US military chief: Britain cannot cut more troops

The head of the US army has said he is “very concerned” about cuts to Britain’s defence budget and warned that they risk diminishing the Army’s ability to fight future campaigns.

General Raymond Odierno, chief of staff, called on the Government to maintain defence spending at 2 per cent of GDP and suggested Britain will otherwise be reduced to a more junior role in future campaigns.

He told The Telegraph that the US is already adjusting its plans based on the assumption that Britain will no longer be able to contribute division-strength forces in excess of 10,000 troops.

He said that in future, the Army is likely to be limited to providing a brigade of only half that number, meaning that British forces may be reduced to operating “inside” US units rather than “alongside” them.

David Cameron has refused to commit to spending 2 per cent of Britain’s GDP on defence, despite repeated calls from Tory MPs and even Cabinet ministers.

Liam Fox, the former defence secretary, told The Daily Politics show on BBC One that Tory MPs will find the commitment to aid spending while cutting the defence budget “difficult to swallow”.

He was joined by General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the Army, who called for all parties to commit to the 2 per cent target to help Britain deal with “unforeseen” threats.

The Army is already being cut from 100,000 soldiers to about 82,000 by 2020 despite the concerns of leading military figures. It is estimated that defence spending will fall from its current level of just over 2 per cent of GDP, £36.4 billion, to just over 1.8 per cent by 2017.

Gen Odierno disclosed that the cuts have forced the US to undertake an urgent review of how British troops could fight alongside their forces in future conflicts. “I would be lying to you if I did not say that I am very concerned about the GDP investment in the UK,” he said.

Referring to the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said: “In the past we would have a British Army division working alongside an American division. Now it might be a British brigade inside an American division, or even a British battalion [approximately 1,000 soldiers] inside an American brigade.

“We have to adjust our programme to make sure we are all able to see that we can still work together.”

Gen Odierno said it was vital that Britain remained a close ally of the US. “It is about having a partner that has very close values and the same goals as we do,” he said.

He warned that, while the US was willing to provide leadership in tackling future threats, such as Russia and Isil, it was essential that allies such as Britain played their part.

“As we look at threats around the world, these are global issues and we need to have multinational solutions,” he said. “They are concerning to everyone. We all need to be able to invest and work together to solve these problems.”

There is growing concern among senior British defence and security experts over the insistence on cutting defence spending at a time of threats from Russia and terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, said the “state to state” threat posed by Russia would require extra spending. Gen Wall said 2 per cent of GDP “was the right standard to live up to”.

Asked about the 2 per cent target, Dr Fox said: “This would be a political problem inside the Conservative party because I think people feel that the Government’s first duty is the protection of the United Kingdom. We have to do what we need to, to make that happen, and I think that we have a commitment to Nato as part of our international treaty obligations to spend that 2 per cent.

“I think to say that we were willing to guarantee a proportion of GDP for international aid but not willing to implement our commitments in terms of defence, I think a lot of Conservatives would find that very difficult to swallow — especially at a time when you can see that the international security environment is deteriorating.”