Leading article: Strategic self-interest

Tuesday 14 September 2010 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

With spectacularly poor timing, senior officers of the Army and Royal Navy have chosen the week in which the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain is commemorated to suggest that the Royal Air Force should be abolished.

The backroom whispering is distasteful and dishonourable, not merely because of the extraordinary valour, self-sacrifice and commitment displayed by that handful of pilots of whom Winston Churchill declared that "never was so much owed, by so many, to so few".

A new strategic defence review is imminent, and no options should be closed off in advance of these discussions. There are a range of radical possibilities which must be considered, including whether or not to maintain Britain's expensive Trident nuclear deterrent programme. These decisions represent the very definition of the national interest and must be made with proper reflection.

Cost-cutting – so central to the Coalition Government's programme – will be an important determinant, not least because the Ministry of Defence regularly overspends its budget. But the changing nature of the world in which we live and the threats our nation may face in the future must be the primary criteria. For leading military figures to be positioning their services in this way ahead of such a major rethink smacks of self-interest.

On the face of it, the suggestion that the RAF's tasks could be divided, with the lift and delivery components going to the Army and the strike capability to the Navy makes sense. But there might be all manner of hidden costs in terms of training and equipment. Even if long-term savings could be produced, these might only be achieved by incurring significant additional expenditure at a time when the public purse is under unprecedented pressure. It is important to guard against the assumption that a conventional attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies do not have the reach. The truism that generals are always preparing for the last war rather than the next one should be borne in mind.

Times of plenty, rather than those of austerity, are more suited to radical restructuring exercises. The Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, should be banging the heads of the top brass together and ordering them to scrutinise their own budgets, instead of seeking to protect them at the expense of someone else's.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in