Warning over world influence by head
of military

THE head of the Armed Forces has warned that he is not able to do everything ministers would like in the wake of the Government’s defence cuts.

Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards said ministers’ demands had not been revised to correspond with the reduced size of the Armed Forces.

“We have a whole load of tasks expected of us,” he was reported as saying in an Oxford University lecture.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

“Our political masters are quite happy to reduce the size of the Armed Forces, but their appetite to exercise influence on the world stage is, quite understandably, the same as it has always been.

“Often politicians say to me, ‘can you go and do this?’ I say to them, ‘with what?’.”

His comments will fuel concerns that the Strategic Defence and Security Review, which heralded an eight per cent cut in real-terms funding and reductions in manpower totalling 30,000 personnel, has significantly curbed Britain’s ability to project influence in the world.

Speaking to Oxford’s department of politics and international relations, Sir David added: “If you reduce your Armed Forces, there is going to be a give – something gives.”

He also expressed anxiety about the number of frigates and destroyers possessed by the Royal Navy, saying that was one of his “biggest concerns”, and criticised the failure to find a “political resolution” in Afghanistan despite the opportunities afforded by the military. “All the military can do is buy space and time and opportunity for a political resolution of a problem. It is a great shame that we have not understood this. This is not a matter for military, diplomats, politicians. This is a matter of collectively failing to exploit the opportunity the military gained,” he said.

In a statement issued by the Ministry of Defence last night, the Chief of the Defence Staff insisted that the military capability required under the defence review could be achieved with the resources available, but said “candid military analysis” ensured ministers were aware of the constraints.

Comment: Page 12.