Graeme Baker: Military might reflected in slashed war budget

British forces will always need allies' assistance, regardless of cuts to defence spending.

Opponents of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be heartened to hear how cuts to the British military will curtail its record of intervention overseas.

Cuts of 8 per cent have moved commentators to suggest that Britain could never again hope to fulfil deployments on the scale of those in Afghanistan.

It will never again be a world player in war and will be forced to rely on other militaries, with the Falklands War its last "independent" conflict.

But this review should be seen more as a re-alignment than a savaging. The British military has always fought with allies' assistance and has arguably not been self-sufficient for decades.

Despite the patriotic drum-beating of the time, Britain could not reconquer the Falklands on its own. Appeals to the United States for assistance were so great as to prove Britain knew such a bold undertaking would, ultimately, be too bold.

Its contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan of the last decade, while significant, could hardly be considered decisive.

The British struggled to pacify Basra following the invasion of Iraq and the American military was forced to intervene during the final months of allied control.

Similarly, British forces could not pacify Helmand in Afghanistan. And again, the Americans moved in to try to tip the balance.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated her worry that cuts to Britain's conventional forces could destabilise Nato as a defensive force.

Britain would "only" be able to deploy a force of 30,000 combat troops overseas. Apart from times of global conflict and periods of conscription, Britain has never supported a large standing army.

During the Napoleonic period its army never exceeded 270,000 men, while France's conscription army had more than 2.6 million. The professional armies of the first and second world wars stood at little more than that.

Britain's military spending will still be among the largest in the world. But, like many other countries, Britain has learned that main battle tanks and regular line troops can only do so much in modern "irregular" wars - the kind of wars strategists believe Britain will fight in the future.

Cuts to artillery and tank battalions, and an increase in funding for special forces, are the logical progressions of this strategy.

The plan to equip one of the Navy's new aircraft carriers only with helicopters is not as absurd as it sounds - it will help address shortages experienced in Afghanistan.

So where should those who decry the cuts as an end of British influence and ability really focus their energies? Britain's main power has always been at sea. The loss of Royal Navy ships, including an aircraft carrier, will surely curtail British roles overseas - but not end them.

The real decline of influence will come if its "independent" nuclear deterrent is shelved.

The Government has already pushed a decision deadline on a replacement for Trident past the next general election, and has cut the number of missiles deployed in the meantime. Its loss would do much more damage to influence than any cuts to tanks, artillery and reconnaissance aircraft.

But even Britain's "independent" nuclear deterrent is not independent - the Trident missile system was built by an American firm and, technically, it is leased to Britain.

Britain does not have the infrastructure to run its nuclear arsenal - the missiles are even serviced in the US. What real global power Britain still holds is borrowed. Even if the cuts were not made, that would remain the reality.


Still in the big leagues:

Even with cuts of 8 per cent to the budget, Britain will still spend US$53.64 billion on its military, more than Russia's declared 2009 budget US$53.3 billion, and much more still than Germany US$45.6 billion.

- Graeme Baker is the Herald's news editor