Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

British example shows danger facing American forces

By Ted Bromund - posted Wednesday, 9 June 2010


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.

Advertisement

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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published by The Heritage Foundation on May 26, 2010.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ted Bromund is a senior research fellow in The Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ted Bromund

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy