Obama's Dirty Trick on UK Defense Strategy

Obama Retreats from Old Military Alliances, Yorkshire Post, February 10, 2012. "For the first time since the mid-1950s, Britain has a defense strategy that fails to mesh with America’s: it is best able to wage the kind of wars that the U.S. says it no longer cares to fight. The sad, sudden American retreat has badly dented the basis of Britain’s defense planning, and served a much wider notice that the U.S. would prefer to spend more on welfare and less on warfare. Unfortunately, its enemies are unlikely to share those priorities."

Christmas Wishes to the UK on Defense

Lessons on Defence Policy from America in 2012, Centre for Policy Studies, December 29, 2011. "My wish is that Britain will in 2012 learn a lesson from America on its defence policy. The lesson is not simply that Britain should spend more money on defence. It certainly should do that, but Britain’s limited and steadily shrinking defence budget is only a symptom of Britain’s underlying problem. Its real problem is that, while America regrettably takes defence less seriously than it used to, it is still far better off than Britain, which no longer treats defence as a centrally important political issue. The lesson Britain should learn from America, therefore, is that defence is a core duty of the state, and it is worthy of appropriately serious political care and attention. My policy wish to Britain thus takes the form of three Christmas wishes."

UK Defense Spending Increases Insufficient

U.K. Defense Spending Increases: Welcome, But Not Enough, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 26, 2011. "American commentators are beginning to react to a British announcement of a modest increase in defense spending. Any increase is welcome, but there is unfortunately a good deal less to this increase than meets the eye."

Britain's Defense and Obama's State Visit

What President Obama Should Tell Prime Minister Cameron About Britain’s Defense Cuts, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #3265, May 20, 2011. "During his state visit to the United Kingdom on May 24–26, President Barack Obama should speak clearly to Prime Minister David Cameron about the serious damage that the latest round of British defense cuts is doing to Britain’s armed forces. The Special Relationship between the U.S. and Great Britain rests in part on the desire of each nation to play a leading role in the world. Without capable armed forces, Britain cannot play this role. Thus, Britain’s defense cuts are bad not only for its forces but for the Anglo–American alliance."

So, About Those Harriers

You Don’t Know What You’ve Got Till It’s Gone, Contentions, April 15, 2011. "William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, now says that “It would be useful to have a larger number of aircraft capable of striking ground targets.” Mr. Hague is right. What Britain needs now is an aircraft capable of taking off from an aircraft carrier conveniently parked off the coast of Libya, able to land on rough or improved airstrips, and able to engage both air and ground targets. Such an aircraft would allow Britain to respond more quickly to targets as they are identified, maintain a continual presence in the air and thus keep the heads of Gaddafi’s thugs down, and spend less time and aviation fuel flying its small force of Tornado GR4s back and forth across the Mediterranean. . . . But of course, Britain grounded its Harrier force as a result of its last defense review, conducted by Mr. Hague’s government."

The Case of the Missing Harriers

Libya Mission Demonstrates That British Defense Cuts Must Be Reversed, with Nile Gardiner, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #3231, April 19, 2011. "The prime minister cannot effectively wage a major military campaign in Libya without reversing the crippling defense cuts his Coalition government has introduced, as well as significantly increasing defense spending. The government should reconsider the review and reject its flawed foundations. The British armed forces should be funded at a level sufficient to allow them to successfully accomplish the missions given to them by the country’s political leaders."

The Long-Term Defense Problem

Britain’s Decline: Entitlements and the Armed Forces, BigPeace, April 13, 2011. "Byron York has a fine piece in the Examiner pointing out that, while Britain has taken a leading role in the Libyan intervention, there is almost nothing left militarily behind the curtain. The entire British stockpile of cruise missiles amounted to 64 when the war began, and Britain was careless enough to fire off 12 of them at the start of the conflict. That’s 20 percent of Britain’s entire arsenal, shot off in a single volley."

The Anglo-American Analogy on Defense Cuts

As in Britain, Discontent Portends Danger for Defense, Heritage Foundation Foundry, February 16, 2011. "A look at Britain’s experience reveals the problem with making decisions about freezing or cutting defense spending on the basis of allegations about inadequate financial controls. In 2009, British politics were rocked by a series of leaks and then an exhaustive report that made many of the same allegations of mismanagement, waste, and lack of control in Britain’s procurement budget."

An American View of Britain's Spending Cuts

"From America, the Cuts Do Not Look Too Drastic," Yorkshire Post, October 29, 2010. Not available on the Yorkshire Post site due to technical issues. "In short, every Labour government since 1945 has run afoul of the skepticism of the markets. But yet, according to the left, there is never a good time to spend less. When the economy is up, it’s time to spread the wealth by spending more on the social services. When the economy is down, cutting spending will drive the nation into a depression and inflict untold horrors upon the poor. If that’s true, then the poor really must have been suffering under Labour, because Osborne’s plan is to reduce spending to the level it was at in 2007. In anything other than the shortest of terms, that will not be enough. Like the U.S., Britain has an aging population, and its entitlement programs are massively indebted. Saving billions of pounds now will not pay for trillions of pounds worth of benefits in the coming decades."

