Cuts to Our Defence Budget Deserve a Full and Open Debate

WOULD you vote for our soldiers to cancel their training sessions because they don't have enough rifles?

How about for a shortage of tanks and night-vision goggles? All of this is happening, according to General Sir Richard Dannatt, yet no political candidate would stand up in front of you and argue for any of it.

At the moment, they don't have to. Each year, we spend less and less on our military. But because it is happening so slowly and quietly, hardly anyone outside the armed forces knows about it. Britain's slow military decline has been going on for years, but it has slipped quietly under the radar.

There are two issues. The first is about what our armed forces are doing now. It is not fair to ask a man to do a job and take away his tools. Total MoD funding next year is likely to drop by £2 billion, according to last April's budget. We have traditionally been the top defence spender in the EU, but not any more. I have uncomfortable memories of the Americans calling our forces The Flintstones because some of our equipment was so old.

It is not just that we cannot expect our forces to "be the best" unless they have the resources to train often enough. It is also a question of the message we are sending to the troops about how much we value what they do. As Gen Sir Richard Dannatt has pointed out, giving them the right kit "is a really important part of making our soldiers feel properly valued".

The second issue is about what we might want our forces to do in the future. Past governments conducted strategic defence reviews, roughly once a decade, to assess threats, decide what our armed forces should do, and so decide how much to spend.

Labour hasn't conducted one since 1998, since when our military commitments have expanded beyond recognition.

Defence is now barely 2 per cent of GDP, down from 5 per cent in the Eighties, and likely to fall further — under a Labour or Conservative government.

Critics think cuts will be aimed at big Cold War-era projects, such as our two aircraft carriers and the Trident submarine fleet. They argue the evolving threats from terrorists or non-state groups mean that we will no longer need large mechanised military equipment.

But we cannot base security on the assumption we will not face a threat from states. Excessive cuts would mean an inability to continue our current naval deterrence missions in the Far East, as China plans unprecedented increases in its military spending. They would ignore warnings by outgoing International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohammad AlBaradei, that up to 20 countries could soon develop technology to manufacture nuclear weapons. And they would ignore lessons of history, which teaches that threats come from unexpected sources. As First Sea Lord Sir Jonathan Band said, before the Gulf War "people said there was no chance of Britain deploying armoured forces abroad. Before that, Britain was fretting about the Soviets while Argentina quietly invaded the Falklands."

Britain is losing its status as a great military power. Successive governments have failed to understand just how much damage they are doing to our standing around the globe. This is not the settled will of the electorate, or even the settled policy of the government. Before more cuts are made, we need a full national debate and strategic defence review. Then we will see if any politicians dare to describe their cuts then ask for your vote.

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, a World Fellow at Yale University and a Research Director at the European Centre for Advanced Defence and Strategic Studies.