Just a few hours after the publication of the strategic defence and security review, two crack teams of speakers clashed over the future of the armed forces at a Spectator debate sponsored by Brewin Dolphin.
The novelist and military historian Brigadier Allan Mallinson proposed the motion — ‘The army, navy and air force are so 20th-century. Scrap them and have a massive British Marine Corps’ — with a heavy heart. ‘I love the armed forces,’ he said. ‘I watch the “Battle of Britain” with tears in my eyes.’ But the trinitarian approach had failed. He imagined a new combined force under the command of an army general. As Admiral Jackie Fisher once remarked, ‘the army should be a projectile fired by the navy’; but, Mallinson added, ‘the projectile does the killing’.
Adam Holloway MP, a former Grenadier Guardsman, imagined an army colonel salivating at the prospect of commanding a 2,200-strong unit equipped with artillery, fast jets, helicopters, amphibious landing trucks and other gleaming kit. But the outlay on procurement, training, food and accommodation would remain while the cost to morale would be high. ‘Let’s not cock up the armed forces,’ he said, ‘just to save a bit of money.’
Con Coughlin, executive foreign editor of the Daily Telegraph, claimed that rivalries within the armed forces caused gross inefficiencies and led each service to protect its pet projects. For two decades Britain has kept tons of artillery and countless tanks ‘sitting in Germany to defend ourselves against an attack from Russia’. He praised the Typhoon — ‘a superb piece of kit’ — but pointed out that it has yet to be deployed to Afghanistan because ‘oh dear, it hasn’t got a ground attack capability’.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in