Top US general 'very concerned' about Britain's defence cuts

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Independent

Top US general 'very concerned' about Britain's defence cuts
Ian Johnston
Sunday 01 March 2015

The US army’s most senior general has said he is “very concerned” about the effect of cuts to the UK military’s budget.
General Raymond Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the US army, told The Daily Telegraph that the West was facing “the most uncertain global environment I have seen in 40 years of service”.

After cuts imposed as a result of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the British Army was reduced to 82,000 men, the RAF has seven combat squadrons and is due to lose another one, and the Royal Navy has just 18 operational warships.

General Odierno said: “We have a bilateral agreement between our two countries to work together. It is about having a partner that has very close values and the same goals as we do.

“What has changed, though, is the level of capability. In the past we would have a British Army division working alongside an American army division.”

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/top-us-general-very-concerned-about-britains-defence-cuts-10079013.html

[Fred Sanders]

1. Not to worry, Britain has hundreds of nukes, no one is going to mess with them. The world is all

yours to mess around with using conventional means of sabotage and weaponry, America, go wild with your spending if you wish.

[forest444]

2. I can hear London's champagne Charlies now:

"Bollocks! Touching our tax cuts is absolutely out of the question, what what!"

[JDPriestly]

3. When it comes to the British and US governments, the tails, that is their trade policies,

and the heads, that is their defense policies, don't know either of them, what the other is doing.

You cannot agree to "free" trade which results in the potentially better paying manufacturing jobs being done for low wages in places like China and Mexico (countries that do not contribute to paying for our expensive defense costs), allow a relatively low-paying service economy to replace the manufacturing sector and its good jobs and expect to have the tax revenue necessary to support your bloated, obese, heavy-set and very expensive military. When the taxpayers' employment opportunities pay lower salaries, your tax revenue declines.

This is especially true if some or most of your wealthiest individuals and corporations avoid paying taxes in your country.

OK, tax avoiders, what you are doing may be legal, but remember, it's the military might of the US and Britain, projected to the world, that intimidates those with whom you have entered into trade agreements into keeping, abiding by the provisions that benefit you in those agreements.

When the rich don't pay enough in taxes to support a) a strong military whether it is used or not, and b) a strong social net in the country with the strong military, the rich will eventually find themselves without the military that protects their wealth and property. Especially today, a strong military requires a citizenry that is well educated, well fed and reasonably stable. That costs money, guys.

Something for the lucky few to think about.

[albino65]

4. Someone needs to ask

What if someone gave a war and no one came?

[cheapdate]

5. Odierno sees "threats" and "uncertainties" everywhere he looks.

It's what he does. In reality, there are no credible threats to the UK that require more than 18 warships.

[Monk06]

6. The Pentagon is just afraid the world will notice NATO is just a pretext for US intervention in the

Caucasus in order to prevent Russia from returning to world power status.

The Middle East and the former Soviet satellites are not the affair of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Personally I would like to see Canada out of NATO but that will never happen.