US Army Head 'Concerned' Over UK Defence Cuts

British military chiefs will have read this morning's Daily Telegraph with embarrassment.

On the front page, a senior US officer does something they have been unable to: make a public argument against further cuts to the UK defence budget.

General Raymond Odierno's words reflect the frustrations of a partner no longer convinced the other half can pull its weight.

As a result of Downing Street's refusal to be clear what it might do post-election, the United States military is adjusting its plans because Britain can no longer be relied on as an equal partner.

We hear so little from senior serving military figures on this subject that when one speaks, albeit a foreign General, it inevitably makes headlines. Such is the consequence of adopting a policy of denial.

The US Army’s Chief of Staff is saying exactly what American politicians and officers have told their British counterparts privately, at every level, for some time now. They clearly don’t think the message is getting through.

In 2010 the White House accepted that the new British coalition government had to make significant adjustments to its defence budget. Indeed, the US military had major cuts of its own.

Britain was the pre-eminent force in Europe. France can certainly now claim some of that title, as it has demonstrated with the recent deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Gulf to fight Islamic State.

This is a move that Britain cannot make and won’t be able to for another five years, at least.

There is a fear in the Pentagon that the US has become an insurance ally for other NATO members. As long as they pay their ‘sub’ America will deliver the protection. British wavering is compounding that.

NATO rules say that all countries must spend 2% of their GDP on defence. As it stands, only four members do: the US, UK, Greece and Estonia.

At the NATO Summit in Wales last year, David Cameron forced a pledge from the other states that they would increase their spending to meet that target.

It now looks like the UK might be the first to break that.

Recently, the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies said the UK is "now close to critical mass in many key areas".

The IISS calculates that an 8% real reduction in the budget has led to a 20-30% reduction in capability. You can see why Gen Odierno and Washington are so concerned.

The British public is regularly told by senior politicians how national security is under threat from Islamic extremism.

Moscow is ordering Russian nuclear bombers to fly into the English Channel.

And yet what of any public debate?

Downing Street has repeatedly prevented senior British military chiefs from speaking in public over the past few weeks.

General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, a British officer and NATO’s Deputy Commander, was due to sit down for interviews with the media two weeks ago after he addressed RUSI. But his diary was rearranged late the night before and he was suddenly and mysteriously unavailable.

Days later, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, had a speech at Chatham House cancelled.

At a time when Britain is effectively at war with Islamic State and facing a hostile and ever-unpredictable Russia, the military chiefs are virtually silent and, let’s be frank, unknown leaders.

That is undoubtedly frustrating for them, although they won’t be disappointed that someone else is making the argument for them. They should be wary of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, however.

"This is the most uncertain global environment I have seen in 40 years of service," General Odierno concludes. Few would disagree. And that’s what makes the British position so confusing, not least from the outside.