FUTURE BRITISH DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY STRATEGY
' Events, dear boy, events.'
Prime Minister Harold Macmillan when asked by a journalist to name the greatest obstacle in the path of statesmanship.
USS Dwight D Eisenhower, USS Harry S Truman, HMS Illustrious
The Special Relationship
Nowhere does this work better than our two navies - save airborne forces!
THE ROYAL NAVY
This spring a general election took place in Britain. The new coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has begun a defence review. Anyone with half a brain would first review foreign policy.
The previous Labour government published a green paper - discussion rather than action - which added nothing to the real debate. Of much greater significance, the Labour Party manifesto made clear that the aircraft carrier programme will sail full steam ahead. The Conservative Party with the Liberal Democratsnow follow a plan drawn up by retired and serving generals. This plan would cancel the aircraft carriers, reduce the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to skeleton forces, and increase the size of the Army. In other words, the amateur generals allied with the professional generals want to grab the defence budget for Afghanistan, regardless of the wider consequences.
At the recent election British voters decided whether or not their country remains a World power, able to defend its interests and keep its allies. The voters are not aware of this watershed choice, partly through ignorance, though also because the present occupants of the House of Commons, rather like Mister Micawber believe ' something will turn up.' One can only assume that something is the US Navy.
At least contracts have been signed for the two new aircraft carriers, 80,000 tons of steel being cut, about £ 3 billion already spent or contracted. The first ship's bow already has reached the construction dry dock near Edinburgh, more huge sections are on the way. Because the ships are so large they are being built in individual parts for assembly in Scotland. Some 15,000 jobs are involved with the construction including 1,000 young apprentices. A further 30,000 jobs are safe at the naval dockyards for the lifetime of the ships. The project is likely to cost £ 5 billions rather than the original estimate of £ 4 billions although the ships will serve for 50 years.
The JSF 35 naval fighter programme appears on track and a remaining batch of Typhoon fighters ordered for the RAF. The Type 45 destroyer programme has five ships launched and one still under construction. Astute Class nuclear submarine programme already has the first vessel launched. Both programmes should extend for another six vessels. Contracts have been signed for designing the next frigate - Type 46 - with a plan for 18 vessels. Cancelling any of these programmes will cost thousands of skilled workers their jobs and waste vast sums of money at a time when the UK should encourage high technology manufacturing. One hopes the penalty clauses for cancellation match the full cost of both ships and aircraft.
Despite choosing to involve Britain in two wars east of Suez the recent Labour government continued relentlessly cutting all three Armed Services. This has been exposed steadily by the Iraq Inquiry. Although Gordon Brown denied his personal responsibility for these decisions when Chancellor, former defence ministers and senior officers plus two former permanent secretaries at the MOD gave evidence to the contrary. Brown gave evidence before the election - declaring that the armed forces were always supported - which he soon had to correct.
*
The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force suffered the most since 1997 but after particularly savage cuts during 2004 even the Army lost ten per cent of its infantry battalions. Gordon Brown as Chancellor took nearly £ 1 billion from the Defence budget and forced cancellation of the main helicopter programme. Today our soldiers pay for this parsimony in Afghanistan with their limbs and lives. The strains on those wearing the Queen's uniform were compounded by the Prime Minister wishing to speed up troop withdrawals from Iraq to quieten critics in his own party. One looks at the medals won starting with a VC for ample witness that the soldiers on the spot gave their utmost despite their sparse numbers - the inevitable result was a near debacle in Basra.
Our small Army has withdrawn from Iraq. That made further British troops available for the war in Afghanistan, where no solution is possible without cleaning out the growing viper's nest in next door Pakistan. Again, we see the inevitable result, a constant struggle by our small force in Afghanistan to hold onto gains in ground long enough to spread political order. The generals feel their troops are neglected and, starved of cash by an anti-military clique in Downing Street and the Treasury, lack suitable armoured vehicles, most of all helicopters.
