Soon, we shall be capable of deploying only a single battlegroup of 7,000–8,000 men for sustained operations overseas. Compare this tiny force to the 35,000 troops deployed in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles in the 1970s, or the 30,000 military personnel sent to the First Gulf War in 1991. ...
The message is plain: Britain has neither the means nor the will any longer to sustain a capability to commit large troop numbers abroad, in support of the national interest.
The First Gulf War was not a sustained commitment. For a similar campaign, Britain could surely put 30,000 in the field again.
But he is right that Britain lacks the ability to sustain more than a large brigade for a longer period of time. I examined the implications of the cuts here.
The most interesting aspect is that even though the British may be reacting to the regret at standing with us in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade, the British cuts pretty much ensure that if they want to commit their army to war to defend their national interests, they can only do it as a very junior partner of the United States (and as I've mentioned before, over the last two decades the United States Marines have been the most significant ally for the United States Army) in a war we think is in our interests.
And if it isn't in our interests, it's lead from behind for us and the British better hope that a 7-8,000-man large battlegroup is enough.
Oh wait, having tired of fighting with America, the British are justifying a smaller military by pinning their defense hopes on close integration with the French.
Stop laughing. This isn't funny at all.
