Letter: Defence review
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.Letter: Defence review
Sir: It is regrettable that the headline you used in the article about the Strategic Defence Review ("Forces in revolt over cost-cutting review", 22 January) gave such a misleading impression of the story below. The fact is that the criticisms detailed in the article, many of which are neither new or surprising, are directed not at the Strategic Defence Review but at the problems which we identified in opposition. I launched the review precisely to deal with these problems.
I will not comment on the details contained in the leaked document, except that it demonstrates the truly open nature of the review process. I said last year that we would consult widely and listen to what people said. That is what we are doing. No punches are being pulled in this review.
The feedback it has received underlines that we were right to make the review a foreign policy rather than a resource led process. This is not a cost-cutting exercise but a re-examination of our defence requirements from first principles. Indeed, one of the main issues at the heart of our work is the need to address overstretch on our personnel and the shortfalls in military capability inherited by this government, after very deep cuts by the last one.
The Prime Minister rightly said at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last November that we must always look for efficiency in money spent on defence, but we must not reduce our capability to exercise a role on the international stage.
The messages we are receiving from our personnel, both military and civilian, are that they want vision for defence into the next century, that people matter and that they believe the review must address these issues. I agree entirely with them. The review will provide the vision needed to underpin strong and relevant defence, based on the clear belief that people are our most important asset.
GEORGE ROBERTSON
Secretary of State
Ministry of Defence
London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments