British example shows danger facing American forces

In response to this failure, the government changed its tune. In 1998, it argued that Britain needed to retain balanced forces, including a modern armoured force. But by 2003, it concluded that balanced forces were unnecessary: Britain could rely on the US to supply them, and in any event, changes in the nature of war - such as modern insurgencies - were rendering them irrelevant.

In an era of declining defence spending, this was a convenient conclusion, because balanced forces are more expensive than lighter counter-insurgency capabilities. It was also wrong: the British occupation of Basra in Iraq was a fiasco in part because, as the commander of the British 4th Mechanized Brigade later acknowledged, Britain lacked the heavy capabilities necessary to maintain order in the city.

Learning the British lesson before it is too late

A recent review of Britain’s procurement gap acknowledged the obvious: The “policies of successive governments, and a lack of political will to present to the electorate the unpleasant reality of the position, has been a significant force behind [the] double-think” on the inadequacy of Britain’s defence budget. It is a sign of Britain’s continued peril that this report also calls for Britain to respond to the gap between its commitments and capabilities by defining its commitments down and by giving up on any effort to maintain a balanced military.

It is a sign of America’s peril and lack of political will that Secretary Gates is now advancing the same policies that created the procurement gap in Britain. The result in the US, as in Britain, will be to confront the US down the road with a large bill for closing this gap and with the fact that it cannot fulfill all of its commitments.

The only difference between the US and Britain is that, while the British believed they could rely on the US to defend our common interests, the US will not be able to rely on any other democratic nation to play that role. The US must demonstrate the maturity necessary not to follow the British example, which would endanger its allies and interests around the world and render the United States unable to fulfill the first duty of government: providing for the common defence.