DID HE REALLY SAY THAT?

When someone you have convinced yourself is your best friend (and you believe has your best interests at heart) says something truthful but hurtful about you that can be upsetting. However, when they say it publically for all to hear then it’s twice as hurtful and if you had any sense you might be well advised to question the value of your so called friendship. The former US defence secretary, Robert Gates has said that cuts to the UK's armed forces will limit the country's ability to be a major player on the world stage. And that the spending cuts would mean the UK could no longer be a full [useful] military partner of the US.

Under the current Con Dem Coalition government’s plans, by 2020 the Army will have lost some 20,000 personnel, with the Royal Navy losing 6,000 and the RAF some 5,000. Despite the cuts the MOD was quick to point out that the UK still has the fourth largest defence budget in the world. However, when interviewed by BBC Radio 4's Today programme (16.01.2014) Robert Gates noted that - for the first time since World War One - Britain did not have an operational aircraft carrier.

Mr Gates, who served under presidents Obama and Bush, singled out cuts to the navy as particularly damaging. He said; "With the fairly substantial reductions in defence spending in Great Britain, what we're finding is that it won't have full spectrum capabilities and the ability to be a full partner as they have been in the past." Incidentally, last month the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, warned that the UK could be left with the "spectre" of a hollowed-out force. While this latest American  intervention probably won’t reverse Cameron’s defence cuts it will wound the UK's pride and may shatter a few still held illusions or possibly delusions.

The not so big secret to the UK’s so called ‘special relationship’ with the USA dates back to the dark days of the Second World War is that the relationship is not that special. The UK was dependent on aid from the USA well before Pearl Harbour brought the Americans into the war. Our history (or more like our spun history) tells us that ‘lend lease’ saved us, what’s not said is that ‘lend lease’ was more like ‘cash and carry’ i.e. they take our cash and we do the carrying across the broad U Boat filled Atlantic even after America came into the war.

By the war’s end Britain was pretty much broke (or at least financially challenged) and stretched pretty thin militarily (in terms of manpower UK and Commonwealth forces peaked out in the autumn of 1944|). The Empire and with it ‘imperial responsibility’ unravelled surprisingly rapidly in the post war years. Britain walked from Palestine and Greece, and India, Pakistan, Burma and Sri Lanka gained their independence, despite this the delusionary myth of Imperial greatness and the ‘special relationship with the USA remained.

The reality was that the USA since the early part of the twentieth century had been one way or another pretty much determined to break up the British Empire. Any delusions that the ‘Brits’ had about their position in the world, should have evaporated during and after the Suez crisis when an irate President Eisenhower, told Britain’s Prime Minister Anthony Eden bluntly to halt the military invasion of Egypt or face up to the economic and political consequences. Britain and France found themselves up against it in the face of US economic and political power and interests in 1956 and both lost.

The French decided to maintain an independent foreign policy, which if it coincided with US interests was all well and good, but if not then no matter. The Brits made a different choice, they decided never to oppose US interests again, at least not publically, from 1956 onwards US interests would be British interests requardless. Under continual pressure from the US the remainder of the Empire vanished far more rapidly than it was acquired, being mostly gone by 1964.

The Brits pretty much never stepped out of line again, unlike the French, who retained control of their own foreign policy. Now all this may be slightly delayed fallout from the so called Westminster elite’s failure to secure a majority in the House of Commons for military action over Syria. With the ‘Brits’ making the awkward transition from useful ally and friend  to potential liability people may well be forgiven for wondering where does that leave the so called ‘special relationship’?  

THE OLD CONTEMPT FOR WALES

As we wait to hear about the cuts to Welsh Regiments, the news that that the Ministry of Defence decided not to participate in an enquiry by the Welsh Affairs Committee (chaired by David Davies MP for Monmouth) into the future of the remaining Welsh Regiments should not come as much of a surprise. The MoD along with much of Whitehall has a pretty clear track record of being pretty dismissive of Welsh concerns and interests, whether they are related to the impact of defence cuts or the historic acquisition of land in Wales for artillery ranges.

SAVE THE WELSH CAVALRY

Save the Welsh Cavalry

The Conservatives (sorry Con Dems) have a bad habit of making defence cuts at moments when it would be better strategically to pause for thought. As part of the package of public sector spending cuts, to bail out the banks, the army is now going through a process of downsize to meet the new budget cuts. One result of these cuts is that a number of army regiments will be amalgamated or disbanded. Now there is nothing wrong with cutting ones cloth to match reality, that is something that the UK should have been done years ago.

Hasty ill thought out defence cuts have a tendency to come back and bite you further down the line. These defence cuts, at a time of significant military commitment overseas, should be properly thought out and balanced with a realistic medium to long term assessment of potential future strategic needs. That is sadly not what we have, any defence cut or reduction in military strength should be well thought out and any cuts should be balanced regionally rather than being over focused on Wales.

Our country has and continues to provide some of the finest soldiers for the Army in numbers which are greater than the population of Wales would indicate. Wales has four Regiments and only one Cavalry Regiment, 1st The Queens Dragoon Guards (the QDG). This Regiment recruits some 75% of its solders from all parts of Wales. Welsh families have a long tradition of serving in the Regiment and the consequent benefit for employment in Wales.

Losing the QDG is not a sensible option, aside from the fact that no one in Wales will be able to serve in a Welsh Cavalry Regiment. The loss of the regiment will have significant economic knock on effects, with redundancies, something that will not help in these grim economic times. Once if these cuts go ahead then once again Wales will lose out, tradition will wither, and potentially 500 jobs will be lost.

The UK Prime Minister, faced with a well organised and focused Scottish response has apparently indicated that he does not want to see any of the Infantry or Cavalry regiments in Scotland removed. When it comes to Wales, which is often out of sight and out of mind as far as many Westminster Governments are concerned, there has been no clear answer as to the fate of the QDQ. This is clearly unacceptable.

http://www.savethewelshcavalry.com/

A THOUGHT ON MOD REDUNDANCIES

News that the Con Dem Government plans to make service personnel redundant at a time when the level of overseas commitments are increasing is something that could make you wonder about the competence and the judgement of the UK Government let alone wonder whether or not the left hand knows what the right hand is actually doing. Any of our servicemen and women who are going to be made redundant need to be able to fully access timely advice on a wide spectrum of issues including: welfare benefits, employment advice, budgetary and life skills, debt management, alcohol and drug treatment, and relationship skills, in order to tackle the feeling of isolation experienced by many on leaving the forces.

Some of our Servicemen and women found out on Monday (4th April) about the terms of redundancy for 560 soldiers and 1,600 sailors. All in all some twenty-five thousand civil servants and 17,000 armed personnel in the army, navy and RAF will lose their jobs by 2015 due to budget cuts. The UK Government has a duty to honour the military covenant, which is enshrined in law so the UK government must do all it can to make training for service people leaving the forces mandatory. Anything less would be a blatant betrayal of our armed forces personnel and the often hazardous work they do.

Now a week is a long time on politics, on Friday (8th April) we learned that the Prime Minister is “actively engaged” in a reassessment of Britain's military capabilities and planned reductions in equipment and manpower. The Daily Telegraph said that the rethink has raised hopes that some of the cuts to military aircraft and ships in the Strategic Defence and Security Review could be postponed or even reversed. Insiders said it was not too late for a change of mind on the decision to cut the number of RAF Tornado's and scrap surveillance planes. Some Royal Navy frigates could also be spared, or have their retirement delayed.

In what may well be the first sign of compromise (or a not so carefully camouflaged U-Turn) on defence cuts, Cameron has now ordered the Treasury to give the Ministry of Defence a reprieve on its overspent 2011-12 budget. This £800 million climbdown will spare the Armed Forces further cuts this year. Senior government figures admitted that the Libyan conflict has raised questions about the wisdom of cuts that will leave Britain facing a “dip” in its military capabilities for several years.

The BBC notes that some analysts suggest that the MoD budget will come under renewed strain next year, with some of the pain simply deferred unless deeper cuts are made in 2012 or extra money is found for defence. A U-turn on a deeply unpopular cut or not, that's open to question - but one thing is true it is unacceptable to treat our service men and women in such an irresponsible and high handed and cavalier manner.