WILLIAM REES-MOGG: No planes, no ships means no no-fly zone

 

The worst mistake a government can make in defence policy is to take
on commitments while failing to back them with equipment, troops and
money.

This was a notorious failure of Tony Blair's years when he took
military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq  -  but
failed to provide the resources to fight them properly.

These included the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where the
morale of soldiers was undermined by the shortage of equipment. Worse,
soldiers' lives were lost because they were sent out on patrol in
obsolete, lightly armoured Land Rovers.

 

Last week David Cameron simultaneously threatened military action in Libya and outlined a further dismantling of our Armed Forces

The Government willed the ends of victory, but the Treasury
under Gordon Brown would not will the means. At the time, people
thought this might be a particular failing of a Labour Government that
had no understanding of the needs of soldiers, and no great sympathy
either.

Successive Defence Ministers had no grip on the department.
Perhaps, one hoped, there would soon be a Conservative government that
accepted that it had to match resources to these commitments.

During the post-war period the Conservative Party had been
the party with the greater military experience. The Tories had recent
memories of a government led by Winston Churchill, the greatest of
British war leaders.

Most post-war Tory Prime Ministers had either fought in the
First World War, as did Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan, or in the
Second World War, as did Ted Heath.

Last week David Cameron simultaneously threatened military
action in Libya and outlined a further dismantling of our Armed Forces,
even though the war in Afghanistan continues.

Cameron threatened to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. Yet
at the same time, the Ministry of Defence was pushing forward with the
Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), with the proposed axing
of 2,700 RAF jobs, 5,000 Army posts and 3,300 Royal Navy positions.

In 1941, Winston Churchill made his famous promise to the
United States: 'Give us the tools and we will finish the job.'

In 2011,
Cameron seems to be saying to British Forces: 'We are taking away your
tools so you can finish the job without them.'

I know of no one with experience of modern warfare who has
any confidence in the outcome of the SDSR. Events have already proved
that its capricious cuts bear no relation to Britain's strategic needs.

 

In 2011, Cameron seems to be saying to British Forces: 'We are taking away your tools so you can finish the job without them'

It
was symbolic that HMS Cumberland, which rescued British citizens from
Libya, is one of the warships that is being scrapped  -  as are HMS Ark
Royal and the Navy's Harrier jump jets. No one knows what the next
military task will be, but it seems unlikely Britain will have the
forces to respond to it.

There is, therefore, an
extremely strong case for reopening the SDSR. The defence situation has
changed radically since the Coalition Government came to power last
year.

North Africa is now in a state of revolution or potential
revolution. Iran still poses a serious threat. Surely this is the worst
possible moment to send redundancy letters to frontline troops.

The Labour administrations of Blair and Brown left behind huge national debts that the Coalition has to reduce.

When
defence commitments are made, they have to be met and in unforeseeable
circumstances. The evidence is that Cameron is still willing to take on
new commitments while still cutting the resources with which they can be
met.

The Government has not come out well following its
reactions to the revolts in North Africa. After responding quite
promptly to the revolution in Egypt, the Government was slow to rescue
British citizens from Libya. Yet Britain had to call on resources that
will have been scrapped once the SDSR has been implemented.

If
the crisis had come a few months later, Britain would not have been
prepared. The country will become even more dependent on America when
this process is completed.

 
 

 

More from William Rees-Mogg...

•  
  WILLIAM REES-MOGG: One day oil will run out - if you get my drift
  27/02/11
•  
  WILLIAM REES-MOGG: Hold tight, it is going to be a bumpy ride
  18/02/11
•  
  WILLIAM REES-MOGG: Save Radio 4 - and fire the BBC Trust
  12/02/11
•  
  WILLIAM REES-MOGG: The future's brighter than you think...
  28/01/11
•  
  WILLIAM REES-MOGG: Interest rates have to rise - and quickly
  21/01/11
•  
  WILLIAM REES-MOGG: Americans are frightened ... and angry
  14/01/11
•  
  WILLIAM REES-MOGG: The Coalition will live or die in Oldham...
  07/01/11
•  
  WILLIAM REES-MOGG: Peaches, Lord Tom... and an internet riddle
  31/12/10
•  
  VIEW FULL ARCHIVE

 

It was a diplomatic blunder for Cameron to threaten Colonel Gaddafi with a no-fly zone. No-fly zones are big boys' games.

Britain cannot make effective threats of this kind unless the United States is backing them.

It rapidly appeared that U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates was not in support of the British initiative. Since then, the Russians have also made it clear they are opposed to it.

However, Cameron may also have misjudged British public opinion. Blair has left Britain a more pacific country than he found it. The only one of Blair's wars that now seems to have been appropriate in scale and successful in outcome was that of Sierra Leone, which undoubtedly saved lives.

The Government should reopen the defence review. Britain needs to reduce commitments and increase the capacity of a flexible response.

No jingoist assumptions should be made about public opinion. The British people do not have any time for Gaddafi, but they would be reluctant to be involved in military action. They do not want another Iraq War.

Above all, the Armed Forces need reassurance that they will be properly equipped for the job.

That calls for a new defence review and a new debate about the priorities of British strategy.