Defence

Talk about an own goal. Whatever Air Chief Marshall Sir Simon Bryant thought he was achieving when he told MPs that the RAF were “running hot” because of the Libya intervention, the result has been to fuel the debate about the appropriate role of military officers in the public debate – and, in the latest instalment of the debate, if the current military leadership is actually up to the job. It is an important question – nothing should be taboo in a democracy and since Britain has none of the parliamentary oversight that the US congress has over military leaders, this debate is an important form of scrutiny. In my

Recent wars have given rise to an unusual phenomenon in British civil-military relations: frequent, and often high-profile interventions, by serving or recently retired senior military officers in public debates. The latest has been the intervention of Britain’s chief naval officer, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, who questioned the Navy’s ability to sustain the Libya campaign. Different prime ministers have dealt with this kind of outspokenness in different ways. Tony Blair was too weak to rein in Army chief Sir General Richard Dannatt, while Gordon Brown did not have the credibility, vis-à-vis the military, to do so either. David Cameron is different. He is at the height of his powers and determined

Last night, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said that the aircraft carrier and the jump-jets that were scrapped in last year’s strategic defence review would have made the mission in Libya more effective, faster and cheaper. His comments follow Robert Gates’ assertion that Britain and France were struggling to lead the Libyan operation without substantial American support. It follows, in the mind of Stanhope at least, that defence cuts are impeding Britain’s military capability. This morning, Rear Admiral Parry (rtd) supported Stanhope. He told the Today programme: “I believe that he should have said that the Strategic Defence and Security Review was flawed – it defied strategic

Robert Gates may be one of the best defence secretaries the United States has had in modern times. But in slamming European allies, like he did in Brussels on Friday, he was wrong. I have since long upbraided Europeans for under-investment in defence capabilities and making the wrong kind of investments. And defence expert Tomas Valasek published a fine pamphlet a few weeks ago, showing how European governments could do more for less, including by cooperating better. But they chose not to. This is not only foolish — as we live in an uncertain world where the ability to defend territory, trade, principles and people is paramount — but it

Since last week’s attack on Yemen’s President Saleh and his subsequent flight, Sana’a has been on the cusp of anarchy. Perhaps as many 400 people were killed in riots last week and the killing continues. Western diplomatic services fear for the safety of their citizens in Yemen. The MoD has been preparing contingencies. Forces and materiel deployed in the Libya are moving east. Two fleet auxiliary ships, equipped with helicopters and landing craft, and 80 Royal Marines have been stationed off the Yemeni coast. Should the 800 or so British nationals in Yemen need to be evacuated, the marines will secure a bridgehead. A further detachment, currently on exercises in

Is Britain’s growing national debt a matter of national security? In a speech this morning, Liam Fox said so. Sure, he said, you can protest at the defence cuts — but strength comes from having a strong economy and strong national accounts. “Those who are arguing for a fundamental reassessment of the Defence Review are really arguing for increased defence  pending. But they fail to spell out the  inevitable result — more borrowing, more tax rises, or more cuts elsewhere. The bottom line is that a strong economy is a national security requirement and an affordable Defence programme is the only responsible way to support our Armed Forces in the long term.” In