Defence

Richards: we’re in it for the long haul

General Sir David Richards does like thinking in decades, doesn’t he? A year or so ago, he was warning us that “the whole process [in Afghanistan] might take as long as 30 to 40 years.” Today, in interview with the Sunday Telegraph, he says that the wider battle against al-Qaeda could last around 30 years. In both cases, he deserves our attention. To hear the head of our military suggest that the West’s current conflicts will stretch across generations is sobering, to say the least. More noteworthy, though, is Richards’ claim that a “clear cut victory” over Islamist terror is “unnecessary and would never be achieved” – but that we

James Forsyth

Saluting the fallen in Afghanistan

It is to be hoped that Prince William’s visit to Afghanistan for Remembrance Sunday was a morale boost to the troops out there, a reminder that the nation appreciates their courage and salutes their dedication to duty. It was a gesture—but a worthwhile and important one. The idea for Prince William to spend Remembrance Sunday in Afghanistan was Liam Fox’s. Fox was keen to have senior representation in theatre to show the troops that they were not a forgotten army and the whole visit was arranged several months ago. Fox and the Prince flew out to Afghanistan on a scheduled military cargo flight yesterday morning. They was nothing grand about

From the archives: The end of the First World War

A blast of celebration – and of reflection – from The Spectator, written after the armistice in 1918. There is more than a touch of foresight in the warning that, “True peace and valid reconstruction demand … as much time, renunciation and self-sacrifice as the winning of the war.” Thanks be to God, The Spectator, 16 November, 1918 The thought that has filled the mind of the nation on Monday, and has possessed it ever since, is the thought, Thanks be to God. Under a thousand names and forms, consciously and unconsciously, realised fully or only half realised, this it is that has given unity to the nation and made

The London-Jakarta link should be strengthened

President Obama’s return to Indonesia this week was remarkable, in part, for the limited attention it has garnered outside his childhood nation. You can’t walk through an airport bookshop without being inundated by bestsellers about China’s rise. India has always occupied a special part in British hearts. But Indonesia is different. There are few in the British foreign policy establishment who really know the place. Some British military officers know a few Indonesian counterparts through their time at Sandhurst and the Defence Academy. The human rights lobby grew familiar with Indonesia over years of protests against the Sukarno/Suharto dictatorships and the country’s mistreatment of East Timor. But, on the whole,

The new Iraq is beginning to look a lot like the old

Nouri Maliki was last night appointed Iraqi prime minister after the country broke the world record for the slowest process of government formation. Eight months passed between the election and the formation, beating even previous Belgian records of procrastination. Hours after his appointment, however, members of al-Iraqiya, the main Sunni-backed alliance led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, walked out of the Parliament. Their concern: Maliki’s failure to do as he had promised and reinstate four Sunni leaders who had been banned for alleged ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. Despite the walk-out, Jalal Talabani was elected president and handed the task of forming a government to the largest coalition,

Poppy season

Keen-eyed spectators might have noticed Danny Alexander and Michael Gove wearing a slightly different type of poppy over the last few days: the Scottish Poppy. At the beginning of the poppy-wearing season they are for sale at the Scottish Office in Whitehall and are worn by certain Scots down here – any money that Andrew Marr will be wearing one on Sunday, for example.   What’s the difference? Scots poppies have four petals, and no green leaf.  The English version costs a little more to produce, and – one might argue – looks more sophisticated. But the Scots version can claim to be anatomically correct, because poppies don’t have green

What sort of country do we want to be? A soft one

Admiral Lord West’s intervention was most striking in its language. He promised that a ‘national humiliation on the scale of the loss of Singapore’ would ensue unless his advice was heeded. Writing in the Times (£), Sir Menzies Campbell notes West’s seething tone and concludes that his frustration was the product of a review of defence resources, not strategy. At no point, Campbell says, did the government ask ‘what sort of country do we want to be’ and plan accordingly. Campbell continues: ‘Is Britain ready now or likely to be ready to go to the aid, alone or with allies, of a nation that becomes the target of aggression, as

Britain’s threadbare defence establishment

A mutiny is brewing. Several former admirals, led by Lord West, have written a seething letter to the Times (£), condemning the decision to decommission the Harrier and Ark Royal. Their argument is that the Harrier is versatile and cheap and that the Falklands are more vulnerable without it: ‘In respect of Afghanistan: Harrier could still use Kandahar runway if half of it were blocked by Taleban action; can use any make-shift landing site; has a response time of less than 10 minutes, as against 30; performs better in hot weather; requires fewer ground crew; and has better availability. Harrier can deliver close air support of ground forces anywhere from

Cameron the optimist

Is David Cameron just too nice? There are worse accusations to levy at a politician, but it’s one I have heard suggested quite a lot recently – and I have written about it in my News of the World column today. He seems to have adopted the politics of wishful thinking. There is a “zip-a-dee-do-dah strategy” and precious little contingency if things go wrong. He makes defence cuts, because he doesn’t intend to go on a massive deployment (neither did Woodrow Wilson). He will make prison cuts, because he thinks – bless him – that it won’t increase crime. He signs a deal with French for military co-operation, thinking they

In defence of UK-French defence cooperation

The Entente Cordial Redux has generated a lot of commentary, most of it ill-informed, some of it ridiculous. Tory MP Bernard Jenkin, in particular, has singled himself out to be a perpetuator of stereotypes with his reference to the duplicitous nature of the French. But many historians, like the otherwise brilliant Orlando Figes, have not fared much better, talking about the Crimea War as if it had any relevance at all for modern warfare. It’s good fun to tease the French. That is what boozy lunches ought to be about. But it should not pass for serious commentary by MPs. Since the 1990s the French have worked very closely with

A day of Tory grumbles

Today is one of those days when you can’t walk around the Palace of Westminster without bumping into a Tory with a grumble about the coalition’s polices. First of all, there’s massive irritation that the government has been forced into agreeing that prisoners should have the right to vote. It has revived Tory concerns about the ECHR and annoyance that the presence of the Lib Dems in the government means that nothing will be done about it. Then, there’s this Anglo-French defence agreement. Tories are, understandably, deeply suspicious of anything that smacks of giving the French a veto over the deployment of British forces. For many Tory MPs, the answer

Entente très cordiale

When it comes to pomp, Britain and France are still superpowers. The entente très cordiale has brought out all the plumage of 400 years of professional soldiering – bearskins, ostrich feathers, mink, gold leaf, thorough-bred horses, billowing capes and vibrant shades of scarlet and blue. Waterloo must have been a hell of a fashion show, before the guns inaugurated spectacle of a different kind.    As Liam Fox explained on the Today programme, this agreement enables two ailing but still ambitious powers to project force overseas beyond their specific territorial interests. They will share aircraft carrier capabilities, nuclear research secrets, and a pool of elite combat forces to be deployed

WEB EXCLUSIVE: The Spectator defence debate

With the strategic defence review hot off the presses, The Spectator asked Allan Mallinson, Robert Fox, Con Coughlin, Adam Holloway MP and Richard Dannatt to discuss if the time has come for the army, navy and air force to be combined into a massive British Marine Corps. For the benefit of CoffeeHousers, here is Lloyd Evans’ parade ground review.

The day of reckoning draws near

Tomorrow we finally move from generalities to specifics.  No need to argue any more about whether the losers will be up in arms or will it all be a damp squib.  Tomorrow we get the gory detail. At the time of the Emergency Budget we were told to expect cuts in non-ring-fenced departments of 25 percent.  Then we heard that departments had been asked to provide scenarios for 25 percent and 40 percent cuts.  That was always going to be necessary because Defence and Education (the two largest departments apart from the ring-fenced Health) weren’t ever going to be cut by that much.  After today’s Strategic Defence and Security Review,

James Forsyth

Cameron reveals the scale of defence cuts

David Cameron delivered his statement on the Strategic Defence and Security Review with few rhetorical flourishes. He had two main messages: i) the mission in Afghanistan would be spared from the 8 percent cuts in this Parliament’s defence budget, and ii) the problems the review is trying to deal with stem from the fact that “the last government got it badly wrong.”   The appalling legacy that Labour has left the coalition on defence rather hamstrung Ed Miliband in his response. The most memorable line in it was a gag about how he had advance sight of the statement in ‘today’s papers, Monday’s papers, Sunday’s papers.’ Indeed, trickier for Cameron

James Forsyth

Not fit for purpose

John Reid famously declared that ‘the Home Office was not fit for purpose’. But judging by the fudge over the carriers this epithet would have been better applied to one of his previous departments, the Ministry of Defence. Something has gone very wrong when it would cost more not to build something than to build it. How the MoD got into this position over the carriers needs to be the subject of an urgent and thorough investigation. Those responsible for this absurd situation need to be held to account. It is also ridiculous that there will be several years when there’ll be no carrier from which helicopters can be launched

The coalition’s carrier trouble

We will be presented with the full defence review at around 1430 today – but already its contents are spilling out across the papers. Much of it is unsurprising: a delay for the Trident upgrade, two new aircraft carriers, etc. But some of it is slightly more surprising: for instance, the immediate decommissioning of both our 80-strong fleet of Harriers and the Navy’s 25 year-old flagship, the HMS Ark Royal. As Liam Fox admitted on the Today Programme earlier, those last two measures will mean that Britain loses the ability to fly jets from its carriers for up to ten years. Ruling the waves, and even the skies, has been

Fox in the dock?

Split-stories have their own momentum. As soon as you know that a certain secretary of state is in the dog house with Downing Street, you start seeing things through that prism. So when I saw that the press release on the government’s new national security strategy contained quotes from the PM, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Development Secretary, but not the Defence Secretary, I immediately regarded it – and perhaps wrongly – as part of the Westminster Fox hunt.   Liam Fox’s appearance on the Politics Show on Sunday was ill-advised. By celebrating his defiance of the Treasury’s demands and trumpeting the PM’s support for him, he