The Economist (London-based) has for a long time taken a mid-Atlantic viewpoint and this article is a curious mixture of insider views alongside a review of where the UK Army is. Nothing startling, indeed nothing new and much pasting of old stories.

The article asks two questions: Should the British continue to aspire to a global military role? And what sort of wars is the future likely to bring?

The first question has been repeatedly answered by successive UK governments, before and after the Cold War ended. The UK does not aspire to a global military role, it will act in concert with allies in many places (Former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan) and alone in very few places (Falklands and Sierra Leone). We will support the USA, but not always (our absence from Vietnam).

The second question has been discussed here before and no answer given has certainity.

I do find the closing paragraph of US concerns tiresome and is so typical of The Economist. Whatever the global outlook of the UK government there is no political will to spend larger amounts of treasure, nor accept a higher blood loss and public admiration aside - why are we in Afghanistan is the usual refrain in public and private discussions.

I understand the Royal Marine brigade in Helmand now have had a dozen dead (Wilf, apologies if wrong) and seven times that number disabled / unfit for further duty. That scale of loss is increasingly difficult to absorb, not my words, but an insider's.

My armchair comments

davidbfpo