Britain | Defence and security

More gear, maybe more fighting?

A big review of the armed forces—days after Paris and days before a probable decision to bomb Syria—reasserts British military power

FOR David Cameron, the publication of the Strategic Defence and Security Review on November 23rd was a case of grim good timing. It came ten days after the horrific shootings and bombings in Paris by Islamic State (IS) terrorists. Indeed, the prime minister announced the review’s results in Parliament just a few hours after coming back from Paris, where he pledged full support for François Hollande’s “war” against IS. His statement also came three days before he returned to the House of Commons to initiate a debate, ahead of a likely vote next week, on approving British air strikes against IS in Syria.

What recent events have shown is that global security threats remain clear and tangible. Mr Cameron embarrassingly lost a Commons vote in August 2013 to authorise the use of force against Syria, partly because the Labour opposition ambushed him but also because many in his own party had reservations. That vote explains why Britain is now in the awkward position of bombing IS in Iraq (at the invitation of the Iraqi government), but not in Syria, even though IS does not recognise the border and its main base is Raqqa in Syria.

Even before the Paris attacks the mood had changed. Tory doubters, including Crispin Blunt, chairman of the House foreign-affairs committee, now think that the conditions necessary for endorsing British military operations in Syria have been met. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is instinctively against and now wants his shadow cabinet to debate and agree on a party line. But many Labour MPs, including some shadow ministers, will support Mr Cameron’s plan in any event. The government is accordingly confident of securing a parliamentary majority to join America and France in bombing IS in Syria.

The new mood also coloured the defence review. The previous one in 2010 had implicitly assumed that state-on-state warfare was an outlandishly remote eventuality, justifying sharp cuts in defence spending. The new one reflects not just the rise of IS but also the change since early 2014, when Russia redrew the map by using military force in Ukraine. It is no longer possible to dismiss the risks of war.

Loaded

Against this background, the review set out to repair some of the damage caused by its hastily cobbled-together predecessor. It began by confirming the government’s commitment to the NATO target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence. The target may be met by accounting wheezes, such as chucking pensions into the pot. But the promise, made under American pressure, still came as a pleasant surprise to those who feared more defence cuts.

The main winners from the review were the intelligence services, special forces and the Royal Air Force (RAF). As Mr Cameron promised after Paris, staff numbers at the GCHQ intelligence agency and in the security services are to rise, by 1,900 in all. The SAS and other special forces will have £2 billion ($3 billion) more for fancy new kit. The RAF gets a £12 billion rise in its ten-year equipment budget, to £178 billion.

Most of that will go on accelerating the arrival of 24 stealthy F-35B fighter jets, ensuring that the navy’s two new aircraft-carriers both have at least a squadron of F-35s by the time they are deployed in 2023. It will be two decades before the full complement of 138 F-35s is operational, but the gap will be covered by extending the life of older Typhoons. This is a big shift since the 2010 review, when only one of the new carriers was expected to enter service. The Libyan air campaign in 2011, just a few months later, was a timely reminder of the unique ability of aircraft-carriers to project power.

Another change is a £2 billion programme to buy nine Boeing P8 maritime-patrol aircraft. The 2010 review left Britain without an aerial anti-submarine capability. With Russian subs once more probing NATO’s defences in the north Atlantic, Britain has needed French, Canadian and American help to patrol its own territorial waters. The lack of maritime-patrol aircraft also risked the credibility of the submarine-borne Trident nuclear deterrent, which the defence review confirmed is to be renewed, at a cost of some £31 billion.

In relative terms, the navy and the army have lost out. Britain’s admirals had hoped to recruit another 4,000 sailors; they will get only one-tenth as many. Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, claims that “efficiency savings” will compensate. Nor will the navy be able to buy all 13 of the Type 26 frigates it wants. Five of its new ships are likely to be smaller, cheaper models. The “Type 26-lite”, as it has been dubbed, will be fine for most purposes, though it may not have the edge against a sophisticated opponent such as China or Russia.

The army is to be reorganised to create two 5,000-strong “strike brigades” that can be sent off to fight at short notice. Mr Fallon insists that the new brigades will not come at the expense of Britain’s ability to deploy a heavily armed force of 40,000, as in Iraq, or to keep 10,000 troops in the field indefinitely, as in Afghanistan. But the underlying message is that rapid-reaction forces are in and that large numbers of boots on the ground are out, at least for now.

This defence review will go far towards restoring Britain’s reputation as a serious military power, ending American sneers at its declining capability. What is less sure is that Britons still have what the outgoing chief of the defence staff, Sir Nick Houghton, calls the “courageous instinct” to use force when necessary. Mr Cameron will win his vote on Syria. But as the agonising debate over it has shown, public opinion has a stronger non-interventionist streak than it did, especially if it comes to putting boots on the ground. Only IS could, perhaps unwittingly, change that.

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "More gear, maybe more fighting?"

Clear thinking on climate change

From the November 28th 2015 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Discover more

The future of Drax, Britain’s largest power plant

From coal to wood to carbon capture and storage?

A new hate-crime law in Scotland causes widespread concern

Transgender identity is protected; biological sex is not


Britain’s kings of sourdough

The rapid rise of a firm that makes bread very slowly