The armed forces of France and Britain are woefully ill-prepared for the new age of self-sufficiency
It’s been a busy few days for those responsible for looking after our national security interests. On Tuesday, David Cameron hosted a lively discussion at the National Security Council about his decision to support the French military operation to Mali, and yesterday the Government was desperately trying to save the lives of British hostages in Algeria.
The two events, of course, are not unrelated. By offering to provide France with two of the RAF’s giant C-17 transporter aircraft, Mr Cameron was committing Britain to support the French military operation to prevent al-Qaeda seizing control of Mali, with all the implications that was likely to have for British interests in the region. So he should hardly be surprised when, just as French forces began deploying to Mali, another al-Qaeda cell retaliated by attacking BP’s In Amenas gas field in neighbouring Algeria, killing one British worker and taking dozens more captive, including a number of Britons.
Mr Cameron no doubt took a number of political factors into consideration when weighing the decision to back the French. At a time when Britain finds itself isolated in Brussels, he probably calculated that, by doing the French a favour, he would strengthen his friendship with François Hollande. The Mali operation also provided an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of the Anglo-French military cooperation accord.
But following yesterday’s disastrous intervention by the Algerian military, in which scores of hostages were killed, as well as most of the kidnappers, when Algerian forces launched their botched rescue mission, Mr Cameron has experienced a painful lesson in the perils of committing Britain to overseas military operations.
There was a time not so long ago when British prime ministers and French presidents were spared these difficult decisions, because they could generally rely on their American allies to do the job for them. As the only military superpower, Washington was more than happy to take the lead in sorting out the bad guys, whether it was bombing Islamist terror cells in Sudan or preventing Balkan dictators from pursuing genocidal designs.
The arrival of Barack Obama in the White House four years ago has,
unfortunately for Messrs Cameron and Hollande, changed this cosy
arrangement. Europe’s few remaining military powers are now expected to look
after their own security concerns, rather than wait for the United States to
come to their aid.
Indeed, America’s disinclination to involve itself in major European security concerns has been evident since the 2011 Nato campaign to overthrow the government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, when, having taken part in the initial salvoes to knock out the regime’s air defences, the Americans withdrew from the fray and left it to the Europeans – with Britain and France taking a lead role – to mastermind the military campaign to achieve regime change.
Since then Mr Obama has made it a cardinal rule of his presidency to avoid foreign entanglements at all costs, with the result that the US has been notable by its absence from the recent wave of protests in the Arab world, particularly Syria. This aversion to military operations of any sort means that, four months after the murder of Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador in Libya, Washington still has not taken any action to punish the culprits.
This new mood of American isolationism suggests that Britain and its allies will be required to tackle many more Mali-like scenarios, particularly when it comes to confronting militant Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda in the Arab Maghreb, the organisation behind this week’s events in Mali and Algeria.
The only problem with the new era of self-sufficient security that is dawning on Britain and its European allies is that they are singularly ill-prepared for the task. The fact that the French had to borrow a couple of C-17s from the RAF so that they could actually deploy their troops to Mali tells you all you need to know about the state of their military readiness. The RAF might be the proud owners of eight of these flying behemoths, but the Americans have an estimated 200 C-17s at their disposal.
Nor is it just in the area of basic transport aircraft that the Europeans are lacking. As was evident during the Libyan campaign two years ago, shortages of fundamental equipment, such as air-to-air refuelling tankers, cruise missiles and ships, meant that the European military effort found itself at a distinct disadvantage the moment American firepower was no longer available. And with the majority of European governments – Britain included – drastically reducing military budgets, this dire situation is unlikely to improve, even though the threats to our security show no sign of abating.
It is mainly to address this issue that Leon Panetta, the outgoing US Defence Secretary, is devoting his valedictory tour of Europe – he meets Philip Hammond, Britain’s Defence Secretary, in London tomorrow – to warning political leaders not to weaken their defences simply to save money. Once America has withdrawn its forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, Mr Obama wants to move the US’s military focus from Europe to the Pacific, leaving the Europeans to take care of themselves.
Let’s hope they will be equal to the task.
Indeed, America’s disinclination to involve itself in major European security concerns has been evident since the 2011 Nato campaign to overthrow the government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, when, having taken part in the initial salvoes to knock out the regime’s air defences, the Americans withdrew from the fray and left it to the Europeans – with Britain and France taking a lead role – to mastermind the military campaign to achieve regime change.
Since then Mr Obama has made it a cardinal rule of his presidency to avoid foreign entanglements at all costs, with the result that the US has been notable by its absence from the recent wave of protests in the Arab world, particularly Syria. This aversion to military operations of any sort means that, four months after the murder of Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador in Libya, Washington still has not taken any action to punish the culprits.
This new mood of American isolationism suggests that Britain and its allies will be required to tackle many more Mali-like scenarios, particularly when it comes to confronting militant Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda in the Arab Maghreb, the organisation behind this week’s events in Mali and Algeria.
The only problem with the new era of self-sufficient security that is dawning on Britain and its European allies is that they are singularly ill-prepared for the task. The fact that the French had to borrow a couple of C-17s from the RAF so that they could actually deploy their troops to Mali tells you all you need to know about the state of their military readiness. The RAF might be the proud owners of eight of these flying behemoths, but the Americans have an estimated 200 C-17s at their disposal.
Nor is it just in the area of basic transport aircraft that the Europeans are lacking. As was evident during the Libyan campaign two years ago, shortages of fundamental equipment, such as air-to-air refuelling tankers, cruise missiles and ships, meant that the European military effort found itself at a distinct disadvantage the moment American firepower was no longer available. And with the majority of European governments – Britain included – drastically reducing military budgets, this dire situation is unlikely to improve, even though the threats to our security show no sign of abating.
It is mainly to address this issue that Leon Panetta, the outgoing US Defence Secretary, is devoting his valedictory tour of Europe – he meets Philip Hammond, Britain’s Defence Secretary, in London tomorrow – to warning political leaders not to weaken their defences simply to save money. Once America has withdrawn its forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, Mr Obama wants to move the US’s military focus from Europe to the Pacific, leaving the Europeans to take care of themselves.
Let’s hope they will be equal to the task.
No comments:
Post a Comment