The British government’s plans set some things just but leave important issues unresolvedDefence is a moving target. The invariable aim is the security of the state and the protection of citizens,but circumstances, resources and threats change in such a way as to make any precise calibration of what is needed truly difficult. Add in the long development cycles of modern weaponry, and the vested interests of the defence industry,budgetary panics, and the shifts in the public mood which can constrain the employ of military force, or the wonder is not so much that we score it wrong but that we sometimes score it just. In Britain we certainly got it wrong in 2010 when we stripped out things we then belatedly realised we still needed,like maritime reconnaissance and some of our air squadrons – and then along came Russian penetration missions in or near our airspace, and we found it a strain to register our disapproval of these incursions in the normal way. We gave up our carrier capacity for a period of years, and carve manpower in all three services but particularly in the navy and air force. All this diminished our strength: the Falklands and Iraq missions would not be remotely possible nowadays.
Five years later the time has come for another strategic defence review. David Cameron presented it on Monday as if it was an innovatory response to the dangers of Isis in the Middle East and Russian assertiveness in eastern Europe. As a politician he can hardly be blamed for putting that slant on it. But in fact this review is not at all revolutionary. It proposes more investment in cyber defences,special forces, counter-terrorism work, or all obvious responses to recent threats and all already to some extent under way. It seeks to restore some of the conventional capacities unwisely removed in 2010,and it emphasises the need for mobile and flexible forces ready to go where needed at short notice.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com