MPs warn on stretched Navy after Libya conflict
DEFENCE HMS Liverpool fires her 4.5 inch gun on Operation Unified Protector off the coast of Libya
Britain could struggle to mount another military operation on the scale of the intervention in Libya, MPs warned today.
The Commons Defence Committee said the Government would face ‘significantly greater challenges’ if it had to conduct a similar size mission in future.
The committee concluded the international military intervention in Libya - which led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi - had been justified, given ‘the gravity of the situation and potential consequences of inaction’ for the civilian population.
However it said the mission - codenamed Operation Ellamy - was carried out before key defence cuts in the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) had been implemented.
It said the Royal Navy had had to drop important tasks - such as counter-drugs operations - because of its Libya commitments while the RAF had been forced to extend the life of its ageing Nimrod R1 spy planes for the operation.
‘We believe the Government will face significantly greater challenges should an operation of similar size be necessary in the future and it will need to be prepared for some difficult decisions on prioritisation,’ the committee said.
‘We consider that Operation Ellamy raises important questions as to the extent of the United Kingdom’s national contingent capability. We urge the Government to review the United Kingdom’s capacity to respond to concurrent threats.
‘This work should be conducted as a matter of urgency before the next Strategic Defence and Security Review.”
The committee said there were ‘contrary opinions’ over the legality of the Libya mission and concerns had been expressed that the true goal was “regime change”, even though it was not authorised by United Nations Security Council resolutions.
‘Although it is difficult to see how the mission could have been successfully completed without Col Gaddafi losing power, we are concerned that this, rather than the protection of civilians as set out in the resolution, came to be seen by some countries as an integral part of the mission,” it said.
‘The apparent conflict between the military and political objectives meant that the Government failed to ensure that its communication strategy was effective in setting out the aims of the operation.’
The committee acknowledged there were fears the intervention in Libya had made it impossible for the international community to take decisive action over other countries - pointing to Russian and Chinese concerns over Syria.
However it rejected the suggestion that Britain should not have supported military action in Libya.
‘It is impossible for us to tell what the consequences would have been of allowing the killing of civilians in Benghazi, but we consider that the determination of the Arab League and of most countries of the United Nations that a massacre would be unacceptable was an example of the international community acting as it should,’ it said.
The committee chairman James Arbuthnot said the mission in Libya had been successful in discharging the UN mandate.
‘The real test is whether the success of this mission was a one-off or whether the lessons it has highlighted mean that future such missions can be successfully undertaken, whilst maintaining the UK’s capability to protect its interests elsewhere,’ he said.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the operation had shown the UK still had the ability to project military power around the world.
‘The Libyan campaign shows that we retain the contingent capability to conduct operations in addition to our commitments in Afghanistan, counter-piracy off the Horn of Africa, Gulf security and standing tasks such as the Falklands and defence of the UK,’ he said .
‘Conducted against the backdrop of a multibillion-pound black hole in the defence budget, the SDSR required tough decisions whose underpinning logic the committee has previously agreed with.
“We retain the capability to project power abroad and meet our Nato obligations, supported by what is the world’s fourth largest defence budget.’
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Portsmouth
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 3 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
MrRoderickLouis
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 06:52 AM<b>Funding needs to be approved for the expedited construction of at least 8 more Type-45 Destroyers for the Royal Navy, with each new vessel 'fully fitted out' with the sensors, communications and weapons systems that designers intended...<b> .. with perhaps 4 of the 8 new Type-45s designated as ASW-specialty with, among other things- an appropriate sonar, ship-launch torpedo capability & capabilities of embarking and operating 2 Merlin-Sized Helos simultaneously http:www.defenseindustrydaily.com2-bn-for-british-eh101-merlin-multirole-upgrades-01745 ; and 4 of the 8 new Type-45s designated as Land AttackNFS variants... How to pay for this?: <b>One or both of the UK's undergoing construction 'big deck' aircraft carriers ought to be marketed- along with Typhoon Fighter-bombers- to trustworthy foreign countries such as Brazil and India as part of a 'package'*...<b> ... with Typhoons marketed prospectively equipped- UPON DELIVERY- with an <b><i>up-to-date technology AND legitimately multi-role-capable<i> Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar**<b>- instead of their current mechanically scanned, extremely limited-in-multi-role-capabilities type... And, if necessary, throw in several of the UK's new <b>Astute SSNs<b>- with commitments to deliver the first of these within 3-years... as a jibe against Russia's perpetually excessively late and often defective naval platforms soldleased to India... ... and if this did not work, then <b>a "co-marketing" partnership should be formed between BAE and Boeing to make (perhaps 24-32 of) Boeing's FA-18 fighter (multi-role naval variants) part of the prospective sale of the UK's big deck carriers to India<b>... This so that there would be a proven as highly-capable-and-versatile fixed-wing fighter aircraft for the Indians to fly off of their new carriers.... Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada * with the carrier(s) construction, fitting-out and sea trials schedule accelerated to as-fast-as-prudently-possible... ** such as one of Raytheon's or Lockheed's models: http:www.defenseindustrydaily.comnew-apg79-aesa-radars-for-super-hornets-0411 http:www.es.northropgrumman.comsolutionsf35aesaradar http:www.es.northropgrumman.comsolutionsf22aesaradar http:www.raytheon.comcapabilitiesproductsapg79aesa <i><b>"AESA Radar Eyed for F-15C Upgrades"<b><i>, (see references to 'cruise missile defense'): http:www.aviationweek.comawjsp_includesarticlePrint.jsp?headLine=AESA%20Radar%20Eyed%20for%20F-15C%20Upgrades&storyID=news10184top.xml http:www.raytheon.comcapabilitiesproductsapg63_v3 http:www.raytheon.comcapabilitiesproductsapg63_v2 http:aviationintel.com20110527the-great-radar-race-aesa-development-in-high-gear
PFC_Paul
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 10:20 AMI think it's a f*****g disgrace what this government has done to our armed forces. They continue to strip our forces bare yet still commit us to war zones we can't afford or spare the manpower for. I'm fully expecting us to leave The Falklands with our tails between our legs because we're weaker than Argentina now. This country has gone to hell and should no longer bear the title "Great" in it's name. I'm often ashamed to call myself British when talking to my friends online. I joined the navy and did my bit for this country so watching our navy being devastated like this realy irks me.
ConDems Out!
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 09:56 AMThe immediate fallout from the coalition's SDSR may have been bad enough, but we then had a follow-up that indicated that we can only afford ONE of our 20000-ton helicopter carriers. The savings from the withdrawal of Illustrious in a couple of years time are miniscule when set against the added flexibility that her retention will afford to the military. Also, doesn't the fact that she still has her ski-jump offer an opportunity to "integrate" still with those of our allies that still operate Harriers? However unlikely anyone thinks the necessity of that may be, it was the government's argument for dropping the SVTOL F-35 and equipping the new carriers with catapults, wasn't it?
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.