Sheinwald certainly thinks so:
Britain is not getting out of the global game. Prime Minister David Cameron has talked about Britain's ambition to continue to project power and influence in a rapidly changing world. The NSS, published on Monday, sets out our vision for Britain as an "open, outward-facing nation," with a determination to remain actively engaged across the world, promoting our security, our prosperity, and our values. This isn't a time, British ministers have said, for strategic shrinkage.So the intent to remain globally engaged is the same as having the means to remain globally engaged? And at a level that won't cause potential enemies to remark that they'd call the constables if the British military was reported near their shores? The author is not worried:
I am confident that the United States has not only understood the scale of the budgetary challenges Britain is facing, but is comfortable with where this review has come out. As Secretary Hillary Clinton herself said, the result of the SDSR is "a U.K. military capable of meeting its NATO commitments and of remaining the most capable partner for our forces as we seek to mitigate the shared threats of the 21st century."
So public statements surely intended not to offend our most effective ally in the field in Afghanistan are supposed to reflect the true feelings of our military establishment? Please. The statement "defending" the British cuts damns them with faint praise, indeed. NATO commitments are low because NATO nations won't make them--so meeting regrettably low commitments is hardly praiseworthy.
And noting that Britain remains the most capable partner says more about the shamefully low capabilities of countries other than Britain rather than being a mark of pride for London. Congratulations, Britain, you are more capable than Belgium, France, or Bulgaria. Stand with pride, Britannia. Boasting that Britain will remain more capable than any other non-US NATO ally is a pretty hollow claim.
Certainly, Britain has financial difficulties that must be faced with budget cuts. And at least the cuts announced aren't as bad as first floated (though I assume the whole purpose of floating larger cuts was to make it seem like the actual planned cuts aren't as bad). But remember, these new reductions come on top of decades of reductions that have already shrunk the British military. Consider the cuts the author notes:
Of course, the SDSR has had to identify cuts and savings, particularly where the military rationale has become less strong or the capability duplicates that of another ally such as the United States. We will be cutting down on our older, heavier equipment: we'll have 40 percent fewer tanks and 35 percent less heavy artillery. We will decommission the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and drop four destroyers and frigates from current forces; we will reduce the number of fighter jet types we maintain; and we will plan to withdraw our forces from Germany by 2020. And it is true that there will be a temporary gap in our capability to operate aircraft from the sea before the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters come online. ...
In practical terms, one could say that Britain's military may even be stronger: The government has reaffirmed the commitment to build two new aircraft carriers; the future fighter jet fleet will have more capable planes; and we will develop multi-role brigades to be able to conduct the full range of tasks that our ground forces currently do. Our new planning assumptions see us capable of deploying a modernized all-arms force into the field up to 30,000 strong for a single major operation. And we will retain an ability to sustain in long-term stabilization operations a brigade-sized force in theater at levels not too far below those currently deployed in southern Afghanistan.
So let's look at the bang Britain will get for the pound.
First, let's start with what is not a big problem, practically speaking. The reductions in heavy armor and heavy artillery are probably fine. The Red Army is not likely to roll west, meaning less armor is needed; and precision weapons means we need less artillery to provide better fire support. America has made similar reductions. But the easy cuts end there.
For American readers, some of the claims may seem not so bad, perhaps because we think in much larger numbers. So Britain will reduce their fleet by one carrier? So what? But this isn't starting from our two dozen carriers (fleet and amphibious--which are carriers as big as most other countries' fleet carriers). This starts with 3 carriers--with one out of service. So half of Britain's carrier fleet will be gone.
And this happy assessment neglects that the two new carriers to replace the three smaller carriers will never see service. Britain has committed to building them. And even if Britain builds them, they already plan to immediately put one in inactive reserve! Bottom line: Britain has one carrier for the near future. But it gets worse.
Britain is retiring the elderly Harrier jets that equip their navy--and the replacement F-35 won't be ready for a while and not scheduled to join the fleet for another decade. So their single carrier will be an amphibious warfare ship for quite some time.
And what about the surface fleet? Reducing the fleet by four frigates and destroyers seems marginal until you realize that the surface combatants of this type drop from 23 to 19. A couple years ago, they had 26.
Unmentioned is the fate of Britain's ballistic missile submarine fleet. They need replacement and unless you assume no further cuts in Britain's defense budget, will Britain have to decide whether they can afford a nuclear deterrent? Already, replacement is delayed. I've read that options include having so few subs that their deterrent will periodically consist of a sub sitting in port ready to launch rather than patrolling unseen at sea.
The ground forces are just sad. Planning for a force of 30,000 for a short-term campaign is a reduction of a third from the forces committed in 1991 and 2003, when the British basically sent a division to join our forces. And for long term operations, Britain can support a single brigade in the field--less than their current commitment to Afghanistan.
Britain still has tradition and skill in their corner. But let's not fool ourselves that they are meaner after getting leaner. Britain may still think globally, but the size of the force that can deploy globally is close to being irrelevant as anything more than a very minor contribution to an American war effort.
Further, assuming that the cuts have ended is shortsighted, in my opinion. More cuts will come. After all, the author of this piece is already comforting himself by noting that the British are only cutting capabilities that duplicate what we do. If that is the standard, where is the floor? Really, what can't Britain cut if that is the standard? Field tea service?
The British may still think globally, but they are increasingly capable of acting only locally.
