This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/15/chief-of-defence-staff-concerned-over-lack-of-uk-military-support

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Chief of defence staff concerned over lack of UK military support Chief of defence staff concerned over lack of UK military support
(35 minutes later)
The UK’s chief of defence staff, Sir Nick Houghton has expressed concern about ever greater constraints on the use of force, including lack of public support and parliamentary consent. Sir Nick Houghton, the UK’s chief of defence staff, has expressed concern about ever greater constraints on the use of force, including lack of public support and parliamentary consent.
Houghton said such constraints could have an impact on the UK’s ability to deter potential enemies.Houghton said such constraints could have an impact on the UK’s ability to deter potential enemies.
Houghton, who was speaking in London at the international affairs think-tank Chatham House, said he had two observations to make. “The first is that we are experiencing ever greater constraints on our freedom to use force,” he said. Houghton, speaking in London at the international affairs thinktank Chatham House, said he had two observations to make. “The first is that we are experiencing ever greater constraints on our freedom to use force,” he said.
Some of these constraints were related to the advances in the technological competence of potential enemies.Some of these constraints were related to the advances in the technological competence of potential enemies.
“But the more worrying constraints on the use of force lay in the areas of societal support, parliamentary consent and ever greater legal challenge,” he added.“But the more worrying constraints on the use of force lay in the areas of societal support, parliamentary consent and ever greater legal challenge,” he added.
Houghton was not challenging parliament’s right to make decisions about military action, only pointing out that there are consequences to the UK’s reluctance - a reluctance shared by other western nations - to engage in military action. Houghton was not challenging parliament’s right to make decisions about military action, only pointing out that there are consequences to the UK’s reluctance – a reluctance shared by other western nations – to engage in military action.
Scarred by British involvement in Iraq, MPs have been hesitant about committing UK forces, reflected in the 2013 vote against military action in Syria. Another vote on airstrikes in Syria is expected to be held soon. Scarred by British involvement in Iraq, MPs have been hesitant about committing UK forces, reflected in the 2013 vote against military action in Syria. A further vote on airstrikes in Syria is expected to be held soon.
Houghton said constraints such as parliamentary consent, public support and legal challenges were particularly significant when the desire to commit to the use of force is in support of operations, which some might consider in the national interest.Houghton said constraints such as parliamentary consent, public support and legal challenges were particularly significant when the desire to commit to the use of force is in support of operations, which some might consider in the national interest.
“And such constraints may impact on our ability to generate deterrence, which wholly depends on the perceivable credibility of our willingness to use force if necessary,” said Houghton. “Such constraints may impact on our ability to generate deterrence, which wholly depends on the perceivable credibility of our willingness to use force if necessary,” said Houghton.
“My point here is that if a nation’s assumed willingness to commit to the use of force is only in the face of national survival, then we encourage rather than deter revisionist states and their own ambitions.”“My point here is that if a nation’s assumed willingness to commit to the use of force is only in the face of national survival, then we encourage rather than deter revisionist states and their own ambitions.”