The announcement in the House of Commons that Britain is going to proceed to disarm itself coincides with increases of numbers and combat readines in China, in Russia and elsewhere. What the announcement made by Ben Wallace MP - Secretary of Defense - shows is that Britain has failed to recruit enough numbers. In a desperate effort to increase conscription, there was an attempt to contract forces from overseas to beef up the numbers in the United Kingdom. It also failed and now to try and hide the fact that not enough able men and women show any interest in joining British Armed Forces or are physically fit to join British Armed Forces, the Secretary of State brought to the House of Commons a bill that is nothing more than the official acceptance of the fact that Britain is in trouble.
Immigration does not provide Britain the right candidates for its Armed Forces. There is an inherent risk of bringing into the Armed Forces individuals whose values, religion and ideology together with the fact that they have roots in countries Britain could be forced to engage in wars make them a liability.
As events in Manchester, in London and in other cities have proven, even those born and bred in Britain show no allegiance to Britain. They even choose to travel abroad to join the enemies of Britain.
In 1982, Margaret Thatcher made a mistake that proved to be catastrophic in spite of the fact that Britain managed to expel Argentinian forces from the South Atlantic islands. It came at a huge cost. Deprived of enough airpower, Britain sent British troops to their death to be killed before they even landed on the islands. Argentina was not a major player. It was not a naval power, its armed forces were made up mainly of conscripts that joined at a late hour and only had its Airforce as a major asset with missiles provided by Israel and France.
Today, the dangers are much greater. Britain's enemies very well know Britain's weaknesses. Whether there is Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen - of all places, Britain can only play second fiddle to American forces and American capabilities.
Ben Wallace MP's idea is basically wars by proxy using elements on the ground or supporting elements on the ground. No one rational would think that you can face the world in a real conflict with merely 70,000 men and women under flag. Lower number of men and women under flag dramatically increases the risk of a rising number of casualties should a real conflict occur. Ben Wallace MP also underestimates the risk of internal operations in Britain by individuals acting as proxy forces for foreign countries. What are the potential targets? British nuclear reactors, Communications and Transport to name a few.
Some time ago, Dame Stella Rimmington, then head of MI5 stated loudly and clearly that the Security Services didn't have the necessary manpower to follow every lead and that people who were potential risks for Britain were going under the radar. In real war, Britain used commandos with relative success. The actions of foreign commandos in the United Kingdom is not unthinkable in a world with very open borders. In a then European Union with extremely porous borders and easy access to passports in which people could travel across the continent without any controls, it was reasonable to expect that potential aggressors would go easily undetected.
But even today, with Britain out of the EU, the danger is considerable. For the moment, attacks have been against civilians by individuals driven by hatred and a desire for revenge or trying to make a point. Britain still has to face a deliberately planned military attack from within against key targets. If terrorists had targetted, for example, the London Underground by flooding tunnels, instead of tens of victims, we would be potentially talking about hundreds of thousands dead on a busy day. Such kind of attack is not inconceivable given the fact that despite permanent efforts, the underground system is prone to flooding.
Ben Wallace MP's approach to defense is extremely short-sighted. Let's be reminded of the words of Sergei Ivanov, once again.: wars in Europe will be carried out with conventional weapons. The use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable because it would involve mass destruction of all sides.
The build up of military capabilities in the Sea of China is not about nuclear weapons. It is about conventional forces. Any aggression would become a fait accompli because Western Nations couldn't possibly commit enough forces to prevent or to reverse any aggression. This is why in recent years, we only hear about economic sanctions and counter economic sanctions and a war of words.
Dear Ben Wallace MP,
You might think that reducing
the number of troops make good sense because you intend to carry on waging wars
by proxy using local combatants or guerrillas to do the job and you might think
that this strategy can be maintained for ever and ever. But in the real world
it doesn’t work.
You might be too young to
remember what happened in 1982, right before the Argentine invasion. Margaret
Thatcher was mothballing the British Armed Forces. In a panic, Britain had to
rethink the strategy overnight and had not been the for the Harrier Jump Jets
Britain would have lost the war in the South Atlantic because after Argentina
captured the one and only airstrip on the islands there were no available
airstrips to provide British forces the crucial air cover that they needed. Now
again, you are making the same mistake and there is talk again of potential
trouble in the South Atlantic. How are you going to react if you don’t have the
means to do the job? In a few years, Britain lost about 30,000 troops after
successive reductions. How are you going to manage in a real conflict?
I know you have been having
trouble recruiting new personnel. Most of those who come forward to join the
Armed Forces are not fit for purpose. This is why the Conservative government
launched a scheme aimed at recruiting personnel from overseas. It hasn’t worked
either. Now, you talk about reducing then level of British Armed Forces by
natural wastage – you were asked in Parliament about redundancies and you said
that redundancies were going to be avoided by depending only on natural wastage
when people leave the Armed Forces without being pushed out.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson
recently announced an increase of 44% of nuclear missiles, but this
doesn’t change the reality that nuclear missiles are a weapon that will only be
used when everything else has failed. I bring to your attention the words of
Sergei Ivanov who said that any conflict in Europe – and presumably elsewhere –
will still be fought with conventional forces. You know as well as I know that
nothing is won until the ground is secured. Lack of enough manpower leads to
bigger casualty numbers and lack of effectiveness.
You talk about standing up to
China. How are you going to do that when China mobilizes its military machine?
Talk about the Sea of China and the territorial disputes between China and
India related to rich oil deposits. Talk about the Philippines that recently
expressed alarm when vast numbers of Chinese ships got closer to their shores
as part of a Chinese effort to assert its predominance in the region? Drones?
Un-manned aircraft? Nuclear missiles?
When we came out of the EU,
you and your colleagues spoke about enforcing Britain’s rights in British
territorial waters? How are you going to do that? Do you have enough ships to
patrol British waters?
For years and years, the
Conservative Party has had a tendency to cut down while talking about
increasing investment to keep up with NATO quotas.
You only have to look at the
trends in the East to understand that you are saving the penny and losing the
pound and you are doing it in a way that will cost lives.
They say that Keir Starmer is
failing as Labour Party leader because he is not offering effective Opposition.
I am copying this message to Helen Hayes and to Keir Starmer as
Leader of the Opposition. You are living Britain wide open. You don’t face real
conflicts with commandos or elite troops only. It is said that Britain is
less prepared today than Britain was prepared on the eve of World War Two.
When it comes to other
issues, like the movement towards independence in Scotland, the wave of
discontent in Scotland has something to do with Conservative policies in
Scotland regarding defence. It was called the amalgamation of British regiments
when regiments that were the pride and honour of Scotland and had a long record
in history books were wiped out by Margaret Thatcher. Once, again, saving the
penny and losing the pound and threatening to partition the United Kingdom. It
was David Cameron that moved military contracts from Portsmouth to Scotland to
try to push away the danger of a successful vote for independence in Scotland.
You are barely 50 years of
age. You have no real memories of the process that led to rising votes in
favour of Scottish independence. You have no real memories of the conflict in
the South Atlantic and about the disadvantages that the British fleet faced in
the South Atlantic. Do you know why British troops were killed before they ever
set foot on the islands? Lack of air cover.
Helen Hayes
might not be aware of it. I saw it when it happened. The Sir Galahad and other
ships were easy prey of the Argentine Airforce because there was no air cover
available. This brings memories of another military disaster that took place
under a Conservative government. Have you about the history of the Royal Navy
and the sinking of the Prince of Wales by the Japanese air force that used
torpedo planes against British ships that went to war without air cover?
Have you read about what
happened in Narvik, Norway? Are you aware of why it happened? It happened
because British troops went to Norway without air cover and without artillery.
They were attacked by the Wermacht from the sea, on land and from the air. This
led to the downfall of Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister. If anything
happens in the South Atlantic or elsewhere that is remotely similar to what
happened in Narvik, you will only have yourself to blame.
Don’t play with British
lives. Don’t risk British lives by reducing British military capabilities.
