The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

Fox in the (Tory) Hen House: Part II

By Gary Schmitt and Philipp Tomio

October 1, 2010, 2:40 pm

Earlier in the week, we commented on the brouhaha arising from the leak of a letter by UK defense minister Liam Fox to Prime Minister David Cameron detailing the potentially ominous consequences of the government’s proposed cuts in the defense budget. In the immediate aftermath of the leak, Ministry of Defense police were called in to investigate while, at the same time, senior government officials were scrambling to limit the fallout and play down a split within the ruling Tory party. Speaking to reporters after the letter had gone public, Fox put the blame for Britain’s current crisis in military resources squarely on the previous Labour government:

We were left with an appalling legacy of defence by Labour. It was a shambolic financial position they left behind. We are trying to sort it out. It’s very difficult … The Prime Minister has set up the mechanisms by which we can have a proper, collegiate and collective debate about this, and that’s where we will be. I’ve had tremendous support from the Prime Minister and he fully understands the problems that Labour left behind.

The opposition Labour Party, with shadow defense minister Bob Ainsworth leading the charge, quickly moved to denounce Fox’s criticism of the previous government’s handling of national security, alleging that the Cameron government was “in chaos” over the defense review.

Meanwhile, the squabbling inside Whitehall had also reached the men and women serving Britain in uniform. In a letter by a serving commander in the Royal Navy, the growing concerns inside the force over the government’s plans for defense were articulated in stark terms:

We will be the ones who might die because of hasty decisions made in the 4th quarter of 2010, decisions based not on considered facts, but on politics and short-term cost cutting. We worry for the future, because the threats simply won’t go away as our Defence capabilities dwindle. This is particularly worrying for my peers and I. As the next government, we are in all likelihood going to be the ones that are asked to fight the wars that past governments did not see coming (or chose to ignore).

Fox’s concerns were given further support by General Sir Richard Dannatt, former chief of the general staff, and an advisor to Cameron on defense matters during his campaign. According to Dannatt, “If the UK wants to go on playing a significant role in the world, it’s got to have some kind of power projection.” He also added that cutting back on the Army, while engaged in Afghanistan, was a serious mistake. The fact is, Dannatt said, “When this government came into power it inherited a 10% deficit left over from the previous government of over-ambition in the MoD’s plans. So even if the MoD is being asked to make a 5% or 10% cut, it has already got to find 10% to get back to zero, so effectively defence is being asked to take a 15% or 20% cut, which is very, very difficult.”

So far, Fox’s appeals appear to have fallen on deaf ears. After the National Security Council met to discuss the letter, Cameron reportedly then ordered Fox to come up with even more cuts. All the prime minister had to say in public was that he had assured Fox that his concerns were “unfounded” because his government won’t make any “bad decisions.”

It’s been perfectly clear from the start of the strategic review that the priority is fixing Britain’s fiscal house and that the review is not a strategic exercise at all. It’s also clear that the “new Tory” Cameron seems to think that defenses (and the United Kingdom’s place in the world) are not a big priority. That is of course a choice duly-elected Conservative Party can make. But, as General Dannatt suggests, it will in all likelihood come at a cost of London having a significantly reduced weight in the councils of the world’s democratic states.

Gary Schmitt is a resident scholar at AEI, where Philipp Tomio is a research assistant.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments Off
Categories:  Europe and Russia, Foreign and Defense   |   Tags:

Fox in the (Tory) Hen House: the Future of British Defense

By Gary Schmitt and Philipp Tomio

September 29, 2010, 3:13 pm

fox-and-troopsIn a private letter to Prime Minister David Cameron, delivered to 10 Downing Street on the eve of yesterday’s meeting of Britain’s National Security Council, Defense Minister Liam Fox warns the prime minister that “draconian” cuts to the national defense account in a time of war could have “grave political consequences” for the government. The dramatic scale of the planned reductions will “seriously damage morale across the Armed Forces” and will come at a time of “major challenge (and, in all probability, significant casualties) in Afghanistan”:

Frankly, this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR (Strategic Defence and Strategy Review) and more like a “super CSR” (Comprehensive Spending Review). If it continues on its current trajectory it is likely to have grave political consequences for us, destroying much of the reputation and capital you, and we, have built up in recent years.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Treasury, expects the Ministry of Defense to contribute 10 percent of its annual $60 billion budget to help realize the savings foreseen in the government’s national austerity program—with further cuts likely to come next year and the year after. All departments, Osborne has said on numerous occasions, are to contribute their share to help salvage the dire state of Britain’s finances—war or no war.

Despite strenuous efforts by those Ministry of Defense officials responsible for drafting the SDSR and satisfying the Treasury’s demands, Fox says in his letter that bridging the gap between Britain’s desired strategic ends and the resources available to realize them is “financially and intellectually virtually impossible.” Earlier this month, the members of the NSC received a document that spelled out what the cuts would probably mean: force reductions of tens of thousands of military personnel across all three services, loss of fighters and new surveillance aircraft, delays if not outright cancellation of new aircraft carriers, and questions about when, if ever, Britain’s aging Trident nuclear submarines would be replaced. The proposed cuts, Fox writes, will “limit severely the options available to this and all future governments.” If implemented, Britain will no longer be militarily capable of performing the multitude of tasks and operations it performs today.

Concerned by Fox’s list of cutbacks, the other principals at yesterday’s NSC meeting reportedly asked the defense minister for more analysis on the impact of the proposed reductions on the armed forces. And while Prime Minister Cameron stated at yesterday’s meeting that his government’s planned defense cuts will not affect Britain’s current operations in Afghanistan, it is clear that a decisive fork in the road has been reached when it comes the future of British defenses. If nothing else, Fox’s letter will force the government to face up to the consequence of its decisions on the defense budget.

The previous Labour governments may have driven the car into the ditch by underfunding defense at the expense of domestic programs, but the question now is whether the Tories will pull the car out of the ditch and repair it, or just walk away, thinking they can always hitch a ride if necessary with the United States or the European Union.

Gary Schmitt is a resident scholar at AEI, where Philipp Tomio is a research assistant.

Image by ldc stl.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments Off
Categories:  Economic Policy, Europe and Russia, Foreign and Defense   |   Tags:

The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI