Vol. 73/No. 30      August 10, 2009

The announcement comes amid a major public debate about the war in Afghanistan. A host of opposition politicians, retired military officers, and media commentators have questioned Britain’s eight-year-long presence in Afghanistan. They say that there is no strategic end game and that British forces are under equipped for the role—having too few helicopters for cover, for instance.

Echoing this view, Lindsey German, convener of the Stop the War Coalition and a leader of Britain’s left-wing political organization the Socialist Workers Party, told BBC Radio 4’s PM program: “We’re doing the troops who are there and the rest of the people of this country a disservice to pretend that if only we sent a few more troops or if only we sent a few more helicopters or if only we had better equipment, then somehow we would be winning this war. We are not winning this war.” At stake is a wider concern among the major bourgeois political and military leaders about the UK’s role in the world and the armed forces required.

Gen. David Richards, incoming army chief, says there are two contending visions: “fortress Britain,” that is preparation for a conventional all-out war; and “asymmetric” warfare, such as is being carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan. He, along with current army chief Gen. Richard Dannatt favor the latter, and reject spending on new aircraft carriers and fighter jets.  
 
Calls for defense spending cuts
A report recently published by the Institute for Public Policy Research called for cuts of £24 billion (US$39 billion) in the defense budget, including getting rid of the Trident nuclear missile submarine program, an end to reliance on the United States, and for greater cooperation with European countries.

The report was significant as one of its authors, George Robertson, was former NATO general secretary and as secretary of state for defense under the Anthony Blair government oversaw the last Strategic Defence Review.

The Blair government had continued the “special relationship” with Washington pursued by the Margaret Thatcher administration. This had allowed Britain to “punch above its weight,” according to Thatcher’s foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd.

The 1998 review outlined an interventionist foreign policy in which Britain should be capable of fighting one large war, involving a division (about 30,000 troops) or simultaneously two medium-sized wars involving a brigade (around 4,500 troops). The Blair government committed 40,000 troops to the invasion of Iraq.

But the political will for continuing this course, and the increase in military spending it implies, has eroded at a time when, in the context of economic depression, Britain’s rulers are preparing to attack living standards with cuts in health care, education, unemployment benefits, and other spending that make up the social wage.

The army is way under strength. Most infantry battalions are 10 percent to 20 percent short of required numbers, and as much as 40 percent if those deemed unfit to deploy (because of injury) are factored out.

The United Kingdom currently spends £38 billion (US$63 billion) on defense, 2.2 percent of its gross domestic product, compared to 4 percent by the United States, which has a much larger economy.

In Iraq, British forces in Basra withdrew from the city center and stood by and watched as Iraqi government forces launched an assault on the Shiite militias with which the British military had cut deals. In Afghanistan, the British forces in 2006 abandoned Musa Qala despite Washington’s protests and handed it over to tribal leaders. The U.S. military stepped in to take the town back the following year. And when U.S. president Barack Obama requested more troops for the Afghan-Pakistan campaign, the Brown government—in a move supported by the Conservative opposition—refused.

Former U.S. army vice chief of staff Jack Keane says that the special relationship with Britain has “frayed” as a result of such developments.

The trend does face opposition. Last week, the UK National Defence Association, a campaign group made up of former senior figures in the Armed Forces and the government, published a report calling for a rise in defense spending and protection of the special relationship.
 
 
Related articles:
Washington mulls new approach to ‘interrogations’ of war prisoners
U.S. Army to grow by 22,000 to meet war needs  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home