This friction allowed the Conservative leadership - not famed for sound judgement - to lure the generals into the political arena. Now the Army's senior officers are stuck to the Conservative party and permanently damaged. I doubt if the naval and air staffs will share their concerns with the generals for many, many years.
As with Basra, the United States has inserted a large force into Afghanistan, effectively taken over the British operational area. The US Marine Corps has a good record on this kind of operation and pioneered the military and civil tactics - successfully - during the Vietnam War. This raises a question - what is best overall for the alliance? War is an option of difficulties. From the American point of view finding another US brigade for Afghanistan is somewhat easier than building two new aircraft carrier groups in the event that the next British government through naivety and ignorance manages to scuttle the Queen's navy.
Two carriers dramatically extend Britain's global power. If I was Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs, I know what I would prefer - British aircraft carriers are essential for the alliance to manage future Global security; British troops in Afghanistan are valuable allies, but no future British government on the horizon is likely to double or triple the force, deploy enough assets in support to have a real impact on the campaign. The Conservatives regard international aid as more important than teaching our own children, let alone our island's safety.
*
Over the next 50 years new crises will arise without warning, long after the war in Afghanistan is forgotten. One has already, pirates along the Horn of Africa. The new SACEUR, Admiral James Stavridis, puts it neatly - Afghans should be allowed a fender sticker, ' At least we're not Somalia.'
Apart from Somalia, the list of potentially hostile countries is endless, starting with Argentina and Iran.
America's leadership grasps the harsh reality which escapes British politicians and I fear the general public. Britain looks about to make a historic strategic blunder - putting the minimum resources into a small army of experts on colonial warfare while reducing the Royal Navy and the RAF to skeleton forces. On present government plans the last modern fighter factory will close within five years. Ironically the German Government may save Britain's fighter manufacturing through insisting that the British Government buys all the Typhoons it signed up for - I hope the Germans win. Britain only survived the great dangers of the past through keeping the industrial base and balanced forces that provided the building blocks for mobilising the whole nation.
Which makes our shrinking Royal Navy all the more alarming for an island with 95% of its trade coming and going by sea. The Conservatives in opposition had a good team on naval matters who supported a modest programme to restore naval strength. Unfortunately their leader no longer heeds their advice. A stupid scheme to recruit the Chief of the Army - before official retirement - as an Opposition spokesman simply triggered a media war between the Army and the its sister services at the very time when the three Service Chiefs should have stood together.
The tough choice on defence spending is to increase it - diversions play into the hands of our useless politicians. Perhaps more alarming, the last Conservative government had a poor record - a war with Argentina caused by naval cuts followed by a restoration of the fleet which soon faltered - nor does the rump of the new party leadership show any sign of sharing their defence team's concern. As the most recent defence debates reveal, the Front bench team have been effectively gagged, the new minister turned into a man of straw, the aircraft carrier programme and the orders for modern fighters all at grave risk from a Conservative and Liberal Democrat government. Hard lessons from 1982 already look forgotten.
Tough decisions lie ahead but my first target for reducing government spending are the huge amounts squandered on absurd social programmes and a pay roll vote to keep the previous government in power. The new Chancellor makes little mention of this legalised corruption. The election campaign focussed on trivia rather than serious debate. Rank and file MPs are just as indifferent - hardly a soul attends debates on the armed forces - many would brainlessly follow orders, slash the navy's aircraft carrier programme and do away with the nuclear deterrent. For industry this means catastrophe surpassing 1979 - 1981 when Margaret Thatcher raised interest rates to 17% to squeeze out inflation - and devastated manufacturing. With no carriers, withdrawal from Afghanistan must soon follow. Far more fundamental, no longer could we safeguard our global trade and would rely on the US Navy and the RAF to defend our coasts. We would slip far down the league of military powers. Worse, such a retreat would send tectonic shocks through the financial markets and global trade. Foreigners buy from winners, none invest in losers.
The three largest political parties and about half the voters remain unwilling to fund the defence budget properly. We approach a dangerous crossroads. One road leads to recovery, growth and influence - the other to a weak, increasingly poor, crowded island torn apart by civil strife and violent crime.
America has a President who wishes to work more closely with allies yet most NATO allies have responded grudgingly. Many seem content for America to bear the burden for their safety and prosperity. Britain's governments included. America may not go along with this arrangement forever. Such a huge change would also leave NATO in chaos. The future of the Royal Navy is important for the US Navy. For nearly 70 years our two navies have complimented each other. Both navies cover for each other - a US or RN submarine will take over the other's patrol when an emergency arises. The same goes for surface ships including aircraft carriers. The Royal Navy is the only allied navy that the US Navy trusts to escort its major units. Britain will no longer be taken seriously in Washington if its new generation of politicians dismantle our share of this naval special relationship.
***
Unsung heroine of the Cold War and every hot war since the 1950s. Probably the most successful spy-plane built with over 50 years patrolling hostile airspace shows what the British can do when their government backs the aerospace and defence industry. The Canberra bomber first flew in 1949 - causing a sensation at the Farnborough Air Show that year. Like the Queen, as a 9 year old, I watched Roland Beaumont take her straight off the runway and into a vertical climb followed by aerobatics which none of us had ever seen performed by a bomber. During the Canberra's early service, many deniable missions were flown over the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. In 1957 she took the World altitude record reaching over 70,000 feet. This record held for decades until the MIG 25 zoomed to 100,000 feet and SR71 Blackbird flew level at 85,000 feet. Only the Blackbird rivals the Canberra's operational record. Canberra's have flown missions over many countries; Argentina, Iraq and Afghanistan to name only three recent wars. The last Canberra PR 9 aircraft finally retired in 2006 after 57 years operational service.
EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION
The Daily Mail website offered readers a chance to vote on which questions matter most in the forthcoming general election. Foreign policy was not considered sufficiently important to warrant a vote but I found little boxes to tick about defence. The result showed instantly - that I was among 2% of the readers who found defence important. The country fights a war that rarely fails to make the pages of the newspaper.
Although I am not surprised by this poll. Nor that modern children are unaware that we have a navy. One glance at the school history curriculum in England shows that our children are taught about the Battle of Britain and Stalingrad - the latter our finest British victory - but not taught about the six gruelling years of the Battle of the Atlantic or even the how the largest fleet ever seen crossed the Channel on D Day. No wonder our modern generations remain ignorant why an island needs a navy. The perceived wisdom among the British establishment - politicians, diplomats, spies, officials, senior officers, even some academics, journalists by the score - appears to start from amazing ignorance of our global maritime commerce married to a touching conviction that war between states is unlikely for decades.
Upon what planet do they all live? We are involved in wrapping up one inter-state war, residual UK forces remain in Iraq, and strong American forces may stay much longer. Given the renowned murky politics along the North West Frontier and Iran's meddling across its eastern border one may argue that NATO also fights an inter-state war in Afghanistan. Soon enough NATO will have to confront Iran and naval power offers more subtle powers of persuasion than army boots. Evidence piles up from Swat to Lahore that the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban has spread from the mountains onto the Punjab Plain. Pakistan looks in danger of falling under the sway of Islamic terror groups. Its government is shaky, obsessed with India many generals sit on the fence. At least Pakistan's generals decided that the local Taliban crossed a line in Swat and reacted by sending the Frontier Corps into action. Now the Army moves into Waziristan. No similar moves have been launched against the Afghan Taliban leadership comfortably established in Quetta nor against their bases inside the North West Frontier tribal territories. Until they also are eliminated, NATO fights with one hand tied behind its back in Afghanistan. The present terror offensive in the main cities may force the Pakistan Army to deal with the Afghan Taliban - some form of confidence building measures with India would go a long way.
Was invading Iraq foolish or wise? Only the fate of democracy in Iraq will provide an answer. Should democracy flourish then ousting Saddam Hussein may come to look a rash though shrewd, indeed courageous decision; George Dubya Bush even achieve canonisation by future historians! Looking at Japan and Europe's last 60 years the message becomes irrefutable. Democracy brings stability. Democracy brings peace. Democracy brings prosperity. One might add that social freedom for women brings all three in larger measure when combined with democracy. Should one rule out further interventions in the Middle East? America has strong forces holding Iraq as a salient between Syria and Iran with another salient in Afghanistan. Should NATO capitalise on this situation? The answer lies in the level of war weariness among the voters - something British generals cannot fathom.
Proxy wars also break out - most recently between Iran and Israel over South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Israel may yet attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran's nuclear ambitions and promotion of hostile activities among its neighbours leaves me to think that some reaction by other states - perhaps involving ourselves through naval action - becomes increasingly possible after the last, rigged election. While I commend President Obama's prudence, events may force his hand. A new generation of Iranians no longer accept rule by diktat from a violent gang. The struggle for freedom in Iran has only just begun.
All this strife takes place within spitting distance of the World's largest oil reserves and important sea lanes. Some ocean roads are threatened by piracy at vulnerable chokepoints - nearly two centuries after most governments regarded piracy as eliminated. Piracy thrives because weak or failing states make possible safe havens. The same festering countries are targets for terrorists as potential lairs. This applies presently to the Horn of Africa and the Malacca Straits. One has to ask, none-the-less, how long it will take before some enterprising modern incarnation of Bluebeard finds another part of the World where a sea lane is virtually unguarded. Few developing countries with a coastline have the resources to police their own coastal waters and the UN Law of the Sea Convention grants all coastal countries an exclusive economic zone stretching some 200 miles out to sea. The Barbary pirates terrorised shipping and Europe's coasts for hundreds of years. A million people were taken as slaves by pirates who roamed as far north as Iceland and were only destroyed when France captured Algiers in 1830. Ninety-five per cent of our trade and the bulk of our energy supplies come and go by sea.
As the world population grows, more and more countries demand a greater share of global resources. Some political historians maintain that the invasion of Iraq was the first oil war. Indeed, one could go further, conclude that China's 1949 invasion and subsequent brutal occupation of Tibet was the world's first uranium war - perhaps also the first vital resource war fought with an eye to the great watershed of Asia shared by several countries either side of the huge mountain ranges. China, Saudi Arabia and at least two Gulf states are signing long term contracts for everything from copper to farmland and grain. India believes it ought to compete with China on the African continent. Should the climate warm as many experts predict within less than a century the sea will threaten coastal cities and low lying countries such as Bangladesh will slip beneath the waves. What happens to the populations? Should we allow China to carry on its dirty industrialisation, polluting the atmosphere, though at the same time expect India to find space for the population of Bangladesh? All these changes are driven by parallel forces - greed and survival. The potential for trouble around the globe remains horribly familiar to any historian. As a nation, if we wish to keep improving our standard of living, we need the ability to intervene when trouble, left to its own devices, sooner or later will arrive on our doorstep.
Already rivalry is brewing over energy reserves below the sea as far apart as the Arctic Ocean and the South Atlantic where Britain has been given a wake-up signal by Argentina as the Falkland Islanders explore for oil and gas under the surrounding sea. Global fish stocks are gravely threatened by countries that ignore conservation and waste much of the fish caught. Should we allow this to continue or police the oceans before it's too late? Everywhere one looks there is potential for conflict. Britain is not North America. Nor are we Germany with its markets, energy and food supplies largely in the neighbouring countries. We live on small, heavily populated islands. Freedom on the seas is our life blood. We need to learn again the value of enough coal for 350 years, farmers who grow two meals out of three for the whole population, old-fashioned ways of re-cycling like the milk bottle. And, over time, we should reduce our population, by a third. The world is on the threshold of a new age of colonisation, through exclusive contracts, against a backcloth of too many people chasing too few resources, the complete opposite of the Age of Discovery some 500 years past and all the more dangerous.
