The reorganization was outlined in a government White Paper—a precursor to legislation to be submitted to the parliament for approval—titled Delivering Security in a Changing World and published December 11. Building on a close military alliance with Washington in the war on Iraq, the policy outlined in the paper ties the British military in any major expedition to being deployed only if alongside U.S. forces. “Large operations, against foreign states, can only be plausibly conducted if U.S. forces are engaged, either leading a coalition or in NATO,” the White Paper says. “Our armed forces will need to be interoperable with U.S. command and control structures [and] match the U.S. operational tempo.”

The document specifies that the emphasis in the future must be on “speed, precision, agility, deployability, reach and sustainability.” This means organizing lighter units that can be dispatched quicker and more effectively, emphasizing the role of Special Forces on the ground, and arming the air force with more precision-guided “smart bombs” and the navy with more cruise missiles.

Speaking on the White Paper in the House of Commons, Defense Secretary Geoffrey Hoon said that the priority must be on what he described as “providing the capabilities to meet a much wider range of expeditionary tasks, at a greater range from the UK and at an ever-increasing tempo.”

Currently the British military is deployed in over 80 countries around the world. Its major troop concentrations abroad today are in Northern Ireland, Iraq, and Sierra Leone. The armed forces maintain substantial bases in Germany and Cyprus.

The British military must be able to mount either three simultaneous small- and medium-scale operations, or a small- and large-scale operation at the same time, the White Paper says. “Where the UK chooses to be engaged, we will wish to be able to influence political and military decision-making throughout the crisis, including during the post-conflict period.”

The justification for this shift in military policy, one that echoes a similar shift by Washington, are the challenges of the 21st century for the British rulers: the priority of prosecuting their “war on terrorism,” which includes dealing with “rogue states.”

In the case of the United Kingdom, the strategic alliance with the United States is essential given British imperialism’s declining role in the world over decades. London has been a defender within the European Union of the continued and increasing dominance of NATO. In recent talks London insisted upon, and won, the complete subordination of a proposed EU military planning cell to the U.S.-dominated military alliance. George Robertson, former UK defense secretary in the early years of the Labour government, was appointed general secretary of NATO in October 1999, and served in that capacity until his term ended in December 2003.

London’s nuclear capability is also vital, the White Paper adds. “The continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security,” it says.

The affirmation of the indispensability of Britain’s nuclear capability comes days after London confirmed that the naval task force that spearheaded the 1982 war against Argentina over the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands had been equipped with nuclear weapons.

As a result of the reorganization, a new light brigade is being created and the number of tank-heavy units is being reduced to one-third of their previous number. Also to be cut are a significant number of Eurofighter planes from the Royal Air Force. In line with the strategic relationship with Washington, the government is shifting to the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft being developed by the U.S. military.

The Joint Strike Fighter will not be available until 2012. Nevertheless, London has decided that beginning in 2006 the Sea Harrier jets commonly used on aircraft carriers today will be withdrawn from service. In addition, one of the navy’s aircraft carriers is being mothballed. This will tie UK naval expeditions tightly into the U.S. naval command and control orbit, with the need to enlist the help of an American aircraft carrier to provide the planes in any expeditionary force.

Two days before the White Paper was announced, Britain’s chief of defense staff, Gen. Michael Walker, announced his full agreement with the shift in policy. His speech was given prominent coverage on British TV.

In fact there has clearly been a major struggle within the military top brass over the policy shift. Admiral Michael Boyce was retired early as chief of defense staff in July 2003. Boyce had condemned the U.S.-led “war on terrorism” as a “high tech 21st century posse in the Wild West.” In a December 2001 speech at the Royal United Services Institute, Boyce had also run into a public scrap with U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld during the war on Afghanistan.

Boyce’s early retirement followed the resignation of the First Sea Lord Admiral Nigel Essenhigh in protest at the decision to withdraw the Sea Harriers.

The dispute has now been settled clearly in favor of Walker and those who back a UK version of Washington’s course.

Almost all the main daily papers editorialized in their issues following the publication of the White Paper, a number in nervous terms. The pro-EU Financial Times cautioned that London didn’t have the financial resources to mirror moves taken by Washington, calling for “more emphasis on joint procurement and pooling of resources between European allies in NATO.” The right-wing Conservative Daily Telegraph warned against cuts in staffing levels and finance. “Numbers still matter,” it said, “and money matters more, too, in the era of smart weapons.”

The nervousness is an expression of the United Kingdom’s weakness in the world today. It expresses itself also in divisions within ruling circles on the relations with the European Union and the United States. Blair has proposed a foreign policy that prioritizes the special relationship with Washington but at the same time places Britain at the “center of Europe.” This position is becoming increasingly untenable. With a deepening recognition that there is no such political, military, or economic entity called “Europe,” the ruling class in the United Kingdom is shifting decisively in the direction of living in Washington’s coattails. None of the newspaper editorials cited above offered any alternative to the White Paper.

The right-wing Daily Mail applauded the government’s announced shift in military strategy. The Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats also backed the changes. Nicholas Soames, the Conservatives’ defense spokesperson, welcomed the “thrust” of the White Paper. In previous parliamentary debates, both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have sought to play on what they have labeled a crisis in the defense budget. But in their response to the White Paper their limited criticisms were much more muted than they were even a year ago. Then, the Tories were claiming that the Labour government was “ripping the heart out” of Britain’s defense strategy.
 
 
Related article:
How ‘anti-Bush’ London protests aided UK rulers  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home