This has happened before: with New Zealand after its stance on nuclear weapons (which has just ended), Canada when its military capability and will evaporated in the 1970's and there's France - with whom the USA has well, a different relationship.
The significant implication for US strategy? Shared and shallow relationships with new partners for the USA, rather than the in-depth embedded 'special relationship' with the UK.
In the interests of contrary views try this:http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.c...l-warrior.html