Mark Allatt: Time to invest in our armed forces before it's too late

Mark Allatt, General Secretary of Conservative Way Forward which recently published a report from Bernard Jenkin MP calling for the doubling of defence spending, says that all the factors in the international situation point to the need for the UK to significantly boost its defence spending.

It was Machiavelli who advised his prince, “Before all else, be armed.”  It’s about time the UK had a government that would observe this first law of statecraft.

Labour’s attempt to subcontract UK foreign policy to international institutions has failed.  A British foreign policy based on the notion that it is unethical to pursue the national interest is unsustainable as British governments are elected by the British people to serve the British people.   

The UK is the sixth (recently fallen from fifth) largest economy in the world; we have strong historic connections with the US and with the emerging powers of China and India, along with the old Commonwealth; and English has become the de facto global language.      

When we look in detail at the trends for global security for the next 30 years the outlook is not very rosy.  Conflict and terrorism, particularly Islamist terrorism, will continue to increase.  The growing assertiveness of states like China, India and Iran, alongside a decoupling of the US and the EU, and the continued decline of the UN will contribute to greater trans-national and inter-communal conflict. So, if anything, demands on our Armed Forces are likely to increase.

Nobody should have any illusions about our ‘special relationship’ with the USA. Why should the US take a different view of her interests when talking to the UK?  To exercise leverage with the US, the UK needs ‘hard power’ as well as ‘soft power’, involving as much military capacity as we can afford. 

NATO primacy is being steadily undermined by EU defence policy.  A European military alliance which deliberately excludes the US is clearly not in UK interests.  The EU defence policy has hugely complicated defence relationships in Europe and wastefully duplicates what NATO already does. The more European nations talk about defence, the less they seem prepared to spend and to use what little capability they have!  It is time that we re-visited the membership of NATO due to its increasingly global role and opened it up to those out of area but willing partners like Australia.

Military capability can take many years to build up yet only one misguided decision (such as the premature withdrawal of the Sea Harrier) to destroy.   Even if we were not as heavily deployed as now, and when the prospect of a conventional military threat to the UK is assessed as low, the Armed Forces must still be able to undertake the full spectrum of expeditionary warfare.  This inevitably means both supporting them at a critical mass and continuing spending on the essential equipment which has long lead times.

The Armed Forces are rightly committed to large and expensive equipment programmes such as Typhoon, the Aircraft Carriers and the Astute submarines but the cost of technology and equipment are going up faster than inflation.  With ‘defence costs inflation’ in excess of 8 per cent, a 1.5 per cent real-terms budget increase means invidious choices about the equipment and manpower programmes.   It is estimated that the latest spending round leaves a shortfall over the next three years of around £1 billion.  In order to maintain vital long-term capabilities, the service chiefs are forced to continue the downward pressure on personnel numbers, making the problems of overstretch worse.   

Moreover, the forward costs of the desperately needed extra helicopters or armoured vehicles must be squeezed out of future manpower, the mothballing of yet more ships, and the delay, cancellation or continual trimming in numbers of major items in the equipment programme.   

While the UK has increased defence spending by less than ten per cent since 1999, many of our key allies and potential rivals increased theirs:  the USA up 60 per cent; Australia by 30 per cent; Russia by 148 per cent; and China by 129 per cent.  Labour’s increases in spending on Education and Health far outstrip increases for defence over the same period. Defence’s share of GDP has actually fallen, from 2.9 per cent to 2.3 per cent over the last ten years and latest plans will see defence fall to only 2 per cent of GDP by 2011, whereas in the US it is almost double, at 3.8 per cent.   

Informed opinion favours an increase in defence spending of at least £3 billion per annum over five years – up by around 50% on current expenditure over the lifetime of a parliament.  Even former Labour defence secretary Lord Robertson recently called for a £25 billion increase.  A future Conservative Government must fund at least such increases as part of the sharing of the proceeds of economic growth.    

The time has come to stop dithering and once again anchor our defence policy in the realities of our foreign policy. We must bulk up our Armed Forces to support our global role; otherwise they will be unable to do the job we as a nation ask them to do.

Comments

[Alex Swanson]

Absolutely agree. And when discussing these figures, it's as well to remember that during the Cold War, UK defence spending averaged 5% of then GDP.

We also need to ensure that it is spent better. Never again should we have equipment that is late to issue, or that when issued isn't good enough. If need be, UK defence contractors need to understand that govt priority is to ensure that our armed forces have what they need at a reasonable price, and that subsidising UK businesses comes an unequivocal second to that. Too often it's seemed like the other way around.

[Richard Willis]

Mark is absolutely right on this. Our armed forces are stretched to a degree that people are leaving and taking the experience base with them. New recruits are hard to find and need more training than in the past due to lack of fitness and less cadet and service-family experience.

Only a significant investment in the armed forces can prevent our slide into a third rate military power behind such states as India, Russia and China.

[Raj]

Defence spending is rarely a vote-winner, despite the fact people will say they think troops deserve more money. Ask them if they want tax cuts/more hospitals, or increased defence spending - most would go for one of the former.

However, there is now a clear need for considerably more defence spending. Labour has caused untold harm by fighting two wars on a peace-time budget and that cannot be rectified without considerable new, EXTRA investment. This isn't something a Tory government normally wants to deal with because the traditional instinct is to cut/limit spending to fund lower taxes.

But as I said there is a need for higher spending. If I had to sacrifice a tax cut for X or XX years, so be it. This country has been too selfish as hardly any pressure has been brought to bare on the government from the public. Please, Cameron and Osborne, don't hand out lower taxes before we get defence spending right. Our brave boys and girls have been betrayed by Labour - do the right thing and help them out first.

[David Belchamber]

Raj is absolutely correct at 11.06:

"Labour has caused untold harm by fighting two wars on a peace-time budget and that cannot be rectified without considerable new, EXTRA investment".

With this Labour government the country needs a War Ministry, not an MoD, and that in tun needs a war budget.

The abject Minister put up on Channel 4 News last night to defend the indefensible said he didn't "recognise" the figures (apparently put out by the MoD) for per capita costs per soldier, compared with other combat nations.

Given the comments of two coroners, the grieving father of one of the soldiers needlessly killed, the RUSI's highly critical report and last November's condemnation by five former chiefs of the defence staff of military funding, you would think that one of the Browns should have appeared (either the Ditherer Brown or the part-time Browne) to take the flak.

[fairdealphil]

Let's keep a sense of perspective.

When Margaret Thatcher (rightly) sent our troops to win back the Falklands, more British soldiers were taken out of the battle due to trench-foot than enemy action.

It turned out that they were in standard issue vastly outdated non-waterproof 'DMS' boots. There were stacks of much improved 'high leg' boots in the stores, but these were not issued until the old stocks of DMS were exhausted...

This highlights the old Army adage that 'stores are for storing', but it also illustrates a problem that didn't start with the current Labour Government.

Ex-CSM, HQ and Heavy Weapons Company, 5 Royal Anglian (TA).

[CDM]

If the government didn't insist on buying overpriced tat from BAE Systems, we wouldn't have this problem.

[Yet Another Anon]

I think a good target would be to raise 4.5% of GDP, many developments in industry have come as a result of Defence Research and it is important that funding for this (as well as Civilian R&D) is increased as well - Britain's nuclear as well as it's conventional capabilities need strengthening. The whole peace dividend argument was an excuse by those in the Major administration who saw defence as a politically easy targets for cuts in public spending, I never accepted this notion that the world was somehow safer after the USSR broke up, indeed what happened was that many militant elements who had been busy fighting the USSR (such as Al Qaeda) or were subdued by the USSR suddenly turned their attention elsewhere, China was a nuclear power and is now a nuclear superpower - the world is just as dangerous as it has ever been!

[David Sergeant]

I do suspect that those "demanding" increased expenditure on the military to-day were, yesterday, "demanding" tax cuts.

[David Jones]

Increasing defence spending may be expensive and may not be such a great vote winner, but it is absolutely necessary for our country and its defence. The Royal Navy has been stripped down to a bare minimum, the RAF can't really afford the Eurofighters they're getting and the Army are way overstretched with recruitment and equipment problems.

Defence spending should be an issue which we should tackle Labour on and our next manifesto should promise an increase to 3% of GDP within a number of years.

[Alex Swanson]

I do suspect that those "demanding" increased expenditure on the military to-day were, yesterday, "demanding" tax cuts.

I certainly was. There's no contradiction - I refuse to believe there isn't scope for cutting elsewhere. Indeed, I gave an example (albeit arguably a small one).

[Mike Turvey]

"With this Labour government the country needs a War Ministry, not an MoD, and that in tun needs a war budget."

Ministries of war are effectively illegal under the UN Charter as defence is the only legitimate use of armed force.

[Mike Turvey]

"With this Labour government the country needs a War Ministry, not an MoD, and that in tun needs a war budget."

Ministries of war are effectively illegal under the UN Charter as defence is the only legitimate use of armed force.

[Alex Swanson]

It turned out that they were in standard issue vastly outdated non-waterproof 'DMS' boots. There were stacks of much improved 'high leg' boots in the stores, but these were not issued until the old stocks of DMS were exhausted...

Yep, I was in the TA at the time as well.

However, I think you have to lay that one at the feet of senior command rather than politicians. I can't seriously believe that any minister would have refused to provide decent boots if they'd known about it. In the scheme of things the cost is trivial.

And let's not forget the saga of the SA80. The British Army had for years been refusing to issue soldiers with automatic rifles - probably the last serious army in the world to do so; when even they decided to face reality they couldn't buy off the shelf, oh no they had to have special new British ones. Which turned out to be junk. This must have cost more than simply buying someone else's would have done. And don't get me started on the war-fighting strategy I was exposed to as an O/Cdt and 2/Lt.

The hard truth is that it isn't just politicians or civil servants. Some of the generals we've had over the years have been less than stunning as well.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

I totally agree Mark. I had to leave the Forces due to medical reasons but know lots of friends from school are already looking to leave because morale is so low, and I'm 25!

Even from my short time in the Services, issues such as JPA, Pay-as-you-dine and the scandalous conditions of Forces' housing have left many Service personnel and their families feeling very unwanted by this government. I'm sure others would also agree that not only is funding a problem, but aqlmost more worryingly, the general indifferent or even hostile attitude to the Forces by the Labour Government. Very sad to see. Very sad indeed.

[James]

Alex Swanson> while not entirely disagreeing with you, do bear in mind that our 'warfightng strategy' in 1982 was firmly aimed at fighting the Russians on the plains of Europe. In fact, it wasn't really aimed at fighting them, but at holding them for the 72 odd hours it would take to either be reinforced from the United States, or for the decision to be made to deploy nuclear weapons.

[Alex Swanson]

do bear in mind that our 'warfightng strategy' in 1982 was firmly aimed at fighting the Russians on the plains of Europe.

Warsaw Pact, not Russians. Most Soviet soldiers (never mind WP) were not Russian.

In fact, it wasn't really aimed at fighting them, but at holding them for the 72 odd hours it would take to either be reinforced from the United States

I have no idea where you got that from, but it's wrong.

[John Leonard]

Certainly, I agree that we need to resolve the current issues relating to our armed forces. It is clear they are under resourced for what they are expected to do but the simple question that comes to mind is 'Where is the money going to come from?'

I accept it could be found but where from and at what price? Given the increasing demands and expectations of the British Electorate across the board and the present Government's increasingly obvious failure in managing the public budget and Public Services unless there is a cohesive explanation of where the money is going to come from and what it's for (i.e. what risks is it protecting us from) I am somewhat circumspect about blanket calls for additional funding such as this.

Given the countries current economic situation and the fact that in terms of military considerations the world has changed radically over the past 20 years (end of the Cold War, rise of international terrorism etc.), I think we need to look closer at what we expect our armed forces to do. It may be time for a rethink about what we need them for as well as looking to make sure they are properly resourced.

One thing that has occured to me is whether there is any need to split our military capability in terms of forces for 'domestic defence' and forces for 'international defence'? I don't pretend to know the answer but it seems to me that these forces could be significantly different in the way they are constructed, maintained and managed.

As with many areas of Government it seems to me that defence policy has been allowed to drift incoherently and inconsistently (e.g. EU or NATO?) with only a vague notion of who we need defending from for far too long. So before we throw more money at it perhaps we need a clear outline of what we are spending the money for?

[David Belchamber]

Mike Turvey at 17.39:

"Ministries of war are effectively illegal under the UN Charter as defence is the only legitimate use of armed force".

Sorry, Mike; I was being facetious at the expense of this incompetent goevrnment.

[Raj]

the simple question that comes to mind is 'Where is the money going to come from?'

Putting off tax cuts. If it is possible, as many Tories suggest, to lower taxers one could put such reductions off to help the military.

[Adrian Peirson]

I could find the Money,

Currently Govt spending is Borrowed.
If the Crown were to Issue it's own Currency ( which would by definition be free of charge ) into the economy that would save us the Interest Payments which amount to around £40 Billion Per Year.

http://www.stopthelie.com/chapter_1_money_is_power.html

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=7867

http://www.themoneymasters.com/principles.htm