BV: you cannot dismiss 'budgetary restraints' so easily. Committing to an Army of 82,000 in his 2015 election campaign probably seemed like an easy decision for David Cameron when it was put to him, but with the Forces' overall manpower not similarly defined it effectively hobbled the Navy and Air Force and prevented them manning capabilities that were and are in much greater demand. The RAF leadership's policy in recent years has been to make their representations privately, but that didn't build any public or media pressure on the Government to announce an Air Force manpower floor in 2015. Part of the distasteful Whitehall game this all may be, but that doesn't mean it is unimportant or inconsequential and it's unreasonable to expect us not to take a view.
On the actual question, the General needs to explain what British troops are specifically needed to do. Land warfare is a messy business: close, personal, often among the people. Soldiers are killed. Deploying them is the greatest sign of commitment a leader can make, in contrast to air power, which by comparison can almost be turned on and off like a tap. We saw our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan encumbered with ridiculous armour, using TTPs designed for own-force protection ahead of mission success, being outmanoeuvred by enemies who were prepared to bide their time and sometimes to die in great number because it was their battle, their territory, their people being fought for. We are unlikely to face battles of our own sufficiently visceral to free British regular troops from the political bubble-wrap in which they inevitably operate. In Afghanistan pre-2005, Libya 2011 (which was a military if not political success) and Iraq 2015-date we used handfuls of soldiers with significant air and naval power to propel indigenous ground forces to success - and the achievement of our military objectives - at practically no political cost. That is the model which has found favour and against which the General appears to be mounting a defence, dismissing its success with the politically-charged word "proxies". I'm sure the Iraqi Security Forces don't see themselves that way...
Last edited by Easy Street; 8th Jul 2017 at 11:50.