Ever since the Cold War ended more than two decades ago, America has never entertained any serious doubts about Britain’s ability to fulfill its commitment as a vital military ally when tackling threats to the Western alliance.
Until now. For the dramatic cuts to Britain’s defense budget implemented since the Coalition took power in 2010 have led to a number of senior US military officers and politicians openly questioning whether, when it comes to fighting the wars of the future, Britain has the capability to be an effective ally on the battlefield, The Telegraph reported on Monday.
The Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy have all suffered cutbacks to the extent that they are no longer able to undertake the kind of missions that Britain has historically supported.
Now, General Raymond Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the US army, who has fought alongside British forces in several conflicts, including the recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, has become the latest senior officer to express his concerns in public, telling The Telegraph when I met him in Washington last week that he is “very concerned” about the impact the cuts are having.
His comments, moreover, came after President Barack Obama had taken issue with David Cameron when he visited the White House in January. He warned the Prime Minister of the dangers of allowing British defense expenditure to fall below the 2 per cent of GDP threshold required by our Nato membership.
For there are growing fears that cuts will jeopardize a central tenet of the post-Second World War transatlantic alliance – namely, that Britain can be counted upon to provide military hardware to US-led campaigns in defense of Western interests.
Whether it is dealing with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, or preventing Afghanistan from becoming a haven for Islamist terror groups, it has been a long-standing assumption of US military planning that Britain would deploy a combat force in excess of 10,000 men, as well as the fighter aircraft and naval vessels.
During the 1991 Gulf War, for example, the famed 7th Armored Brigade, or Desert Rats, took the lead role in the Army’s ground operations, which saw more than 50,000 British soldiers deployed to the region during the six-month campaign. The RAF, meanwhile, deployed several fighter squadrons, while Royal Navy warships were involved in a wide range of duties.
More than two decades after Saddam’s forces were defeated in that war, the world is a dangerous and unpredictable place. As Gen Odierno remarked: “This is the most uncertain global environment I have seen in 40 years of service.”
And yet, at a time when the security of Britain and the rest of the alliance faces a range of threats, none of the main political parties is showing any interest in reversing the cuts that have seriously diminished the UK’s ability to tackle them.
As a result of the budget cuts following the 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review, the Army has been cut by a fifth, the RAF now has just seven combat squadrons, compared with the 30-odd it had in the first Gulf War, and the Navy barely has enough warships to fulfill its international duties.
“We have a bilateral agreement between our two countries to work together. It is about having a partner that has very close values and the same goals as we do,” explained Gen Ordorno at the New America Foundation’s “Future of War” conference.
“What has changed, though, is the level of capability. In the past we would have a British Army division working alongside an American army division.” The cuts mean that the US military is now working on the basis that in future Britain will contribute only half that amount, if not less.
Looking at current threats to global security, Gen Odierno warned that the alliance “had to be prepared for Ukraine”, while America and its allies needed to be primed to back Iraqi government forces later this year when they launch their much-anticipated offensive to liberate Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city which fell to Isil last year.