We probably will. I think the pre 2003 intervention and force composition was both necessary and balanced what happened post that was unforgivable. But not the point,it was more we’ve never left east of suez.mrclark303 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2022, 20:34We will probably have to agree to disagree SW1, the pointless Sandbox wars are more of a Bush/ Blair diversion in central Asia that have accomplished absolutely nothing but to destabilise the whole region and empower Iran ...SW1 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2022, 18:55The UK has never left east of suez there’s been more forces stationed east of suez the past 20 years than ever with Afghanistan.mrclark303 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2022, 18:16I disagree, it actually represents nothing less than the foundation concrete pour of an East of Suez pivot, a reversal of the Wilson Governments 'retreat to Cyprus' policy of 1968.
Call me an optimist, but we are now seeing the utter folly of making defence a whipping boy and robbing it blind for decades.
Even Labour is promising 3% and sustained investment in defence, so there should hopefully be some continuity, as the Political parties pass the Government baton backwards and forwards for years to come .... Hopefully!!!
I would disagree with your characterisation of wiping boy, a very significant amount of money has been spent on defence every year, defence has been its own worst enemy for a significant period of time.
The years of fighting in Afghanistan caused untold damage to our armed forces, as precious resources were pulled away to underpin and fund a substantial presence in that barren Waistland.
I am taking about a pivot towards the Indian and Pacific oceans.
As far as defence spend, it was party balloons and ice-cream when we managed 2%GDP, it's no where near the required levels of defense and part of the entirely made up and fictitious post war peace dividend...
3% is a sensible level of spending and a great deal can be done with sustained spending at that level on the right force disposition and equipment for our needs.
For the military an Asian pivot is complete folly. We have so many issues and so many things going on in our own back yard we have our hands full. We work together with allies in the pacific with information and technology sharing to ensure that both we in a our area of responsibility and them in there area of responsibility can uphold security we don’t need to physically be there militarily.
I do not like percentages as a way to define defence. Yes I get it’s an easy top level indicator for the papers but I’d much prefer defence planning assumptions based on scale of committing what and were and for how long as guide to what the armed forces should look like