iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

British Armed Forces Cuts Announced: UK Addresses Deficit, Trims Defense Spending

DAVID STRINGER   10/19/10 07:28 PM ET   AP

LONDON — Britain will lose thousands of troops, reduce its ability to fight complex missions like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and delay a program to upgrade its nuclear defenses, Prime Minister David Cameron announced Tuesday.

Outlining the first defense review since 1998 – intended both to sweep away strategies crafted before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. and to help clear the country's crippling national debt – Cameron said 17,000 troops, a fleet of jets and an aging aircraft carrier would all be sacrificed.

Cameron's government has hinted for months that the cuts would be severe – and sweeping. Communities around the country watched the announcement nervously, worried about jobs and the impact on local communities in a time of economic hardship.

The numbers were stark. Naval warships, 25,000 civilian staff and a host of bases will also be lost, while the country's stockpile of nuclear warheads will be trimmed from 160 to 120.

Two new aircraft carriers will be built at a cost of 5 billion pounds ($8 billion) – but one will effectively by mothballed and another won't have any British fighter jets to transport until 2019.

Instead, Britain will invest in its much admired special forces and develop expertise on cyber threats to secure the country's status as a major global power, Cameron said.

"Britain has punched above its weight in the world, and we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come," Cameron told the House of Commons.

He said funding for the mission in Afghanistan, which does not come from the regular military budget, would not be trimmed, promising extra resources for troops there.

Military cutbacks come a day before Treasury chief George Osborne's long-anticipated announcement of a government-wide program to drastically cut department budgets and welfare bills. The largest cuts to public spending since World War II are aimed at virtually eliminating Britain's deficit, which stands at over 10 percent of gross domestic product.

Osborne's announcement will provide details of Britain's spending plans for its intelligence agencies, though Cameron confirmed there will be an extra 500 million pounds ($785 million) in funding to counter cyber threats.

Cameron said the overhaul wasn't just aimed at cutting the military budget – saying he was breaking decisively with the strategy of predecessors Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

"Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large-scale military interventions," Cameron told lawmakers. "While we must retain the ability to undertake such operations, we must also get better at treating the causes of instability – not just dealing with the consequences."

He criticized the previous government's decision to sign contracts for two new aircraft carriers – explaining that canceling the program would have cost more than building the vessels. "That is the legacy we inherited, an appalling legacy the British people have every right to be angry about," he said.

He said there would be an 8 percent cut to the annual 37 billion pound ($59 billion) defense budget over four years – but insisted Britain's spending on defense would remain above a NATO-demanded benchmark of 2 percent of gross domestic product.

Cameron said some military bases would be closed – though he didn't specify which, leaving communities anxious. In Morayshire, in the northeast of Scotland, residents warned that the closure of a Royal Air Force base there would savage the local economy.

About one in six jobs in the region, north of Aberdeenshire, including hotels, hospitals and retail are related to two threatened military bases.

"The closures will destroy the economy as we have nothing else here but the bases," said Winnie Ross, owner of the Sunninghill Hotel in Elgin, the main town near the bases. "Our hotel has been used by MoD suppliers like BAE Systems, families of RAF personnel, NATO personnel and visitors to the bases. That will all go now."

Late Monday, the British leader shared details with President Barack Obama in a phone call, hoping to assure the White House that Britain will still be equipped to fight alongside the U.S. on missions overseas.

The Pentagon's press secretary, Geoff Morrell, welcomed Cameron's defense policies Tuesday, saying the U.S. remains confident Britain will maintain its capacity to "provide top-tier fighting forces in Afghanistan and other future missions in defense of our shared interests and security."

However, Britain will be limited in the future to a force of about 30,000 personnel on major operations – smaller than the 45,000-strong force initially sent into Iraq in 2003.

A total of 7,000 army troops will be axed, alongside 5,000 personnel each from the air force and navy. Britain's Army will number about 95,000 troops by 2015, Cameron said.

Cameron hopes a greater use of reservists and special forces will help retain British military might.

Lt. Gen. Graeme Lamb, a former adviser to U.S Gen. Stanley McChrystal and formerly director of Britain's special forces, said the cuts would not leave the military weakened.

"It's a bit like poker – you never get the hand you want, you get the hand you're given. The art form is to play it well," said Lamb, whom Cameron has asked to review the use of reserve forces.

Cameron also announced that a planned 20 billion pound ($30 billion) program to replace Britain's four Trident nuclear missile-armed submarines would be delayed until 2016. He said the number of warheads on each boat would also be cut, helping to save about 750 million pounds ($1.18 billion).

The delay means decisions on the nuclear submarine program – and the hefty bill – will come after a scheduled 2015 national election, and be handled by the next defense review, due in five years time.

Some analysts accused Cameron of ducking his trickiest decision by putting off the nuclear program.

"This may be seen as passing the buck politically in the hope that an improved economic situation makes a decision easier," said Michael Formosa, of Jane's strategic advisory services.

___

Associated Press Writer Ben McConville, in Edinburgh, Scotland, contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,787
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (48 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donttreez
12:45 PM on 10/31/2010
This is precisely what the US military should do. Much of what Britain is doing is in line with the post cold war threats that the world faces, (terrorist, irregular warfare/guerrilla warfare/counterinsurgency). These threats are all low tech and such military hardware such as Boomers and conventional units should be phased out, while emphasis should be placed more on upgrading, equipping, and retraining infantry in combat settings at the smaller unit level. Including special operations / special forces.

The British are among the best, if not the best in special ops/forces especially in the SAS and SBS. Our Delta Force is highly based on the SAS. (Delta Force by: Col. Charlie Beckwith)

Another good read on such recommendations to cut military spending : Hazardous Duty by Col. David H. Hackworth .
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
murphthesurf3
Progressive: Like Ike and Clinton!
11:35 PM on 10/20/2010
THE UNITED STATES STANDS ALONE.....

And we can't do it.

We can't afford it.

We can't bear the cost in human lives and misery.

We can't accept responsibility for world security.

AND EVEN IF WE COULD, IT IS CLEARER AND CLEARER THAT MILITARY MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE THINGS RIGHT.

More signs that the Post World War II order is collapsing into a mangled heap.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donttreez
12:33 PM on 10/31/2010
If you're talking about military force, there is no doubt that our military (and that of it's allies NATO) can take care of any issue. The problem however, is the will to see the mission through. Fortunately and Unfortunately the military is controlled by politicians who (in past and present) have no military service experience. They are in essence publicly elected and appointed car salesmen/women who have elevated the game of negotiation to no less than playing roulette with a glock hand gun.

