The Government's axe looks like it will fall on the the frontline. It has been announced that there will be a reduction in the number of service men and women in order to save money, whilst continuing with massive defence procurement spending - drawing criticism from the Pentagon and the tabloid press alike.
The Government’s axe looks like it will fall on the the frontline. It has been announced that there will be a reduction in the number of service men and women in order to save money, whilst continuing with massive defence procurement spending – drawing criticism from the Pentagon and the tabloid press alike.
Today The Sun accuses the Coalition of betraying Britain’s “frontline heroes”. US Defense Department officials too have warned the Ministry of Defence that swingeing cuts “could widen the transatlantic divide in military power and spending”.
As Paul Mason’s must read analysis of the internal debate between the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and defence experts makes clear, the Strategic Defence & Security Review (pdf) is a “Treasury driven” process in which budget cuts are prioritised over strategic choices. As such, defence secretary Liam Fox looks set to make true on his June pledge to cut “ruthlessly and without sentiment” – even at a cost to frontline forces.
Coalition defence priorities continue to confuse. On the one hand, the Coalition looks set to favour the construction of aircraft carriers, the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter, continued pursuit of the high cost and highly questionable Future Rapid Effetcs System (the American equivalent of which the Obama Administration has cancelled) and of course, the imminent renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. On the other hand, the MoD is preparing to scrap a full brigade of Army forces with units in the frame for cuts including the illustrious Ghurkas.
The quixotic nature of the Government’s defence spending priorities – particularly the emerging preference for procurement programmes over frontline forces – is sure to raise questions as to the objectivity and indeed validity of the forthcoming Strategic Defence & Security Review.
If it is indeed the choice of the Coalition to sack those fighting in Afghanistan rather then risk the anger of defence contractors, then serious questions must be asked as to the Government’s commitment to British defence as opposed to British defence spending.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
18 Responses to “Coalition sacks brave troops rather than risk anger of defence contractors”
Robert
But an expensive tool, men are expensive you have to cloth them feed them, we have been used by the UN as police, sorry for a long time now if the UN wants to have a police force then it has to pay for it, everything these days have a price.
My worry is for the hundreds if not thousands of disabled people still within the military, whats going to happen to them now.
Simon
How soon will the ConDems back down? I reckon next week.
mike
all those right wing red necks attacking us
lets see what they do when faced with real cuts to the naval airforce and army
working class kids and their families on the dole
George McLean
I think your contributions on this should avoid the term “deterrent” when used in relation to Trident.
Mr. Sensible
I find it interesting how the Coalition has performed such an about turn on the Gurkhas.