A military power of ‘first rank’ decimated by budgetary cuts [O putere militară de ‘prim rang’ decimată de tăieri bugetare]

A century of ‘Pax Britannica’ (1815-1914) couldn’t have been possible without the UK having one of the best armies and certainly the best Navy at that time. No temporary set-backs (during the Boer Wars for instance) could challenge the superiority of the Brits.

For better and for worse, Britain has shaped the 19th century world, and the world today is greatly influenced by a tremendous British heritage – the most obvious part of it being this global lingua franca, the English language.

.

Probably 10 or even 20 times more people than the entire population of Britain make up the number of pupils and students who study English everyday or at least once a week; that’s a huge number and probably unrivalled in history.

No matter how weird this explanation may seem to many contemporaries, I don’t think the spread of English could have been possible without the spilled blood of British military personnel all over the world.

Explaining it all through the ‘American cultural imperialism’ is simplistic. What’s happening nowadays is only a phase of a process that began centuries ago, as British ships sailed all seas, and British soldiers marched to the remotest corners of the planet.

Millions of Britons (including civilians in WWII) endured hardship and faced death, yet what the puppeters of the Perdidious Albion built upon that great sacrifice was often different from one those who perished had dreamed of.

It is the blood of many Britons what drew the borders of the world we live in, and the UK played an important role in the birth of many countries which are now part of the United Nations.

Some are former colonies: worldwide economic powers (USA, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore), regional powers (South Africa), emerging powers (India) or more or less ‘exotic’ destinations (New Zealand, Belize).

A lot of other former British teritories arised to statehood (albeit often an instable or controversial one), from Cyprus, Israel, Iraq or Pakistan, to a myriad of Arab, African, Asian, and Pacific countries.

Finally, there are states whose emergence was a product of British diplomatic efforts or has a lot to do with British interference, like Belgium. There’s hardly any hot spot in the world today with no British footprint.

The often rutheless diplomatic games of those who pulled the strings could not have been possible in the absence of military might. Although gradually vanishing throughout the 20th century, UK’s armed forces still remained significantly strong.

Even for the past decade, when British soldiers were seen by some as poodels cavorting around the American ‘pure breed’ dogs of war, I still think it is unfair to look down upon these professional soldiers in such a manner.

If T. Bliar and G. Glown where, indeed, lousy characters who gambled on the lives of British soldiers, this doesn’t mean that those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t give their best on the battlefield, not that their commanders were incompetent.

Now David Cameron – who declares himself staunchly pro-America – severely cut the budget of the British armed forces. From an economical perspective, there are few doubts that such a heavily indebted country like the UK could have done otherwise.

However, long before the current economic crisis, the British armed forces were underfunded and many of those who lost their lives in Afghanistan died needlessly – very often due to lack of properly armoured vehicles and a shortage of helicopters.

As long as Cameron and Clegg seem to agree on cutting public expenses from all spheres of government activity, the armed forces will not be spared. And I bet there are enough Communists and pacifists in Britain who would have liked even deeper cuts.

All in all, the three branches (Army, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force) are due to lose a combined total 17,000 people, minus 25% of the civilians working for the Ministry of Defence (in Whitehall or in military bases).

The 20,000 Britons stationed in Germany for the past 65 years will be brought home or deployed to one of the only three permanent bases away from Great Britain, in Cyprus, Gibraltar and the Falklands.

On top of these ‘casualties’, the Army will lose 40% of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks, as well as 35% of heavy artillery pieces. The Navy will scrap 4 frigates – too bad for London that Romania is also bankrupt and unable to purchase any of them :-)

The RAF has to put up with the fact that, out of an initial order to Boeing of 22 Chinook helicopters, the UK will only buy 12. Weren’t these aircraft desperately needed by the troops in Afghanistan?

The sole operational British aircraft carrier (Ark Royal) will be decommissioned, and a new one will not be launched sooner than 2019. Last, but by no means least, by 2027/2028, the UK will have only 2 nuclear submarines armed with Trident nuclear missiles, instead of the 4 it has today.

In spite of these cuts, the FCO propaganda and William Hague himself claim that Britain “will still remain a military power of first rank.” I couldn’t possibly agree or disagree with this claim, as I am no military expert.

It appears likely that Britain won’t miss the lost tanks soon, but I don’t know about the rest, nor about effects of the cuts upon the morale of the service personnel. Will they feel that slimmed down forces could be more efficient?

Have the pro-American Cameron and the pro-European Clegg earned the trust of the commanders that they know what they are doing?

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]