|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
December 12, 2003, Scotsman DEFENCE REPORT: BRITISH FORCES CAN STAND ALONE NO LONGER Gethin Chamberlain Defence Correspondent IT RAN to 28 pages - 64 if the supporting essays were included - of dense civil service double-speak. Long on words, short on detail, yesterday's long -awaited defence white paper (Delivering Security in a Changing World) appeared intent on shedding as little light as possible on the nuts and bolts of defence planning, other than to reveal that for Britain's armed forces, medium-sized is the new big. But tucked away alongside the aspirations for a brave new world of rapid -reaction forces and hi-tech military solutions was one startling admission - Britain can no longer stand on its own two feet militarily. There will be no more Falklands, no more Suez: if Britain wants to take on another state, it will only do so if it has the United States by its side. On this, at least, the white paper pulled no punches. "The most demanding expeditionary operations, involving intervention against state adversaries, can only plausibly be conducted if US forces are engaged, either leading a coalition or in NATO," it said. The best the UK could hope for, it concluded, was that by going along with the US, the country might be able to have a say in how the operations were conducted. "Where the UK chooses to be engaged, we will wish to be able to influence political and military decision making throughout the crisis, including during the post-conflict period. The significant military contribution the UK is able to make to such operations means that we secure an effective place in the political and military decision-making processes." To do that, the armed forces needed to become, in essence, an adjunct of the US military. They had to be "interoperable with US command and control structures, match the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US". And the blunt reappraisal of the UK's dwindling military muscle continued. "The UK will not be able to make a military contribution to the response to every international crisis," it said. "Generally, where we are involved, we will respond in coalitions with other countries." The only way to do that was to maintain existing alliances, develop new partnerships, seek and exploit political and military influence, and hope to ensure access for British forces in times of crisis. When Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, stood up in the Commons yesterday, he was careful not to be drawn on exactly how the armed forces would be trimmed to fit in to this new role. He had already ruled out the abolition of Scottish regiments; yesterday, he would give no further clues as to his plans for the infantry other than to say that decisions would be announced next year. When it came to the planning of future military operations, he told MPs, the most significant factor would be the armed forces' ability to deal with "multiple, concurrent small to medium-sized" missions. Gone are the days when military capability was measured in weight of numbers and equipment. In the modern world it would be measured in terms of an ability to act quickly, accurately and decisively. And that, it became clear, meant lighter, more slimline armed forces. Out went the dependency on the heavy armour that had performed so successfully in Iraq and out, too, went some of the older ships and the need for so many aircraft. In their place would come an emphasis on using technology to deliver the maximum military effect from the forces available. "Our focus is now on delivering flexible forces able to configure to generate the right capability in a less predictable and more complex operational environment," he said, in the foreword to the white paper. "This implies significant changes in the way we plan, prepare and execute operations, placing different pressures and demands on our people, equipment, supporting infrastructure and processes." To achieve these aims, the white paper suggested an increased reliance on the reserves and hi-tech systems while maintaining enough air, land and sea forces - as well as the Trident nuclear fleet - to enable Britain to conduct "limited national operations". And it also made clear that some elements of the current armed forces structure would go. "We will not be able to hold on to platforms or force elements that do not have the flexibility to meet the demands of future operations," it said. "In particular, it is now clear that we no longer need to retain a capability against the re- emergence of a direct conventional strategic threat to the United Kingdom or our allies." Mr Hoon said that the "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by international terrorists coupled with the consequences of failed or failing states present us with very real and immediate challenges".
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
