Should we cut the Army?

[youngmafbog]

I'm most interested in the views of the anti warmongers amongst us, are you all happy now as with a reduced capacity our capability to wage ware will be vastly reduced?

Personally I am all for reducing our forces to be defnesive only. Hopefully from now on the NATO 'partners' will have to pick up more responsibilty and it wont be us getting th ebad name and our folk killed.

[Old_Geezer]

I'm no expert in how much of a military force we need but I am aware of many complaints in the recent past about how our existing forces were barely enough to achieve what we needed and how we may not be able to react in this situation or that situation. It may be a case of exaggeration to get more budget but I suspect there is an element of truth there: and given the morning TV was quoting reductions back to the size we had in Napoleonic times, and having to relay on the part timers, well it all sounds a bit of a disaster to me. In any case one hopes not to just patrol out borders as if we cut back that far, any hostilities occur on out doorstep or even in our borders, and that is to be avoided.

[LazyGun]

Yep. Focus on defence of the realm at home, reign back on the more speculative military (mis) adventures,which seem largely designed to boost the incumbent PMs ego, and have a military more able to cope with modern day threats.

We were (are?) spending around 2.7% of GDP on our military, or £40 billion a year, so I would think the public purse would be grateful for any savings.

Make more use of the territorials makes sense. i just wish the strategic defence review had been more coherent, and I still think it was a cut price deal to sell of the harrier fleet to the US.

[andy-hughes]

The `need`for more armed forces is an argument driven by generals - it`s obvious, if war is what you do for a profession, then the notion of you being stopped and unemployed is not an attractive one.

It`s the same with the Olympics - Lord Coe has devoted his life to sport, so he assumes everyone else is as passionate about it as he is - it simply doesn`t fly.

We should be engaged with dialogue with those who may threaten us - military men make military decisions - get rid of them now. We are not a superior mlitary power, the world knows this, we are fooling no-one.

[emmie]

I find that our troops are being slaughtered on a foreign field with no end in sight, and to no obvious, at least to me , plan or reason.

so perhaps some of us would rather they came home in one piece, or hadn't been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan in the first place.
I am not sure that cutting the services to the bare minimum is good either, but they are not immune where cuts are concerned.

[emmie]

this was what i posted the other day, after yet more soldiers were killed

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1148432.html

[Old_Geezer]

It is one thing to rail against being in the middle east, but think Falklands as an example. It is as true today as it ever was that if you wish for peace, you need to prepare for war. It is when there seems more attractive places to put the budget that you get caught unawares.

[emmie]

OG, the difference with the Falklands, is that this is a British protectorate, and the people who inhabit them are British citizens. If they weren't why would our soldiers have gone to war there. We have no business meddling in the affairs of Afghanistan, Iraq, it has led to bloodshed and terrible consequences for all.

[pdq1]

When it comes to numbers of Army personnel the cuts are not huge. They intend to cut the regular army where soldiers make a career. In place of the regulars they are using temporary soldiers such as those in the TA or territorial who spend a few weeks on the training ground but are called up in any conflict. This obviously saves on wages.

[jno]

we meddle in the Middle East in hopes of getting cheaper oil. This isn't entirely a matter of prime ministerial ego - it's you and I who are using up oil resources and complaining about the prices at the pump. If, long-term, we save money on the army but pay it out again to BP, will people be happier?

[LazyGun]

@jno yes, unless you are of the "might is right" school of thinking.Meddling is the most appropriate word for what they are doing, and there is no evidence that such actions have helped to keep oil prices lower. The PR consequences, and hatred of the West have been spectacular own goals of this policy.

Cynical post, jno.

[jno]

it wasn't intended to be cynical; I think it's realistic (though actually I was only talking about Iraq; the Afghan venture was prompted by 9/11), and I was suggesting that the politicians we blame are only responding to the concerns of the voting public, which is what we pay them for. But whether it saves money in the end, I don't know.

[Old_Geezer]

That is the point em. We are told it was a close run thing last time we had a conflict there. And now apparently we are reducing our military further to, I am informed, a level we've not been at since the early 1800s ? Just sounds to me to be cutting too far.

[jno]

as I understand it, we couldn't fight the Falklands again as we don't have the aircraft carriers any more.

[Gromit]

Unfortunately the Afghan and Iraqi adventures have been worthless. We are no safer, al qaeda has not been defeated and our energy supplies are no more secure than they were 12 years ago. It has cost us dearly in lives for nothing.

If the defence cuts mean we do not get dragged into conflicts that are non of our business, then some good might have come from it.

[emmie]

why have our servicemen and women been sent then, and if we couldn't defend the Falklands because of lack of personnel, equipment, why are they holding a referendum. One assumes they will vote to stay under British rule, law, if not then Argentine forces will swamp the place, and the Argentine flag
will fly over Port Stanley.

[jake-the-peg]

The one thing the Falklands should show is how much cheaper it is to defend territory than to retake it.

Of course that has implied criticism that the saintly Margaret Thatcher actually lost the Falklands but we'll pass over that.

We have a ministry of defense which is nothing of the sort.

Their main pre-occupation seems to be with "defending British interests" around the world.

We have a process to cut back the army by a mere 10% and all of a sudden the armed forces PR machine goes into overdrive at the prospect of the closure of a few regiments.

The fact of the matter from my perspective is that we shouldn't have armed forces geared to picking fights al over the world but rather one that is geared to defending Britain and British territories - possibly with *real* UN peacekeeping roles (in situations where there is actually a peace to be kept).

We need a naval force that is geared to protecting British shipping - not one geared to staging another D-Day

And we need armed forces staffed by fewer high quality recruits and not 17 year old kids with 1 GCSE and shoplifting records filled with tales of adventure fighting in forein lands

That's an armed forces I could support

It seems YMB that we are dangerously close to agreement

[FredPuli43]

"It was easy for him to discover that...in the prosecution of foreign wars, the undertaking became every day more difficult, the event more doubtful, and the possession more precarious and less beneficial". That is Edward Gibbon, writing of the Emperor Augustus. Nothing changes much, does it ?

We had no more business being in Iraq or in Afghanistan, than we had for being in Vietnam, a presence we were spared. That is not anti-warmongering but practical sense. We do not need an army for such adventures, which singularly resemble what Augustus avoided over 2,000 years ago. If it is cut back to what is needed for the defence of British territory, it will be large enough.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// If the defence cuts mean we do not get dragged into conflicts that are non of our business, then some good might have come from it. ///

Do you seriously think that we will refuse to be dragged into conflicts that are none of our business?

Well I don't, it will just mean that our troops will be facing just as much danger, not only with inadequate hardware (as in the past), but also with a smaller fighting force.

I wonder if all those 'hand-wringers' who are always telling us we should protect those in danger around the World, would wish us to draw back and let some other country take on the task?

[LazyGun]

@AoG - since when were we elected global policemen? And, if you think thats what we have been, how do you suppose thats working out for us?

Of course having a smaller military is going to scale back on the use of military force in persuit of a political end, which is how it should be.We should be able to persue most rapid response roles well enough with the slimmed down military, although I do think that there are legitimate concerns about going from 15,000 reservists to 30,000.....

And since when is it right that those who have a moral objection to war and military action should be classed using the perjorative term "hand wringers"? Only the most blood crazed armchair generals would think objection to war is somehow demeaning.........

[anotheoldgit]

/// And since when is it right that those who have a moral objection to war and military action should be classed using the perjorative term "hand wringers"? Only the most blood crazed armchair generals would think objection to war is somehow demeaning........///

Perhaps before criticising and insulting anyone, you should be aware of what a person actually said?

/// I wonder if all those 'hand-wringers' who are always telling us we should protect those in danger around the World, ///

i will explain to you seeing that you seem a little confused, The 'Hand Wringers' I was referring to were the ones who are always telling us that we should protect those in danger around the World.

No one mentioned 'a moral objection to war and military action'.