To use military force, leaders should identify the problem; state a clear and precise mission; delegate that mission to the military and support it fully without political restraints. Issuing such orders for the killing, maiming and displacement of human life should not be given lightly. Such action(s) should be executed in a swift fierce and proficient manner in conjunction with government agencies for the post military phase.
09:37 PM on 10/20/2010
I wish we'd (the U.S.A.) would stop spending on their defense. Give them runaway fundamental Islam to go with their other problems! I'd love to see those lazy SOB's find out what the real world is like!
photo
BlueGorilla
I Prefer Civilisation To Conservativsm
07:42 PM on 10/20/2010
I have never known such a depressing social,political and economic period in Britain.Like many British nurses I work hard and didn't enter the profession for glory or monetary reward..there isn't any of either. Yet we have our wages frozen,we are further hit as our taxes and pension contributions increase ..and at the same time we have to suffer the fact that our brilliant NHS is about to be opened up to speculators who don't care about the health of our nation..Is less really more?less for who?less for the hardworking people who have done nothing to deserve this ? Yet somehow we in the publiic sector along with millions in the poorest fifth of the population and right across the middle class have to pay the price for a world economic disaster initiated by the inept economic policies of Republican govt .Where is the justice when the bankers and money men see their bonuses climb to pre-crash levels ?More is more for the latter.
Our Thatcherite government are using the economic crisis initiated by greed and deregulation to
destroy our greatest institutions,while lowering wages and ensuring that the market gets to control those services we once owned as a community..Britain is already a shadow of it's post war social democratic peak..too much greed..too much Murdoch..too many services run for profit..we are a nation in decline thanks to so called "market freedom".and things are about to get much worse.
08:40 PM on 10/20/2010
LOL, spoken like a true liberal who is clueless and lies, congrats:-)
08:42 PM on 10/20/2010
Good post, but sorry to hear your predicament. The supply siders have been winning the argument since Thatcher/Reagan. Somehow they believe the well-to-do will be there to invest, but they have proven to be greedy and without remorse. Spending cuts by governments in the middle of a recession is bad news.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MAH1952
07:40 PM on 10/20/2010
The world has radically changed even in the last decade and the approach to war needs to change. There are very few countries that are a real threat to us. Now our greatest threats do not own submaries or have vast armies. Instead they move in small groups and are much more deadly. So we need to restructure our armed forces. I.e. smaller forces but highly trained. And like here I see that the very people who scream to reduce gov't spending are the ones complaining when it is cut.
07:39 PM on 10/20/2010
British Empire. RIP UK. Welcome to the Third World.
photo
pinkpantheroz
Keeping the B***** honest
07:10 AM on 10/22/2010
Totally agree. RIP to the Falklands first. They've got Oil and Argentina wants Las Malvinas, and now there won't be anything the British can do to stop them taking it. Oh, unless Half of the oil stake is sold to the US. We all know to what lengths they'll go to to protect 'Their" Oil!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:21 PM on 10/20/2010
Cameron in Great Brittain , Sarkozy in France , almost all of Europe is saying LESS IS BETTER , and they will stick to it despite extremist rhetoric and national strikes .

Who in America ( besides Sarah Palin) has the guts to say ENOUGH !!
04:38 PM on 10/20/2010
War Profiteering is alive in the U.S. We are paying over $1BILLION for interpreters or should I say paying to the two companies who hire interpreters.

Here is who we had to pay/paying to interrogate religious zealots. $$$1.2 BILLION. For interpreters.

No one is watching D of D. You should. http://www.defense.gov/Contracts

Mission Essential Personnel, Columbus, Ohio, was awarded on May 7 a $679,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity with cost-plus-award fee contract. This contract action seeks the continuation of linguist/translation services which provide our forces with the ability to communicate effectively with the local populace, gather information for force protection, and interact with foreign military units in Afghanistan. Work is to be performed in Afghanistan (86.202 percent); Bahrain (0.926 percent); Djibouti (0.102 percent); Germany (2.081 percent); HOA (1.230 percent); Italy (0.92 percent); Kenya (0.174 percent); Kirgizia (0.042 percent); Qatar (0.163 percent); Redstone Arsenal,

McNeil Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Va., has been awarded a $500,000,000 maximum value, five-year indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity linguist support services contract by U.S. Special Operations Command.

Parliament has balls. Congress has shriveled grapes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim303
03:52 PM on 10/20/2010
Goodbye UK. Sorry the minority conservatives are gutting you.
03:45 PM on 10/20/2010
Britain does not have a massive debt. Clement Atlee had a far larger debt on his hands in 1945 when he began work on implementing the welfare state.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:39 PM on 10/20/2010
All the more our MIC will have to spend!!!!

U$$A U$$A U$$A
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:31 PM on 10/20/2010
Send Tony Blair the bill...

he can pay it out of his Grand Cayman account.
03:17 PM on 10/20/2010
The armed forces of UK are too big for it's needs to protect the country. Policing the world should be the task of UN, nobody else's.
03:07 PM on 10/20/2010
Looks like the Brits have extrapolated the costs of DADT and Iranian allies.
photo
GOPtakesEllisDee
Cryin' won't help you,prayin' won't do you no good
03:02 PM on 10/20/2010
Socialism.... saved capitalism here in America.