What is between the lines of the leaked letter from Liam Fox to David Cameron.
There is more to this, as ever, than meets the eye.
Anyone have any thought on whats between the lines?
Dear David
We are nearing the culmination of the work we promised to deliver on our approach to national security; the NSC meeting tomorrow is a key opportunity to set out the risk and consequences of that work for our NSC colleagues. This is not a letter I am copying to others ahead of tomorrow’s NSC but I wanted to let you know my views, which are shared by my Ministerial colleagues.
Frankly this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR (Strategic Defence and Strategy Review) and more like a “super CSR” (Comprehensive Spending Review). If it continues on its current trajectory it is likely to have grave political consequences for us, destroying much of the reputation and capital you, and we, have built up in recent years. Party, media, military and the international reaction will be brutal if we do not recognise the dangers and continue to push for such draconian cuts at a time when we are at war. I am very grateful to Peter Ricketts and Jeremy Heywood for the help they have given officials who have worked strenuously to bridge a gap that is, financially and intellectually virtually impossible. I am concerned that we do not have a narrative that we can communicate clearly.
On 22 July the NSC endorsed the ‘Adaptable Britain’ posture because we decided that it was impossible to predict what conflict or global security scenarios may emerge in the years ahead. That meant ensuring the maintenance of generic defence capability across all three environments of land, sea and air – not to mention the emerging asymmetric threats in domains such as cyber and space –with sufficient ability to regenerate capability in the face of these possible future threats were it required.
How do we want to be remembered and judged for our stewardship of national security? We have repeatedly and robustly argued that this is the first duty of Government and we run the risk of having those words thrown back at us if the SDSR fails to reflect that position and act upon it.
I suggest we start tomorrow’s discussion by asking whether we are really prepared to see Defence spending reduced to this level. The impact on capability, particularly in the maritime domain, would be more substantial than one might imagine from the paper.
Our decisions today will limit severely the options available to this and all future governments. The range of operations that we can do today we will simply not be able to do in the future. In particular, it would place at risk:
The reduction in overall surface ship numbers means we will be unable to undertake all the standing commitments (providing a permanent Royal Navy presence in priority regions) we do today. Assuming a presence in UK waters, the Falklands and in support of the deterrent is essential we would have to withdraw our presence in, for example, the Indian Ocean, Caribbean or Gulf.
Deletion of the amphibious shipping (landing docks, helicopter platforms and auxiliaries) will mean that a landed force will be significantly smaller and lighter and deployed without protective vehicles or organic fire. We could not carry out the Sierra Leone operation again.
Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan.
Some risk to civil contingent capability, including but not limited to foot and mouth, fire-fighting strikes, fuel shortages, flu pandemics, Mumbai style attacks and the 2012 Summer Olympics
The potential for the scale of the changes to seriously damage morale across the Armed Forces should not be underestimated. This will be exacerbated by the fact that the changes proposed would follow years of mismanagement by our predecessors. It may also coincide with a period of major challenge (and, in all probability, significant casualties) in Afghanistan.
Even at this stage we should be looking at the strategic and security implications of our decisions. It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.
Yours
Liam Fox
Why the concentration on matters naval?
Why get MRA4 wrong?
Why is it called a Strategic Defence and Strategy Review when the second S in SDSR stands for Security?
Whats the politics angle, we all know Liam Fox and David Cameron get on like
Is it a classic case of leak the worse options and make minor concession to put a positive spin on the whole thing
The question to ask is
Who leaked this and why
UPDATE
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=14283
Liam Fox has issued a statement
Many of you will have seen reports today of a leaked letter I sent to the Prime Minister.
“It is entirely normal that Ministers should make representations to the Prime Minister during the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and the Comprehensive Spending Review. That is an entirely proper part of the process of government. The Prime Minister is fully entitled to expect those representations to be made in private and kept private.
“I am extremely angry that this confidential communication has been made public. The SDSR continues. We will reach decisions in due course collectively as a Government in the national interest, and abide by those decisions collectively – a principle which I entirely support.