There is also a mental blockage in the public consciousness. British political leaders of all three main parties do not understand that alliances work both ways. You cannot expect to benefit from an alliance without paying the insurance premium. NATO requires all countries to treat an attack on any member as an attack upon themselves. For sixty years this has kept peace across most of Europe - because all countries maintained the force levels required. Britain has obligations which could draw us into a wider conflict - when our armed forces are much too small. We are vulnerable.
Britain has one of the finest and most experienced diplomatic services in the World. Yet our diplomats struggle to keep open embassies and consulates because the government won't even cover the lower exchange rate for the pound. This is madness.
Our diplomats keep a finger on the pulse of humanity. Timely diplomatic action stops many crises in their tracks. There are enormous challenges facing our diplomats, not least in the Middle East and perhaps above all, China - of which more soon. As a start, we should restore many posts that have closed, moreover return management of the overseas aid programme to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
Always think outside the box for the most effective strategic team. Modern conflicts are no place for hide bound conservatives.
THREE THIN LINES
Our opening moves against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in land-locked Afghanistan were made by the Royal Navy, beginning with cruise missile strikes from submarines, leading to a naval task force supporting insertions by special forces and commandos to fight alongside US forces also rapidly deployed into the country. The commandos were flown by helicopter from their ship in the Arabian Sea to Bahrain where they boarded RAF C 130 transports and were flown into Afghanistan. The RAF provided air-to-air refuelling and reconnaissance missions in support of the US aerial bombardment of Taliban positions - against targets marked by special forces on the ground. When Kabul was captured, the airport was so badly damaged that nearby Bagram airbase was taken under Allied control. The initial force included small detachments of Royal Marines and Royal Engineers who employed a mixture of coolness and armed diplomacy to make it clear to the Northern Alliance that the rules had just changed; very soon an airhead was established for major intervention. Further on in this sermon I will come back to these first weeks because a strategic mistake allowed the al-Qaeda leadership and many of its followers to escape into Pakistan.
Since then we have inserted a superb fighting machine, but it's too small, probably in the wrong place, moreover a one shot force. In other words, more than capable of doing the given combat task, but only for a comparatively short time. After which it has to be pulled out and given enough time to lick its wounds and recover before the next job. During that recovery time-out hard won political and military gains all too often evaporate. Over the last twenty years the British Army has scraped together a division sized force for two Gulf Wars and a large brigade - effectively a small division - for Afghanistan. Trying to fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan brought the Army near breaking point. Our soldier's fought with courage and decency - the list of medals starting with a VC bears witness to how they coped with far too few resources. Eventually the Americans had to take over Basra and now have deployed a force twice the size of ours in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. The American Army in Iraq has fought one of the toughest campaigns in its history - not helped by a pig-headed Defence Secretary who picked a poor leadership team - and once it gained better leadership turned disaster into potential victory. The British Army's crisis remains. Its senior leaders failed to stand up to their politicians. None of them fought in Vietnam so tactically, they are about forty years behind the Americans. Not only does the Army lack teeth arms - more infantry cuts are rumoured - but its supporting arms struggle to provide enough engineers, signallers, intelligence and medical personnel to support current small scale operations. To cope with the pressures the Army has given up its ability to field a corps headquarters, reduced its armoured and infantry brigades from ten to six, and converted all six into mixed strong infantry brigades with plenty of armour. This reduces the difficulties of finding enough staff and support arms. Greater reliance on the existing volunteer reserve would give the Army another 35,000 people although the rules for their deployment may need bringing up to date. The move on brigades is welcome - long advocated by myself for some years - though misses the point.
IT'S TOMMY THIS AND TOMMY THAT
We cannot sleep safely in our beds when the Army can barely cope with a brigade size, colonial style campaign in Afghanistan. An army trained and equipped for small unit combat operations in the third world won't offer a credible deterrent against Russian tanks on the NATO borders - let alone hostile submarines in the Arabian Sea. Those long years policing Northern Ireland were only possible because the Army was nearly twice as large and even so artillery regiments served as infantry patrolling the streets. And, sadly, we see how a tiny number of thugs can violate the peace and open new wounds after twelve years calm. The Army managed its long task in Ulster because casualties were low while its strength, structure and reserves were geared for major operations between first rate powers. Today the Army no longer has that kind reserve all arms strength built into its structure, no longer has that staying power. Given a war between states the medical services would collapse.
The generals' current lexicon is that because of Afghanistan and its importance to the NATO alliance our ground forces should take priority leaving the Royal Navy and the RAF to bear the brunt of further cuts. This is nonsense - and shows how many years have passed since a British general exercised high command. Our soldiers have done all that was asked and more; unfortunately that won't compensate for poor leadership at the most senior levels. British generals talk as though they commanded an army the size of Monty's 21st Army Group in 1945. Our army is now too small to have a strategic impact anywhere. British politicians withdrew troops from Iraq when the force should have doubled. They are not willing to commit enough troops to fight in Afghanistan and the Americans have wisely taken over in all but name. If Afghanistan is that important, other NATO countries should do more, not the UK disarm at sea to find money for a colonial war on behalf of less robust allies. Moreover, the key to a military solution lies in diplomacy - persuading the 600,000 strong Pakistan Army to follow the lead given by the Frontier Corps and sort out the Afghan Taliban as well as the home grown version in Swat and Dir. As long as Pakistan's generals believe NATO will abandon Afghanistan, they will play a double game with their clients, the Taliban.
US Rangers landing with the latest parachutes. Advanced combat skills require frequent practise.
The root question is whether our Army should lock its limited fighting power into any long campaign. It's performed much better on proper intervention tasks - which generally have a short duration. The RAF no longer has a long range strike weapon thus a strategic impact is only possible with immense difficulty. The Royal Navy - providing its strength is ensured with new aircraft carriers, surface ships and submarines - has a strategic impact today and long into the future. The Naval and Air Chiefs of Staff assure that £ 2.5 billions more on the current annual defence budget would allow the Armed Forces to carry out all the operational tasks and new equipment programmes for all three services. I think the defence budget is too small and its increase would help the economy. British politicians find this concept difficult. So let's make it simpler for them - a comparatively modest investment in the Royal Navy will increase our global influence many times over. Put a small increase of money into the Army, rather than the Royal Navy and the RAF and you double the effort and square the error - to quote a shrewd friend in Vietnam days, the late Sir Robert Thompson.
Scrapping the Royal Navy and ending the RAF's remaining ability to operate strategically merely to sustain an inadequate ground force struggling in south-west Asia, soon opens up new dangers by inviting threats which previously did not exist. There is an assumption, shared by some of the media, that the British public will accept decades of warfare in south west Asia fought along the present lines. There is also a rather convenient, defeatist assumption that as half the British people oppose any significant increase in the defence budget no effort should be made to persuade them otherwise. Both are mistaken. Both allow the present occupants in the House of Commons to avoid harder choices. Of which, more at reform of the British Army. The generals should have more courage. They should also recall Eisenhower's championship of unity of command - and start backing the admirals and the air marshals. Furthermore, nobody should under estimate the public's contempt for their current political representatives ( who do ) large numbers of whom have proved themselves unfit for holding a public office. Their opinions are no longer valued. The great decisions of state must be removed from Parliament and given to the people, such as taxes and our defence. When people have to vote on big decisions rather than pass the buck to their MPs it's surprising how they tend to make responsible choices.
Over the coming months the Army needs to re-think its present approach to ' colonial ' warfare. A century ago the British Army policed a quarter of the Globe. This was done largely with locally raised forces - the most famous being the Indian Army - and a comparatively much smaller number of regular units on stations in far flung corners of the empire. At this moment one such force - the North West Frontier Corps - not strictly part of the Pakistan Army fights the Taliban in Swat. Other famous regiments are the Ghurkhas who now serve in both the British and Indian Armies and the Arab Legion now the core of the Jordanian Army. Senior army planners have to forecast trouble spots while at the same time construct a new mix of fighting powers - small intervention divisions should form part of this mix, particularly strong in engineer and reconstruction assets, intelligence, political, language and training assets. When the Helmand operation began 16 Air Assault Brigade should have been quickly followed by another brigade structured as a ' colonial ' warfare formation, also equipped to raise a much larger Afghan force - rather like the old Frontier Scouts and ultimately created for the local government - that fights alongside the expeditionary force so that gains of ground are consolidated and pacified.
