Defence of the Realm

So there we have it, this coalition government's strategic and financial thinking for the future.  I stress 'financial' because, as I have written before, armed strength grows, or withers, on the strength of one's treasury.  We're skint and our ability both to defend these islands and project our power abroad is thereby diminished.  Of course, beyond platitudes, most MPs and indeed, most people, do not really care that much about defence matters, it is only in the immediate threat of 'incoming' that minds are concentrated.  It was indicative of the parochial importance MPs attached to Cameron's statement that so many of the questions, from all sides, were concerned with jobs and prosperity in garrison or defence industry towns, almost as though the armed services were an adjunct to social services.  It was this sort of gutter politics which drove 'Jock McBrown' and his Scottish Labour mafia, under threat from their own particular deadly enemy, the Scots Nats, to place orders for the new carriers with Clydeside shipbuilders when they could have been bought cheaper and delivered earlier if made elsewhere.  Proof of that was seen a few days ago when Cunard took delivery of the new Queen Elizabeth liner, a veritable floating city - made in Italy.

The actual Strategic Review had its good points but what was really needed, in my view, was a Grand Strategic Review, by which I mean a fundamental analysis of Britain's place in the world and what it can reasonably achieve with such assets as it possesses.  In this sort of enquiry I would keep the number of senior officers and MoD officials to a minimum and increase the quantity and quality of economists, historians and independent defence analysts capable of providing a cold, clear, geo-political view of our nation's requirement and abilities. Don't hold your breath!

However, we have what we have and by and large it seemed a reasonable effort to confine military ambitions to financial realities, something the previous crooks and spivs failed miserably to do, or even try to do.  Kicking the Trident programme into the long grass of the next parliament is an admission of weakness in the coalition which cannot rely on the milksops in the Lib-Dem party.  I would suggest, tentatively, that the Lib-Dems are going to be slaughtered wholesale in the next election so a majority government of one party or another should be free to take the next step.

I am also pleased with two increases within the defence budget.  The first, for what is a hideously dangerous and almost immediate threat to our computer networks.  I really do think that most people simply take computers for granted and are blissfully unaware of what an unbelievably huge part they play in our daily lives.  Should any of them be brought down we will will quickly learn the hardway!  As one sensible MP insisted, this cyber defence force absolutely must work hand in glove with the IT industry.  The second increase, of which I heartily approve, is for the Special Forces' budget.  These formations are relatively tiny in manpower terms - and so they should be in order to maintain extremely high selection standards - but their equipment needs to be of the very latest and most sophisticated capabilities.  There was mention in the press of close co-operation with American Special Forces and this should be encouraged, they are 'gadget mad' and some of their kit is superb.  Frequently, a small party of Special Forces can achieve far larger results than their size might indicate but sometimes they will need more 'boots on the ground'.  Perhaps there will be a later clarification despite Cameron insisting that the Royal Marine Commados will remain in being.  Personally, I would like to see them amalgamated with The Parachute Regiment to form a new light, mobile strike force which could support Special Forces in raids or even conduct bigger 'hit and run' operations not requiring mass infantry.  They could keep their seperate traditions but have one joint HQ.

The aircraft carriers are a joke in the worst possible taste!  That is entirely and absolutely the fault of the previous government who stitched the contracts in such a way that it would be financially impossible for an incoming Tory government to cancel them.  There is simply not enough foul-mothed invective to describe their conduct!  Again, I think Cameron has done the best he can with the bucket of steaming offal which has been passed on to him.  Mind you, there are, I suspect, a few admirals who deserve the fate of Adm. Byng for aiding and abetting this treacherous conduct.  Needless to say, there will be an interregnum of several years during which Britain will have no carrier force so I hope our benighted Chiefs of Staff set about immediately to re-inforce the Falklands.  Some of those about-to-be discarded heavy tanks and artillery could be employed down there along with a heavily armed infantry force and some aircraft.  Hot heads in Argentinia will be all too eager to take advantage and you can trust 'HillBilly-Obama' to take our side about as far as I can pee into a gale!

This in-depth critical analysis, of course, comes to you with all the military authority of an ex-Corporal!

 

 

Comments

[dearieme]

From the Charles Hugh Smith blog:

"We should also stipulate that an aircraft carrier alone is simply a sitting duck; it projects nothing but vulnerability. It is a carrier group which projects power, and that requires an enormous infrastructure: a small fleet of other vessels, satellite communications, anti-submarine capabilities, global bases to refuel/ reprovision, and so on."

So that's that, then.

[David Duff]

Precisely what I said yesterday to an ex-RAF officer who was seated nect to me for lunch.

I'm just off to find this Charles Hugh Smith blog!

[JK]

Ahhh David.

I come to my hom-computer to find your second paragraph and consider it so wretched I go to my American Naval blog, and get to this:

"On the flip side we have the UK, busy executing political strategery in support of a jobs program to produce aircraft carriers without combat aircraft, and moving to retire the only aircraft carrier in the nations inventory capable of projecting air power. I have no idea what the budget obligations and priorities of the British government is, but whatever it is - the results of the defense budget suggest national defense is driven by a domestic agenda and was given the priority of a national afterthought."

I cannot believe it. I leave Arkansas for two days and dearieme bypasses your Grand Strategy and rather acquiesces to Admiral Sir Charles Hugh Smith?

Good Lord, when you do come visit during our wet season, bring them both along and I'll place them in a kayak hauling munitions down White River.

Don't worry though, Jeanie's got satellite TV and we'll keep an eye on 'em from outer space. Dear Lord.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/10/observing-al-qaeda-threat-to-france.html

[David Duff]

Don't rub it in, JK, not least because a similar fate awaits you 'over there' - unless you get rid of Obama and all his works.