“It is totally unacceptable that a highly confidential letter from me to the Prime Minister should be leaked to the Daily Telegraph. I am utterly appalled by this breach of trust. I have agreed with PUS [Permanent Under Secretary] that an immediate and rigorous investigation must be undertaken and this is underway; it is being conducted urgently by the MOD Police.”
“…Deletion of the amphibious shipping”
Hellooo, Downing Street, you are an Island Nation, these are assets you really can’t do without.
It’s not just cutting platforms, but loosing the knowledge and expertise is a loss of capital that cannot be simply bought off-the-shelf if a future need arises, no matter how much/less money will be spend.
“”…we will be unable to undertake all the standing commitments…
The UK without a meaningful Royal Navy. Seems just plain… wrong.
“Why get MRA4 wrong?”
Admin, what did you mean by that?
Sheez folks, I cringed reading this, and I live across the Channel!
It’s MRA4 not MR4
Although this might be nit picking it just stands out as something that doesn’t quite ring true
Perhaps I am seeing conspiracies where there are none
“Why the concentration on matters naval?”
Looks like the american influence on the NSC is pushing for a partner for future enduring theatre wide ops, effectively signaling Global Guardian in the teeth of a Defence Secretary who believes the navy has been cut too far already, and is naturally more sympathetic to Strategic Raiding.
“…Deletion of the amphibious shipping”
Marcase is correct, this would be a foolish move.
I think the short answer to your question is someone from the MoD who feels that their job is on the line (MoD staff are already under threat). Perhaps they hope that if this gets into th spinous domain, they’ll be able to embarass he government into not many any cuts in defence, thereby protecting their job. After all, what have they got to lose?
article on CVF:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/28/david-cameron-liam-fox-navy-carrier
It was inevitable that this process, echoing Sandys, Healey and Knott, would be a cost-cutting via capability-cutting exercise. If it were truly “Strategic” then it would allow the possibility of increased spending in this increasingly dangerous world. Unless the R in SDSR is really for Retreat. Politicians talk of “fleets” of aircraft ans ships as if they didn’t know what had happened over the last 20 years. Cringe-making comments from Mitchell re. carrier costs v education and Harvey using the timing of Trident replacement as a stick to beat Labour show us the level of thought that these “honourable” gentleman operate at. I believe in carrier aviation and the flexibility that brings to a range of operations and crucially to diplomacy. Internecine wars between the services will again lead to them all hanging together. What is the equivalent of the RAF “moving” Australia as they did in the 1960′s carrier debate?
Nimrod MPA is a good stop gap for peace time work and during the build up to conflict. But as a high end asset once the ordnance is flying well it wouldn’t last that long. This reminds of all those who said one of the reason for Black Buck was to demonstrate reach to the Argentines; when the Vulcan would probably have been shot of the sky.
The thing is with naval spending is the large amounts of money are easily associated in the public mind with a single unit. This submarine costs a billion, the two carriers costs 4billions. If the general public see a MRAP costing £300,000 they see one; the general public aren’t going to think about the other say 49 MRAPS that have been purchased too. Eurofighter costs when mentioned are more often per ‘plane. And the tanker PFI rarely gets mentioned. And the left leaning media plays apart. The deterrent came in on time and I believe on budget (about 12billion?) But being a nuclear system it is portrayed as expensive. While Eurofighter costed a lot, lot more. Then there is a dimension of protecting the industrial base. We can still just about build our own nuclear submarines; but BAE give the RAF an indigenous fighter. Deterrent is seen as Cold War relic, while the media help the RAF is reselling the Eurofighter as MRCA.
And of course the British are sea blind………..
Come October we are f*cked. The overseas development fund at £9billion could pay for our carriers and aircraft and the RFA. Next year that money could sort of the RAF tanker problem. That 9billion could keep police officers on our streets.
One final thought £4billion cost of CVF is about .3% (decimal three per cent) of GDP. It has been estimated that spending that much every year for decade would half child poverty in the UK.
“Who leaked this”
Fox
“and why”
Paving the way for a leadership contest.
I could be wrong, I usualy am, but Smarkets has Fox on for quiting as a minister.
