Liam Fox warns of 'ruthless' defence savings
Updated on 14 June 2010
With David Cameron pledging to double Afghan counter-IED teams and the defence secretary promising "ruthless" cuts, RUSI Director Michael Clarke tells Channel 4 News "sacred cows" must be slaughtered to balance the military books.
Britain's defence policy must be based on an assessment of what risks the country is willing to take and what risks it is willing to meet, Defence Secretary Liam Fox said today.
In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Dr Fox warned that the government would act "ruthlessly and without sentiment" in finding savings in the defence budget.
In his first address as defence secretary, he continued: "It is inevitable that there will be the perception of winners and losers as we go through this process."
Featured on this page
- Michael Clarke: the slaughtering of sacred cows
- Col Richard Kemp: Cameron right to focus on security
- Chief of Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup to stand down
- Three things the chief of defence staff needs
- Profile: General Sir David Richard
Dr Fox reiterated Britain’s commitment to Afghanistan, pledging that the aim was to create "a stable enough Afghanistan to allow the Afghan people to manage their own internal and external security".
The results of consultations on the strategic defence review, overseen by the National Security Council, will be published in a white paper by the end of the year, he said.
Defence cuts will mean the slaughtering of sacred cows
Liam Fox’s speech on the defence review was characteristically tough and addressed a number of challenges, writes Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute.
He made it clear that it was necessary to "act ruthlessly and without sentiment" in order to enact "a major reform agenda" and make a clear break with the military psychology of the cold war. Change "is not an option," he said. "It is a necessity."
All this is code for the fact that a number of sacred cows will have to be slaughtered before this process has run its course. The level of national indebtedness, if nothing else, makes this unavoidable.
He also stressed that this would be a strategic security and defence review; not a defence review alone.
It was "resource-informed but policy-led", which meant that it would be run from the new National Security Council and take account of all of the UK's security interests, including those that are best pursued through diplomacy alone, those through contingency planning, and those through having the armed forces do all the other things they are capable of apart from war-fighting.
This is code for saying that the armed forces themselves will not be running the review. Dr Fox starts out as a secretary of state who seems determined not to be in thrall to the power and expertise of the armed forces.
He stressed that there are certain things that no-one but the military can do. They are the only arm of government that can use legitimate lethal force – be prepared to kill and be killed in the service of the nation. They have to defend our way of life by deterring all sorts of potential aggression and by being the instrument of last resort.
No-one should doubt, he said, the vital role of the armed forces or his determination to preserve their role in UK defence policy.
But his tone, and his body language, made it pretty clear that he would be driving through some painful changes – reorganisations, re-thinking, and – yes – big cuts in programmes that the armed forces might find very difficult to accept.
He has not given any clues yet as to where the axe will fall, but he explicitly has not ruled out cutting manpower, which, in effect, will mean the size of the army.
He reiterated the commitment to the war in Afghanistan. Nothing would be done to undermine the efforts being made there. But once that effort begins to draw down, some of the troops coming home may be coming back to a smaller army, albeit one with a new high-tech edge.
It was his first speech as the new defence minister and it was assertive, combative and ambitious. It may set the tone for his occupancy of this particular hot seat in the coalition government.
During a Commons statement this afternoon, the prime minister, David Cameron, repeated the pledge he made in Afghanistan at the end of last week, to double the number of counter-IED teams tackling "the most serious threat facing our young men and women", at a cost of £67m.
But he conceded: "I do not pretend that every equipment shortage has been resolved. We will need to adapt constantly and deal with problems as they arrive."
Mr Cameron used his Commons statement to restate that British forces were in Afghanistan for reasons of national security.
"Afghanistan is not yet strong enough to look after its own security - and that is why we are there," he said.
He explained that even after British troops had left Afghanistan, "the relationship between Britain and Afghanistan must remain a close one (...) These long-term relationships, quite simply, are essential to our national security."
And he promised that soldiers from the UK would not remain in the country "a day longer than is necessary".
Cameron is right to sell the war and focus on national security
David Cameron was right to emphasise two things in his statement on Afghanistan, writes Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan.
First, the need to sell the war to the British people. This was one of the last government's greatest failures and has cost our armed forces the support of at least 70 percent of the population of this country as things stand today. The coalition must regain that support - and fast.
The bad news of the frequent flow of coffins back home through Wootton Bassett must be balanced by news of the progress and the effect on the enemy that has resulted from our soldiers' valiant sacrifices. This is one of the most pressing issues for David Cameron's new war cabinet.
The prime minister's focus, too, on national security is important. That is the reason our troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan - to protect our people at home. Again, this was not made clear to the population here by the last government, eager to talk of poppy irradication, education and equal rights.
The prime minister and the war cabinet must emphasise repeatedly that we will not be leaving Afghanistan until the job is done. Failure to drive home that point will encourage the insurgents. It will also dismay the Afghan people, who will fear being left again to the mercy of the Taliban. If that happens they will not cooperate with us or give us their support - both are essential to achieving our objectives.
I would like to have heard the prime minister give greater emphasis to strategic and operational coordination with Pakistan. This needs to be improved and is also critical to success against extremism - on both sides of the border.
Colonel Richard Kemp is the author of Attack State Red
Defence chief Sir Jock Stirrup to stand down
At the weekend the defence secretary said that Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the present chief of defence staff – the country’s top military officer – would stand down before the forthcoming strategic defence review was concluded.
There have been suggestions the decision was made because of Sir Jock's failure to plan for helicopter shortages in Afghanistan and because of the inadequacy of armoured vehicles available to troops in Helmand province.
Dr Fox denied that he wanted Sir Jock out because he was too close to Labour. Speaking in the Commons this afternoon, the prime minister said that Sir Jock had intended for some time to stand down from his post later this year.
The two favourites to succeed Sir Jock Stirrup as chief of defence staff are his deputy, General Sir Nick Houghton, at present vice-chief of the defence staff, and the head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards.
Colonel Richard Kemp told Channel 4 News: "It is right to have new management at the top to implement the new order.
"Some argue that a new CDS should have been appointed to run the MoD's elements of the review.
"That might have made sense, but the reality is that if the government announces Sir Jock Stirrup's successor rapidly, that individual will become the real power behind the defence review.
"It is essential the new CDS is a general. the war in Afghanistan, and the most probably future conflicts, will all be land-based. A prime minister and defence secretary with no personal military experience badly need their top adviser to be someone with direct experience of land warfare.
"In General Sir David Richards and General Sir Nick Houghton - the two chief contenders - we have men of great experience and ability."
Three things the chief of defence staff needs
• A strong and distinguished record in command of military forces in battle, to give credibility to his military advice to politicians, his leadership of the armed services and the influence he must wield among allies.
• The intellectual power to handle imaginatively the complexities of 21st century military operations such as Afghanistan.
• The force of character to deliver fearless and robust advice to the prime minister and, when necessary, to fight for the armed services without concern for his own future.
This last quality is particuarly demanding. Winston Churchill, our greatest war leader, recognised its importance and considered that unless his generals had the stomach to fight him, they were unlikely to fight the enemy.
Profile: General Sir David Richards
General Sir David Richards, current head of the British Army, is favourite to succeed Sir Jock Stirrup as chief of defence forces.
Not long before taking up his position as chief of the general staffin August 2009, he prompted controversy when he predicted that Britain's presence in Afghanistan could last for the next 40 years.
Born in 1952, he is a career soldier, serving four tours of duty in Northern Ireland.
He was appointed "colonel army plans" in 1994, with responsibility for the shape and size of the army. Two years later he became a brigadier.
In 2000 he led the British Army's Operation Palliser in Sierra Leone. The operation's aim was to rescue British and other foreign nationals from a country ravaged by civil war.
However, Sir David persuaded the then prime minister, Tony Blair, and the foreign secretary, Robin Cook, to allow him to return to the country and transform the operation into a counter-insurgency mission in support Sierra Leone's embattled president.
In 2006 he became commander of the International Stabilisation and Assistance Force in Afghanistan, in which capacity he was promoted to the rank of full general.
