There's no "tough" decisions to be made - it's all very simple...
EITHER the govt gets out its cheque book, or its near cousin the very flexible govt Access, card and puts its money where its mouth is and we go on pretending that we still have an air force/navy/army with certain capabilities which used to be there.
OR, the govt puts away its soapbox at the UN, G7 (or is it G8 now?), steps out of NATO, takes up a neutral position internationally and maintain armed forces capable of a defensive role only (no force projection) and able to support humanitarian efforts abroad in so-called benign environments.
Given that GB, David Milliband, Peter Mandleson et al are unlikely to stop strutting the world stage (they enjoy the jet-set lifestyle and it helps distracts them from having to concentrate on domestic issues which polititians find ever so dull!) they will inevitably "fudge" any decision so we end up with the worst of both worlds.
Armed forces which are over-stretched, capability holidays, obsolete and knackered kit and an exodus of people who we can ill-afford to lose and who will be costly to replace......
My answer is that we need to be much more honest about what we as a country want in the 21st century. If there are threats "out there" which means that we need to retain and sustain a certain minimum force level (which we are led to believe there are) then we NEED to have credable armed forces to defend this country's interests worldwide. We also ought to know from previous experience that there is never time to prepare for a war or conflict and you fight with what you've got. This means that if the cupboard is bare, you're out of the contest before it starts.
That's fine if your talking about whether to host the next olympic games but not ok when there's been a Taliban take-over in Pakistan and you suddenly face a new treat or a friendly state gets invaded and our imported supplies of oil/gas/food etc. which we rely on now
don't arrive.
It's about time that John Hutton realised that there's a war going on and the armed forces are fed-up being under-resourced and under-valued. It's through the decisions of our illustrious political leaders that we found ourselves in Iraq and Afganistan in the first place. Having taken that decision it's hight time they showed their proper support....that means recognising the cost in accelerated consumption of fatigue-life in ac and the timely procurement of new ones and the benefits of having greater numbers of platforms in the first place. Also they need to understand the limitations of civvy air transport, fine for certain jobs, but not for tactical supply missions and the need for more support helos.....
I practically weep with frustration with news of one procurement fiasco after another, with orders being cut-back for Nimrods, Future Lynx, F35 and delays to the A400M, future carrier etc. How on earth did we even manage to design, build, test fly and introduce into service so many new ac - and engines - during WW2? We can't even replace like-for-like combat losses
.
MB