The American Spectator : Britain's Defense Collapse Continues

Text Size

At Large

Britain's Defense Collapse Continues

By Hal G.P. Colebatch on 2.23.11 @ 6:07AM

David Cameron will soon be traveling without a military escort.

In an article published here on January 18, I mentioned the woeful state of Britain's armed forces, referring then to the gutting of the Royal Navy in particular.

Since then, of course, the Arab world has gone up in flames and while it is impossible to know what will happen, prolonged and serious violence seems certain.

Also, since I last wrote on the subject, further changes in British defense policy have been announced. Reading them moves anyone who cares for Britain and its proud history -- or for the stability and security of the Western world -- from cold shock to a kind of disgusted disbelief.

A quarter of the Royal Air Force's trainee pilots are to be sacked, some on the verge of completing their courses, while the new Nimrod long-range anti-submarine, patrol and transport aircraft, reputedly the most advanced of their kind in the world, are being cut up for scrap. (It is not difficult to imagine a situation in which such aircraft are going to be needed to evacuate British civilians from some of the Arab countries.)

The new Typhoon fighters, the mainstay of the fighter force, are being cannibalized for spare parts. Matthew Sinclair, director of the Taxpayer's Alliance, is reported as saying: "It is incredible that planes costing tens of millions of pounds are being broken down for parts while still new." Tory Member of Parliament and former Army officer Patrick Mercer has said: "The idea of introducing an expensive aircraft like this into service and then immediately using it as some sort of avionics Exchange and Mart is preposterous." It is further reported that the Royal Air force is to be reduced to a total of six squadrons of fast jets -- three of fighters and three of bombers. Even Belgium has five squadrons. Civilian security firms are being contracted for anti-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean (it was one of the Royal Navy's proudest claims that it had swept the seas clean of pirates nearly 200 years ago). Don't forget that this is happening at a time when the U.S. is making big defense cuts as well.

And now the latest news: according to the quasi-conservative Daily Telegraph, the Army is to lose a further 20,000 men, shrinking it to 80,000, the smallest it has been since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. To add insult to injury, some service personnel, who have devoted their whole lives to their services, with all the danger and hardship that this carries with it, are being notified of their redundancy via e-mails. The Telegraph claims the Treasury wanted the cuts to be twice this size.

One defense source is quoted as saying: "We will be moving into an era of sharing capabilities with our European allies. The days of being able to do everything are long gone."

What this amounts to is an abrogation of national sovereignty, to say nothing of national security and self-respect. Is Britain going to rely on its "European allies" if, for example, it has to defend the Falkland Islands again? What will be the effect on Britain's place in the world if a third-rate military power like Argentina kicks it out, the "European allies" refuse to commit troops and treasure on Britain's behalf (as with their extremely half-hearted commitment to Afghanistan) and it is simply unable to do anything about it?

Another senior officer said that the cuts would be hugely damaging, and that: "Effect on morale? In my judgment it is enormous. If you survive an operational tour you will possibly lose your job post 2015, or your chances of promotion will be reduced in a smaller Army."

It is as if the weird Conservative-Liberal-Democrat coalition of Cameron and Clegg is simply unable to take sovereignty or national security seriously or to realize the obvious fact that the world may be moving into a new phase of dangerous instability.

It is true that much of the fault lies with the previous Labour Governments. A decade of the socialism of Blair and Brown has left the British economy a shambles. Yet even this doesn't wash as an excuse when one considers the stunning fact that Britain, allegedly too poor to defend itself, has actually increased its Foreign Aid budget, with the equivalent of about $1.6 billion going to India alone -- enough to pay for a large part of the Indian space program, or perhaps its aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine program -- the Indian Navy has 56,000 personnel compared to a projected 30,000 for the Royal Navy, as well as about twice the number of ships.

Among innumerable other examples of horrendous waste are the London Olympics and the six-figure pay packets of not only senior national civil servants but also of local government functionaries whose responsibilities revolve round such weighty matters as garbage collection.

Defense has, throughout history, been the first (some would say almost the only) justification of government. The history of the early Middle Ages shows peasants putting up with all manner of tyrannical lords, tax-collectors and robber barons, so long as they kept their part of the bargain and supplied defense and protection. The peasants revolted when their overlords lost the will or ability to defend them. Perhaps Cameron should read some of the accounts of knights in full armor being roasted on spits by the common folk they had failed to defend.

Cameron may have it brought home to him that there is more to leading Britain than membership of the Bullingdon drinking club, a cheesy smile, pretty wife, and cunning in party management.

About the Author

Hal G.P. Colebatch's "Immram," Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 7:28AM

Since Blair and Brown bankrupted England through their Socialist spending and leaving England's defense naked to the world, then why in the hell are they not being frog marched through Parliament, and being charged with destroying England's finances, and National Security?
Parliament is also complicit in this destruction or least least many former members.
!By God England you don't have to stand for this! Blair and Brown have wrought more hidden destruction upon your shores that Adolph Hitler could ever hoped to accomplish.
Who is going to protect your shores from the next invaders? I remember viewing films from WWII observing old men with pitch forks, and shovels, standing in column to protect England from the German hoards, because some other English Idiot thought England didn't need a standing army either.
Blair travels the world commanding millions of pounds to flash his toothy smile, while some poor sod that has spent his adult life defending England gets a pink slip, with a cheesy note saying, "Sorry Mate, her Majesty doesn't need you anymore, sorry about your luck."
Cameron isn't much better either, he is about as worthless as teats on a boar hog as well. But England can't take it all out on him. Blair and Brown has left England in such a sorry state of affairs he has nothing to work with. Blair and Brown literally bankrupted England and then some.
"But the EU will protect England." plaaaeeeessseeee, the EU spent long and arduous hours arguing what colors to paint their grand bathrooms in Belgium?
Once again England your backs are up against your shores again not from an enemy from afar, but from the many enemies from within. I think the good citizens need to start your spits up again and roast some former Prime Ministers and members of Parliament, God knows their fat enough for their failure to protect England.

Doc| 3.10.11 @ 2:54PM

I agree with all you say about Blair and Brown but Cameroon had a choice and he chose appeasment to the EU and the UN, cut the dole for the slackers, get rid of the illiterat 3rd world immigrants and stop pissing money away oversea's, the amount saved on all three would more than pay for a 1st rate world class Navy, Army and Airforce.... lets face it, Cameroon is a plastic Tony Blair, the only hope Britain has is the UKIP and to pull out of the EU and enact savage cuts throughout the welfare roles, once the ingrate turd worlders are gone, money not being wasted on turd world ingrates and dole recipiants having to work Britain will slowly but surely climb out of the pit of despair.

YOU SAID WHAT?| 2.23.11 @ 7:40AM

The cost of garrisoning the Falkland/Malvinas, a conquest of little value and great distance, is one of the reasons Britain cannot maintain its imperial stretch.

A canny American leadership should note that, but won't. It will eventually follow Britain into the sinkhole awaiting all empires. It will not have extracted anything of real value from the experience.

Old Soldier| 2.23.11 @ 9:22AM

Are you joking? Deploying an infantry company and 4 fighters to the Falklands brought down the British Empire?

YOU SAID WHAT?| 2.23.11 @ 11:45AM

Look up the costs subsequent to the Falklands War. Then look at your ridiculous assertion about what it took to retake the territory. Then look at what I posted. Then ignore me, and I you.

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 1:01PM

No, you said nothing in your original post, about the Falklands War and the costs associated with it. You talked about garrisoning. There is a big difference between funding a small token garrison, and funding a war.
Are you trying to split hairs?

Old Soldier| 2.23.11 @ 2:45PM

So a short war in the 80's broke them? Is our budget crisis due to our intervention in Grenada?

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 4:00PM

Nah, Panama. Doggone it I knew Ortega was behind this.

Christopher Holland| 2.23.11 @ 6:53PM

It wasn't much of an empire. It wasn't the same as the Goths sacking Rome

Mike Rogers| 2.26.11 @ 12:01PM

The empire was brought down by hubris, socialism, and the rise of a richer power.
Overreach in Afghanistan helped destroy the might of the empire.
Socialism bankrupted it, then the rise of the USA and change of reserve currency left the bank of England with no ability to prop up the currency. George Soros was waiting for their collapse, and you can bet he's waiting for ours.
Meanwhile, notwithstanding the sorry history of the 60s and 70s, Thatcher brought the country back from the brink, only to watch the artful dodger and his socialist sidekick incrementally undo everything once more.
The destruction of the armed forces is shortsighted and dumb, but it reflects the lack of vision and boldness of Cameron - if he's had any real political instincts, he'd have let this coalition run only a few weeks before going to the Queen and saying "I have bold ideas for restoring the economy, but I'll never succeed with this clown, Clegg in the government. Please dissolve Parliament and give me a shot at winning a true majority."
(In Britain, the PM can call an election any time from 0-5years.)

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 8:08AM

You cannot base an entire country's national defense budget on what it cost to garrison troops in the Malvinas. The token force that was stationed there cost a pittance to maintain.
Then I guess it also could be said, what was the cost, benefit factor to Blair and Brown's social programs?
To answer that question truthfully we need to look no farther than the current situation unfolding before us.
The United State's situation, well we've spent billions upon billions of stimulus dollars that were borrowed and we have nothing that is tangible to show for it.

PJ| 2.23.11 @ 9:13AM

"The peasants revolted when their overlords lost the will or ability to defend them. ... accounts of knights in full armor being roasted on spits by the common folk they had failed to defend."

Seems like the Middles Ages had some things right!

Mike Rogers| 2.26.11 @ 12:02PM

Please sir, may fit the Exalted One for a suit of armor and invite him to a barbecue?

Confucious Say| 2.23.11 @ 9:31AM

.. best learn to speak Chinese....

Petronius| 2.23.11 @ 10:18AM

In very truth. The average Brit is not allowed to defend himself, family, and property when attacked by yobs. Their veterans are set upon by thugs constantly and their legal establishment sides with offenders. The Commons were compelled to act when muslims lined the streets to spit on troops on parade. So what's left to defend? When the British Government defaults over entitlement spending, and the lowlife over there storm Parlaiment, Europe will have another trashocracy and the Irish will live happily over a fortnight. Not here.

Louis Jenkins| 2.23.11 @ 10:29AM

Think of the ease the Brits will have should they ever face another Dunkirk. 80,000 men will be pulled off the beach in a matter of hours with fewer boats. (Just kidding) The USA will be unable to send them any aide considering the cut backs we're facing. Remember when England advertised for private arms to be sold or donated in order to defend against Germany? England has become a third world nation, and the USA is becoming the same. We're in a war, not of our making, and America's strongest cohort is pulling its own plug.

Drew| 2.23.11 @ 11:35AM

I suggest American conservatives take a very close look at what happens to Britain over the next year or so, in order to get a better understanding of the disaster that will envelop the United States should the current Republican Congress get its way with reckless and wrong-headed spending cuts.

The British military is being systematically dismantled in the name of national austerity. And while one might bemoan the destruction of Nimrod anti-submarine aircraft, one can rest assured that they would be absolutely no use whatsoever in evacuating British civilians. For one thing, they have no seats for passengers, being packed with electronic gear. And Britain furthermore has one of the largest fleets of civil airliners in the world, and whose owners would be more than willing to charter them to the Government to aid in evacuations.

The author also seems to have a somewhat curious view of measuring naval power. The Indian navy's 56,000 personnel might be a significant measure IF martime battles were fought by fleets of oar-powered galleys. They aren't. The Royal Navy's Astute and Trafalgar class fleet submarines alone could sink the entire Indian navy (should some incredible set of circumstances come to pass.)

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 1:03PM

But once the Indian Navy hunts down and sinks each of these vessels, then what?

Mike Rogers| 2.26.11 @ 12:06PM

We can cut the pork out of defense without destroying it. We should challenge the Pentagon to manage what it has efficiently, and to (more) loudly decry any pork projects ladled onto defense appropriations.
The real cuts can and should be elsewhere. We can cut the federal government in half or more without touching its only real job, defense.

Juan Jose Morales| 2.23.11 @ 12:05PM

Do you expect me to feel sorry for the country that invaded my Puerto Rico three times, and which stole the Malvinas from Argentina taking unfair advantage of the fact that Argentina at that time was in a civil war and therefore could not defend itself?
More importantly, has anybody realised that the GB of Elizabeth II is not any longer the GB of George V, and that maybe the USA should start looking for new allies?

John K| 2.23.11 @ 12:26PM

Every word of this piece is correct. We are currently sending the frigate HMS Cumberland to cover the Libyan crisis, yet this ship is due to be deleted in April under the cuts to the armed forces because she was no longer needed!

The fact is that our Quisling establishment really does want to subsume Britain into a European defence identity, in which we will not be able to undertake any independent action. Given that our entire sovereignty is being subsumed into the European Union, this at least makes logical sense: if you are not a sovereign state, you do not need sovereign armed forces.

Too Many Tims| 2.23.11 @ 12:22PM

(playing devil's advocate)
No one is poised to invade England. What could they possibly need weapons for?

John K| 2.23.11 @ 12:27PM

Sorry Tim, but you are either too stupid to live, or a troll.

Too Many Tims| 2.23.11 @ 12:37PM

Neither. As I noted I wanted to argue from a contrarian position. Guess that was lost on you.

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 1:16PM

Tims, there is always going to be bad guys in the world, and sometimes they don't come from abroad.
I guess it all boils down to human nature. Yes, we can go for a number of years without the lust for our neighbors blood, then all of a sudden, we wake up one morning and decide, to make war.
One country has the means to defend themselves and another country has decided it doesn't need the expense of defense. Which country is the bad guy going to attack. It doesn't necessarily need to be in a conventional sense, but it could take the form of terrorism.

