Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Question of the Day
The United Kingdom is cutting its Army by an incredible 40% and making other hard cuts in its navy and air forces. My question is this: are these cuts being entirely driven by UK fiscal outlook or are they in any way supported by scenario-based planning, i.e. "this is what we believe we would need for the following contingency operations." I'm guessing the former, but can someone in the formerly great Britain shed some light on this one? One of the followers of my Twitter feed suggested this might be posturing from the Ministry of Defense.
not only the military is
not only the military is getting gutted. it looks like one out of four in the justice system will get sacked as well.
They can safely consider
They can safely consider cuts like that because they count on the US to continue its crazy current level of military spending to police the world...
What "scenarios" do you see
What "scenarios" do you see England needing an army for? French invasion (of soldiers, not shoppers)? Stopping the Germans at the Channel after they overrun France again?
Read the original Telegraph
Read the original Telegraph story but remember it's a unreliable source of defence reporting.
Andrew: This could prove to
Andrew:
This could prove to be a public relations game between the British Ministry of Defense and the Treasury.
It goes something a bit like this: Treasury Secretary George Osborne asks each ministry (except health and foreign aid) to cut their budgets by as much as 25 percent. The British MoD leaks the doomsday scenario to the Daily Telegraph, hoping public pressure will boomerang on Treasury, thereby allowing it to save A400Ms, the two aircraft carriers and their F-35 complements, and some Army brigades. The catch for defense planners drafting the U.K.'s next Strategic Defense Review (SDR) and budget plan is that Treasury has demanded that the costs of the Trident nuclear deterrent replacement program (estimated as high as GBP20 billion, or about $32 billion) be folded into the defense budget. With the MoD's equipment budget facing a "gap" of about GBP36 billion (the Telegraph article says this has been revised upwards to GBP72 billion) regarding equipment ordered and/or planned over the next ten years, adding Trident to the equation will cripple the armed forces ability to maintain or improve capabilities.
The battle between the MoD and Treasury is one that worsened when former PM Gordon Brown served as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now with Britain's budget deficit approaching Greece-like levels and a new PM ensconced at Downing Street who has vowed to tackle the fiscal situation, the power of Treasury versus that of other government offices has only increased. The guess is that with the UK still involved in Afghanistan the hope of Secretary of State for Defense Liam Fox is that the public will not stand for defense cuts at a time British troops are fighting abroad. Thus the leaks, which attempt to paint a scenario of Britain entering a "defense holiday" akin to the 1930s.
Ultimately, in answer to your question, this seems driven by finances and an intra-government power struggle between George Osborne (Treasury) and Liam Fox (Defense).
You asked: are these cuts
You asked: are these cuts being entirely driven by UK fiscal outlook or are they in any way supported by scenario-based planning?
Simple finance has always been a factor, now it is the primary factor such is the state of UK public finance. We have retreated from out of Europe roles before, starting in 1967 East of Suez; in 1982 we went out of area (NATO area) to the Falklands - a considered scenario and more recently to the Gulf. Who would have looked forward to the UK having 10k in Afghanistan?
Somehow the UK has spent huge amounts on hardware that has little current use and is currently building two large aircraft carriers, which when complete will have no aircraft ready to use! Or having Apache helicopters in storage and pilot training taking three years - so we have eight deployed in Afghanistan.
What can scenario-based planning offer?
There are those, from a variety of viewpoints, who challenge the relevance to UK national security of what we have now. Capabilities will shrink or adjust as they have done before. What is unclear are the likely future political intentions of the UK government, nor how public opinion will judge "adventures" faraway (80% plus oppose our role in Afghanistan).
I heard Jet Blue just had an
I heard Jet Blue just had an opening for a flight attendant.
The logic for major defence
The logic for major defence cuts in the Uk has been clear for years, at least to me (http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/Robinson.html), but I suspect that two factors lie behind this rather than logical planning. These are a) financial crises, and b) an awful refusal to prioritise and an insistence on clinging to two hideously expensive aircraft carriers and to renewing the nuclear deterrent, neither of which are strategically justifiable, but which between them suck up much of the funding which would be better used on the army.
