Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

defence contention

Ties That Bind: US Perspectives on the UKs SDSR


Dr Jeffrey Bradford suggests that the United Kingdoms military force reductions, resulting from the October 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), are in essence of little relevance to the nature of the UK-United States Special Relationship. That is, as long as they do not render the UKs ability to engage in expeditionary operations ineffective. Dr Bradford proposes that the UKs value to the US is overridingly political and, where it is military, it is primarily qualitative in nature

ith regard to the United Kingdom-United States Special Relationship, the British Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) process, concluded in the autumn of 2010, has led to a deal of domestic soul-searching as to the impact on American thinking of the British policy review. Cast in the light of the expeditionary warfare doctrine which the UK has espoused, maintaining relevance in US eyes at the political-military level remains an important policy driver1. Events such as the removal of the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House, while small in nature, have been magnified into a tipping point in the decline of the US value placed on the Special Relationship2. Of more recent and larger concern were the revelations as part of the Wikileaks disclosure of previously classified US State Department communications that referred to British paranoia concerning the maintenance of the Special Relationship3. US media commentary as to the outcome of the SDSR emerged in the form of articles that picked apart White House wording versus that of the British Prime Minister, and pointed out that Obama did not say the UK would remain a first-rate military power4. From the perspective of meaningful analysis, it could be suggested that it is important, when framing the concept of the UK-US Special Relationship intellectually, to artificially separate the political and military aspects. In political terms, the UK-US relationship is clearly vulnerable to shortterm waxing and waning if not tangibly, then at least in terms of rhetoric. The two countries have different electoral cycles and requirements from other pressures to, on occasion, play to their home constituencies in ways that, to the other, may seem to make them appear to be less engaged. US concerns about the SDSR, it could be suggested, are principally around one of Europes most capable military establishments reducing its

spending and the knock-on effect it may have, in a European context, on fellow NATO members. The core military contributions of the British military and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to the US national security mission, armed forces and Department of Defense (DoD) can be strongly suggested as having been principally qualitative in nature for quite some time. Comparative strengths A quick comparison of the key quantitative metrics between the armed forces of the UK and US offers a clear contrast. Financially, in 2009, the defence effort of the UK cost the British Exchequer some $59 billion, versus the US DoD budget, which was approximately $574 billion5. In terms of the manpower of both militaries and of key equipments such as main battle tanks, helicopters, warships, submarines and aircraft carriers, the US has long since had a quantitative superiority that dwarfs the British capability6. Turning back the clock in recent times, it could also be suggested that the early 1980s represented the high watermark in terms of the perception of the British armed forces by the US. UK Special Forces action to end the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 contrasted with the American Desert One debacle in Tehran the previous year. Moreover, the feat of arms to recover the Falkland Islands from Argentina in 1982, and the continuous exposure to counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism against the Provisional IRA were emphatically admired by the US armed forces, rebuilding after Vietnam and locked into a heavy-armour, Cold War stalemate with the forces of the Soviet Union in West Germany. Today, 25 years on, two million American servicemen have seen action in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. The recent lightning raid to eliminate the leader of Al Qaeda7 has finally put to rest the ghosts of special operations failures, and across-the-board investment in defence capabilities has made the US military arguably the most capable military force in history. It could be asserted that the US view of the military relationship with Britain has always been about culture, training, doctrine and historical experience. Very niche capabilities to one side, the US military could be seen as rarely concerned about cuts to British equipment levels. Joint training, integrated planning and having a trusted partner at the embryonic moment of campaign planning is the overwhelming essential contribution of the British military establishment. I remember an anecdote from a former US defence attach who was assigned to fly the F-117 Stealth Fighter. On induction, the pilot went through many layers of security to finally reach the hanger and see the top-secret aircraft with his own eyes only to find a Royal Air Force exchange officer in the hangar who performed the walk-through of the stealth aircrafts capabilities.

US Armed Forces, under the control of the Pentagon, dwarf their UK counterparts

14

RUSI DEFENCE SYSTEMS SUMMER 2011

defence contention

UK politicians and military leaders were dismayed when Winston Churchills bust was removed from the White House

Both countries wish to deter and defeat security threats as far from the homeland as possible
Expeditionary focus In terms of the appropriateness of focusing upon expeditionary warfare, military establishments on both sides of the Atlantic are convinced of its relevance, as both countries wish to deter and defeat security threats as far from the homeland as possible8. Further, both military and political establishments understand the need to be able to mount operations without being compromised operationally by host-nation support issues. Looking to the future, the role of the UK and US in terms of intelligence sharing, personnel exchange and joint military planning will remain the keystones of the relationship. But, while both countries are in a broadly similar doctrinal space with regard to supporting expeditionary warfare to deter and, where necessary, deal with threats to the homeland at a distance, the disparity in hard capabilities are likely to continue to widen. The reduction in the UK aircraft carrier capability, Fleet Air Arm and other surface warships are likely have a disproportionate effect on the British contribution to expeditionary operations. In addition, the pace of deployments in recent years could impact on the generation of Special Forces from units such as the Royal Marines, who are, after all, responsible for generating nearly 50 per cent of such trained personnel. The recent announcement of a new three-month exercise to identify further spending reductions by the UK Ministry of Defence will only serve to underpin this situation. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated concern in Washington, lest the UK should reduce the resources dedicated to defence by 10 per cent9. However, the cumulative effect of SDSR

(eight per cent) and SDSR+ could well bring overall UK reductions close to this mark. In the 1960s, successive financial crises forced defence reviews by the British government, which ended with the cancellation of a new generation of aircraft carriers and ambitions to continue operations East of Suez. Some careful decision-making is probably required in the coming months to prevent SDSR+ denuding the UK of a hard and meaningful capability for expeditionary warfare. n

Footnotes
1. The British ask, is our Special Relationship still special in Washington?, Daily Telegraph, 4 February 2011. 2. An Alien in the White House? GlobalPost, 5 May 2011. 3. WikiLeaks: Britain mocked by US over special relationship, Daily Telegraph, 4 December 2010. 4. Obama, Cameron discuss British defense cuts, USA Today, 19 October, 2010. 5. Source: UK Defence Statistics 2010 (DASA: 2010). Table 1.19. 6. As an example, a survey of recent key military equipment shows the UK possessing two aircraft carriers in the 20,000t displacement range versus the US having 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers in the 90,000t displacement range. 7. On 2 May 2011, Operation Neptune Spear resulted in the elimination of the leader of the organisation that launched the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. 8. Expeditionary warfare is a doctrinal development of force and power projection focused on applying military capabilities internationally to achieve a given effect. A 2003 Congressional Research Service (CRS) study on the role of the DoD in Homeland Security stated that, For over a century the US military has focused on expeditionary warfare overseas. Cm 7948, Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review (Her Majestys Stationery Office, 2010). Page 11, point 2 identifies the requirement as to tackle at root the causes of instability implying a need for expeditionary capabilities where a military response is necessary. 9. Hillary Clinton worried by UK defence cuts, The Guardian, 15 October, 2010.

15

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi