“The head of the Royal Navy has defended the commissioning of two new aircraft carriers, rejecting claims that they were outdated “Cold War relics”.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band warned that Britain would always need “higher end capabilities” in the future.

His speech was seen as a riposte to Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt, who said many new equipment programmes were “irrelevant” to modern warfare. “ BBC

So to return to this topic, Admiral Bland is right to mount his defence of the Navy in the manner he does, because unlike General Dannatt his response is not based primarily upon parochialism.

Let us look at the important part of Admiral Band’s statement:

“Admiral Band insisted that the Navy still needed the ability to mount the full range of maritime operations - from air-sea rescue and anti-drugs patrols to full scale military interventions.

“I am not volunteering for the second division,” he said. “While Afghanistan is rightly our priority it is not the only show in town.”

He warned of a growing “sea blindness” towards the importance of naval power, and insisted Britain needed a Navy “big enough to have a meaningful presence, whether to deter or defeat an enemy”.” BBC

The most noticable aspect of this is that Band is making some reference to the future, he is not, as General Dannatt was, just looking at the high profile action of today and extrapolating a future where nothing has changed. Just because today the Navy is not required to launch a full scale military operation does not mean that the same will be true in 10 years time – in fact it was not true 10 years ago when the Navy was required to do precisely that over Kosovo.

The Royal Navy does indeed play an important role in anti-drugs operations, arms smuggling and relief operations, they also have a role to play in securing sea-lanes – a fact that the escalating situation regarding Somali pirates illustrates – also as, in the future, global warming and overpopulation will place massive pressures on the developing world (Africa for example) they will have an increasing role to play in dealing with illegal immigration and border protection. All in all it is, for both the present and the future, rather worth having a Navy with a little bit of weight. Quoting figures about Britain’s land forces only receiving 10% of the defence budget is not terribly helpful as the demands for money from the other services are always going to be far higher due to the type of equipment that they need.

That is not to say that Admiral Band is totally correct in everything. I have previously referred to the two new aircraft carriers as being of the ‘White Elephant Class’ as the case for their deployment is rather thin. There is the strong smell of political expediency behind awarding a multi-billion pound contract to British ship builders, ship builders with an extremely uncertain future, particularly as Gordon Brown’s constituency is rather close by!! I suppose that this in itself is not a huge issue – military spending has long been used as a method of subsidising domestic industry (look at the Americans) – but it is hardly inspiring.

Also I cannot help feeling that there is a certain amount of one-upmanship involved in that these two carriers are both larger than the French flagship, the Charles de Gaulle. The current British flagship, the Ark Royal, has almost half the displacement of the Charles de Gaulle, while the new carriers are significantly larger than the de Gaulle. There is no evidence to back that up, it is just an impression that I get.

There are actually issues regarding the practical utility of these new carriers, as their sole use is in military operations where the RAF is not available. There are not really too many situations where that is going to occur – perhaps the only conceivable one is if Argentina invades the Falkland Islands again, whether that is worth a couple of billion in construction costs and more in running costs for the carriers and their escorts is debatable. In the large scale military operations of the Kosovo kind, then Britain would be part of an international force or/and have land bases to operate aircraft from. Questions regarding the need for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers therefore have some weight behind them.

What does not have weight behind it is the idea that a competent blue-water Navy can be sacrificed in the future. The sheer range of important roles that the Royal Navy is required to perform necessitate a significant force, and if General Dannatt’s blinkered assessment of the future military requirements of the British Armed Forces is as wrong as it seems, then the Royal Navy will have far greater demands placed upon their resources that they currently do. While the role of the Army will revert to a more multi-national orientated peacekeeping role rather than the extreme counter-insurgency role that it is currently forced to take part in.

In the future, I suspect that the Royal Navy will be the most important branch of Britain’s armed forces, and future plans need to resource it accordingly.

“The head of the Royal Navy has defended the commissioning of two new aircraft carriers, rejecting claims that they were outdated “Cold War relics”.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band warned that Britain would always need “higher end capabilities” in the future.

His speech was seen as a riposte to Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt, who said many new equipment programmes were “irrelevant” to modern warfare. “ BBC

It is quite interesting to watch this public debate between the army and the navy regarding equipment, because for the first time in a century the Navy is actually right..

I will deal with the point of view of the Army chief Sir Richard Dannat just over a month ago first, as this was the opening salvo in this debate, and were an alarming comment on senior commanders in the British Army. I will post another entry regarding the position of the Navy chief, Sir Jonathon Bond.

The important part was:

“But troops were now more involved in counter-insurgency operations, he said.

He told the Chatham House think tank that the fight against al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups was “probably the fight of our generation”.

Sir Richard warned that British forces could expect to be involved in combating “predatory non-state actors” for the foreseeable future, in what he called an “era of persistent conflict”.” BBC

The most obvious error on Dannat’s part is that he is talking about the future and is relying on the present for his information on what the future will entail. That is a prime example of planning for the wrong war. Twenty years ago the British military looked out of the window, saw the world as it was at the end of the Cold War, and planned accordingly. When the situation changed the military was not designed for that new situation. Sir Richard Dannatt is doing his very best Douglas Haig impression and demanding that we make the same mistake again.

There are two approaches to combating terrorism, the first is the military approach, and the second is the law and order approach.

The military approach involves taking military action against terrorist infrastructure, havens, etc.. Quiet apart from the fact this course of action legitimises the terrorists as ’soldiers’ it, as the Israelis have spent the best part of the last 60 years proving, does not work. The ability of even the best military units to strike any sort of decisive blow against terrorist groups is severely limited, and the collateral damage in terms of destruction of civilian infrastructure, property and life is absolutely colossal. Military forces do not defeat guerrilla fighters if the guerrillas have any sort of support amongst the population – and if these ‘predatory non-state actors’ do not have that support at the start of the operation, they probably will have after a couple of months of military action badly impacts the lives of the civilian population.

The law and order approach involves treating terrorists as the criminals and murderers that they are and using law enforcement agencies, civilian authorities and diplomacy to solve the problem. This approach is not always effective. although as it does not tend to involve killing lots of innocent people – however inadvertently – and does not involve the political disaster of being seen as ‘invaders, it does not tend to make the situation worse. Focusing on domestic security and education while pursuing diplomatic routes to make the lives of any organised non-state actors as difficult as possible is a far better approach to tackling the ‘ fight of our generation’ than the military one.

Given how unlikely it is that the military approach will actually result in any really positive outcome, it is very surprising that the head of the Army is advocating it so strongly. Passionately demanding that the men under his command are thrust into more unwinnable wars does seem rather bizarre.

If we look further at this ‘fight of our generation’, it has involved a costly and unpopular political disaster in Iraq that was just about salvaged by the troops on the ground, and Afghanistan, a total disaster that has very little chance of success. Indeed, the only people who seem to think that the Afghanistan mission is going to be successful appear to be Gordon Brown and Barack Obama. Is Sir Richard Dannat seriously suggesting that these operations are likely to be repeated?? If he is then he is wrong, there is not likely to be the popular or the political will in Britain to repeat this, “fight against al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups” in the foreseeable future.

It is far more likely that the British government will do everything they can to avoid heavily involving themselves in such potentially damaging conflicts in future. Look at the Kosovo operation: NATO avoided sending ground troops in at all costs and used air and naval power to get the job done. I would suggest that is more likely to be the main military tactic to be used in the foreseeable future.

The role of the Army in this kind of conflict will probably be secondary to that of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, they will primarily be used for peacekeeping operations and UN endorsed police actions. It is monumentally unlikely that Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be repeated; they simply have not been successful enough to provide a blueprint for the future. Just as the Americans spent 30 years avoiding a repeat of Vietnam, the British government (and people) are likely to be equally keen to avoid a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan. Any concerted action by ground troops in future against terrorist groups or other non-state actors is likely to take the form of covert or surgical operations by special forces, rather than through the deployment of large forces.

Given all of this, would it not be more sensible to actually tailor Army in the future to actually carry out the role it will be required to do in the future, rather than the role that it is required to do today??

“The UK should slash defence spending by £24bn and revisit plans to renew its Trident nuclear deterrent, according to a report published by a think-tank.

Britain cannot afford much of the defence equipment it plans to buy, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report says.

Its authors include former defence secretary Lord Robertson and the ex-Lib Dem leader, Lord Ashdown.

It comes after news of a £1bn cost overrun on two new aircraft carriers. “ BBC

This report is rather interesting because, apart from being completely wrong, it does not answer one very important question. Why can Britain “no longer afford to play the same world role as before”??

The current government have raised taxes and consequently get far greater tax revenues than at any other time in the past, so this idea of ‘new fiscal restraints’ is total rubbish. Things have not somehow ‘changed’ as regards the defence budget, what has actually ‘changed’ is that the government have poured huge amounts of money – with very little impact – into the NHS and various other failed social projects.

If we look at the government spending for 2009, then Defence is really not a large part of it:

Pulling 24 billion out of the defence budget – nearly two-thirds of it – does seem rather extreme. If we want to save 24 billion then why not look at ’social protection’ and ‘Health’?? They are by far the greatest drains on the public purse - the NHS is apparently massively overspending on its enormous budget too, so that drain is only going to get greater. If they are honestly saying that 24 billion should be removed from the defence budget so that the NHS gets to continue as a huge inefficient behemoth then they may as well just suggest that we heap huge piles of money up in central London during winter and burn it to keep the homeless warm – it will have more of a positive effect!!

The issue raised by the BBC about a 1 billion pound overspend on the White Elephant Class carriers – which incidentally were partly commissioned to protect British jobs, something that military spending is very good at – is a fine example of what is wrong in all aspects of government spending, the NHS computer system that cost 6 times its original quote being another - interestingly that computer system is estimated to come it at somewhere around 24 billion over budget; a popular figure it seems – the public sector seem to have a pathological inability to get contractors to sign a contract that outlines costs and requirements; you know, the kind of contract that everybody else in the world (apart from the Football Association) uses. When you give them the contract they say they will do it for X amount of money and they then are expected to do that or they forfeit the contract – it is not difficult!!

I cannot help feeling that all of the calls for the castration of Britain in terms of military capability is just sour-grapes from the left – much has come from the Liberal Democrats, and Paddy Ashdown is involved in this report too – over the Iraq war. Britain has an important role to play in ensuring European, and consequently Eurasian, stability – while she maintains a significant capability she can also take part in peacekeeping and aid operations across the world and bring hope where there otherwise would not be any. Those who constantly criticise the military and eulogise some marxian policy of disarmament, do rather forget that the militaries of the developed world are the teeth of the United Nations – a United Nations without teeth is the League of Nations, and we all know what happened there.

I agree that a like-for-like Trident replacement is not necessary, a cheaper land-based strategic deterrent is perfectly adequate for Britain’s objectives, but this idea that, as Tony Blair’s ineptitude at foreign policy was only matched by Gordon Brown’s ineptitude at economics we should take a fire-axe to Britain’s military capability, then rely either on the United States or the French for our security, wear some flowers in our hair, grow a beard and sing ‘Give Peace a Chance’ if anybody threatens us, is nonsense of the highest order!

Britain has an important role to play in global stability. We cannot just say, “Oh well I am sure somebody else will do it” because the simple fact is they probably will not. The defence budget is a small part of government spending, and if savings do need to be made then there are some very bloated sectors of the budget that are far more inviting than the already underfunded military.

“The UK has demanded the immediate release of Iranian staff at its Tehran embassy who were arrested on Saturday.

Iranian media earlier reported that eight local staff at the mission had been detained for their “considerable role” in post-election riots.

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband called the arrests “harassment” and dismissed the allegations as baseless. “ BBC

It is not harassment David, it is called politics. Of course the Iranian leadership – both spiritual and political – do not want to give the impression that their own people are protesting off of their own backs about the system, they are not stupid!!

Thanks to the British government – particularly under Blair, but also under Brown – who have pursued a truly strange policy towards Iran, one which appears to owe more to Tel Aviv than Westminster, Britain is pushing the United States for the status of Iran’s Public Enemy number one. Given that, what would you do to try and undermine the protesters???

Most of us would do precisely what the Iranian leadership have done and try and weave it all into a conspiracy involving Britain. You then denounce the protesters as traitors and also get to flag-wave in the face of alleged foreign interference. Perfect!!

This is a minor issue, it should be dealt with quietly behind the scenes rather than through government induced hysteria in the press.

One of the major criticisms that should be levelled at the current government is their seeming inability to deal with any international issue without the whole thing turning into a major crisis – particularly when it comes to the Iranians. Remember the whole issue of the captured Navy servicemen?? Instead of just making a public statement about expecting Iran to adhere to international convention regarding the treatment of hostages, while quietly sorting the issue out behind the scenes, Blair opted for a public PR campaign to try and demonise the Iranians which resulted in huge embarrassment for Britain and a serious souring of relations with the Iranians. Look at Gordon Brown’s comments on the Iranian nuclear programme, instead of a respectful and persuasive attempt at building bridges he opted for a lecture from the patronising headmaster. It is all idiocy of the highest order!!

It makes it even more ridiculous when you consider that the Iranians are fighting the same ‘War on Terror’ as the one that Britain has managed to get landed with – it is the same people blowing up Mosques in Iran as are attacking the UK, US and Europe. It says a lot about our government that they have singularly failed to take advantage of that fact.

Let us hope that the next government have a little more common sense.

“Prime Minister Gordon Brown has responded to criticisms that the UK did not do enough to try to free the two British hostages who died in Iraq.

He said the government had left “no stone unturned” in efforts to free five men held since May 2007.

It follows the release of the bodies of two British security guards, kidnapped along with the missing three men

There have been accusations that the UK’s approach of not negotiating with hostage-takers endangers lives. “ BBC

One would expect the families of anybody who has been taken hostage to hold this view – they are concerned about their loved ones and rightly could not care less about anybody else - but it is truly bizarre for anybody else to take such a stance. It is perhaps in keeping with the Liberal Democrat’s new approach of shamelessly leaping on any bandwagon that happens to pass regardless of any consequences or actual values that it is Sir Menzies Campbell who is leading the criticism of the government.

The Foreign Office issues travel advice regarding Iraq for a very good reason, and part of the travel advice is as follows:

“We advise against all travel to Baghdad and its surrounding area, the provinces of Basra, Maysan, Al Anbar, Salah Ad Din, Diyala, Wasit, Babil, Ninawa and At-Tamim (At-Tamim is often referred to as “Kirkuk Province”). We also advise against all but essential travel to the provinces of Al Qadisiyah, Muthanna, Najaf, Karbala, and Dhi Qar. See the Terrorism/Security section of this advice for more details.

Although there has been a decrease in the level of violence throughout Iraq the situation remains highly dangerous with a continuing high threat of terrorism throughout the country. This includes violence and kidnapping targeting foreign nationals (including individuals of non-western appearance). You are advised to seek professional security advice and make arrangements for your security throughout your visit. Even those working with dedicated protection teams should exercise extreme caution. “

So, the government tells us all not to go to Baghdad because even with professional security guards you run a very real risk of being killed or kidnapped. The government cannot just arbitrarily ban people from travelling to other countries (although they seem to be able to do that if anybody wants to come to the UK) so the limit of their power is to strongly advise people not to travel to individual countries or areas of countries.

The reason why governments are reluctant to negotiate with hostage takers is the same reason why governments are so unwilling to negotiate with anybody who takes any form of direct action. We need only look at the situation regarding Somali pirates to see how caving in to hostage takers merely serves to encourage their further activities. If the British government caves in to hostage takers in Iraq, by for example agreeing to release captured terrorists or convicted criminals, then it will merely serve to encourage other groups to do the same. Of course there should be some limited contact with any hostage-takers to see if the release of hostages can be negotiated, but there can never really be any concessions – especially not public concessions.

In this sort of situation the British government has done all it can to prevent hostages being taken by clearly advising against travelling and working in Iraq, and they have attempted to negotiate the release of the hostages already, but there is a limit to how far they can go. The government cannot ever risk encouraging hostage-takers in Iraq or abroad – especially given that the ‘War on Terror’ that Iraq was a part of is in response to (or has created, depending on your view) an international threat. It is not inconceivable that any concessions made to hostage-takers in Iraq could precipitate similar actions in other parts of the world, or even in a worst case scenario within the UK itself. No responsible government could ever risk this.

The Liberal Democrats of course are not currently keen on responsibility.