He only needs a few mp’s to join with him and he can topple the government.
If he brings down the coalition and says, “I just cant be a part of the government that destroys the Armed Forces, punish me if you wish”, the rank and file will flock to him. Unless I’m wrong and David Cameron did get 100,000 new members who actauly believe his bull.
General Election next May?
Theres a few bits that dont make sense, the most obvious being what the **** is Cameron playing at, his Praetorian Guard was annihilated in May yet he’s acting like they won all 100 seats on the A list, the mad man in the Wisteria Bunker?
DomincJ said “General Election next May?”
Coup in November?
“Some risk to civil contingent capability, including but not limited to foot and mouth, fire-fighting strikes, fuel shortages, flu pandemics, Mumbai style attacks and the 2012 Summer Olympics”
then just co-incidentally the BBC runs a story this morning about a halted terror plot involving Islamic militants doing a mumbai style attack in UK.
I suspect the powerful arms / defence industry old private school/regimental tie network is working across industry, media and Whitehall to play public oppinion and stop the ConDem cuts in the defence sector.
Why concentrate on the Navy in particular? CVF, the new carriers is a huge huge contract someone might lose if they are cancelled or halved.
It will be interesting to see the result of this letter on Fox’s future.
Frankly I’m behind him.
“then just co-incidentally the BBC runs a story this morning about a halted terror plot involving Islamic militants doing a mumbai style attack in UK.”
Sky were running that late last night and in the early hours. The BBC at the time were still covering Red Ed………
The idea that the bbc are involved in a conspiracy with the old boys regimental network is pretty funny.
Just checked the papers, only the Telegraph is running it.
Unless its doublebluff they didnt spot, its got to come from Fox.
If Cameron leaked it, they’d have ran, Cameron tried to finger fox in defence leak.
Admin
Come on, how easy is it to miss a letter from UK defence nomenclature.
The Americans call stuff F35
The same plane should be the FGR10 in UK service.
Its possible the decision has been made not to arm the planes, but its a stretch in my view.
DominicJ said “The idea that the bbc are involved in a conspiracy with the old boys regimental network is pretty funny.”
Not actively no. Defence is non-issue to the BBC unless it is Trident. Even its reporting on Afghanistan is framed in matter fact way with hint of defeatism and dare I say with a pro-Islamic flavour. Compare BBC reporting on that conflict with the Ross Kemp footage. Do you think the British public perception of the conflict would be different if more saw that sort of coverage on there screens?
Therefore they default to what perhaps I call the societal norm for the time. Without wishing to sound condescending this means old soldiers, RAF and the BoB and black white ’50s films. etc. etc. What the Navy does goes mostly unseen.
The British public on the whole are ignorant of security issues. Take the supposed threat from Islamic terrorism now, and compare it with how it was in the 70s with the IRA. Of course back in the 70s with a large Cold War military and society containing a large proportion of those who served or related to those who are served the collective knowledge of security matters were higher. Collective knowledge of security matters is now low and politicians can sell a lesser threat as a much greater one.
Did I mention that come October we are all f*cked? I did? Good.
Well if it is a Fox leak, perhaps this was the response he wanted?
Bob Ainsworth a short while ago…
‘The question now for David Cameron is what he is going to do about it. Listen to his Defence Secretary or sit back and let George Osborne continue to call the shots? He needs to finally show some leadership and take control. ‘
excellent news for us; a functioning opposition.
@Jedibeeftrix
“excellent news for us; a functioning opposition.”
If, a highly hipocritical one. Oh, hang on, they’re politicians aren’t they.
BBC 1 o’clock news had an interview with Dr. Fox on the entrance to Downing Street, couldn’t help noticing that he was smiling as he “decried” the leak. Admin posted articles a few months back of the infighting between the MoD and Treasury – at about the time Trident was pushed into the core budget. Maybe this leak is Fox’s counter-attack?
Also been watching the TUC/Labour party response to the spending review over the last few weeks, and now this mega-demonstration by Europe-wide Trades Unions in Brussels. Seems that Europe may be teetering on the edge of “deficit denial” and therefore financial oblivion. US estimates that the EU will become an international backwater don’t seem too outrageous now.
Maybe they should all get on with it and spend, spend, spend. That way when international banks yoick all the government credit lines and tax has to double we can all blame the unions. Makes the HM Armed Forces stance of “we know there are cuts, just make them sensible” a paragon of virtue and sense!?!
They are typical “modern” politicians, not an ounce of integrity amongst the lot of them !
Come October we are all frakk’ed – oh yeah, someone already said that……
Putting my Peoples Republic of East Yorkshire communist hat back on, no disrespect to the starving poor of India; but if a UK politician stood up and said we have an outrageous fiscal deficit caused by the greed of Wall St and the Square Mile, so I am afraid the 9 billion budgeted for over seas aid is actually going to be spent on reducing the numbers under the poverty line in THIS country – and for digging out the MoD, just this once, as we are at war – would that spark of honesty and integrity not guarantee votes (which is all they are really interested in !) ?????
As I’ve noted on ARRSE, there is a lot of odd things going on here.
Firstly, as noted, the use of the phrase MR4 – sounds silly, but not a mistake you’d expect to see.
Secondly, referring to the loss of contingent capability for strikes etc. The MOD stopped planning to intervene in strikes several years ago. There are no (zero, none) plans out there for the MOD to act as strike busters. Why would Fox imply this is otherwise? The MOD has spent a long time extricating itself from this area (read JDP2-02, MOD guide to UK ops for more details) and the civil responders have stopped planning for us.
I don’t understand why Fox refers to a loss of contingent capability when no such capability is planned for, or assumed anymore?
Fox has now put a MOD Police investigation on to the matter. This means he is confident of finding out who leaked it. Were I a cynical betting man, I’d note that these things are not written by civil servants or military (those sort of errors would have been staffed out if they were). His Outer Office are very sharp, and would have spotted things like the MACA error, and the MR4 typo.
This means it was written by a SPAD or himself. Therefore the dist list is tiny – this sort of letter will usually be handwalked across the road to No10, and as such few people outside the SofS and a select circle of trusted advisors will see it. If so, then Fox is either confident that his SPAD is about to get the sack (unlikely), or he’s realised that the leak has come from within No10 as an effort on their part to destabilise him.
I suspect he’s realised that if it was leaked by No10, he’s got the perfect platform to get up at the conference next week and look weakened (how can he talk up defence if he’s just said this?). Alternatively, the scene is now set for an ‘exit Fox, Stage Right’, but the impact of his going is diminished by the leaking of the letter – it will be seen as premediated, and may have elements of the party seeing him as disloyal for seeing through SDSR and not going on principle.
Fox is weakened today, as his opportunity for a dramatic heseltine moment has passed. He could still go, but this leak may have cost him the long term shot at leadership.
Jedi
Taking political pot shots isnt a functional opposition.
Its political point scoring.
Opposition would be a shadow SDSR
Jim 30
But it was leaked in the Telegraph.
For it to be from team Cameron doesnt make sense, unless they think it’ll blow up in his face, but they havent pushed it in that direction.
The MoD police being involved adds an interesting spin.
It could be that Cameron has tricked the Torygraph and someone laid a trail for this back to Team Fox, but I just dont believe he’s that capable.
“Taking political pot shots isnt a functional opposition.
Its political point scoring.”
If it serves to add pressure then i’ll take it.
Just checked government-news.co.uk andthe nds site. No other “bad news” being buried there AFAIK.
Jedi
But it doesnt, and it leaves the opposition crippled as well, believe me, I railed at the Tories for doing the exact same thing for many years.
Look how well prepared they are for office?
We had a puffed up NSC that came to the conclusion, “steady as she goes”, and SDSR that started with the outcome, no army job cuts and a 20% spending cut.
About all Ainsworths intervention lets us know is that he knows all about bending over and taking it from the boss, and thinks its entirely normal that the SecDef justifies the actions of the sofa government he’s excluded from.
Of course as well as the over seas development money there is money we pay into the EU. Taking out the money we get back that is £1.9 billion……..