During my four combat deployments to Afghanistan, where I flew Chinook helicopters, I saw the consequences for our young troops of not having the right kit and the right overall strategy.
Too few helicopters and armoured vehicles, radios that didn’t work properly, a lack of metal detectors used for finding improvised explosive devices, all cost British lives and limbs in the dust of Helmand province.
And the world is now a more dangerous place than when I was serving. Russia is probing our defences and testing our critical infrastructure daily, Iran is developing tactics to disrupt economic supply lines and fight asymmetric campaigns, and China waits and watches – for now.
While politicians from all major parties say they want to spend more on the military, spending more on defence right now would be a waste of money and won’t make us safer – unless we make some big changes to our approach.
War on waste
John Healey’s resignation as defence secretary last week turbocharged the debate on defence spending in the UK, as he claimed the Treasury was “unwilling” and the Prime Minister “unable” to properly fund Britain’s Defence Investment Plan.
But Britain already spends more on its military than almost every country in the world. We spend £15bn more each year than France – and more than Spain, Canada and Greece combined. The problem is that we waste a lot of the money we spend.
The government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s annual report covering 2023-24 showed that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had 49 ongoing procurement projects, worth a total of £311bn. Of the 49 projects, only two were on track to be delivered successfully.
Time and again, parliamentary committees and think-tanks produce reports criticising the UK’s defence procurement system that fails to deliver the capability we need on time, at cost – or at all. They all point to the same issues: unnecessarily complicating requirements, inter-service rivalries, overly optimistic planning and a reliance on the big defence giants rather than an innovative open market.
During my time in the RAF, we had the painful saga of waiting for eight new Chinook Mk3 helicopters that were originally delivered by Boeing in 2001, just as the war in Afghanistan was starting, but which were grounded due to software issues.
With British forces relying on the lifeline our helicopters brought – delivering vital supplies and, crucially, evacuating injured troops – we waited and waited for the additional choppers. They eventually came into service in 2010, but due to concerns over how well they handled and how robust they were, none were ever used to support the mission in Afghanistan.
Singh during one of his combat tours in Afghanistan. ‘We need an honest debate about what we want the UK Armed Forces to be able to do – and then fund them accordingly,’ he writes (Photo: Ben Pryor/MoD)I’m seeing that same debacle play out around the Army’s procurement of the Ajax armoured vehicle, which has cost over £6bn and is currently running at least 10 years late. Another generation of service personnel let down by the procurement system.
The UK must decide who we want to be
Even if we can resolve these procurement issues, we need to know what we actually want the UK Armed Forces to do. For too long, policymakers and politicians have asked the military to do too much – and senior officers have agreed rather than saying no.
I saw that in Afghanistan, where our strategy seemed to change with the seasons. Sometimes we were there to defeat international terrorism, sometimes to build democracy, often to fight farmers with guns and their Pakistani and Iranian supporters, and occasionally to stop drug smuggling. Usually, it was just because we were part of the coalition of Nato countries already there.
We can’t afford to keep making the same mistakes. We need an honest debate about what we want the UK Armed Forces to be able to do – and then fund them accordingly. As a country, we have to recognise that we are a middle-ranking global power and there are things we can only do as part of a wider alliance or group of nations.
But we don’t need to choose between spending on welfare and the military.
Instead of wallowing in self-pity and looking backwards through rose-tinted glasses, as many commentators are prone to do, we must reframe this as an opportunity: to build the alliances of the future, which will boost our economy and keep us safe.
As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and others have argued, the threats we face – great power conflict, climate shocks, pandemics, disruption from Big Tech – are too big for one nation to deal with alone.
We should be looking at new multi-country funding and investment options, whether that’s joining the Canadian Defence Security and Resilience Bank or joint borrowing with EU allies through a defence-focused Eurobond, like what the EU did during the Covid pandemic. These options raise money without raising taxes, and help us co-ordinate procurement with investment markets and long-term strategic allies.
Soft power – more bang for buck
One way to keep Britain safe is to boost defence. Another is to reduce the threat.
The writer travelling in a Chinook over Afghanistan. He says the UK risks repeating its past military mistakes if it does not change its approach to defence (Photo: Jonathan Singh)Our failures in Afghanistan came down to a lack of understanding. We didn’t understand the people we were fighting, their culture, their motivations, who their supporters were and – ultimately – how to defeat them. We are risking the same again on a much bigger scale.
Our soft power – the ability to influence people and societies in other nations – has been consistently eroded, leaving us vulnerable and exposing our lack of engagement with the world as it is.
We have drastically cut overseas aid spending. Assistance to African countries alone will fall by nearly £1bn annually by 2028-29. The Government is also planning further cuts to our diplomatic corps, putting around 2,000 jobs at risk at a time of multiple international crises.
Shockingly, we have only 15 people at the MoD who speak Mandarin, according to the latest figures, and almost half the number of Arabic speakers we had in 2018. How can we understand the threats we face – and the opportunities for peace – if we can’t understand the cultures that challenge us?
Guns are important, but as a country we should prioritise investment in diplomacy, international development and cultural influence. That would complement intelligent defence spending and promote our long-term security far better than missiles and tanks alone.
We can’t repeat the failures of past conflicts. Pouring money into defence budgets without looking hard at our procurement processes, defence strategy and use of soft power will mean more waste and more risk. This Government – and the country – can afford neither.
Hence then, the article about i saw british soldiers killed due to spending failures more money isn t the answer was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( I saw British soldiers killed due to spending failures. More money isn’t the answer )
Also on site :
- ‘Humans, we have arrived!’ Brazilians receive alien invasion alerts
- Kevin Canceled At Prime Video — No Season 2 For Animated Series From Aubrey Plaza And Joe Wengert
- ‘90s Rock Band Explains Unexpected Delay of First Album in 6 Years