Defence chief puts spotlight on future role of UK armed forces
|
Version 0 of 1. “ We are experiencing ever greater constraints on our freedom to use force”, Britain’s chief of defence staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, observed this week. Constraints on the use of force, he said, “lay in the areas of societal support, parliamentary consent, and ever greater legal challenge.” A decline in what he called the “national risk appetite”, could encourage Britain’s enemies, he suggested. Profound scepticism about the use of military force is the legacy of the catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003 (about which the Chilcot report is likely to be devastating) and the hopelessly ill-prepared military operations in Afghanistan. In marked contrast to trivial comments from some ministers and Tory MPs about the alleged danger Jeremy Corbyn presented to Britain’s national security, Houghton’s address, to the Chatham House thinktank on Tuesday evening, was thoughtful. The age of classic, very visible warfare, in the form of tank battles or aerial dogfights, for example, and of classic physical threats to Britain, may be over. The threats are increasingly diverse, including cyber attacks, terrorist groups, organised crime, mass movements of people. “There is no longer a simple distinction between war and peace”, Houghton said. “We are in a state of permanent engagement in a global competition. To win or even survive in such a competition means that all the instruments of national power need constantly to be in play”, he added. “In this context we do need to re-imagine the utility of the armed forces beyond the simple construct of fighting wars or preparing for the next one.” Houghton echoed the mantra, frequently repeated by defence chiefs and their political masters: threats to Britain’s security, including terrorism, cannot be resolved by military action. He referred to “public engagement” over the forthcoming Strategic and Defence Review (SDSR) due to be completed by the end of the year. Yet the government is far from keen to engage in any such debate. It imposed an extraordinary, 1,500 character limit, on online suggestions from the public on the SDSR. The limit was lifted after widespread objections, notably by the Commons defence committee. The committee on Monday castigated the Ministry of Defence over the quality of advice given to ministers. Political or legal constraints on the use of force, Houghton warned, could threaten Britain’s ability to deter potential enemies. That, he stressed, “wholly depends on the perceivable credibility of our willingness to use force if necessary.” Credibility depends as much on political will and judgment as much as capability, as Houghton acknowledged. Which brings us to Trident. Corbyn’s election should encourage a debate about the utility and credibility of Britain’s nuclear weapons arsenal. It is a pity that, in an otherwise stimulating address, Houghton described Trident as “non-discretionary”. He described it as such on the grounds that Britain “cannot afford to take risk against a deterrent the effectiveness of which fundamentally relies on its invulnerability and continuous availability”. The question the government needs to answer is which capabilities the armed forces really need, and would be truly effective, to deter or to use against Britain’s real enemies. |