PR cock-up as army faces biggest cuts since WW2

Dr Liam Fox's premature announcement in the Sunday Times of the forcible retirement of the commander of the armed forces, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, and of the senior civil servant at the MoD, Sir Bill Jeffrey, may look like another Fox public relations cock-up. But it should not disguise the bigger storm on the way – the cutting of the forces and their budgets by a bigger margin than has been seen since the end of World War Two.

My sources say they should be ready for a cut of 25 per cent – and that's conservative.

If the navy, air force and army are simply reduced to smaller versions of what they are today, British defence and external security forces will be shorn of any credibility. The drastic cuts that David Cameron and George Osborne have in mind require a complete revolution in how Britain shapes it forces, and the strategic thinking to go with it.

We are talking of the radical rethinking of defence and strategy on the scale of Cromwell and Ireton creating the New Model Army, of the great reformers of the 19th and early 20th century - Cardwell, Haldane, and Esher - and great innovators in the midst of war, Nelson and Wellington, Cunningham, Slim, Dowding and Park – and Churchill himself.

But in terms of human management, military command, and plain leadership, Liam Fox has just committed a colossal blunder. He has said Stirrup and Jeffrey are to leave after they have overseen the Strategic Defence and Security Review due to be completed in October.

The general rule in military affairs, as in life, is that those who make a plan should take responsibility for its execution – if you make the bed, you should lie on it. To ask the old guard to design a campaign of rape and pillage in defence, and then ask a new team to carry it out, invites disaster. What is more, it is likely to prove terrible for morale all round.

The armed forces currently have a total strength of around 190,000, and already seem well below the critical mass needed for the tasks for which they are intended. If they are cut by 25 per cent, they certainly won't be up to the new activities with which Dr Fox seems preoccupied: defending the High Arctic, having a global naval strategy, and – yes - using force against Iran.
 
With a fully trained strength of about 75,000, in contrast to 98,000 today, the Army would not be able to keep its current readiness for immediate operations – as in theory it presently is.  More of the support jobs, such as transport, welfare and communication, would have to be done by civilians and reservists contracted for each task and mission.
 
The first big test of the incoming cut-price strategy is already here, and it is in Afghanistan. The government clearly wants to wind down British forces there as soon as possible. Like the Dutch and the Canadians, Cameron wants his British legions to be heading for the exit sign by autumn next year, though he is not prepared to say this out loud.

That is why we had last week's parade of US General David Petraeus and Defence Secretary Robert Gates in London to say how vital the British contribution is in Helmand. They seemed to understand what our new leaders aren't prepared to tell us – at least not yet. After a surfeit of global adventure under Bush and Blair, for Britain, at least, the old military game is up. ·