Defence review will be hindered by inter-service warfare

When it announced its intention to hold a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), the coalition government promised that the process would be radically different from previous assessments of the United Kingdom's military requirements.

Ministers pledged to conduct a root-and-branch analysis of national security policy and capability across departments, not just in the Ministry of Defence and stated this would require strong leadership from the centre, including the Cabinet Office and, crucially, the Treasury.

As is often the case with governments the reality frequently fails to match the fine words uttered when a policy is unveiled. Only a few months in and instead of taking that broad and rational approach the review has descended into unseemly, and deeply unhelpful, inter-service wrangling.

The most recent manifestation of this involves the Royal Air Force arguing for its Tornado fleet to be retained at the expense of the Royal Navy's Harrier squadrons. To no-one's surprise, the Navy is making the opposite case.

If, at this still early stage, the review becomes a public relations battle between the Navy, the RAF and the Army (when it is affected) the objective of the exercise will be fatally undermined.

Instead of such internecine warfare, it should be addressing far more fundamental questions about the nation's defence. These should include asking if all three services should be flying planes and helicopters? Do we need the RAF at all, or should it be charged with all the flying done by the Army and Navy?

We must ask if we need aircraft carriers, even if their construction will bring work to the Forth and the Clyde? If most of our future battles are to be fought inland with airfields available, we may conclude carriers are not part of our core defence requirements.

There is also the question mark over the retention of a substantial army presence in Germany. Is it a fear of Germany rising again to threaten Europe or a suspicion that Russia retains Imperialist tendencies despite its new-found democracy?

Most fundamentally, the review should not have excluded the issue of the nuclear deterrent, a concept which a growing number of hard-nosed military strategists - no idealistic peace protesters - are questioning.

Phasing out our nuclear deterrent would have a major impact on the UK, not least in terms of our seat on the UN Security Council, but the country must at least consider the consequences of accepting we are no longer a great world power.

Reviewing the country's defence was never going to be easy, for it inevitably means challenging the vested interests of the three armed services and provoking the anger of local communities, including many in Scotland, where there are air bases, ports or barracks.

But if the SDSR is to do what ministers promised, it must meet those challenges. It must, in short, be a properly strategic, objective, exercise to establish a new approach for the 21st century.