Accounting for Defense Cost Inflation

How Much Will Defense Spending Shrink in Britain?, Heritage Foundation Foundry, October 28, 2010. "Defense cost inflation is not easy to measure, let alone calculate in advance. But the fact is that the British government admits its existence, but does not appear to include it in its calculation of the declining purchasing power of the money it plans to spend on defense through 2014–15. That means that, by that date, Britain will be buying even less defense than it says it plans to. That is not a good thing for Britain, for the U.S., for NATO, or even for the cause of accurate accounting on defense spending."

UK Cuts, Should Have Cut More

The U.K. Budget Cuts: Lessons for the United States, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #3043, with Nile Gardiner and J.D. Foster, October 26, 2010. "The British cuts will be closely watched by policymakers in the United States, who are keen to address the bloated budget deficit on this side of the Atlantic. And with good reason: Public spending in the U.S. has ballooned in recent years, and America is heading for a rude awakening of Greek-style proportions unless it reverses course—and rapidly. But for several reasons, the U.K. cuts cannot simply be used as a blanket role model for the U.S. to follow."

British Defense Cuts Are Too Deep

Spending Cuts in British Defense Review: Less Than Expected, But Still Damaging, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #3039, October 22, 2010. "On October 19, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced the results of Britain’s Strategic Defense and Security Review. This review, the first since 1998, has resulted in substantial reductions in Britain’s defense spending that will have dangerous long-term consequences."

The Defense Review Represents Continuity, Not Change

Hitler's Nemesis Still Carries a Big Stick, Blooomberg.com, October 21, 2010. "The British defense review, announced this week, has given critics an opportunity to misjudge the U.K. again, and many have made the most of it. But even if the cuts are carried out in full, Britain will still be a major military power. The review isn’t flawless, but it represents continuity, not change."

Osborne Needs to Focus on Growth, Not Just Cuts

A Lesson and a Warning from Britain, Foxnews.com, October 20, 2010. "Today, George Osborne, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer – the man responsible for Britain’s budget –announced the results of a high-profile spending review. He promised cuts, and he delivered. The question is whether the cuts will be deep enough, and Osborne’s other policies wise enough, to restore Britain to financial stability."

Security and Growth in the U.S. and Europe

Europe Needs Security. Europe Needs Growth. So Do We., Foreign Policy Digest, October 2010. "In one sense, the challenge facing Europe, and the United States, is the need for political leaders to present a coherent and sustained case for a stable and adequate defense budget. But both the U.S. and Europe face a more vital and more fundamental challenge."

On Defence Procurement

"Is Reform Enough? Assessing the Gap Between Challenges and Response in Defence Acquisition Reform", RUSI Defence Systems, June 2010, Vol. 13, No. 1. "The current enthusiasm for defence acquisition reform in the US and, especially, the UK cannot be understood outside the broader challenges facing the defence establishment in both nations. Indeed, while it is obviously important that the defence acquisition process be efficient, the hopes currently entertained for increased efficiency are out of proportion with the likely gains. In other words, there is a substantial gap between the broader challenges and the response in the realm of acquisition reform. The hopes persist because they promise to diminish the pain of the gap, and because they offer a way to justify strategic choices that would be less appealing if presented on their own terms."

Hague on Britain's Strategic Options

Will Britain Chose 'Strategic Shrinkage?', Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 24, 2009. "As Britain embarks on its first defense review since 1998, both press and official comments continue to hint that spending cuts are in the offing. The argument, to the extent there is one, is that since the U.S. does it all, and can pay for it all, Britain does not need to over-insure in expensive capabilities, especially those relevant to land war. This is a curious argument to make at precisely the moment when the U.S., under President Obama, is embarking on a procurement holiday. Equally wrong-headed is the increasingly popular argument that Britain no longer needs its strategic deterrent: an alliance of tightwads, nuclear weapon haters, and advocates for defense spending realignment threatens to disarm Britain unilaterally."

What I'll Be Working On For The Next Year

Britain's Defense Review, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 13, 2009. "On Tuesday, the British Government announced that it is beginning a process that will lead to a Defense Review in 2010. The review will take place in two parts. First, a Green Paper will assess the purposes and conduct of British defense policy. Then, after the general election, a broader defense review, with cost estimates, will be published. There is no question: Britain needs a defense review. It has not had one since 1998. And though that review has been supplemented several times post-9/11, it was never as coherent a statement of defense doctrine as legend has made it out to be. But there are many questions to be asked about this announcement, both on form and substance."