SOBERINGLY, further evidence that our defence cuts have gone too deep emerged from both sides of the Atlantic this week.
Here, our First Sea Lord, Admiral Stanhope, said that the British military intervention in Libya was unsustainable.
He gave it three months before critical cuts would need to be made elsewhere.
And he added that the Navy was left without enough ships to be effective and that despatching the Ark Royal, with her Harriers, would have been quicker and cheaper.
He spoke only days after an equally bleak assessment from outgoing US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
Gates complained that NATO – the mutual defence alliance which has held the peace since the Second World War – is facing an uncertain future.
Of 28 member countries, Gates said that only five now spend more than the agreed two per cent of GDP on defence, and that less than half had participated in the Libyan campaign.
And he pointed out that with its own economic woes, the US is increasingly and understandably unwilling to bail out weaker allies, particularly when they will not fund their own security adequately.
This situation was entirely predictable.
Every serviceman I have spoken to veers between disbelief and anger at the slashing of the military budget.
What worries me is that our superb fighting forces are not being properly represented by those who place them in harm’s way.
Just 11 weeks into the Libyan mission, Secretary Gates said: “Many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.”
And indeed, Admiral Stanhope confirmed that our Navy has been forced to ask the US to resupply Tomahawk missiles used by our submarines.
We cannot fight wars with inadequate resources.
It is no good being told by Ministers, as we were this week, that we have what we need when the truth is self-evident.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the defence of our country is a government’s highest priority.
In which case, we must pay for it.