Lack of detail on defence strategy does the voting public a disservice

RARELY in the field of political conflict has so little of substance been elucidated by so many parliamentarians with so few ideas between them. That, with apologies to the memory of Sir Winston Churchill, is the only conclusion to draw after a day of debate on the government's green paper on defence.

The document was, it is true, designed to set the scene for a full-scale strategic defence review after the general election and it was, therefore, inevitable that it would pose questions over the country's future defence strategy.

But even allowing for this, voters had a right to expect that the main political parties who seek to set the course of defence strategy for the next decade or more, would at the very least give some indication of the future they envisage for our armed services.

The reason for a strategic review is that we have to shape the defence forces for the conflicts of the future, not configure them for the battles of the past, and do so within the context of the need to tackle the country's 178 billion deficit.

To use a debased phrase, there are tough choices ahead. These include whether there should be a replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent; the relative standing of the three armed services; and greater co-operation with European countries including France.

It would have been good for democracy if in publishing the paper Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth had set out options and, as Labour hopes to win a fourth term, indicated his party's preference. Instead, he pre-empted the strategic review by refusing to consider alternatives to the 20bn Trident replacement. Similarly, he said it was likely that the Royal Navy would still get two planned new aircraft carriers.

Significantly, the Defence Secretary refused to be drawn on Britain's purchase of the US-built Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) intended to fly from the carriers, and which could cost more than 10bn.

From this the only conclusion to be drawn is that Labour will seek savings in areas other than the Trident replacement and the navy, possibly, though not certainly, cutting the fighter project and, logic would dictate, the army.

What of our putative government? Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox correctly identified the need to be aware that future wars will not be like previous wars but from there on there was no detail as to the Tories' spending plans.

So neither of the two major parties was yesterday prepared to set out anything like a blueprint for the UK's future defence which, if Afghanistan and Iraq are anything to go by, must focus on the central role of the army. They ducked the big issues, including the possibility that we may not need a full-scale navy or air force; that our nuclear deterrent might be smaller, though still submarine-based; and that we may, for both strategic and financial reasons, need to restore the entente cordiale.

The defence of the realm is the first duty of politicians. The voters who elect them – and give them the responsibility of sending our armed forces to war on their behalf – have a right to know how they plan to discharge that duty.