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/politics/2014/jan/16/robert-gates-attack-uk-military-spending-defence

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Robert Gates's attack on UK military spending is vague and opportunistic Robert Gates's attack on UK military spending is vague and opportunistic
(about 3 hours later)
During a high-profile visit to Nato headquarters in Brussels in 2011, Robert Gates rebuked America's allies for failing to spend enough on defence and letting the burden fall on the US. He excepted the UK, a loyal US ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, from his biting criticism that day.During a high-profile visit to Nato headquarters in Brussels in 2011, Robert Gates rebuked America's allies for failing to spend enough on defence and letting the burden fall on the US. He excepted the UK, a loyal US ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, from his biting criticism that day.
But no longer. Gates, touting his memoirs, told the BBC on Thursday that the Conservative government's cuts in defence meant Britain's military capability had been seriously diminished, putting in doubt the UK's long-running role as America's closest defence partner.But no longer. Gates, touting his memoirs, told the BBC on Thursday that the Conservative government's cuts in defence meant Britain's military capability had been seriously diminished, putting in doubt the UK's long-running role as America's closest defence partner.
Gates, who served as defence secretary under both George W Bush and Barack Obama, told Radio 4's Today programme: "With the fairly substantial reductions in defence spending in Great Britain, what we're finding is that it won't have full-spectrum capabilities and the ability to be a full partner as they have been in the past."Gates, who served as defence secretary under both George W Bush and Barack Obama, told Radio 4's Today programme: "With the fairly substantial reductions in defence spending in Great Britain, what we're finding is that it won't have full-spectrum capabilities and the ability to be a full partner as they have been in the past."
He words echoed a speech by the British chief of defence staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, last month when he warned that Britain could be left with a hollowed-out force.He words echoed a speech by the British chief of defence staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, last month when he warned that Britain could be left with a hollowed-out force.
Under government plans, the UK is to cut the total number of military personnel by around 17,000 by 2015: the navy by 5,000 to about 30,000, the army by around 7,000 to 95,000 and the air force by around 5,000 to 33,000.Under government plans, the UK is to cut the total number of military personnel by around 17,000 by 2015: the navy by 5,000 to about 30,000, the army by around 7,000 to 95,000 and the air force by around 5,000 to 33,000.
A major problem with Gates's critique is that "full-spectrum" defies definition. It is a vague, informal phrase roughly meaning the ability to fight on land, in the air and at sea. But what does it mean beyond that?A major problem with Gates's critique is that "full-spectrum" defies definition. It is a vague, informal phrase roughly meaning the ability to fight on land, in the air and at sea. But what does it mean beyond that?
David Cameron, responding to concerns from the military, claimed the UK has a "pretty full-spectrum capability". David Cameron, at a public event in London, rejected Gates's portrayal of the state of Britain's military. "I don't agree with him. I think he has got it wrong. We have the fourth largest defence budget anywhere in the world. We are investing in future capabilities."
In reality, Britain ceased to have such capability long ago. It could not have fought in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya on its own or in partnership with European partners. US air power and strategic command were essential in all cases. The only fully British intervention in recent history was an extremely limited, though effective one, the dispatch of forces in 2000 to stop Sierra Leone's capital, Freetown, falling into rebel hands. Cameron described Britain in 2011 as having a "pretty full-spectrum capability". He did not deviate from that on Thursday, insisting: "We are a first-class player in terms of defence and as long as I am prime minster that is the way it will stay."
But in reality, Britain ceased to have such capability long ago. It could not have fought in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya on its own or in partnership with European partners. US air power and strategic command were essential in all cases. The only fully British intervention in recent history was an extremely limited though effective one, the dispatch of forces in 2000 to stop Sierra Leone's capital, Freetown, falling into rebel hands.
Gates failed to mention in his BBC interview that defence cuts are also happening elsewhere in Europe. In 2009, while US defence secretary, Gates presided over some of the biggest military cuts in recent US history, slashing prestigious projects. The budget had doubled under Bush but a war-weary, recession-hit American public was no longer prepared to back it. Gates dressed it up as a switch away from big projects to smaller counter-insurgency ones, but it was still a major cut in defence.Gates failed to mention in his BBC interview that defence cuts are also happening elsewhere in Europe. In 2009, while US defence secretary, Gates presided over some of the biggest military cuts in recent US history, slashing prestigious projects. The budget had doubled under Bush but a war-weary, recession-hit American public was no longer prepared to back it. Gates dressed it up as a switch away from big projects to smaller counter-insurgency ones, but it was still a major cut in defence.
Peter Quentin, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute defence thinktank, cautioned that Gates's remarks should be seen in the context of his book launch. "This is the next leg in Mr Gates's book tour, so it is no surprise he is pushing the buttons that will get media attention."Peter Quentin, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute defence thinktank, cautioned that Gates's remarks should be seen in the context of his book launch. "This is the next leg in Mr Gates's book tour, so it is no surprise he is pushing the buttons that will get media attention."
The warnings about reduced capabilities had already been made by the UK military "but said with an American accent it has all the more impact", Quentin said.The warnings about reduced capabilities had already been made by the UK military "but said with an American accent it has all the more impact", Quentin said.
Gates's comments were unlikely to make any difference to defence spending, he said. "It is unlikely to generate any public enthusiasm for increased defence investment in order to support the United States, as it was doing precisely that which has undermined the public's trust in our politicians' employment of the military over the last decade and called into question the need for sustaining the military capabilities to which Mr Gates refers," Quentin said.Gates's comments were unlikely to make any difference to defence spending, he said. "It is unlikely to generate any public enthusiasm for increased defence investment in order to support the United States, as it was doing precisely that which has undermined the public's trust in our politicians' employment of the military over the last decade and called into question the need for sustaining the military capabilities to which Mr Gates refers," Quentin said.
One of the other problems with Gates's comments is his description of the UK as a "full partner". Britain has not played this role in defence in anything other than a cosmetic way for a long time. When Obama, after his election in 2008, began to consider his strategy for Afghanistan, the UK played almost no part in the meetings where the decisions were made to initiate a "surge" in troop levels.One of the other problems with Gates's comments is his description of the UK as a "full partner". Britain has not played this role in defence in anything other than a cosmetic way for a long time. When Obama, after his election in 2008, began to consider his strategy for Afghanistan, the UK played almost no part in the meetings where the decisions were made to initiate a "surge" in troop levels.
Britain enjoys a near full partnership with the US in intelligence-gathering but not in defence.Britain enjoys a near full partnership with the US in intelligence-gathering but not in defence.
One of the specific points Gates made was that the UK's lack of full-spectrum capabilities was down to it no longer having an aircraft carrier. But HMS Queen Elizabeth, being built at Rosyth, is due to be on the water later this year, with HMS Prince of Wales to follow later. The cost of the carrier programme is £6.21bn, with the Queen Elizabeth expected to enter military service in December 2017.One of the specific points Gates made was that the UK's lack of full-spectrum capabilities was down to it no longer having an aircraft carrier. But HMS Queen Elizabeth, being built at Rosyth, is due to be on the water later this year, with HMS Prince of Wales to follow later. The cost of the carrier programme is £6.21bn, with the Queen Elizabeth expected to enter military service in December 2017.
The Ministry of Defence said in response to Gates that the UK had the best-trained and best-equipped armed forces outside the US.The Ministry of Defence said in response to Gates that the UK had the best-trained and best-equipped armed forces outside the US.
"Over the next decade, we plan to spend £160bn on equipment, to ensure our armed forces retain their formidable range of cutting-edge capabilities and ability to project power across the globe, including by maintaining our major naval presence in the Gulf region," it said in a statement."Over the next decade, we plan to spend £160bn on equipment, to ensure our armed forces retain their formidable range of cutting-edge capabilities and ability to project power across the globe, including by maintaining our major naval presence in the Gulf region," it said in a statement.
"Construction of the first new aircraft carrier, the largest ship the Royal Navy has ever operated, is almost complete and the navy will also operate state-of-the-art Type 45 destroyers, new Type-26 frigates, and seven new Astute Class submarines.""Construction of the first new aircraft carrier, the largest ship the Royal Navy has ever operated, is almost complete and the navy will also operate state-of-the-art Type 45 destroyers, new Type-26 frigates, and seven new Astute Class submarines."
There are areas of the world where the UK offers a military specialism that the US has either not developed or opted not to deploy, happy to leave it to Britain. One of these is minesweeping in the Straits of Hormuz, the volatile waterway for oil exports that Iran regularly threatens to close. There are areas of the world where the UK offers a military specialism that the US has either not developed or opted not to deploy, happy to leave it to Britain. One of these is minesweeping in the strait of Hormuz, the volatile waterway for oil exports that Iran regularly threatens to close.
In spite of Gates's rebuke, Britain is still punching above its weight. The question is whether it still should be. Does the UK need to spend as much as it does on defence or should it take a more limited role similar to many European countries? Does it need to be the fourth-biggest spender in the world on defence? That is a debate the UK still has to have.In spite of Gates's rebuke, Britain is still punching above its weight. The question is whether it still should be. Does the UK need to spend as much as it does on defence or should it take a more limited role similar to many European countries? Does it need to be the fourth-biggest spender in the world on defence? That is a debate the UK still has to have.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.