Paul
The eventual cuts are budget
The eventual cuts are budget driven but the British military certainly can't make a strong argument that the public has gotten good value. The fiasco in Iraq is now followed by failure in northern Helmand where the retreat to Basra airport is being repeated with a retreat to Lashkar Gah from Sangin, Musa Qala and Kajaki Districts.
The British public (as should all NATO taxpayers) should ask exactly what they've been paying for. Most of the RN and RAF's primary assets are needed only in the case of major war and the army doesn't seem up to colonial policing.
Much of the British military appears to be kept around more out of habit than need, as an excuse to keep buying BAE rubbish or as sinecures for senior officers and civil servants.
There are too few troops to
There are too few troops to hold Sangin etc. Their going to places like Nad-e-Ali, not Lashkar Gah.
The cuts will not be quite
The cuts will not be quite as drastic as the article claims - as has been observed, this is mostly the MOD putting pressure on the Treasury.
What cuts there are, are of course mostly a result of fiscal pressure. But there is a key aspect of it which is scenario based - we do not foresee a scenario in which we are directly threatened. Therefore, all military commitments are optional, and we will just undertake those which we can afford.
(This is not logic with which I entirely agree, but that's how the civil service are reasoning it).
If the Brit problem in
If the Brit problem in Sangin is too few troops why would they be replaced by the USMC instead of being reinforced. Where is this additional Marine battalion coming from? I presume it's currently doing something of use somewhere.
About 4% of the the British Army, RM and RAF are in Afghanistan. The British military is not organized in a manner to deploy enough troops to control four Afghan Districts: Lash, Nahri Saraaj, Nad Ali and Sangin. Are British taxpayers supposed to be happy with this? Billions and billions failing to pacify a handful of districts.
It doesn't really matter whose fault it is. The fact is that the military is so expensive that it cannot provide results to difficult problems in any sort of cost effective manner. The tax payer is ordered to shell out more and more for less and less while the military continues the charade of it's being vital and capable of solving anything other than very small security problems.
So they can concentrate in a
So they can concentrate in a smaller area. Nothing to do with organisation - not enough troops, too small an army for almost anything.
"About 4% of the the British
"About 4% of the the British Army, RM and RAF are in Afghanistan. The British military is not organized in a manner to deploy enough troops to control four Afghan Districts: Lash, Nahri Saraaj, Nad Ali and Sangin. Are British taxpayers supposed to be happy with this? Billions and billions failing to pacify a handful of districts."
I'm sorry but that is total nonsense, what percentage of the USAF and USN at any one time are in Afghanistan? We're talking about the modern world in which a large tail supports a relatively small fighting contingent thousands of miles away from home. The UK has had the second largest sustained presence in Afghanistan in the toughest part of the country, the USMC is finding it hard going as well. Whether this effort is wise or cost effective is a seperate issue.
And enough of this bs about Carriers etc being of no (current) use, we'll be in Afghanistan for a few more years, then its debatable that we'll see such a prolonged committment of such intensity for a long time. The SDR aims to develop a balanced force within the UK's means for the next 10 to 15 years and beyond. It should not just be an exercise in looking at our current commitments and assuming that it will be the exact pattern of all future need.
"So they can concentrate in
"So they can concentrate in a smaller area. Nothing to do with organisation - not enough troops, too small an army for almost anything."
Not having enough troops despite a budget of tens of billions is about organization. The mistakes in acquiring equipment are about organization. The creation of huge HQs at the expense of having enough infantry is about organization.
"We're talking about the modern world in which a large tail supports a relatively small fighting contingent thousands of miles away from home."
That's an excuse not a reason. The "tail" (much of which has nothing to do with supporting operations) is the result of organizational culture more than the complexity of modern logistics. Besides much of the tail is made up of contractors. Even if the tail was inevitable it would still be evidence of the futility of trying to use a modern army for optional adventures such as Afghanistan and thus a good argument for deep defence cuts.
Yes comrade, let us spend it
Yes comrade, let us spend it on welfare and Islamaphobia police - that should keep us safe.
I thought comments were
I thought comments were moderated these days?
Add your comment