DESPITE the long-rumoured threat to the size of our army, this week’s announcement was still a shock.
To the UK’s detriment, the Defence Secretary told the Commons on Monday that the full-time strength would fall by 10,000 to 72,500 troops by 2025, the lowest in 200 years.
It seems that politicians are once again ignoring the lessons of history.
During my time as a soldier, defence spending was over 5 per cent of GDP.
It’s now a paltry two per cent, and the threats, albeit different, have not gone away.
Indeed, I would argue the world is more unstable today.
Yes, technology is changing fast and we need to invest in cyber, space and AI, but this must not come at the expense of conventional capabilities.
To further cut the latter to pay for the former is a sign our priorities are misplaced.
An effective army has a critical mass, below which it cannot function properly, and I’m not alone in thinking this.
According to the former head of our Armed Forces, General Lord Richards, these cuts mean we’d be unable to recapture the Falklands.
As another former senior officer told me, we’re hollowing out an already hollowed out organisation.
There’s dismay, too, in the US, which believes an army of less than 100,000 is not credible.
Quite apart from the very real threats we face, the Armed Forces are an integral part of our aspiration to promote Global Britain.
Fine words, but we need a military presence around the world if this laudable aim is to be achieved.
I welcome the extra £24 billion for defence, but it’s simply not enough.
The argument to keep up with technology is a sound one, but to claim a smaller army is an uplift in capability is disingenuous.