Letter: Nato marches east into a great blunder
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: Nato marches east into a great blunder
Sir: Paul Vallely ("How Blair can save billions on defence", 10 February) may well be right to say that substantial savings in the defence budget would be possible if Britain either faced up to its dependence on the United States or joined up to a common European defence policy. However, neither option appears realistic, certainly in the near-medium term.
I disagree with Paul Vallely's conclusion that there are "not many more efficiency savings to be made". Significant delays and massive cost overruns in the procurement process persist, and poor MoD management still wastes large sums.
But the more fundamental issue Labour's review would need to address is the balance between commitments and resources. If our armed forces are overstretched and becoming "hollow", and we are not going to increase their numbers, then we must reduce their commitments. If Britain wants an army rather than a gendarmerie it must allow it the opportunity to train as such: if it wants to sustain high morale amongst service personnel, it must honour minimum standards of intervals between operational duties.
There is a danger that we are concentrating too heavily on high-profile new pieces of hardware and neglecting the essential support of that equipment in warfare. What is the point of sustaining hundreds of shiny new tanks if the minute you need to actually use them three-quarters of them do not work, as was discovered before the Gulf War?
Dr STEPHEN PULLINGER
Executive Director
International Security Information Service
London WC2
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments