Michael Rose: America's forces got their money. Ours have been betrayed

Share
Related Topics

While Commandant of the Staff College at Camberley in the early 1990s, I used to lecture young officers on the moral component of fighting power. I would explain that the military ethos was very different from that which existed in the civilian workplace: soldiers had to be willing to sacrifice their lives, not merely risk them, for a common cause. Soldiers therefore had to have different disciplines and values from civilians both in peace and war if they were to sustain this essential component of fighting power. I used to end my lecture with the exhortation to remain vigilant and militant in pursuing the interests of soldiers rather than those of politicians.

I was concerned about civilian practices beginning to undermine the military chain of command and that successive defence cuts and deficiencies in equipment and manpower were reducing combat capabilities. I hoped that the officers who passed through the Staff College during my tenure would in future stand up for what they knew was right, rather than roll over before their political masters. In the intervening years, a number of these officers have reminded me of my words. It may be no accident, therefore, that the present generation of senior commanders in the military are refusing slavishly to accept flawed strategies and inadequate resources.

In return for being prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, our servicemen and women should expect to be better supported by the country than they have been in recent years. Without such support, the necessary bonds of loyalty and trust can never be sufficiently developed between soldiers and their commanders. Both politicians and commanders will be seen by their subordinates as selling them short.

It has therefore been tremendously heartening for servicemen and women today to see their present bosses standing up for them, saying in public what junior officers and soldiers have been saying privately for years. This is, of course, that our Services are not only massively underfunded, but that the military ethos is being dangerously undermined by health and safety and equal opportunity laws, and "risk management". In my view, good command and effective military tactics are better vehicles for these concepts than imposed civil law. As Lord Esher observed in 1904 after the Boer War, the Army is in danger of becoming, "tied up and bound in the toils of excessively complex and minute regulations drawn up without any regard to the essential requirements of modern war".

When President Bush declared war on global terrorists in 2001, he immediately increased the US defence budget, the Army budget rising from $67bn to over $100bn. He upped the regulars by 30,000 men and set about equipping and manning the National Guard and Reserve to the same standards. In short, President Bush put his money where his mouth was, and the US was seen to actively support its troops.

This positive approach is quite the opposite to that taken by his blood brother Tony Blair. In the past six years, the Prime Minister has presided over a near-catastrophic decline in defence spending which has put our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan at considerable, and quite unnecessary, risk. Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence, tells us that there has been an increase in defence spending in the past three years, but this has mostly gone on technical programmes such as Trident replacement or advanced aerial surveillance systems. But for fighting insurgencies such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need, rather, large numbers of soldiers on the ground, proper protection and tactical mobility, including helicopters. The infantry is the vital combat arm in insurgency warfare, yet manpower has continued to fall.

The scandalous shortages of proper equipment for those on the ground is well documented. The politicians say these problems are "being addressed". If true - and I'm sceptical - why only now? Many of these shortfalls were identified after the first Gulf war. Responsible statesman do not embark on such wars unprepared. Certainly they do not open up a second front, as Blair did in Iraq, without winning the first war in Afghanistan.

Today our forces are fighting on two fronts with forces that can barely sustain one. The situation in Iraq, as a result, has become a humanitarian catastrophe in which 1.8 million people have fled the country, 1.6 million are internally displaced and up to 660,000 people have been killed. The trial and execution of Saddam Hussein has been an irrelevant freak show, a diversion from the terrible things happening in Iraq.

Meanwhile Bush and Blair try to evade responsibility by saying that it is the insurgents, not the coalition forces, who do the killing and destabilise Iraq. They tell us it is the Iraqi government which now runs the country. This is disgraceful handwashing, for they know that under the Geneva conventions, they were responsible for the disastrous breakdown of law and order in the country they invaded.

The main responsibility for security still remains, effectively, with the US and UK forces. Early on, both countries failed to deploy enough resources to enable them to preserve peace. Bush grossly misunderstood the situation on the ground in Iraq; Blair ran out of troops.

By not increasing defence expenditure in 2001, Blair has betrayed the soldiers that he put in harm's way. At ease on his Miami sunbed as our soldiers patrol the dangerous streets of Basra and frozen plains of Helmand province, perhaps he should reflect on the words of Captain Liddell Hart, that scourge of British governments during the interwar years. He wrote: "Morale is apt to decline if the weapons are inadequate, and the strongest will is of little use if it is inside a dead body."

Blair should also perhaps put aside his latest poolside thriller, and read that excellent Army pamphlet No 71642, "The Military Covenant". Fewer British soldiers would be killed in future if he did so.

General Sir Michael Rose is former commander of UN forces in Bosnia

React Now

iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Dynamics CRM Developer (C#, .NET, Dynamics CRM 2011/2013)

£40000 - £60000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: Dynamics CRM D...

Web Developer (C#, ASP.NET, AJAX, JavaScript, MVC, HTML)

£40000 - £45000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: Web Developer ...

C# R&D .NET Developer-Algorithms, WCF, WPF, Agile, ASP.NET,MVC

£50000 - £67000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: C# R&D .NE...

C# Developer (Web, HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, JS, Visual Studios)

£40000 - £50000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: C# Developer (...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

i Deputy Editor's Letter:

Independent Voices, Indy Voices Rhodri Jones
A couple stand in front of a beautiful cloudy scene  

In sickness and in health: It’s been stormy but there are blessings in the clouds

Rebecca Armstrong
Super Mario crushes the Messi dream as Germany win the 2014 World Cup in Brazil

Super Mario crushes the Messi dream

Germany win the 2014 World Cup in Brazil
Saharan remains may be evidence of the first race war, 13,000 years ago

The first race war, 13,000 years ago?

Saharan remains may be evidence of oldest large-scale armed conflict
Scientists find early warning system for Alzheimer’s

Scientists find early warning system for Alzheimer’s

Researchers hope eye tests can spot ‘biomarkers’ of the disease
Sex, controversy and schoolgirl schtick

Meet Japan's AKB48

Pop, sex and schoolgirl schtick make for controversial success
Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country

How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over northern Iraq

A speech by an ex-MI6 boss hints at a plan going back over a decade. In some areas, being Shia is akin to being a Jew in Nazi Germany, says Patrick Cockburn
The evolution of Andy Serkis: First Gollum, then King Kong - now the actor is swinging through the trees in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

The evolution of Andy Serkis

First Gollum, then King Kong - now the actor is swinging through the trees in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
You thought 'Benefits Street' was controversial: Follow-up documentary 'Immigrant Street' has got locals worried

You thought 'Benefits Street' was controversial...

Follow-up documentary 'Immigrant Street' has got locals worried
Refugee children from Central America let down by Washington's high ideals

Refugee children let down by Washington's high ideals

Democrats and Republicans refuse to set aside their differences to cope with the influx of desperate Central Americas, says Rupert Cornwell
Children's books are too white, says Laureate

Children's books are too white, says Laureate

Malorie Blackman appeals for a better ethnic mix of authors and characters and the illustrator Quentin Blake comes to the rescue
Blackest is the new black: Scientists have developed a material so dark that you can't see it...

Blackest is the new black

Scientists have developed a material so dark that you can't see it...
Matthew Barzun: America's diplomatic dude

Matthew Barzun: America's diplomatic dude

The US Ambassador to London holds 'jeans and beer' gigs at his official residence – it's all part of the job, he tells Chris Green
Meet the Quantified Selfers: From heart rates to happiness, there is little this fast-growing, self-tracking community won't monitor

Meet the 'Quantified Selfers'

From heart rates to happiness, there is little this fast-growing, self-tracking community won't monitor
Madani Younis: Five-star reviews are just the opening act for British theatre's first non-white artistic director

Five-star reviews are just the opening act for British theatre's first non-white artistic director

Madani Younis wants the neighbourhood to follow his work as closely as his audiences do
Mrs Brown and her boys: are they having a laugh?

Mrs Brown and her boys: are they having a laugh?

When it comes to national stereotyping, the Irish – among others – know it can pay to play up to outsiders' expectations, says DJ Taylor