While forces are in the field it is the highest priority to give unswerving support to the men and women risking their lives – and at times tragically paying the ultimate price. It is one of my early priorities to visit our people in Afghanistan to hear from them directly, and I know that Liam Fox is committed to supporting such a bipartisan approach. It is in that spirit Labour approaches the defence review.
We seek assurances in three main areas when the plans are published today.
First, nothing must impact on or undermine our forces in Afghanistan. Not a penny must be taken from the frontline. All three services work seamlessly there, and we cannot afford capability gaps that take risks with our troops. News that the Army will not be reduced by the rumoured 20,000 troops is welcome. But those cuts must not simply be delayed until ISAF withdraws from Afghanistan. However presented, that would be a hammer-blow to the morale of our soldiers. The message that sends would be the same one Kipling attacked in his ‘Barrack-Room Ballads’ a century ago – ‘For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Chuck him out, the brute!’/But it’s ‘Saviour of ‘is country’ when the guns begin to shoot’.
Second, it will not be acceptable if the government take risks on defence of the realm. Every week, the RAF musters jets to protect Britain’s sovereign airspace. The ability to resist such incursions is critical. That is why I want assurances about the specific advice given by each Chief on how any proposed cuts impact on the safety and security of our country. Risks today range from piracy (much of our trade comes through the Malacca Straits and Horn of Africa targeted by criminal gangs) to cyber-warfare. In a world in which everything from payroll to logistics depends on IT, a cyber-attack could bring the country to a halt. We cannot afford our defences to slip.
Third, it is not in this nation’s nature, nor its interests, to become a second-rank power. It was disturbing to see a Liberal Democrat defence minister playing politics with the deterrent at his party conference. Claiming that the timing of a decision by the coalition on the renewal of Trident will be deferred until after the next election to put pressure on the Labour party is schoolboy politics and I am certain that the prime minister does not endorse it.
Rather than delay we need a government prepared to decide. Since George Osborne changed Britain’s long-standing approach and is no longer prepared to fund our deterrent discretely, Trident should have been properly included in the strategic defence review. If it had been, we would be close to resolving the big issues of how Britain can best maintain its deterrent. Instead we have a government divided over the right approach and delaying choices at the risk of jeopardising our ability to go ahead with replacement. The skills assembled in Barrow are precious and much sought after. If work dries up – even with the promise that it may one day resume – then the skilled workforce will scatter. The global revival of civil nuclear power gives them choices. We need a government which will properly consider our options, with the determination to decide not delay.
One final point. Labour takes responsibility for the decisions we made. No government gets everything right, but we learned from experience and won’t accept spin that seeks to distort our record. There were issues with defence procurement in our time – so we commissioned the Gray Review to improve the process. But people expect honesty about the complexity of what our forces procure – and the time it takes. Last week the National Audit Office criticised increases in spending on procurement. But 80 per cent of that extra cost was down to one programme – Typhoon fast jets – envisaged by Michael Heseltine and which both parties have supported for twenty years. The Typhoon is an excellent aircraft. It has taken too long and cost too much. But it is no more realistic to blame Labour decisions for all of the delay and the increased cost than it would be to credit Labour for Typhoon’s excellent performance. Of course we all want the best possible equipment with fewer delays and overruns – and if the coalition is serious about that, they have our support.
The danger is the defence review has been a rushed exercise driven by the Treasury rather than the issues facing the country and our forces.
There will be many more important questions this week, as rumours are fleshed out with statements and papers. Labour is clear – we will support what is right for our security safety of troops. We will oppose steps that reduce the military standing of our country. That includes our deterrent – but it means all three services too. British policy must be decided by Britain, but we mustn’t, in our Allies’ eyes, become a bit player – or even a bit player with nukes. Our personnel and their families represent the best of British and this country must continue to be a force for good for decades to come.
Tell that to the dead because we had no body Armour, we had no helicopters, or we had land rovers so out dated they do not make spare parts anymore. Two new Aircraft carriers built to keep people employed not because we really could afford them, spend spend spend but not on the right things, it’s forgotten the cuts labour made to our defense in thirteen years, I can remember people training running around going bang bang bang because they did not have blanks. We have been a third world country for a long time living in a labour dream world of Blair and Brown. We have been short of man power in the army for years, we went to war in the Falkland and nearly lost, we went to Iraq and did not have the right equipment, we are in Afghanistan and had to pull back because we were getting hit hard. I’m sorry but if we need a Military we need to spend not cut the spending review labour wanted would have done the same as the Tories, after all your closer to the Tories on most things then the Liberals.
Get real – we are a second rank military power! We have been for a very long time. The UK is a minor global power but we will gradually decline from this position as China, India and Brazil grow and strengthen. We no longer have the political or public will to invest more resources into defence & have accepted in the SDR that we will reduce our spending on defence to European levels. All this talk from Labour and the government is simply tub-thumping and breast beating – no one wants to admit to the public that we aren’t a major global power any more – it hurts our pride but that’s the truth as neither labour nor the tories are prepared to invest significantly in defence.
Jim Murphy’s appeal to Kipling is as ill-thought out and ill-researched as his appeal to British nature as well as interests in his vainglorious quest for Great Power status. Kipling was complaining about the domestic treatment of the Tommy in the UK, at a time when ‘gone for a soldier” was a shame amongst working-class families. HIs demand that individual members of the forces be treated fairly by means of guaranteeing an indefinite future of military conflict and supply is reminiscent of the 1984 Big Brother/O’Brien dictum : the welcome future is a(n Anglo-American) boot stamping on a (probably Muslim) face. The great outcome of that hysterical Conference of 2002 is that Iraq is still having the greatest of difficulty in approaching even the levels of prosperity and organisation of 1992-3, let alone of 1989 (the shortfall from 1980 is largely due to the war against Iran, a war which was condoned if not welcomed by the NATO (including Labour) establishment, and against a foe who has both remained pretty similar since the 1979-80 revolution and has been immeasurably, predictably, and predictably strengthened by the mad Blair adventure. How this appeals to British interests or nature is beyond me. As for Afghanistan, what is his answer to the question posed by the Taliban: “what is the evidence that Osama bin Laden was implicated in the 11th of September outrages in New York and Washington DC?” Murphy’s great ally, George W Bush would not wait for an answer to this question. Murphy and his ilk are working for a 1984 future of indefinite war, since he provides no clue of an exit strategy or any, let alone a plausible, criterion of victory in Afghanistan. A bit part is far superior to this scenario.