Defence Analysis is the authoritative monthly publication published by Francis Tusa. As a Defence commentator and writer, Francis Tusa has won a solid reputation for his insight and understanding of the complexities that surround Defence issues and military trends. He first came to prominence during his commentaries on ITN television over the Gulf War period. He now appears regularly on Sky television as a Defence commentator.

His forte is that he 'tells it as it really is'. Incisive in his approach and sometimes even provocative, Francis Tusa's analytical reports and commentaries are closely studied by decision makers within the Defence community at large. Not one to acquiesce to the 'party line' or necessarily follow the latest trend, he is nonetheless widely respected for his unbiased and critical focus on the facts. Not surprisingly Francis Tusa is much sought after by News Editors on both radio and television.

DSD brings you selected articles from Defence Analysis ahead of its monthly publication. To find out more, and how you can order Defence Analysis for a full year's subscription [UK £300; US & ROW $560] - JUST CLICK HERE.

March 2002

Mid-February saw the issue of "Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter", a public discussion document issued by the Ministry of Defence and covering a number of the issues that have arisen since the events of 11 September 2001.

The idea is that, with a more open approach to government as a whole, MoD could show where it has got to date and then to then deduce from public submissions whether it has it right or wrong. As far as it goes, not a bad approach. But let Defence Analysis take readers through some aspects of the booklet and the accompanying speech to the House of Commons, which might have escaped notice.

WARFIGHTING

A number of "observers" said that the speech showed especially that – particularly to save money – the UK is to exit warfighting and to concentrate on peacekeeping and very low level operations. This is not borne out by any words of Mr Hoon's. In fact, there is greater stress on the fact that the UK wishes to become the military tip of the spear of Europe. This would see British troops as the first to deploy to trouble spots but the UK would, like the US, also be among the first to leave as matters went from warfighting and peace enforcement to simple peacekeeping.

It is difficult to read anything else into words of Mr Hoon's such as, "… participating in and leading initial short duration peace support operations in higher risk environments and participating in strike operations as part of a coalition effort," or, "… it is a tenet of British military doctrine that it is usually better to seek to engage an enemy at longer range – before they are able to mount an attack against our interests. Our preference, therefore, will be to continue to place our emphasis on deployed operations. So we must continue to be ready and willing to deploy significant forces overseas."

AREAS OF OPERATIONS

That the UK view of geopolitics has changed is increasingly obvious, and no more so than as mentioned in Mr Hoon's speech: "We will need to judge whether we are likely to encounter other situations where key national interests mean that we need to engage further afield than the core regions of Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Gulf, which were the focus of our thinking about our force structures during the Strategic Defence Review."

Core regions? The Gulf? This now shows that the "Withdrawal From East Of Suez" is well and truly dead. And if defence matters in the Gulf are core to the UK, this means that the British Army has to retain a significant armoured component – good news for heavy metal freaks!

DEFENCE PROCUREMENT COLLABORATION

Mr Hoon more than bent over backwards to show that the UK is keen to play a major European defence role: "That is why we have emphasised the need for European nations to work together to strengthen their military capabilities. No longer to simply pursue narrow national agendas but to co-operate so that, together, we are able to play a more effective role in the modern security environment. Only through such co-operation will we be able to make a more effective contribution to the Alliance …" OK, fair enough.

But this was the one area in which Mr Hoon showed charming naivety. By all means try to maximise the capabilities of Europe via defence procurement co-operation. But what good does this do when various members - Germany, Belgium to the fore - are cutting defence expenditure in real terms? A concentration of sod-all doesn't make a big deal - the square of zero is still zero. Mr Hoon and many of his Europhile colleagues still haven't answered this conundrum, and do not look close to being able to do so either.

FUTURE MILITARY CAPABILITIES

A number of references to the technological drives for the UK were made, references that might give a better view as to where things will end up. "The Review placed particular emphasis on capabilities relevant to the new circumstances in which we find ourselves – reconnaissance, surveillance, rapid deployment, precision strike, and more effective command and control.

That is why the UK has been able to play such a significant role in the military operations in Afghanistan. The acquisition of equipment such as the Apache helicopter, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the future carriers will enhance these capabilities still further," was one such.

If there are concerns about specific topics raised in the first direct quote it is that many of them could suggest that the US "blue print" for Afghanistan of minimal ground troop involvement is the way the UK will go, to the detriment of heavier war fighting forces. However, by mentioning the particular topic areas that he did, Mr Hoon has laid himself open to preparing a shopping list that he will have to fund later. Those of a naval bent will note the mention of "… the future carriers …" – yet another aside talking about future carriers. Defence Analysis has always said that the cornerstone of the SDR is the future carrier programme – Mr Hoon and other planners seem to agree.

WHAT TYPE OF WAR

Another area of possible criticism is that despite a few, weak protests to the contrary the New Chapter document, as well as many aspects of Mr Hoon's speech, concentrate far too much on the "new" terrorist threat. Have things really changed that much with respect to the military options opened up? What is the difference between bombing an Al Qaeda training camp and a bunch of Yugoslav military police in a deserted village? Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water in the New Chapter!

• To find out more, and how you can order Defence Analysis for a full year's subscription [UK £300; US & ROW $560] - JUST CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE .

• For editorial matters, please contact Francis Tusa or Mike Witt by E-Mailing Defence Analysis. Defence Analysis welcomes comments - please E-Mail or call + 44 (0)20 7284 0331 - if you have any issues you wish to raise.

• Copyright © 1999 - 2002 The Defence Analysis publication is only available to annual subscribers from Defence Analysis, PO Box 29428, London NW1 8GF. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium is prohibited.

Copyright(c) 1996 - 2002 Defence Data Ltd. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium is prohibited except as provided in the Conditions of Use.The Defence Data logo is the trademark of Defence Data Ltd. Defence Systems Daily, and DSD, are the trademarks of Defence Data Ltd. By using this Web Site, you agree to all of the Conditions of Use.