Senior officers have to stop sniping at the other two services through the media and opinion formers and start learning from our colonial history. We don't need a larger full time Army. We do need an army with much greater volunteer reserves and employing far more imaginative ways of dealing with present and future ' colonial ' trouble spots. And there will be plenty. I am not politically correct thus have no hesitation saying that many countries attained independence before capable of governing themselves honestly and upholding civilised laws. The British Empire thrived for nearly four hundred years because a strong navy kept open the supply routes for enterprising individuals on the spot who raised loyal forces from many different races and religions who gave tacit support to liberal rule with law and order.
Typhoon with a pair of Harrier G 7 jump jets. These unbeatable RAF fighters lack the oceanic range of the USAF B2 Spirit bomber top right. The RAF flies the C 17 at centre right and the C 130 at lower right - but 99 Squadron has six C 17s compared to 205 serving with the USAF.
PER ARDUA AD ASTRA?
Iraq and Afghanistan expose worrying deficiencies as a much depleted RAF struggles to provide the ground troops with air support. After six years there are still not enough helicopters in Afghanistan and the saga of the £ 500 million Chinooks that only now fly remains a public scandal. Only the generals' conservatism allowed the RAF to keep control of the troop-carrying helicopters. And as with the Army, public ignorance is the government's best friend, while the RAF spends much of its time and effort sustaining a small number of aircraft and ground crew in Iraq and Afghanistan. This effort relies on a significant contribution from the Royal Navy in Harrier fighters and heavy lift helicopters. The difficulties are compounded by maintaining other small detachments of aircraft and personnel at widely scattered outposts around the World all of which require a long distance air bridge. And yet almost the entire front line remains on its UK bases so one wonders exactly how many aircraft are actually serviceable. Parliamentary debate exposed that near enough half the front line strike fighters are not serviceable. The RAF has five Harrier squadrons counting two Royal Navy squadrons - only a detachment of eight aircraft operates from a single fighter base in Afghanistan - and the government plans to cut even this small force. Recently the Harriers in Afghanistan were rotated with a detachment of eight Tornadoes. One questions why complete squadrons are not simply rotated but perhaps the paltry numbers reflect a service trying to provide air support with older aircraft and widely scattered commitments while desperately striving to keep alive its core structure. The RAF suffered the deepest cuts of all three services. Fortunately when the contracts were drawn up with BAE for production of the Typhoon fighter, BAE seem to have employed better lawyers. It looks as though the RAF will receive all the Typhoons ordered. This highly versatile aircraft is capable of ground attack and probably the best air superiority fighter in the World. The media don't understand why the RAF needs a ' cold war ' fighter; but about 60 countries, many of them not exactly well disposed towards us, deploy modern fighters.
The new Chief of the Air Staff reminds that present troop deployments in Afghanistan reflect the present level of air support. Take away the air support and NATO would need 600,000 soldiers to carry out the same tasks. My advice - for what it's worth - is to forget British politicians and go direct to the general public with the case for a modest increase to the present defence budget. Stand together with your naval and military colleagues and tell those members of the population who can still grasp a rational argument that the world is not about to allow them a quiet life. The internet works. Visitors to this website double every six months.
Weighing in at 65,000 tons, more with refits such as armour, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - left photo - once built will provide aircraft carriers much larger than HMS Illustrious and more in the league of USS Dwight D Eisenhower and USS Harry S Truman in the right hand photo. The two new carriers with the Daring Class destroyers, Astute Class submarines, the amphibious force and a new fleet of support ships will keep this country in the major league of diplomatic and military powers.
ENGLAND EXPECTS TO STAY A NAVAL POWER - WITH NO CAPITAL SHIPS
The media spotlight concentrates on the two ground campaigns east of Suez and school children are not taught about Nelson let alone the Battle of the Atlantic. As a consequence the Royal Navy has suffered from political neglect and public ignorance. Some persons in the media actually believe that the Army should become the senior service - on an island. I mention this only to illustrate the appalling lack of common sense among the media and our politicians today. Widespread ignorance allows the government to quietly dismantle the nation's defences. Part of any future strategy must be a public education campaign. This need not cost any money. Senior officers must clear large chunks of their diaries for simple public relations and put themselves about - often in their own time - and wear uniform whenever possible. So long as the public learn about the Armed Forces from politicians and the media our fighting services will remain in a sorry state. Within a year we are threatened with a government of children. The great lesson of President Obama's election campaign is that you do not need the media any longer to put over a message.
After an opening fanfare promising a major construction programme - at its core two large aircraft carriers, twelve modern destroyers, plus support ships - the government has presided over the relentless shrinking of the Royal Navy to a point where for the first time in three hundred years France has a larger fleet. The navy has no air defence fighters at sea and won't for another five years at least. The number of submarines and surface ships in commission has been halved. The orders for new destroyers and new submarines have also been halved, design work on a new class of frigate cancelled. Laying down the two new aircraft carriers has been delayed year after year for a decade but finally is under way. The Astute class submarines - seven planned and three in progress - will provide a global force to protect the carriers though also the discreet means to position massive firepower ready for intervention. None-the-less, comparatively new surface ships and submarines have been sold or scrapped. Manpower has been cut to the bone - total strength includes the Royal Marines who serve in Afghanistan - and young people leave the fleet because they cannot see any hope for a decent career path. As with its sister services the Royal Navy has nothing in reserve; there are too many ships in reserve but no money if it needs them. To give a single example, no warship was spare to patrol the Falkland Islands until Argentina threatened the islanders' sovereignty after 25 years of peaceful disagreement. The Royal Navy will obtain its new large carriers but construction only started in the run up to the general election - contracts worth nearly £ 3 billion are under way - in other words, the government uses the shipbuilding jobs as a bribe for votes, mostly in Scotland.
Perhaps this is fortunate, given that the aircraft carrier programme is under serious threat from a naive opposition who think it more important to spend borrowed money on propping up corrupt third world governments through the aid programme. This is one of daftest political ambitions ever and, frankly, in my view, disqualifies David Cameron as a potential Prime Minister. Lucky for him that Gordon Brown probably still has the job on election day.
We arrive at the first conclusion for our strategy. Britain's armed forces cannot cope with their existing tasks. Fairly soon we will reach the tipping point where the United States must decide whether they are being taken for ride by Britain. The US Army has twice been forced to take over a British operation because not enough troops were committed by the British Government. Washington is now reading proposals from all shades of our corrupt and incompetent body politic for reducing the Royal Navy to a weak escort force rather than press on with the aircraft carrier programme. The US Navy does not need another weak ally requiring air defence and will leave the British to defend their own islands as best they can without fleet. The US Navy will look to other countries such as India for naval allies. British voters must accept international castration by our political leaders, withdrawal from all overseas tasks starting with Afghanistan, otherwise put this right and fast. By doing so we restore our reputation, the resilience and depth presently absent.
This country has been badly governed and its people miserably served, aptly described as a broken society by the leader of the Conservative Party. After reading his party's expenses claims, he should know. Apart from our foolhardy banks there is no lack of places where money is needed and no lack of places where a change of attitude and a little social discipline would solve many a cost problem. None-the-less, for the purposes of this study, I have excluded the government's profligate domestic bills save for £ 18 billions a year squandered on IT projects that run over budget, £ 20 billions planned for an ID card scheme of questionable value, though included the £ 45 to £ 50 billions that the Labour or Conservative Parties would spend on International Aid during the next five year Parliament.
INTELLIGENCE AND DIPLOMACY
REFORM OF BRITAIN'S ARMY
BACK TO WORLD NEWS VIA THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL
