British Prime Minister Tony Blair has, over the last 18 months, garnered a reputation -- at least among American conservatives -- as an international man of principle on the issue of Iraq. But here in Britain, not a week goes by without a negative story appearing about the state of the British military. We've recently learned of uniforms that don't fit, guns that don't shoot and planes that don't fly -- plus the military has chosen an odd moment for some public hand-wringing over whether its culture is too macho. If all the domestic confusion and controversy emanating from Britain's military bears any relation to the reality of its fighting ability, Blair may be more ready for war than his troops.
In late January -- as George W. Bush welcomed Blair to the White House, where both leaders declared that Saddam Hussein's time would be up "in a matter of weeks" -- the headlines in Britain focused on the logistical and equipment problems facing British troops in the Persian Gulf. The Daily Mail reported that British soldiers were "being sent off for war against Saddam Hussein with malfunctioning weapons and a desperate lack of battle kit" -- a term that includes items such as boots, backpacks and sleeping bags. One soldier's irate mom told The Sun, "It's a joke," after her son was issued size-9 boots for his size-12 feet. The British Broadcasting Company reported on Jan. 16 that 55 percent of troops and 42 percent of officers in the U.K. military have to buy kits with their own money, "because the standard-issue is inadequate."
Unfortunately for Blair, the military's problems go way beyond ill-fitting uniforms. Reports have claimed that British weaponry is dangerously unreliable in desert conditions, potentially rendering some of the military's equipment ineffective in the Gulf. The SA80 rifle, British forces' standard weapon, has been found to jam in hot weather. According to the BBC, during the U.K. Royal Marines' engagement in Afghanistan, the SA80 jammed on a number of "crucial occasions," causing troops "to lose confidence in [the rifle], with dangers for morale and operations."
Then there's the AS90 self-propelled gun, which has suffered serious problems in desert heat during recent exercises. In training sessions in Oman at the end of last year, the plastic air filters on the AS90s melted, making the guns all but useless. On Jan. 22 of this year, The Daily Mail reported that the communication equipment on Britain's Challenger II tanks, which are headed for the Gulf, was "completely inadequate," and that urgent measures to "desert-ise" the tanks had not yet been completed.
On Jan. 11, one of Britain's largest aircraft carriers, Ark Royal, set sail from Portsmouth for the Gulf. The departure generated much comment about Britain's support for military action against Iraq. The Associated Press reported that the Ark Royal could be "used in any military attack on Iraq," and pointed out that its "departure came as U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered 35,000 more American troops to [the Gulf]." Yet there was one thing missing from the aircraft carrier: aircraft.
"The aircraft carrier will set sail for the Gulf . . . without any aircraft, because of problems with the engines on its six Harrier GR7s," reported The Daily Telegraph in early January. Two months later, Britain's defense ministry remains confused about how many of its aircraft carriers have actually made it to the Gulf. A ministry press release dated Feb. 26 claimed that only six aircraft had arrived in Kuwait -- though after this was reported, the ministry suddenly announced that, in fact, 32 jets were in Kuwait. As Andrew Gilligan, defense correspondent for BBC Radio 4's Today program, put it, "The Ministry of Defence is extremely confused. The story from the press office changed overnight."
At the same time as military officials appear confused about the coming war with Iraq, the British military itself seems to be suffering a crisis of confidence regarding its values and aims. On Feb. 5 -- as British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw praised U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations and reminded Britain of the need for action against Iraq -- a new report, partially funded by the defense ministry, criticized the British Army's "historically masculine" culture. The army bans women from becoming frontline soldiers, and the report discussed the "attitudes and language used when discussing and writing about women which undermined the Army's efforts to portray itself as a progressive employer."
Less than a week later, as Blair upped the pressure on the United Nations for a second resolution justifying an invasion of Iraq, the British press reported that the armed forces were having great difficulty winning new recruits -- and that the young people who do join the military are often "too soft to handle tough training." An armed forces report titled Appraisal of Initial Training claimed, "Many of [today's recruits] are mentally unprepared for the more uncompromising standards applied in the Services," and unveiled 75 new measures designed to make military life less hellish -- including, according to The Sun, giving new recruits "personal mentors, quiet rooms for relaxation and more time to enjoy their meals."
All this uncertainty comes against the backdrop of the "Deepcut crisis." In recent years, four young recruits have been shot dead at the Army's barracks in the town of Deepcut. The Army claims that the four committed suicide, though the dead soldiers' families suspect there may be a more sinister explanation. On Feb. 17 -- the same day Tony Blair told a European summit that Saddam Hussein may have to be disarmed by force -- Amnesty International called for a public inquiry into the Deepcut killings, to explore whether harassment and bullying in the Army's ranks contributed to the four deaths.
There seems to be a gaping chasm between Blair's promise to take a tough, pro-war stance against Saddam Hussein and theuncertainty that appears to be infecting all ranks of the British military. None of which means that British forces won't join with American forces in launching an assault on Iraq sometime soon. The military may face technical, logistical and moral problems as the clash with Iraq looms. But such problems aren't necessarily new, and they haven't prevented Britain from launching or joining wars in the recent past.
Yet the contrast between Blair's image as a strong leader playing a tough and determined role in the Iraqi crisis and the reality of Britain's increasingly second-rate military does reveal something about Britain's position on the contemporary world stage: Britain is no longer a major player. Since World War II, and even more starkly since the end of the Cold War, Britain's international standing has been determined not by its political or economic power but by its "special relationship" with the United States. The British government's longtime political and military support for U.S. foreign policy has granted it an international standing disproportionate to its real political clout -- or military prowess. By standing shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S. forces during the Cold War years, the Gulf War, the Anglo-American bombings of Iraq in 1998, the Kosovo conflict of 1999, the Afghanistan invasion of 2001 and now the presumed war with Iraq of 2003, Britain has successfully maintained the accoutrements of world power without necessarily maintaining power itself.
Blair can pose as a key world statesman largely as a result of the close political relationship he has forged with Bush (even as that same relationship rankles many members of Blair's party and strains British relations with France and Germany). But in the absence of Blair's ties to Bush, Britain might today be little more than a fading power in a Europe increasingly dominated by France and Germany -- and with a rubbish military to boot.
Brendan O'Neill is a London-based journalist and assistant editor of spiked.
