DEFENCE: A very ordinary ordinance
And to think Wellington was once Master-General
Bae's Future Prospects
Like this government, BAE does not know which way to turn: Europe or the United States? Our foremost defence-oriented PLC, as all of its rivals have vanished or entered niche roles, has entered a new alliance with Finmeccanica, the Italian state-owned defence electronics group. Such an alliance polishes Berlusconi's Atlanticist instincts and strengthens BAE's hand in Europe compared to the inefficient continental behemoth, EADS.
Of perhaps more consequence is the recent alliance between the American Lockheed and BAE on missile defence systems. This is an inevitable marriage after the agreement of EADS and Boeing on the same area of technology. Boeing is always painted as the suitor for BAE but Lockheed may be the eventual winner in a transatlantic merger.
As the Telegraph points out, BAE's value stems from its relationship with the Ministry of Defence. Its managers wish to flog it off and the government would promote a merger of our last major defence company with the US military industrial complex in order to maintain access to the best technology on the planet. One slight problem for the sceptics among us:
Boeing is planning to merge with BAE in the same way as I merged with a takeaway Chinese meal last night. BAE would be inside the belly of the giant US beast. It would be acquired, subsumed, taken over, devoured.Intriguingly, when I talk to ministers and government officials about this potential risk, they seem unperturbed. How so? Well the imperative, they think, is to secure access for BAE to US technology, which is far and away the best in the world. And, slightly to my surprise, they seem to believe that the US government will not prohibit the transfer of such valuable and sensitive knowhow.
If we lose any pretence at an independent defence manufactory, we will have contracted out our security to the United States and our domestic policy to Europe. All of which makes it difficult for Blair-sceptics like me to call the Prime Minister power mad any longer, as he seems hell-bent upon giving most of ours away to someone else.
Was the army prepared for the war?
Sean Rayment, in The Sunday Telegraph, reported on the lack of kit that the British army was given to fight the war: ‘Colour Sgt S. Baillie, a company quartermaster sergeant with the 1st battalion of the Light Infantry, revealed that his troops went into battle without adequate body armour, grenade launchers, rifle grenades, night-vision devices, desert boots, hats, socks and uniforms..
This issue was highlighted before the war as an example of the supply problems that the armed forces have faced, with increasing severity, for some years. It comes as no surprise that the Ministry of Defence preferred to downplay this problem as a "minor issue", given that Mr Hoon did not appear to even acknowledge that there was a legitimate concern. Or as he told the Defence Select Committee on May 14th — ‘when [British troops] went into operations all of our forces were given the right boots. There was sufficient clothing and protective equipment in-theatre to deal with a force of this size’.
Thus when an article is written, providing evidence that the British Army did not have sufficient clothing or protective equipment, the Ministry of Defence is ordered to protect the political reputation of their master rather than attend to the needs of the troops in theatre. In a triumph of bureaucratic casuistry, an MoD spokesman affected to believe that: ‘there is [no] contradiction between what the Secretary of State told the defence select committee and what CSgt Baillie said in his letter. With a logistics operation of this size there are always going to be one or two glitches. There is a lessons-learned exercise under way to make sure that we can improve future operations’
I am sure that under-equipped soldiers will appreciate that they suffering from a glitch! It’s hardly a wonder with clowns like this manning the supply train that we end up being laughed at by the Americans. If we must insist on running after them ever time they start a war, at least let’s stop being abused as “borrowers”.
Philip Chaston writes for Britain's solitary source of defence and foreign policy coverage consistently rooted in the British national interest: Airstrip One.
Philip Chaston, July 8, 2003 12:12 AM