Fading soon:

British Cuts to Military Concern U.S. Officials
…
A wrenching government spending review has pitted Britain’s army against its navy, spawned a series of leaks to the British media and raised the question of whether the military that emerges from the budget cuts — expected to be 10 percent to 20 percent of current outlays — will be a strategically agile force that can join the United States on major combat operations…

With other European nations embarking on substantial military spending retrenchments, and the Obama administration committed to acting in concert with allies whenever possible, the British spending review has received high-level attention in Washington, including in a meeting on Wednesday between Liam Fox, the British defense minister, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Mr. Fox told reporters later that, after any cuts, the British military would be able to respond to a broad array of threats and retain capabilities particularly valued by the Pentagon. He identified those as Britain’s Special Forces [see below for more], its nuclear deterrent, its participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program [good news for our government--but note this: "Mr Fox is resigned to axing at least half the planned order of US F-35 aircraft to fly off the ships. But if Britain buys only 70 or fewer..."] and its ability to deploy substantial forces when needed…

Still, the entire active-duty British armed forces are smaller than the United States Marine Corps [emphasis added, USMC just over 200,000], and some critics at home have charged that the review is little more than a budgetary drill dressed up as a broader assessment of military requirements…

“There is no way that the U.K., in the current financial climate, will be able to maintain a permanent at-sea, submarine-based nuclear deterrent, the size of fast jet fleet that we currently have, the ambition for a two-aircraft carrier strike program and an army of 100,000,” said Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army…

More:

Britain tells US ‘we cannot fight another Afghanistan’

Lots more on British budget woes at this Milnet.ca topic thread. And a mildly related post on the Canadian military:

The Canadian Forces, war present, and future?

As for Afstan, an odd silence that is shared by our government:

We may be beating the Taliban, but in this country you’d never know it
Why does the Government insist on playing down the successes of our Forces, asks Con Coughlin.

Every evening in Afghanistan, small, heavily armed units of SAS soldiers are taking part in “kill or capture” missions against the Taliban. The majority of the raids – which are guided by the latest intelligence reports provided to Nato headquarters in Kabul – are targeted directly at senior Taliban commanders, those responsible for planting the deadly roadside bombs that have accounted for so many British casualties.

The SAS raids are part of a special forces operation on an “industrial scale”, devised by General David Petraeus, the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, to destroy the Taliban’s war-fighting capability. And the strategy is proving to be a resounding success.

Over a 90-day period this summer, 365 key Taliban commanders were either killed or captured in a total of 3,000 night raids carried out by British and American special forces units, operating predominantly in southern Afghanistan. Another 1,031 “rank and file” fighters were killed, and 1,355 taken into custody.

Not surprisingly, this unprecedented level of special forces activity is having a devastating impact on the Taliban’s effectiveness and morale. British commanders have reported a significant drop in their casualty rates, while the number of roadside bombs has fallen by a quarter.

…the overwhelming majority of the British public appears to be totally unaware of these highly significant developments.

…Part of the answer lies in the strange reluctance of senior British officers to provide details of the scale of the carnage that is daily being inflicted on the Taliban. Normally, governments are only too eager to proclaim the military’s successes in times of war, not least because of their propaganda value. Churchill sustained morale during the darkest hours of the Second World War with constant updates on enemy losses, while Thatcher was unequivocal in her praise of British victories in the Falklands.

Those responsible for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, by contrast, fall silent when asked to provide details of enemy losses. The explanation, or so I was told by one Cabinet minister, is a concern that publishing details of Taliban deaths would play into the hands of anti-war campaigners, who would exploit the information for their own propaganda purposes. Politicians are also mindful of the impact the true level of Taliban casualties might have on British Muslims. There are already significant numbers who actively support the Taliban and its allies, and ministers have convinced themselves that the total would only grow if the movement’s true plight were more widely known.

This policy of restraint, however, is self-defeating, because public support is crucial to the ultimate success of any military campaign…

Our government, for its part, has been totally silent on what our special forces are achieving in Afstan. The government certainly is sqeamish about saying what they actually do; same fear of adverse reaction, one supposes.

Update factoid: At least the Canadian Forces, with some 68,000 regulars (but not growing, scroll down here to Table: Human Resources), are over 50% larger than the US Coast Guard’s 42,000 active duty personnel.  On the other hand the Canadian Navy is around 9,000 strong.

Mark
Ottawa