Too Many Tims| 2.23.11 @ 1:32PM

Sure. I guess what I am getting at is have Britons have reached a (bizarre and deluded) point where they think that they are beyond the reach of war?

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 2:33PM

Now that is a scary proportion. So this more or less explains England's position on immigrants and the hands off approach to them to integrate into English society.
"Don't want to make anybody angry, they might lash out at us. If we remain absolutely still, maybe Goblins won't notice us."

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 2:57PM

I may have been a bit too harsh in my opinion. If memory serves me correctly, didn't the powers that be in England after WWII come to the conclusion that maintaining a standing military was no longer needed?
Now there may have been two trains of thought. The nuclear weapon was the ultimate deterrent, no need have having a standing army, and with that line of thinking socialists coming into power were going to use the defense savings on social programs.
Unlike the United States who at times has been on a roller coaster type mentality when it comes to funding it's military. One President, the DOD is in fat city, then the succeeding President decides to gut the military and the cycle never ends.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.11 @ 6:43PM

The answer, of course, (TMT is NOT Tim* or Clint, folks, but a reasonable fellow of normal capitalization practice) is that there are bad guys out there, and even New Zealand has a defense force to deal with Fiji (I kid you not).

As I pointed out two years ago in many brilliant commentaries on Medscape as my colleagues were falling under the spell of the One, Europe is a Dead Man Walking, about to fall under the umbrella of Dar-es-Islam. All you need to do is check the Demographics. For this reason, as Britain becomes a Falling Camel, its defense needs will increase, not decrease. In short, the UK is caput. By it's own hand.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.11 @ 6:43PM

Sorry---its own hand. Tired.

John K| 2.24.11 @ 10:51AM

Not really, but it is just a stupid question. Britain is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with world wide commitments and obligations. Is that too hard to understand? Some things are a waste of time even bothering about.

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 1:06PM

Maybe the French?

Occam's Tool| 2.23.11 @ 6:46PM

Renault Torching Time in the Minority Ghettos is always 6 PM.

France, too, is a Dead Man walking. The French in their birthrate statistics do not discuss the differences between the Gauls and the Turks in Gaul. Sorry, Melvin. Not the French.

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 10:57PM

Telle est la vie.

Mike Rogers| 2.26.11 @ 12:11PM

Actually, the UK should fix its priorities, beef up its defense, and look for new allies, of which Obama's USA should be the last, worst choice.
Cameron may need to be replaced, and an election called before that happens, but it surely will.
Just remember, the USA abandoned the UK as a partner as the first act of this administration:
They threw a bust of Churchill back in the face of the British embassy, and told a major UK newspaper that the UK wasn't anything special. The don't adore Obama over there, for very good reason.

Mike Rogers| 2.26.11 @ 12:15PM

Maybe they won't be invaded traditionally, but every Christian man should be armed, so as to repel the encroaching caliphate. Let's show the invaders what "honor" and "killing" really look like!
Give the the people their guns back, and honor the Magna Carta.

axbucxdu| 2.23.11 @ 1:15PM

See c.f., George Santayana, Dominations and Powers: Reflections on Liberty, Society, and Government, 1951.

The end of soft empirium is not necessarily the end of the country, whether we're discussing either the U.S., or U.K. It's far better to recognize and accept one's limitations, than to pretend they don't exist.

Too Many Tims| 2.23.11 @ 1:37PM

Take Canada for example. Here's a nation that has miniscule military power. History and two oceans have shielded them from harm. Now on the horizon they face a challenge from Russia for all of the resources under the ice cap which will be unlocked by 21st century technology. The Russians are serious about claiming as much as they can , including inside Canadian waters.
Will Canada shape a strategic force for the new century or will they rely on the US and their good intentions?

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 2:30PM

Canada will rely on us, and the security umbrella that we provide. But then again as well all know, Russia uses natural resources to wield as a political weapon, and not shyly either.
Look at the Philippines and China over the Spratly Islands. Both Countries claim them, but due to the Philippines small size and lack of offensive military, it more or less has regulated these islands to the Chinese. Because the Philippines are intimidated.
And that more or less is the whole gist of it. Who can intimidate who. It can go for good or it can go for bad.

YOU SAID WHAT?| 2.24.11 @ 8:31AM

Only one country has menaced Canada. That country is a serial offender. A neighbor. Despite Canada's miniscule power, the fight was a draw.

ABNCP| 2.23.11 @ 3:16PM

Juan Jose. The reason Argentina went to war in the Falklands was to try and distract it's citizens attention from the horrible Government they were enduring at that time to the war with the Brits. As it happend the Government lost both the war and the country but the citizens of Argentina won since they overthrew the lousy Government.

Christopher Holland| 2.23.11 @ 6:50PM

The British say that the days of doing everything are gone. I think they will soon find that the days of doing anything at all are gone as well.

The British simply do not want to be an independent sovereign state any more, they have given up, it is too hard. Their parliament is overruled by unelected, unaccountable judges and bureaucrats in Brussels and nobody cares. The British have surrended their freedoms and they no longer need a military to protect them now that they have gone. Gutless bastards do not need weapons, they need a backbone.

John K| 2.24.11 @ 10:53AM

I could not agree more, sadly.

Dan| 2.23.11 @ 7:08PM

Not to long from now the Islamist in Britain will riot and turn cities into battlegrounds. The British government has allowed the Muslim problem to fester for too long a time due to the government's worship of political correctness. In America the Islamists will gain some control of local and state governments through our court system. And if Obama remains president after 2012 that day will come much faster.

Robert| 2.23.11 @ 8:05PM

It is a shame what is happening to England. We will soon be joining you on the junk heap of history with a treasonous White House occupant such as we have here in the US. You have been our allies and I am shamed by the treatment by Barry Soetoro. BTW...The Prince and Kate have shown excellent taste in not inviting the classless scum from our White House.

Vita Men| 2.23.11 @ 9:21PM

---"Using MASSIVE third world
immigration we will destroy British culture
beyond repair within a couple of decades."
-TONY BLAIR
( leaked interview cited by Alan Watt online)

"Remember, 'FREE' trade, Globalism and
EUGENICS are always intertwined.
-----ALWAYS..."
-Alan Watt
(online)

Take a look at what two centuries of Globalism
and Free Trade have done for, and to, the good
people of Britain.

TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK

------------------"ALWAYS"

KyMouse| 2.23.11 @ 9:37PM

When "the days of doing everything" are gone, "the days of doing anything at all" may be disastrously fleeting as well.

GavInTucson| 2.24.11 @ 12:22AM

I'm surprised the author failed to mention the proposed "merger" of the British and French military. The potential blurring of national sovereignty seems a bit evident to me.

http://politicalpromise.co.uk/.....c-treaty/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb.....rench.html

John K| 2.24.11 @ 10:54AM

It's the elephant in the room, but our political slime will not acknowledge it.

Mistral| 2.24.11 @ 12:59PM

The political British world has turned upside down - New Labour really put the purge on welfare benefits and brought in bank loans for intending undergraduates instead of government grants for tertiary education. Imagine a real sociualist government doing such things. On the other hand Cameron (some Conservative) did an underhand deal with New Labour when Blair was in power not to oppose the special privileges sodomites were to be given in the Sexual Orientation Regulations which was passed into law late one night when most members of Parliament had gone home. Now so-called Conservatives are destoying what is left of the armed forces. Imagine the so-called right wing has become pacifist in UK. In the meantime many Brits couldn't care less as increasing numbers of young people blow their minds on ecstatsy every weekend and binge drink their way to early deaths in a country open 24 hours a day to alcoholism and other substance abuse. Even if UK keeps its armed forces there won't be many healthy young recruits left to choose from in any case. This is a nation going down the drain rapidly which is why I would never have brought my children up there.

Mistral| 2.24.11 @ 1:03PM

Grate Britain!

Byron Keith| 2.25.11 @ 7:42PM

Well, why should they defend themselves? We sepnt much of the 20th Century teaching them that if some kaiser or commisar starts roaming around beyond his own borders, we'll come charging across the Atlantic to bail them out. They stripped themselves naked to the world once before (see Churchill's "Gathering Storm"), but hey - they've got the colonials at their beck & call. Right?

Sovereignty? Give me a break. They may keep the monarchy until the Windsors finally produce some loser who's as ugly on the outside as they've always been on the inside. But for every national security purpose, they've been the 51st state for a few generations. Or mayby just Puerto Rico with gin in place of rum.

Doc| 3.10.11 @ 2:37PM

What can one say, nothing... tis done... maybe if we are lucking the proverbial will hit the fan, then they will have to conscript a new bloody Army, Navy and Airforce, maybe lots of spoilt dumb young will die and maybe like the rise of Herr Hitler and his gang the 'public' will wake up and become reinvigorated about their defense as the watch the French withdraw to their vichy barracks...
Here's hoping... as old saying goes,
' The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants it is its natural manure'
Of course if we could use that quote to remove these 'tyrants' in office now, why all the better