Defence cuts: Money or Military Judgement?

In an earlier post I argued that spending cuts should never be justified solely on the basis of saving money. Any cut should serve to streamline government, do away with non-essential assets or improve services. Yet this view often gets snowed under in the relentless torrent of money-saving measures, as the picture given by ministers often emphasises only the amount of money saved. This was also true for the cuts to the defence budget announced weeks ago.

The scrapping of HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier aircraft was 'sold' to the public by stressing that it would save more than a £100 million, but the military consequences were largely glossed over by ministers. The UK would be without carrier-based aircraft for ten years, leaving a gap in the defensive strategy of the country and causing worries about Britain's ability to defend the Falkland Islands. As Con Coughlin argues in his Telegraph column today this should not particularly worry us, as Argentina does not appear to be willing - or even possess the military capability  - to invade the island group. He might well be right. However, Coughlin then goes on to suggest that Harrier should not be scrapped because the aircraft might be necessary to strike at Al Qaeda in Yemen should they ever succeed in commiting a terrorist act on British soil.

Ministers have always said that the cuts to the defence budgets would never impair Britain's military capabilities, without ever explaining in detail how this would be so. For instance, if the Royal Navy could do every thing it needed to do without an aircraft carrier duing the next decade, why the need to continue the construction of two new carriers to be completed in 2020? They never gave, at least in my view, an adequately answer. This gives the appearance that scrapping Ark Royal was done just for financial reasons.

But now at last ministers are beginning to counter this fear. Lord Astor, the BBC reports, has said 'the decision to scrap Harrier had been a "military judgement" and not just about costs. He added: "Deleting the entire Tornado fleet would save three times more money." He said the defence review had been "tough but fair".' I'm not sure whether a Tornado aircraft is better than Harrier aircraft, and the government's position that it is may be true, but the arguments that this is so should not be financial but military in nature. Lord Astor's comments iare a promising start, and the MoD should now continue by informing the public of what those 'military judgements' were.