The point is, assuming the story has been reported correctly, that the authors of the report are the ones trying to wind everyone up. The objectives and aims set out are indeed what ours and other countries armed forces have largely been engaged in for most of their existence, certainly through the 20th and 21st century. The report's authors are quoted after all, as well as the reaction from other Labour MPs. As Union Jack says, Nandy was confirming her position on the report on the Andrew Marr show. I'd say the thrust of the this report is dangerously subjective, plus, the Labour Party has form, they produced a similar report in 1977, "Sense about Defence", this was the effort of a number of the party's MPs to thrash out the best way to reduce what they claimed was excessive defence spending and put to simple good use. They were also exercised by the rise in tension regarding the nuclear stand off. Their solution was a number of heavy UK conventional defence cuts, one option being the cancellation of the MRCA/Tornado, including the air defence variant. Another was to reduce the BAOR's strength from 55,000 to 30,000.
FB