It appears hardly fortuitous that the Government announced yesterday that it would publish a strategy for supporting Service personnel, their families and veterans on the very day when a new defence lobby group, headed by three former chiefs of the Defence Staff, called for an immediate increase in spending to make up for critical shortages of equipment and support for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They argued that spending should rise from the present 2.2 per cent of national income to a minimum of 3 per cent. Otherwise, the Armed Forces would struggle to fulfil their engagement in the two most intense wars Britain had fought since Korea.

There have been plenty of warnings over the past year about military overstretch, as well as criticism of inadequate supplies, underfunded operations, poor housing and medical support and derisory compensation for injury. Some of the complaints have come from army commanders. But when these are backed up by General Lord Guthrie, Admiral Lord Boyce and Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Craig, who all held the most senior post in the defence Establishment, the Government ought to take the advice seriously. “We are now at war in two countries,” Lord Guthrie said. “We are quite honestly struggling and I don't know how much longer the services can go on like this”.

Two things have made the situation critical: the reduction in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, and the recent growth in the size and cost of Britain's military commitments overseas. With the collapse of communism, successive governments, especially Labour, have yielded to the calls for a “peace dividend”, switching money previously spent on defence to health, education and social security. The size of the armed forces was reduced, bases were closed, ships and fighter planes scrapped. At the same time, Britain committed forces to the rising number of peacekeeping missions. For a while it was possible, as forces in Ulster and Germany were reduced, to maintain balance.

The Government is aware of the strain. Defence spending has risen over the past decade, but only marginally, and the Government has announced that the budget will rise 1.5 per cent in real terms over the next three years. That is not nearly enough. Not only is it much less than spending increases for other large departments; it is still also far below the rise in the cost of equipment, which is increasing by almost 8 per cent a year, and does not begin to cover the backlog of renovation and improvements to ageing barracks and military infrastructure.

The balance of spending is badly skewed. What is urgently needed now is better support for frontline troops. The bulk of the money is committed to costly long-term projects. Strategists argue that commitments must be made decades in advance, and that since it is impossible to anticipate the needs of a modern army or navy in 20 years' time, options must not be jeopardised. Increasing defence spending at the expense of domestic programmes is electorally unpopular. And since the “fat” has repeatedly been trimmed, there is all the more urgency for monitoring — and, if necessary, scrapping — of large projects. This makes the strange resignation of Lord Drayson, an effective Defence Procurement Minister, all the more untimely. But nothing lessens the need to underpin the morale of Britain's troops with the right equipment, and clear support for them after they return from active duty.