WE STAND SHOULDER TO ANKLE WITH AMERICA

Unilateral disarmament (Andrew Gilligan, The Spectator, July 3rd, 2004)

Tony Blair’s relationship with the Labour Left has always been sadly troubled. But now, finally, after Iraq, privatisation, the continued existence of foxhunting and the remaining litany of disappointments, comes something to bring a song to Jeremy Corbyn’s heart. If the press predictions of defence cuts are even half-right, New Labour is about to carry out a major act of unilateral disarmament.

Candidates for the graveyard include four infantry battalions (10 per cent of the total); six Royal Navy ships (15 per cent of the active surface fleet); up to a fifth of the RAF; an entire fast jet type, and probably a helicopter type too; RAF bases; dozens of tanks and armoured vehicles; even some of Geoff Hoon’s 150 public relations advisers (actually, I made that last one up — the most vital capabilities must be preserved at all costs).

Some of the leaking may be a form of expectation management, which the MoD is good at. Perhaps the actual cuts, which may come in stages, will look slightly better by comparison with the most dire forecasts. But there is no doubt that the RAF, at least, is in for a drubbing. By the service’s own admission, the number of places on its basic flying training courses has already been reduced by 50 per cent ‘to ensure that the RAF has the right number of pilots for its future needs’.

With the combined trained strength of the armed forces reduced after the cuts to perhaps as little as 175,000, the day is nearly upon us when, for the first time in history, the vast, sprawling conurbation of the MoD’s civilian bureaucracy actually outnumbers all three armed services put together. Including staff working overseas, the number of directly employed civil servants in the MoD and its executive agencies is 104,000, already greater than the army; and to this must be added the further 55,000 civilian contractors who provide training, IT, security, catering, base support, record-keeping and a galaxy of other services on MoD sites. More NHS administrators than beds, anyone?

Mr. Gilligan’s premonitions are shared by others in the British press, so it is reasonable to assume there is some substance here. The British forces are already much smaller than at any time in recent history–not much more than a third of what they were in the 1970's. Proportionate to population, it’s admittedly brave and impressive army (just about all of which was in Iraq) is getting dangerously close in size to belittled Canada’s. Out of an official air force complement of fifty thousand, just over a thousand actually fly.

The U.S. has been pushing its friends and allies to shoulder greater defense burdens for half a century, without great success. Even strong supporters of American leadership like Canada’s Brian Mulroney stripped his forces with every budget. Far from resulting in gratitude or deference to Washington, this actually contributes to anti-Americanism. When one no longer has the ability to do anything useful, it is easy to convince oneself that nothing useful need be done and to resent those who try. The epitome of anti-Americanism is not to be found in relatively well-armed India, China, Brazil or even Russia, but in completely defenseless and dependant Iceland.

Assuming the average American does not have unlimited patience for this, the wars against Iraq and terrorism have brought a conundrum into stark relief. On the one hand, great diplomatic importance seems to attach to securing largely formalistic expressions of support and token military or civil contributions from NATO, Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc. On the other, it is Americans who do almost all the dying and surely somebody is going to have to have to force a loud and nasty public reality check some day.