Cross-party committee attacks defence cuts

Defence select committee warns Britain’s influence will decline unless the armed forces get adequate resources Spending cuts will prevent the armed forces from carrying out military operations and lead to a decline in Britain’s influence and role in the world, a hard-hitting report by a cross-party group of MPs warns. Concluding that the armed services cannot do what ministers want them to without adequate resources, the report questions whether the government’s rhetoric and ambitions are realistic. In a stinging attack, MPs say that by deploying British forces to Libya while cutting the defence budget “we can only conclude that the government has postponed the sensible aspiration of bringing commitments and resources into line.” They point to a government promise to “confront the legacy of overstretch”, with British troops never again having to undertake such a breadth of operations simultaneously. “The government should indicate if this is the case,” say the MPs, making clear they are not convinced the government has learned lessons from campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report, by the Commons defence select committee, undermines repeated claims by ministers that cuts will have no effect on what the armed forces can do. “We are not convinced, given the financial climate and the drawdown of capabilities arising form the SDSR [strategic defence and security review] that from 2015 the armed forces will maintain the capability to undertake all that is being asked of them,” warns the report. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said on Tuesday night: “As the report makes clear, and as Labour has repeatedly said, events have exposed the mismatch between policy ambition and the resources provided by ministers.” However, the defence secretary, Liam Fox, defended the government’s policy, saying cuts were not just a problem for the armed forces in the UK. He said: “As we have seen in the US, no country is immune to the global financial problems and even the world’s biggest military power is now grappling with how to make defence cuts and reform for the future.” In the report MPs refer to mounting concern that Britain’s armed forces will not be able to continue performing tasks they are undertaking now, let alone those they may face after 2015, and question the forces’ ability to carry out specified tasks – called “defence assumptions” – after 2020. According to last October’s defence review, British forces should then be able to conduct a series of simultaneous smaller operations or a single operation deploying about 30,000 troops – about two-thirds of the force used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. To achieve even this the defence budget would have to rise in real terms – over and above the rate of inflation – after 2015. Fox recently announced a 1% real terms increase every year between 2015 and 2021 in the defence equipment budget. The report says: “We are concerned that this increase is simply a reallocation of resources and does not represent the real terms increase in funding required to deliver Future Force 2020.” The report also refers to personal backing for real-terms defence budget increases from both Fox and David Cameron, adding: “[Such support] is meaningless without a concrete commitment that these increases will be delivered … If the ambition of a real-term funding increase is not realised, we will have failed our armed forces.” The promised increases in the defence budget will coincide with the withdrawal of all British forces from a combat role in Afghanistan. “[We] anticipate that the UK public, whilst being passionate in their support for the armed forces, will question this decision,” says the report. Attacking Cameron’s claim at a recent meeting with senior backbenchers that Britain’s armed forces could fight on all fronts, it adds: “We dispute the prime minister’s assertion that the UK has a full spectrum defence capability.” The prime minister’s claim also contradicts evidence given to the committee by the heads of the navy, army, and air force. MPs conclude that a shrinking of Britain’s influence is inevitable. In response to the report, the chief of the defence staff, General Sir David Richards, said: “We will remain a formidable fighting force on the world stage.” The report voices considerable concern that this will not be the case. It states: “We note the declared aspiration of the [National Security Council] NSC that Britain’s national interest requires the rejection of any notion of the shrinkage of UK influence. We acknowledge that influence should not only be measured in military hardware or even military capability. “However, given the government’s declared priority of deficit reduction we conclude that a period of strategic shrinkage is inevitable. The government appears to believe that the UK can maintain its influence while reducing spending, not just in the area of defence but also at the Foreign Office. We do not agree. “There is a clear contradiction in the short to medium term between the NSC’s statement ‘that Britain’s national interest requires the rejection of any notion of the shrinkage of UK influence in the world’ and the government’s overriding strategic aim of reducing the UK’s budget deficit. “Strategies must have as their starting point a policy baseline that is a realistic understanding of the world and the UK’s role and status in it.” Defence policy Military Ministry of Defence Public finance Public sector cuts Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk

Posted by on August 2, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.