Listening to the post-mortem of the vote on the radio this morning, mythoughts turned from the effect this will have on the politicians (like I care)and on future events in Syria to the effect this will have on the future of ourarmed forces. If we now live in an era when, according to commentatorsthis morning, public and political opinion is so fervently against the UK’smilitary involvement in anything outside of our own territorial waters (or,perhaps the UK ADR) I wonder how long it will be until someone starts to reflecteven more seriously on the need to spend £33.8Bn on deployable forces.
I’m assuming that no one is questioning the need for effective self-defence (well, maybe George Galloway),but it’s hard to ignore the public reluctance to engage militarily in any othercapacity in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. There was reasonable support for a limited involvement in Libya, but noone wants another Vietnam.
So given that, we may now find it much more difficult to justify therequirement for a sizeable offensive capability. What, for example, is the point of us buying intoa platform such as F-35, ships such as the new carriers, thousands ofdeployable troops and all their gear when it seems that money is needed forbenefits, schools, the NHS and HS2?
Any thoughts?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 30th Aug 2013 at 08:31.
Reason: To add a snide dig at Galloway