Before cutting back on troops, there should be a debate over the role of our armed forces

A full 15 years after the Berlin Wall came down, Britain and the rest of the world still seem no nearer to determining just what kind of defence forces they want for the new century. Yesterday's announcement of cuts and modernisation in the armed forces by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, was replete with the management-speak of modern technical warfare but singularly short of a real definition of what it was all for.

Yes, the end of the Cold War means we need far fewer tanks to fight a mobile campaign across the plains of central Europe. But the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that we still need mobile armour. And, even more, we need the boots on the ground to keep the peace and build a nation. Cutting four infantry battalions hardly seems the best way of preparing for Tony Blair's vision of a Britain that will stretch out its armed fist to the world's trouble spots.

The same could be said of the proposed cuts in the Air Force and Navy. In a world no longer dominated by fear of conflict with Russia, the need for destroyers and attack aircraft is obviously lessened. But the need for aircraft and ships to transport troops to far-away places and fight "out-of-theatre" is all the greater. Britain cannot do all these things alone. We don't have the resources. But who are we to do these things with, and what are we to specialise in? Investing in two hugely expensive aircraft carriers may be worthwhile if we are to spend the next generation fighting wars in Africa and Asia, but is it necessary in a new era of European defence co-ordination in which France already has surplus carrier capacity?

Mr Hoon's argument is that we need the high technology to be compatible with America - in alliance with whom we expect to fight most of our conflicts - more than we need old-fashioned men and materiel. But this begs the question of whether our future really is, or should be, dovetailed with Washington rather than Europe. It also skates over the problem of choosing between a European defence industry built up to rival America's, in which British companies could play a major role, or reliance on US equipment, in which case our defence industry might face a far thinner future. The dilemma is seen in our continued commitment to a European fighter plane which is grossly over budget and no longer attuned to our needs, yet is deemed essential to keep our military aircraft production capacity going.

The experience of Afghanistan and Iraq have certainly shown up the woeful lack of preparation of our troops and the lack of compatibility of their equipment with the Americans. Our communications equipment was poor and unreliable, our rifles were faulty, the body armour for our troops was lacking and investment in digital systems inadequate. But then, both those countries have shown British forces working at the absolute limits of their capacity. We haven't enough troops to meet the tasks of Afghanistan as well as Iraq in addition to Bosnia, and Geoff Hoon's cuts will only make that more apparent. Nor do they seem to pay much attention to the overriding, and expensive, task of training our troops in peacekeeping.

In the end, yesterday's announcement was directed as much to party political tactics as long-term strategic needs. There will be enough cuts to keep the Treasury happy, but a sufficient rise in the overall defence budget to pull the rug from the Tory Opposition. Just as over Lord Butler, the Tories have marched straight into the trap set for them. The shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin, has committed the Conservatives to cuts in defence, leaving their defence spokesman, Nicholas Soames, complaining about the cuts in manpower but unable to explain how they would be able to pay for keeping them.

This is all fun and games for the small world of the Commons chamber. But it falls far short of the proper debate about our future defence and security which the country has a right to expect and the two main parties in Westminster seem intent to deprive it of.