Troop numbers are at their lowest for 200 years and the complement of battle tanks is being cut. The consequences of the review are stark. But it will only mean more money if the economy grows. The Chancellor said it would only reach that when “fiscal and economic circumstances allow”. Mr Wallace made it clear in his parting shot that he expected that to be raised to 2.5 per cent as indicated in the March Budget but yet to be confirmed. Now it is about 2 per cent and that includes some non-combat spending. Until the end of the Cold War, we spent 5 per cent of GDP on defence annually. It would be possible to have both a larger army and the proper equipment, but it would require cuts elsewhere which politicians are evidently not prepared to make because they fear it would lose them votes. The Government has decided to spend proportionately more on social programmes like health, care and welfare than it once did, and less on the defence of the Realm. It is, indeed, a choice, but a deliberate one. “Are you going to buy 300 armoured vehicles or am I just going to give them a pitchfork? I mean, that’s the choice,” he said. He said a larger force would have to be equipped. In comments ahead of his statement, Mr Wallace said he would not reverse the cuts in the Army to 73,000 regulars. His analysis about the need to modernise and equip the Armed Forces for future conflicts is unarguable, but there was no escaping a sense that the strategic dispositions would be different if more money were available. Indeed, as Mr Wallace pointed out, the principal threats we face were precisely those envisaged in the original review, notably that posed by Russia. In what may well be his last parliamentary act as Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace briefed MPs on a “refresh” of the Integrated Review, published in 2021, to take account of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |